Forget AI. Google just created a version of its search engine free of all the extra junk it has added over the past decade-plus. All you have to do is add “udm=14” to the search URL.

While Google made its AI-focused changes known on its biggest stage—during its Google I/O event—the Web filter was curiously announced on Twitter by Search Liaison Danny Sullivan.

As Sullivan wrote:

  • We’ve added this after hearing from some that there are times when they’d prefer to just see links to web pages in their search results, such as if they’re looking for longer-form text documents, using a device with limited internet access, or those who just prefer text-based results shown separately from search features. If you’re in that group, enjoy!*

More About

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/05/google-searchs-udm14-trick-lets-you-kill-ai-search-for-good/

https://venturebeat.com/ai/how-to-use-google-search-without-ai-the-udm14-work-around/

  • Cringe2793@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Why do y’all hate AI so much? I’m using Google for search every day and it’s still working well.

  • lurch (he/him)@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    it’s still ignoring your manually set browser language preferences and is instead using your IP to guess your location and use the primary language of that country, because google is shite

    • shneancy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      it works half the time?

      If I google something in English I’m going to get results in English (plus localised ads of course). But if I have a linguistic question about English, no matter how advanced, I’m going to get surface level results in Polish.

      Tbf whatever info they have on me imples they’re very confused. I get ads about: “stay legally in Poland! :)” and “leave Poland and get a job in the Netherlands/Germany! :)” then “polish lessons!” and “English lessons!”, I’m starting to think that in the eyes of the AI overlords I’m both polish and not polish at the same time.

  • OpenStars@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    I highly doubt that this orders search results like it did ten years ago ignoring SEOs though. This looks to only fix the latest category of screw-up.

    • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s not that it ignored it ten years ago and stopped, it’s that much of it didn’t exist to the degree it does now, and there was a lot more content being made of different websites, so there were actual results to show.

      Google Search went to shit, it’s true, but have you tried the other ones? They’re not much better.

      We have to acknowledge the internet itself went to shit. There’s simply less to find out there than there used to be, because the majority of all web content and discussions moved away from individual websites and forums and centralized on a few platforms. They can filter out the SEO junk, but what would they replace it with?

      • OpenStars@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Using just one example: I used to go to Google to search for news articles. Now, I cannot find those same articles using Google, but if I search really, Really, REALLY hard I can sometimes find them using DuckDuckGo (DDG). The search experience using Google was a million times better, ten years ago, than DDG is now, however DDG can work, whereas Google flat refuses to work no matter what I try.

        And the reason why is illuminating: they try to push their SEO content, to “sell” me what they want me to see, rather than what I wanted to see. Even if I typed in the exact, precise title of what I wanted, but then lets say that I am off on one word like not sure if it was plural or not hence cannot put the title in quotes, Google will not show it often even on higher page numbers like 10, and instead just shows a steady stream of “popular” content. I recall a specific instance where I literally had the article pulled up on my phone, and I was trying to find the same article from a year or two in the past and even typing in the title, it just wouldn’t do it, so I gave up and just typed out the URL manually. Sometimes also I will try to find a specific video, and it shows me videos that they think I want to see, but even with the title matching it really struggles to show older content, even when it was super popular at the time.

        Tbf it has actually gotten much better lately, compared to a couple of years ago, though the way that it seems to have gotten better is with all these extra ad-ons that they’ve put onto their pages. Like it used to be that if you pick some random word - let’s use “serenity” as the example - it would show you almost nothing related to the definition of that word until page 2 or 3, and instead show various pages about the (awesome) Joss Whedon movie of that name. Now, the little blurb (“widget”? I have no idea what that element is called) from Oxford Languages showing the dictionary definition as the second-to-top item, almost, after a very small “See results about Serenity 2019 film”, and also a whole right-hand sidebar (on my desktop browser) about it, but the point is that it does show the definition, very high up in the list. Then for me I get imdb (2005) film, imdb (2019) film, wikipedia (2005) film, and then finally the Merriam-Webster definition page (btw I really hate how browsers won’t allow us to select text that we would like to copy, but they have decided that they know better what they will allow us to do). And then ofc Serenity official trailer with Matthew McConaughey, Rotten Tomatoes review, again a Dictionary(.com) definition, the Serenity Symphonic Metal band, Amazon.com HD-DVD, Cambridge dictionary - this is a lot better than it used to be! And yeah, DDG is similar.

        It is a constantly evolving landscape, and depends heavily on what types of content you are searching for too.

    • YarHarSuperstar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Agree. There’s nothing we can do to bring back the ability to look up harm reduction information for drug users, for example.

        • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          They’re outright censored. Search for information on certain drugs (dosages, best practices, etc) and Google will not show you any information beyond studies about the drug and rehab sites.

          Whereas DDG, Bing, etc will show all the sites dedicated to safe drug usage. At least they did a few years ago.

          It’s been documented by /r/drugs for a few years now.

          That said, I don’t particularly think this is a great example of Google fucking their own search up because there’s reason to believe this may be due regulatory pressure.

  • IzzyScissor@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Never thought I would see the day where Google crumbles, but they’re actively sprinting towards it now.

    • vonbaronhans@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s unfortunately still far more useful than other search engines, in my experience anyway. I haven’t yet tried the paid search engine someone pointed out to me recently, Kagi, I think.

      But given the cost of Kagi’s tiers based on number of searches, it would have to be MUCH more useful to me than Google to really make it feel worth it.

      • Subverb@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Kagi is good. I’m using the unlimited search tier. It’s so nice not to have all the cruft in my searches.

        • sirboozebum@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          The internet is going back to having to pay for useful services rather than getting it for free.

          If this stops enshittenification, I support this.

  • Noble Shift@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    I’ve been using Copilot for the last 3 months or so on my Android phone. Absolutely blows Google away, even before the Google AI debacle. I have never ever failed to get what I was looking for, even if I don’t exactly know what it is I am looking for, usually within 2-3 queries.

    Google Response - FUCK YOU BUY SOMETHING FUCK YOU BUY SOMETHING FUCK YOU BUY SOMETHING FUCK YOU BUY SOMETHING FUCK YOU BUY SOMETHING and here is a Quora article from 12 years ago that was never properly answered, and it’s got nothing to do with the search anyhow AND entire threads from Reddit where the answer is Install Arch.

    And I abbore giving Microsoft credit even when they have earned it, and I’m here to say I fucking love Copilot. GitHub & Copilot is also something that just fucking works as well.

    Fuuuuuuck no Google, your time has passed.

    • Jesus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Copilot hallucinates on me all the time and constantly gives me reference links that don’t actually contain the reference material.

      Always cross check an LLM “search” with a real search.

      • Noble Shift@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        I’ve only had that happen a couple of times. Most of the time I am looking for coding examples, white papers, RFCs, CVEs or some kind of boating bullshit. And I also never ever copy pasta off a LLM, only on actual sites / pages, for exactly the reasons you give. Everyday a screenshot of some ding-a-ling who just blindly C+P on a publication is being made fun of.