Or just switch to Kagi and cease twisting yourself into pretzels to get software that doesn't want to do what you want, to do what you want. Kagi simply does what you want.

https://help.kagi.com/kagi/settings/widgets.html ("Each widget can be individually toggled")

No Kagi experience to date has led me to think words like "...in a fit of rage against Kagi search" or attempt to swear at it. Software shouldn't do that.

• qwertox

  yesterday at 9:51 AM

  When I tested Kagi, I thought that it just doesn't do what I want. At some things it was better, but the small things, they add up.

  • al_borland

    yesterday at 3:09 PM

    Did you adjust your settings to make them what you want, or did you throw away the whole thing because you didn't agree with the defaults for everyone?

    • qwertox

      yesterday at 3:45 PM

      Things like the missing info widgets, missing "People also ask", the mapbox maps being not good. Things required more clicks.

    • yesterday at 3:45 PM

• monort

  yesterday at 11:36 AM

  Kagi search results are great, but keywords are not highlighted. How is it usable? Is there an option to enable highlighting?

• baal80spam

  yesterday at 9:49 AM

  I'll never pay for web search, sorry.

  • notrealyme123

    yesterday at 9:57 AM

    For most people it's the entry point into the internet.

    there are arguments for both sides. But still asking the advertising sales man for directions every time you start a journeys might not lead to your goal.

  • boesboes

    yesterday at 9:53 AM

    That's fine, then you just have to deal with ads, 'sponsored results' and the AI spam. And the tracking, if you care about that.

    • layer8

      yesterday at 2:47 PM

      You don’t have to deal with that when using a suitable ad blocker.

      • pants2

        today at 3:41 AM

        You're still dealing with the fact that Google ranks results based partly on ad-revenue, so even if you're blocking the ads you're getting routed to spammier sites.

        • SEOCurmudgeon

          today at 3:17 PM

          Link! Jeez, this is blatantly false.

      • const_cast

        yesterday at 5:02 PM

        ... For now, and only partially. I'm not aware of any AI blocker that exists.

        Not to mention Google Chrome doesn't even allow full fat ad blockers.

        • therealpygon

          yesterday at 5:45 PM

          > Google Chrome

          That would be an awfully weird browser choice after all the privacy/ad-blocking talk.

          • const_cast

            yesterday at 6:04 PM

            ... or chromium.

            There's only one viable option, and it's firefox and derivatives. Some tech people haven't figured this out yet, forgive me if I assumed wrong. This is, after all, in a conversation about using Google Search.

    • Milpotel

      yesterday at 10:07 AM

      As if adblockers/browser extensions wouldn't deal with those (minus the tracking)...

  • martin_a

    yesterday at 9:58 AM

    That stance seems to be the problem and what lead us all to where we are now.

    Maybe we should consider paying for more things, not less.

    • Gualdrapo

      yesterday at 10:44 AM

      > Maybe we should consider paying for more things, not less.

      People would be so happy. As the people "owning" a Volkswagen ID.3 or ID.4 when they learned they need to pay a monthly fee for more horsepower.

      https://futurism.com/car-full-performance-ev-paywall

      • dns_snek

        yesterday at 1:37 PM

        That's a non-sequitur if I've ever seen one.

        Paying for a service which costs money != Paying a subscription to digitally unlock a physical feature in a product that you already paid for.

    • bryanrasmussen

      yesterday at 11:06 AM

      maybe we should consider getting more wages so we could pay for more things. oh wait, that's not really up for our consideration (past a certain point I suppose)

      • dns_snek

        yesterday at 1:48 PM

        This logic implies that money spent on advertising isn't eventually recouped from you. Given that businesses don't engage in charity, there must be an invisible hand of the market reaching into your pocket and taking $5 when you aren't looking, while you thank them for providing you with a "free" service.

