posted in Technology

‘I miss old Google’: readers tell us how they search the internet in the age of AI

Google has put artificial intelligence at the front and center of its search bar. The most-visited site on the internet still shows the same list of links to users, but they have to scroll past a summarized response from an AI chatbot, a feature Google calls AI Overviews. The change to what was once the gateway to the rest of the internet has been profound, and the browsing habits of billions of people are shifting.

…

www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/sep/23/google-readers-respond-ai-overview-internet-searches
enPage

Replying to @⁨Corvidae@lemmy.world⁩

Users who were quoted in the article:

  • Sionn Achog, retired teacher 76, Dublin
  • Peter Warb, 75, UK
  • Jose Garcia Jr, 40, recovery coach, Dallas, Texas
  • Alan Caruana, consultant, 62, Malta
  • Eleazar Eke, electrical engineer, 67, Onitsha, Nigeria
  • Catherine Weber, former political analyst, 57, Oregon
  • Mark Johnson, 52, software engineer, London
  • Samuel Lieberstein, 90, retired teacher, Cherry Hill, New Jersey
  • Sean Peters, document processor, 41, Portland, Oregon

According to Wikipedia, the CIA’s median age statistics for 2024 for each of the countries that had a respondent:

en.wikipedia.org/…/List_of_countries_by_median_ag…

  • Ireland: 40.2
  • United Kingdom: 40.8
  • United States: 38.9
  • Malta: 43.5
  • Nigeria: 19.3

The respondents seem awfully non-representative of the larger population, considerably older. There isn’t a single person who was below the median age for their country, and many who were far above.

Replying to @⁨Mulligrubs@lemmy.world⁩

No?

I’m younger than those people and I still remember using Open Directory, HotBot, MetaSearch, AltaVista and the rest.

For that matter, I remember the Internet before the World Wide Web when we used WAIS, Archie, Veronica and Jughead to search FTP and Gopher sites.

“Old Google” to me ended around the time they merged with Double Click. It’s got significantly worse three times since then.

Replying to @⁨Mulligrubs@lemmy.world⁩

Don’t they have to be old to have used “Old Google”?

Nah. The article’s “old Google” is just Google that isn’t sticking an AI response at the top:

Google has put artificial intelligence at the front and center of its search bar. The most-visited site on the internet still shows the same list of links to users, but they have to scroll past a summarized response from an AI chatbot, a feature Google calls AI Overviews.

That deployed quite recently.

searches

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_Overviews

AI Overviews is an artificial intelligence (AI) feature integrated into Google Search that produces AI-generated responses at the top of search results. It uses the Gemini 3 family of large language models developed by Google DeepMind. It launched in May 2024 in the United States, and globally by October 2024. A June 2025 study found its most cited sources as Quora, followed by Reddit.

Replying to @⁨Mulligrubs@lemmy.world⁩

Depends how young you were when you first touched a computer with internet access. I had a computer in 1995 but internet didn’t really get into house holds until a few years later with AOL disks. Some one mid 30s is probably the cut off. It really depended where you lived and your economic status. Computers were expensive and people didn’t really have ordinary uses for them yet.

Replying to @⁨IMALlama@lemmy.world⁩

The antidote is in the poison. We’re going to have to start self-hosting smaller, local LLMs specifically tailored to searching the web to find what you’re looking for (and providing links instead of summaries), while ignoring all the garbage.

If it can check thousands or millions of pages in a few seconds, it can find stuff buried so deep under all the slop that we would never find it manually.

Even if you’re not ready to accept this yet, at least download a copy of a model or two from huggingface before nvidia locks it down. 7-14B parameters is probably okay if you don’t have much space/memory.

Eventually we can use codeberg or ipfs to redistribute what we salvage as a collective. If everyone mirrors a few different models we’ll be in much better shape later down the road when big tech companies start approaching their endgame (full user-lock and ecosystem control expanding into the internet itself)

Replying to @⁨Arghblarg@lemmy.ca⁩

noai.duckduckgo.com

I use that too but it doesn’t feel like it helps much anymore. Or it does help and search without it would be absolute hell.

You still get many links to weird webpages with tons and tons of fluff text without any real information important to you.

I do some origami here and there and use the search often to see if I can find a page with diagrams I don’t yet know about. There’s AI generated pages waffling on about origami diagrams with no actual diagrams shown. It is so sad to see.

