Options
So, do we all switch over to Google.com for search ?
alanwarwic
Posts: 28,396 Forum Member
✭✭✭
http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/jul/03/google-bbc
It is so weird what has been deleted for the censored UK/EU. We get to forget a certain Scottish referee and of reckless investment companies.
I am assuming Bing censors too.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/jul/03/google-bbc
It is so weird what has been deleted for the censored UK/EU. We get to forget a certain Scottish referee and of reckless investment companies.
I am assuming Bing censors too.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/jul/03/google-bbc
0
Comments
On a slight tangent with Google there are still, seemingly justified, complaints with regard to the way they rank their searches.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28126723
Personally I never rely on just Google for serious searches especially when looking for products and the best price. There are other search engines out there and they do give different results.
In a quick test searching for 'Merrill's Mess' (the title of Robert Preston's blog), the article was not found on Google or on StartPage (my current default search engine). It was available through Yahoo!, Bing and DuckDuckGo.
As StartPage is Google-based, it looks like it's time to reconsider my default search engine. These euro-rulings really must be circumvented if we're not to end up behind the great firewall of Europe.
In the bottom right there is a 'use google.com' switch.
peston's article has not yet been removed.
the law is ridiculous. every time europe sticks it's beak in it ****s things up. remember the browser choice? the cookie law?
in a classic example of the streissand effect. now if you google Stan O’Neal you get a lot of listing about this.
Interesting. Just this minute highlighted Merril's Mess in your post, right clicked on it and selected "Search google for..." and there was the article third hit down the page.
Just in case it's relevant running Firefox on a Macbook OSX 10.8. And that is definitely using google.co.uk not .com.
Try StartPage's sister search engine Ixquick. It is basically a Google free StartPage.
Just like Cameron's great firewall of Britain it's very easy to get round.
And of course, this particular example is somewhat of a classic case of the Streisand effect, where someone's attempt to have stuff removed has resulted in far, far more publicity instead.
To be honest people are just thick, especially journalists. If you are researching a person why would you rely on Google anyway? All the searches can be altered depending on who you are and what you've searched for before.
Surely a decent hack would go to all the major news sites (like the BBC) and do a specific search there for any stories on a person of interest?
the reason we have search engines is so you don't have to do that.
A right click in the search box allowed me to use Opera to create a custom search for Google.com.
That works works for me, however I think the natural law of gravity will mean censored results drop further downwards.
Those 3rd party searches that receive their income/search from Google or Microsoft Bing may well be just a few hours behind in doing censorship.
Victorslot, how about a better link as an argument case for not using the search specialist Google?
I didn't suggest you shouldn't use Google just that they are not the only search engine and that you will get different results by using another one.
As an example for you this is a simple search for "silicone sealant uk" firstly from Google and then from DuckDuckGo:
https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=silicone+sealant+uk
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=silicone+sealant+uk
As I said you will see differing results and in the case of Google sponsored advertising too.
There are many search engines available, some are good and some not so, some are general some are more directed at the field you may need for example here is list of some just by searching for search engines on Google:
http://www.thesearchenginelist.com
The problem is (or is it?) that the word Google has become synonymous with the words search engine in the same way that Hoover became the synonym for vacuum cleaner.
All I am saying is that if you restrict yourself to only Google, or any one other search engine, you may miss out on information that may be relevant or a missed bargain. Also if no one uses other search engines then we may well end up with a situation where Google becomes the only one available. Perhaps the EU should do to Google what they did to Microsoft with Internet Explorer and force them to show other options as they now seem to have a major dominance in the market. If a company is allowed an overwhelming dominance you end up with a Sky situation where they virtually dominate pay TV in the UK.
On Opera DuckDuckGo, for me gets sponsored by that Russian company Yandex.
Google returns companies I use and know though obviously it is self fulfilling.
BTW the problem is that us humans lazily gravitate to using one 'best product'.
That is fine when we have only local choice but the web creates a monopoly.
http://oi58.tinypic.com/2yuhz6g.jpg
Reading that it almost needs a court, not search engines as the judge and jury.
I assume MS Bing and Google work in tandem here, why duplicate censorship work?
But why should a person who comments have fewer rights?
"But Ryan Heath, spokesman for the European Commission's vice-president, said he could not see a "reasonable public interest" for the action.He said the ruling should not allow people to "Photoshop their lives"."