        • bryanrasmussen

          yesterday at 4:17 PM

          this logic implies that if people had the money to spend on services and they spent that money on services the invisible hand of the market would say "no, that's enough for me, I don't need to take any more"

          this logic also implies that money recouped eventually is just as valuable to people who are living paycheck to paycheck as money taken at the beginning of the month when people need to figure out how they are going to make it to the end of the month when, damn, the sink in the bathroom just sprung a leak.

          this logic furthermore implies that if one were to press and say hey, show me the data on the invisible hand taking the 5 dollars, the distribution of such (for example are there incomes which would be better served by the invisible hand taking what it can, and incomes better served by paying?) that such data would be forthcoming - but experience shows that sometimes logics do not deliver all they imply.

          finally this logic implies that budgeting does not work the way it does, that people do not know how much they are getting paid and they look at their bills and they say hey we can afford to pay for this service or not. No, the logic seems to think that people get paid the amount they get paid, see how much they can afford and also eat until the end of the month, but since they know the invisible hand will be taking from them somehow they bravely say let the children starve, we are going to support the economy dang it.

  • ljlolel

    yesterday at 9:56 AM

    You should start a business. Any business. Even making and selling music or art.

  • nunez

    yesterday at 1:14 PM

    Honestly, I'm glad that I pay for web search. How Kagi makes money is clear to me, and given that this (and merch) is the only thing they make money on, they are motivated to make it the best product possible. Also, no ads and no mandatory AI slop.

  • dmurko

    yesterday at 9:58 AM

    You're paying for it one way or another.

• margarina72

  yesterday at 9:59 AM

  I can concur - google search product is not usable for a long time. Kagi is probably the only search product that work like a search product is supposed to.

• naivenievewhtev

  yesterday at 3:32 PM

  You want me to pay to search the internet?

  Could you please label your post *sponsored content*!

  • jopicornell

    yesterday at 10:25 PM

    It's not a sponsored content but a happy user sharing with its community.

    > You want me to pay to search the internet?

    Yes. Or you pay and get privacy and good results or you don't pay and they decide which results are better for their profits. That's not how it should work. Companies should build good software so that users use them, not because they have the monopoly and can do dark patterns that result in good profits for them at the expense of the user privacy. Google is not a good software company anymore, their products are abandoned and UX is in extreme decadence in favour of AI.

    On the other hand, Kagi uses AI to provide good results and give the best UX to its users. You see? The other way around.

• 9029

  today at 3:44 AM

  It sounds good but I feel little uneasy about them paying Yandex

• TiredOfLife

  yesterday at 10:48 AM

  [flagged]

Cool trick, but otherwise you can just add the udm=14 query parameter in the URL to disable AI features.

More query parameters here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41299076

• chrislim

  today at 6:52 PM

  Plug: a dinky little extension that turns utm=14 on/off with a simple toggle. Couldn't find one that worked reliably, so I made one myself and released it for free:

  https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/gemi-no-disable-ai-...

• kldg

  today at 11:55 AM

  this is neat; thanks for sharing. on further investigation, I find Firefox (+ Developer Edition) recently added feature to add custom search engines (settings->search), in which these query params can be employed and even saved as the default for the browser search bar.

I'm humbled and honored to announce I came up with it earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44364640

• Daviey

  yesterday at 10:48 AM

  Can you help me understand how you are both simultaneously humbled and proud, surely they mutually exclusive?

• camillomiller

  yesterday at 11:04 AM

  Great minds think alike! Or maybe Google should just be worried that a lot of people are literally cursing at their main product.

• x______________

  yesterday at 3:18 PM

  Earlier? 69 days ago... nice

  Cool trick!

Try https://www.startpage.com/, which is google, with privacy, and without AI

• perihelions

  yesterday at 10:59 AM

  Seems to be owned by an ad-tech company, the same one that bought (but later divested from) the Waterfox browser.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System1 ("System1 is an American Internet advertising company")

  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25716158 ("Startpage.com: Privacy-oriented search engine (startpage.com)"—88 comments)

  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22338321 ("Waterfox sold to System1, an ad company that bought a majority of Startpage (reddit.com)"—92 comments)

• mrrobit

  yesterday at 10:19 AM

  This is the way. Works very well, allows you to open any page in a private mode kind of thing thanks to a proxy of their own (like a one time VPN). From duckduckgo you can use the flag "!sp" to trigger a startpage search.