Replying to @⁨rimu@piefed.social⁩

Search, and the web in general, are still horribly broken IMO. This makes the results crap in many cases. The SEO game was round one. Round two were all the different sites that were scraping each other and posting the same information with different formatting. Today the top results are all basically just slop on plausible sounding domain names that were registered within the past year or two.

Replying to @⁨dhork@lemmy.world⁩

That is, randomly mixed up statements from a few different Reddit threads completed with hallucinated info and delivered with total confidence. Perfect, if you don’t need correct information, just some text.
However, if you need information, now you either scroll through the summary and start glancing through the top results, or you start reading the summary, hover over the “sources “, guess which one may the statement actually come from, read it, and check it the source seems valid and the summary is accurate.
I’d argue that the summary is a net negative under both scenarios. It would be great to get quicker answers, if you could trust it, but because you can’t, it’s not.

Replying to @⁨Corvidae@lemmy.world⁩

Oh yes, I remember. I remember that Google started to become worse and worse starting around 2018. By 2020, SEO was too damned good and ruined so much of the results. By 2024, trying to find technical info became so difficult I’d end up searching with DDG which was sometimes better.

All this was before AI slop existed.

Don’t blame AI. Blame SEO by commercial interests. They’ve been generating slop since the early 2000s. AI just makes them faster at it.

Replying to @⁨riskable@programming.dev⁩

SEO is not the problem, the problem is that it’s not balanced with opposing interest.

I’ll explain: there’s no mechanism to reward fighting it, and there’s no mechanism to reward providing computing resources to some ideal public search engine, sort of modern take at Archie, that would allow complex queries, would be federated and wouldn’t rate results by some obscure metric.

I mean that if, suppose, some sort of (for public indexes) a mechanism similar to garbage collection in programming existed for search engines, where the referenced objects to be preserved would be those taken from some modern alternative of trusted web rings and directories, and the rest would be discarded as it should, you could have a usable search engine with no obscure metrics.

The problems here are - 1) web rings and directories were not a technical concept, but a social one, a kind of webpages, 2) trust was also social, 3) you need to reward people making these, these can only be made by people.

Which is where I want to say that maybe cryptobros were much better than AI bros, since they have produced some means to make that.

Good rings and directories can be rewarded by cryptocurrency payments. Their consistency can be tracked via blockchains, that’s one of the good uses, I think. And the same thing with trust.

Then the actual content of indexes might be shared via some Kademlia-like network.

In short, you need ability to pay for good things made by people, which was a problem in the golden age of the Web, and you need to make search engines not the enemy of web rings and directories, but something working on top of them.

There’s a lot of misguided enthusiasm over taking people out of the loop and somehow making a system that will purely automatically find what we need, there’s no such thing. Web rings and directories were how it should be done. There just should have been a different model of layers in that whole “Web” thing. Rings and directories being technical objects and not a kind of webpages, tying together pages and groups of pages, and indexers walking over those of them someone wants to track in a standard way. It just should be structured. Probably links (references) should also be a separate object, containing versions of two pages, the source and the target, position inside them and some display information. Not a link inside the page object.

OK, I’m thinking about this again, what the hell.

Replying to @⁨belochka@lemmy.world⁩

There’s a lot of misguided enthusiasm over taking people out of the loop and somehow making a system that will purely automatically find what we need, there’s no such thing. Web rings and directories were how it should be done.

That’s fine for interests and hobbies, but if I’m looking for a specific bit of information am I supposed to go diving through a Web ring in hopes I strike it lucky?

Replying to @⁨riskable@programming.dev⁩

www.wheresyoured.at/the-men-who-killed-google/

not quite, by 2020 the part of Google that cared about the quality of the results fully lost to those who only care about maximizing ad revenue

so they made it worse on purpose to get you to search more, and set the stage for the SEO abuse takeover

Ed Zitron's Where's Your Ed AtThe Man Who Killed Google SearchWanna listen to this story instead? Check out this week's Better Offline podcast, "The Man That Destroyed Google Search," available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and anywhere else you get your podcasts. UPDATE: Prabhakar has now been deposed as head of search, read here for more details. If you liked

Replying to @⁨Corvidae@lemmy.world⁩

I miss the actual old Google, where the searches wouldn’t intentionally show you a lot of things you don’t want in order to keep you searching longer for their ad revenue. The one where if you put something between “quotes” it would only show you results with those specific words, and you coul -minus a word to specifically exclude results that contained that word.

Google has been a piece of shit for like 15+ years now. They’re even making android suck.

Replying to @⁨ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de⁩

Truth.

