If it existed on the internet, Google would find it for you and it was usually the top resault. It was amazing.
Today, it's a shadow of its former self.
You regularly have to search, wade through the ads that are written like informative articles, adjust your query slightly and repeat the process. It's rubbish.
Content that is just literally directly copied from other domains often.
Google solved a big problem and then went to sleep while counting their money. They even started to be evil.
Now the original problem has evolved but Google hasn't managed to keep up.
The web was overwhelmingly informational up to an inflection point where it became overwhelmingly commercial. That's the thing people are upset about.
And it's not Google's fault.
But it also remains true that Google's search just doesn't work well for many people, and that some alternatives work better for them.
No, back then if you searched a topic you were MUCH more likely to find self hosted content from someone who nerded out on an issue and is sharing their insight, not publishing boilerplate because they feel they need to.
are what?
>I don't get the HN hate of Google as a search tool. Yes, SEO has made searching more difficult, but Google is still by far the best search engine provided that your searches are focused and you use search tools (e.g., excluding terms, focusing on certain sites, etc.). I've tried other search engines (e.g., DDG, Bing) and they just aren't as good as Google.
What if their search is better just because way, way way more people use it?
Focusing on certain sites? If you know what site you want, why not just go there? You don't need Google for that.
I've had very limited success with their search modifiers. The main one I want to work is the literal search by putting things in quotes. But I don't think that has ever actually worked for me.
If they brought back the + modifier and it worked, that would also go far.