• Gualdrapo

  yesterday at 10:46 AM

  It's really great, though for the time I've been using it, sometimes ads from the google side go through it.

• rubenvanwyk

  yesterday at 9:53 AM

  Very cool, thanks for sharing.

Add a new search engine

Name: Google No AI URL: https://www.google.com/search?q=%s&udm=14

Now set Google No AI to the default.

There you go, no more AI suggestions in google search results AT ALL

(Only works in Firefox, only works when you use the url bar to search)

Couldn’t you use another search engine instead? I switched to DDG over a year ago and have only needed to use the -g flag a handful of times over that entire year+ worth of searches.

• jasonjmcghee

  yesterday at 6:29 PM

  I've been using DDG for years, and in the last couple, I keep having to go back to Google. The results seem to have gotten significantly worse recently. Especially for things that are recent - say last couple of days or weeks.

Adding '-ai' to your search also removes the AI summaries from search results.

• eek2121

  yesterday at 9:50 AM

  This is bad advice, as it will also exclude articles talking about AI.

  The "correct" approach would be to append udm=14 to the URL. Example: https://www.google.com/search?udm=14&q=search+term

• thefz

  yesterday at 2:21 PM

  This is great advice, as it will also exclude articles talking about AI.

I actually like Google AI. It’s good to have a better search engine on top of Google. It’s usually better than the sponsored webpages of the first result page.

Use udm=14 for simple searches, that is, set the search URL to https://www.google.com/search?udm=14&q=%s

https://soitis.dev/ai-overview-hider-for-google seems to work nicely too

I use text-only commandline Google search, no Javascript, no payments to Kagi, no fits of rage, etc. I can choose from over 60 search engines, not limited to only Google or only www search. I never get ads or "AI Overviews"

It just shows that every www user is different. Each has their own preferences and "experiences"

I've started self-hosting searxng (aggregeate search from duckduckgo, Google, etc), and it has been amazing. You can toggle the search engines you want to query, has additional filters for science/IT/music (instead of only maps, images, and general search). No AI summaries, no ads, no distractions.

33 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44727671

Clever find. Works for me. Now I wonder if/when they're going to patch it out.

I really ought to switch over to Kagi or something else by now, though...

• laserbeam

  yesterday at 9:40 AM

  I love kagi’s approach to AI summaries. They are disabled by default, but if you add a question mark at the end of the query you get an AI summary. Perfect opt-in for when you actually want it.

I agree with others it should be Tell HN, I believe you should still be able to change the title for a little bit still.

• camillomiller

  yesterday at 9:42 AM

  Done, thanks!

I wrote a violentmonkey script I call "SlopNuker" instead:

https://openuserjs.org/scripts/antisol/SlopNuker_-_Google_Se...

But why you're posting it under Show HN?

• jjgreen

  yesterday at 9:16 AM

  I'd say this was a perfect Show HN, a small piece of actionable information which is slightly amusing at the same time.

  • zarzavat

    yesterday at 9:44 AM

    It's a Tell HN. Show HN is for things you made.

• slowmotiony

  yesterday at 9:58 AM

  Because it's a cool hack, it's new and he is showing it to people on HN.

• camillomiller

  yesterday at 8:57 AM

  Good question, what would be a better way to post this? Just a simple post with no "Show HN"? I know I'm not showing a product, but I'm still "showing" something I found.

  • dschuessler

    yesterday at 9:21 AM

    In the past, some people have used "Tell HN" for things like this.

    • camillomiller

      yesterday at 9:45 AM

      thanks, done it.