I just really wish someone would come out with a search engine that works like Google worked around 2004. There was a brief beautiful window of time where it seemed like no matter how obscure something was, if it existed on a publicly indexable website, and you knew the tricks for tweaking your search query, you could find it with Google. But I think I started noticing it going downhill not too long after they killed Google Video and acquired YouTube. Definitely after they also became a phone company.

It just seems crazy to me that we figured out how to do it over 20 years ago and then stopped almost immediately. And in all the time since then nobody has stepped up to fill the gap. Like, DuckDuckGo is better than Google now, but it’s only because Google became terrible, not because DDG got better.

Replying to @⁨Corvidae@lemmy.world⁩

You can also append -ai to exclude AI summaries. I built myself a little homepage with a bunch of widgets and a selection of search engines linked to one search field, with AI defaulting to off.

I’ve set this to be my Firefox “new tab” page, so when I open a new tab, it pops open, and I can search right away or check weather, external IP address, ECT.

Yalls are welcome to use it too if you find it useful:

mediaplate.au

Replying to @⁨detren@sh.itjust.works⁩

theres entire AI generated websites that are just filled with popular key words and bullshit to put it at the top of the search results.

SEO is as bad as AI when it comes to finding shit on the internet.

I miss the old internet too, before we even had search engines… when the only way to find a webpage was a webring, or the internet yellow pages… which was just a directory of all known urls at the time.

Replying to @⁨bruh@nord.pub⁩

I do but bookmarks managers in Firefox based browsers are so 90s like. Just a big list of websites. I tag them but it doesn’t help much. Needs a design. Maybe something like graph view in obsidian or automatic category board. It’s just a bother to search bookmarks. I has looking through my bookmarks yesterday to find a tool for creating cut outs for 3d printed tool cases. Couldn’t find it in the mess. I could have used more time categorizing but I don’t have the time!

Replying to @⁨some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org⁩

Google was really awesome at a point in time. You could throw it the most obscure query using natural language with in-text Boolean operators and the number one result would direct you to an html-only geocities page that hadn’t been updated since 1999 with the EXACT answer you needed and citations from 3-4 actual, physical books to back up that answer. IMHO, those were peak times for the internet as an information resource; approximately 1998-2008.

Now every page just seems to be a bloated, poorly-coded monument to engagement baiting, subscription model services, and ad revenue generation. It’s genuinely sad to have watched the degradation over the years…

Replying to @⁨SparroHawc@lemmy.zip⁩

Yeah, Google has been trashed as well, “Don’t be evil” evaporated after about 10 years.

To get “old style results” try an AI prompt like: Give me a 2006 style Google search result of the modern web for the search “Apple Pie Recipe”

And if you like your boolean operators you could try: Give me a 2006 style Google search result of the modern web for the search: Apple Pie Recipe Not “Martha Stewart”

Replying to @⁨bruh@nord.pub⁩

I have an idea for an instance called MentatSearch or something where everyone joins and if it gets like a 100,000+ subscribers then when people are looking for something online, they can ask there and inevitably someone will know it off the top of their head.

Kind of like r/identifythisfont on Reddit. There’s like 150,000+ font nerds there and if you post an image of a font, it gets identified within a half hour.

Replying to @⁨Corvidae@lemmy.world⁩

Same list of links?

Since when?

It used to give you what it thought was the most relevant based on the terms placed in the search field. It was excellent.

Now it gives you: AI, youtube, sponsored links, ad links, shopping links, SEO garbage, social media links, and out of all of these there’s a good chunk that have only tangential relevance to your search at best, and then MAYBE you might get a link to a site that presents the information you seek.

Sometimes google search returns nothing at all.

Same list of garbage.

Replying to @⁨SirLeToet@lemmy.world⁩

LLMs have saved internet searching. For the first time in years, i am getting (usually) relevant information for my questions.

I tend to disagree on that part. LLMs in a web search should be opt in, not opt out. They do help, but not always. For many searches that I have the answer right in the first result (sometimes even in its preview along the link) there’s an LLM running and needlessly wasting resources, summarising very often what I already know.

Replying to @⁨pelespirit@sh.itjust.works⁩

I love the idea of DDG. However, I have the worst fucking luck getting usable results with it. Often times getting irrelevant results, even with decades of experience of practicing my search fu. I’ve even done some tests of jumping over to Bing to do the same search and getting far better results (if DDG even still uses Bing as a backend…).

Kagi is somewhat better, but is also lacking.