Your response surprises me because you're old enough to have tried to find information before major search engines for WWW existed. The process involved mostly word-of-mouth, finding obscure sources, books, consultants, academic journals, associations, and so on. As Internet grew, we got that over dial-up lines with shitty search engines. Eventually, with early Web, I had to painfully grab all this content you talk about with a handful of search engines whose strengths and weaknesses varied. Most lay people thought they sucked with many using the older methods as often as search.
Then, there was Google. Initially, it was just another tool in my meta-search toolbox. It grew to index massive number of content sites, its engine filtered bullshit a bit better, its presentation was efficient/clean, and its front-page results were better than the competition. Got to the point that lay people adopted it massively with most of them talking about how it improved their productivity, learning, and entertainment. They supplanted that on video side with YouTube. I continued to use Google to find info I needed before and during build of Wikipedia. It found the Wikipedia articles along with others that may or may not be better. Many people told me they also do what I do: just Google the topic if you're interested in a Wikipedia article since it will be on or near the top anyway.
The productivity and discovery benefits of Google were huge. They just went up with its massive market share and investments. So many people benefit from it for finding content now that they literally tell people to "Google" something instead of search for it. Wikipedia could disappear and I could find all that information through Google. Actually, Google plus Wayback Machine if I'm being totally honest. Content pages can disappear but the archive can keep them. So, Google plus Wayback Machine were most amazing things to me with one giving me everything I need to know plus other preserving everything I need or might want to know.
You think that's terrible but I say it's awesome. The problems you mention come from the market's and voters' preference rather than Google's excellence at search. Market chose to go to surveillance model. They punish most who try to free us from it. The voters chose to put corrupt people in office who would pass or strengthen IP laws benefiting the bribing few over the many. They chose temporary safety over liberty later. Different choices could've led to a very different Google (or replacement). I blame the demand side since they seem to always pull that shit.
Google search is fantastic, but it can only do what it does because other people provide the content.
Google the company is horrible.
> Market chose to go to surveillance model.
No, companies offer the surveillance model and leave consumers very little in terms of choice unless those consumers are extremely conscious of what is happening behind the scenes. I highly doubt even 10% of the HN audience (which is more knowledgeable than your average consumer in this respect) could accurately tell you what is going on behind all those walled gardens and corporate faces.
From what I've seen it isn't much good.
And that's before we get into Google by assigning a value to a link and not thinking things through destroyed the value of those links.
"No, companies offer the surveillance model and leave consumers very little in terms of choice "
You must have forgot all the paid, non-surveillance options that existed in most categories that people ignored for surveillance-driven services. Ecosystem effects also drive it: so many people on Facebook Messenger even though things like Signal are free and better UI like Threema is a buck or two. The users had a lot of choices but kept saying free and spyware until most paid options were bankrupt or acquired.
Even today, there's a lot of firms selling security or privacy on top of a widely-accepted piece of software (esp email or browsers) to maximize uptake. They barely scrape by in revenue vs most firms. Some are small ones selling that stuff at a loss since developers themselves wanted it to exist even if market didn't pay.
So, situation is much bleaker on demand side than you say. If it wasn't, those of us developing secure or private tech would be rolling in more money than ad-driven, free tech in average case. We're not but they're regularly IPOing and gettimg tens of millions during acquisition.
I don't disagree with any of this, but it seems worth noting that Wikipedia wasn't significant when Google was first becoming huge. Google solved the problem of "where is this information?" by finding all the information, but Wikipedia gives an alternate solution by having all the information.
My internet use would be vastly worse without Google, it's true. But these days, perhaps 90% of my Googling is optional - I already have a strong guess at which site will give me what I want, the search bar is just a faster route to get there. If I want Stack Overflow, or Wikipedia, or Genius, or Nationmaster, I already know that's where I want to go. When Google's top result answers my question via a site I've never been to, that's a huge win for Google. When they answer it via a Wikipedia link, well...
I'd still give Google slot 1, but it's not as obvious as it was pre-Wikipedia.
(To fact-check this comment, I Googled "Google" and "Wikipedia", to get to the Wikipedia page for each. Kind of telling.)
That's a good analysis. One extra thing to consider with your model is Wikipedia may or may not be accurate on a topic. I find it's often correct on IT stuff but even that slips on occasion. When using it, I have to check the references and/or corroborate them seeing what turns up in Google.
So, even then it's more like Wikipedia AND Google instead OR.
This is a good point. I'm generally bullish on Wikipedia, for a lot of topics I don't even worry about cross-referencing. But the safest stuff is a mix of popular and objective (e.g. "who was in that movie again?").
For political, technical, or obscure topics that becomes a much tougher question. The political issue is obvious, but I'm surprised at how often I go into the weeds on something mathematical or simply unpopular and find that Wikipedia is off the mark. I wouldn't trust it for those topics without further Googling.
Then, there was Google. Initially, it was just another tool in my meta-search toolbox. It grew to index massive number of content sites, its engine filtered bullshit a bit better, its presentation was efficient/clean, and its front-page results were better than the competition. Got to the point that lay people adopted it massively with most of them talking about how it improved their productivity, learning, and entertainment. They supplanted that on video side with YouTube. I continued to use Google to find info I needed before and during build of Wikipedia. It found the Wikipedia articles along with others that may or may not be better. Many people told me they also do what I do: just Google the topic if you're interested in a Wikipedia article since it will be on or near the top anyway.
The productivity and discovery benefits of Google were huge. They just went up with its massive market share and investments. So many people benefit from it for finding content now that they literally tell people to "Google" something instead of search for it. Wikipedia could disappear and I could find all that information through Google. Actually, Google plus Wayback Machine if I'm being totally honest. Content pages can disappear but the archive can keep them. So, Google plus Wayback Machine were most amazing things to me with one giving me everything I need to know plus other preserving everything I need or might want to know.
You think that's terrible but I say it's awesome. The problems you mention come from the market's and voters' preference rather than Google's excellence at search. Market chose to go to surveillance model. They punish most who try to free us from it. The voters chose to put corrupt people in office who would pass or strengthen IP laws benefiting the bribing few over the many. They chose temporary safety over liberty later. Different choices could've led to a very different Google (or replacement). I blame the demand side since they seem to always pull that shit.