I don't want a search engine removing whatever they deem a "conspiracy theory" or "misinformation". I can decide on my own.
What tests have you done to confirm that you're actually any good at this?
Or is the idea that you'd actively prefer to have your life ruined by misinformation than admit you might not have the best ability to distinguish - like the way some people would prefer to be crippled or maimed than accept safety protection on dangerous machinery because they find it emasculating?
I can figure it out. I don't need to get information filtered by people who think they know what is best for everyone (else). This is what China does.
That's where the "decide on my own" part comes from. I don't need to pass your tests or arbitrary criteria.
The most important point in having a democracy and citizens worthy of the name, is that you don't delegate this sorting out the wheat from the chaff to some third party that "knows better".
[0] https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/1682-google-hit-hider-by-d...
No thanks, I'd rather think for myself.
I wonder what portion of the internet you have to scrape to be able to have good results for 90% of queries. An enormous number of my queries end up on Wikipedia somewhere, for example. A lot end up on Stack Overflow. The two of those probably constitute the majority of my searches, and almost certainly a majority of the searches where I really care about the answer (and I'm not just googling whether pirates and ninjas were contemporaries of each other, because why not).
If Google's results are really slipping that much, you can make up for the lack of data by providing better results on the data you do have.
I am curious why something like that hasn't gotten more popular. A search engine that only indexes highly reputable and public sources would be interesting. Wikipedia, dictionaries from somewhere, reputable newspapers globally, etc. Is it just too big of a target for abuse to be viable?
> I wonder what portion of the internet you have to scrape to be able to have good results for 90% of queries.
But this is it. I don't think it'd be too hard to get 90% of queries right. It's the 10% that are the challenge.
"Page rank" / "link juice" (amount/strength of incoming links) is still a main ingredient in Google's recipe, so they are actually able to determine, without manual intervention (more or less), which sites are "reputable", while your suggestion would require someone to curate the assortments of "reputable" sites.
How would you discover niche blogs? Or even more high profile ones, just not known to the major public?
That said, as you say, you could probably do with something like this for most of your day-to-day searches, and then just !g or whatever for the rest.
If I search "we never landed on the moon" I want to see results about those theories, not see them censored because the search engine "knows better".