Why don't we have personalized search engines?
- Search as it is today sucks
- Google is an ad-engine, not a search engine
- SEO is gamed all the time
The end result is a search result that isn't that valuable.
Why isn't there a tool that allows me to:
- search good content I've read
- search curated (from other people I trust) content
- search books and other paid material I have bought
- search my notes (that are scattered throughout 5 apps)
All in one?
58 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 134 ms ] threadrelated posts about the suckiness of search:
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30347719
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30635720
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22091944
Basically, it smells like a solved problem wiht open source tools built for Enterprise. I thought then and think now it could be scaled down to a hardware appliance that sits on a home network. But I am probably wrong about all of it. Good luck.
There'd be two hard parts to this problem I reckon:
- gathering the data
If you make it too cumbersome and with friction, it won't be used. If you make it too easy to dump data, the useful info might get drown out.
- ensuring search gives you good results
We have open source engines like Lucene that let you search extensively, but what happens when you get 200 results back? How do you know what's the best/most-useful one? It's likely most users would get exhausted having to sift through everything and just default back to a Google
The idea that it might be too much friction than it was worth is why I didnt build it. Probably why nobody has built it and perhaps why you just listed a bunch of imagined problems as reasons not to build it.
I mean it would probably be shit if I built it and I liked my idea better than the idea of the work. That’s most things.
—
For what it is worth, I would default to google for the things google does better and use my personalized historic search when I wanted to see what I had seen before. Its both-and not either-or.
I've been of the opinion that website content monitoring should be implemented with a browser extension (plus possibly a local agent app)[1]. An extension-based approach would work well and be easy to use IMO.
I've been extremely disappointed by how Chrome in particular likes to forget everything about my browsing history (except for tracking cookies) after three months. I don't see why a link I clicked on a year ago on any given page should turn blue just because computers from 2004 might have performance problems with it.
[1]: Enterprises seem to prefer MITM here instead, but I'd argue it's not truly required, given the overwhelming popularity of agent-based EDR solutions.
[1] https://github.com/iansinnott/full-text-tabs-forever
Implementation: beyond horrible except very simple things.
I never connected my other accounts, as I found the idea of a 3rd party having access to crawl and catalog them uncomfortable.
Neeva has since shutdown and was acquired by Snowflake.
What you’re mentioning, would likely require a company to have a very large monopoly for a very long time, where all a person’s digital media was controlled by one company. Google is close, but for book people paid for, that’s something that would fall more into Amazon’s territory. Apple also has a bookstore, so maybe it would work for people who are 100% in Apple’s ecosystem and never stray, and then only have friends with people also in Apple’s ecosystem (for the people you trust feature).
I don’t think we’ll every see enough benevolent cooperation between companies, without ulterior motives, to do something like this well without it also being a security nightmare.
It's pretty hard to get right, so unless they truly believe they can offer a superior alternative to Google (or any other search engine), they're unlikely to pursue it.
Plus, most users are likely not enough of a power user to truly benefit from something as rich/complex as this, hence the reward for the behemoth to pursue this likely won't be worth the complexity and effort.
It's not that Google doesn't know technically how to give good results. It's really that Google is optimizing for profit, not for quality. In a system that makes it extremely difficult for anyone to compete (and whoever succeeded with that would presumably end up in the same situation and optimize for profit).
Can you explain this sentiment? I’m a Googler and I believe the incentives bias very heavily towards offering the best organic search. When the user goes elsewhere (and quality competition exists) Google loses everything…
Look at all the antitrust cases against Google. That's not the result of systematically doing what's best for the users.
> When the user goes elsewhere (and quality competition exists) Google loses everything…
Which is not an incentive for giving better results. Just for locking the users in.
Google is still an ad company that dabbles in services and software mostly to sell more ads.
People keep forgetting it for some reason.
I, and perhaps the other people on the thread, distrust Google actually trying hard to give you the best organic search.
The monetary incentives are simply too large to circumvent imo
If they really are, then perhaps the problem is that there's so much attention and competition to game the search engine, that it's an impossible-to-beat cat and mouse game. Due to their success, they're basically guaranteed to constantly have "parasites" trying to game the system to their advantage. (cf. the SEO industry and companies like ahrefs)
And among 95% of normal users there's no demand for it because what most people do is google restaurants, cinemas, dancing videos on TikTok or they just add "reddit" to their search for anything more complicated. Most people haven't bought any reading material on the internet and don't have notes.
The only way a screenshotting AI tool could get away with it is if it was open source.
There probably is a successful open source project waiting to be made there!
Somebody else shared https://www.perfectmemory.ai/ which seems intriguing, but I'd be reluctant to ever install it on my main PC.
There's some things that you'd just be prudent to not trust... even if truly developed with well intentions
(especially calendar events, which used to be fun to track but everyone seems to have given up on event listings).
It wouldn’t have to track me, or infer other nefarious dimensions of my online habits, just target the things I’m asking to be targeted for.
I’m guessing that the implicit data dimensions of current tech is aggregating so much additional data about everyone that the recommendations we end up getting aren’t that great.
None of Google, Netflix, or Amazon get me at all, and I keep shoveling my habits right into their gaping data maw.
This is probably not a bug but rather an optimization to ensure I spend more time on screen. (chances are higher I like the stuff I most recently watched)
Which goes toward the skewed incentives problem - what they want to happen is not what I want to happen.
I find value in being reminded of old content I've been interested in.
That's a winner for me.
To been able to avoid commercial search engines we have only an option: public funding public universities who cure national infra (something already existing, but bigger) and a public indexing project with a national plan for a homeserver per connected home (much like actual ISPs 'router', only pure FLOSS handled by the user or using anyway public code) witch in the other functions also index a small part of the web in an open project like YaCy. Same thing for VoIP comms.
WE DAMN NEED institutionalized FLOSS.
Thus a personalized search engine could double as a forum moderator.
And you could share search engines. Get a copy of the search engine of somebody that you admire/trust and merge it with your own. Thus your search engine could learn from others what's good and bad.
You could have a family search engine, passed down through the generations.
When people started talking about LLMs and AI I was hoping for something that would monitor news and websites and find things that I was interested in. Something that would go beyond just keyword searches and also be able to pull in stories on radio and tv.
I did write a script that does the downloading part. It looks at my browser history and downloads the text of every site going back years.
Ditto for decades worth of email. I want to see if I ask it for my nephew's birthday, will it figure it out?
Should be doable without much difficulty.
It'll take a few more generations to get there.
It's a pretty obvious problem to make use of all the personalized data you have in an ecosystem and slap an AI to start answering questions.
I tried something similar with Google's Gemini. I have a gmail account I use exclusively for newsletter subscriptions. I found out I could ask Gemini questions about the content there.
It was atrociously bad.
- no_SEO: demote anything which employs 'SEO' so it appear below search results not guilty of this sin
- no_Blogspam: demote blogspam below the original articles the bloggers refer to
- no_Sales: demote anything which tries to sell me something below results which do not. This is a tricky one to implement because not every site offering to sell something should be caught, e.g. a site explaining how to repair a flux capacitor which links to a source for these ubiquitous parts but mostly contains instructions how to install and tune the part is fine.
- no_GPT: demote anything recognised as being generated through 'AI'.
- $filter: an option to create custom filters
Depending on the reason for searching the 'net I'd have most of these options enabled but every now and then I'd switch one off, e.g. no_SEO/no_Sale when looking for something to buy.
I'm running an instance of SearxNG and hardly ever interface directly with individual search engines so I mostly avoid the 'personalisation' problem but I do not yet have access to filtering options like the ones I mentioned.