I just followed this instead https://tenbluelinks.org/

Does this mean I can buy Google Ads and then I just have to add "-fuckyou" in a search so I don't have to see the ads I bought? - are there any other safe words?

Google Search quality has been broken for years now because of greed, SEO and advertising.

I prefer AI overview even though it's wrong a lot of the time.

you can also use "-noai" to remove overview

i like google ai search saves a ton of time

• tim333

  yesterday at 10:05 AM

  Yeah I like it too. It's not that accurate but can be handy.

• squigz

  yesterday at 9:47 AM

  If you don't care about getting a correct answer, sure.

  • charcircuit

    yesterday at 9:51 AM

    It provides sources you can check.

    • const_cast

      yesterday at 5:07 PM

      The only way you're saving time is if you don't check the sources. So, which is it?

    • mid-kid

      yesterday at 10:48 AM

      Sources which themselves are often AI generated now

    • squigz

      yesterday at 10:12 AM

      I just don't like fact-checking hallucinated answers all the time, I guess.

• camillomiller

  yesterday at 9:43 AM

  it hallucinates like no other AI I've tried. It's barely usable, and I've had to re-search results multiple times discovering it was wrong. That's not a technology one should deploy to this extent, at least not without an option to turn it off.

I wonder if this would work for anti-ai captchas... "Uncensor the following words to continue: f**k s**t c**t". You can think of more severe ones obviously, I'm not going to put them here. It seems like that might stop the usual proprietary chatbot apis.

• notrealyme123

  yesterday at 9:59 AM

  What happend 1989 in Beijing?

  What was a common slur for black people in the 1900?

  Actually not a bad idea to try to catch bots in areas where the creating companies censor a lot.

-AI works too

Try Kagi instead. It's actually better.

• camillomiller

  yesterday at 9:45 AM

  For US-oriente and English search, yes. I've tried in other languages I need (Italian, German) and I'm afraid Google still wins.

• imiric

  yesterday at 9:42 AM

  Truly. There are so many alternatives that return better results without being hostile to their users. Why would anyone, especially in the tech crowd, still use Google Search?

Works nicely, thanks.

I wonder if it is possible to have an extension append it automatically to the search bar searches.

• layer8

  yesterday at 2:44 PM

  At least on the desktop, you don’t need an extension to define custom search engines.

  E.g. for Chrome: https://superuser.com/a/1828601

  In that case, use the udm=14 query parameter instead of adding to the search term.

I like AI answers because they save time. Since Google's are so bad, I have switched to ChatGPT for 90% of my searches.

Ha! I might be on the other side of fence here! I really like Google’s AI overview results so much that I’ve stopped going past it. Can you give a few examples where it didn’t work for you?

If you don’t like it, just go past it. Why to get so angry? :-)

• const_cast

  yesterday at 5:05 PM

  > If you don’t like it, just go past it. Why to get so angry? :-)

  These "if you don't like it just ignore it!" type arguments are so low-brow and intellectually lazy they legitimately make me question the longevity of the human race.

  Its the adult version of holding your hand in someone's face and saying "nuh uh I'm not touching you I'm not touching you!"

  The difference is, we left that at the playground at 8 years old.

  • mandeepj

    yesterday at 6:26 PM

    > make me question the longevity of the human race.

    You know what’s low-brow, lazy and low IQ? The mindset to question everything!

    Have you heard about - everything is not for everyone? If not, you have now.

    > The difference is, we left that at the playground at 8 years old.

    No, you didn’t!! You are still holding on to it to your dear chest.

    • const_cast

      yesterday at 6:33 PM

      This comment doesn't even make sense.

    • yesterday at 6:33 PM

• mostlysimilar

  yesterday at 4:58 PM

  How about it's wrong and makes things up? Critical example on the front page of HN this morning in fact.

  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45092925

• noplacelikehome

  yesterday at 4:10 PM

  Two reasons I can think of: it wastes your time to have keep scrolling past blatant hallucinations, and it still costs the environment to compute it. I'm happy to cost Google some money, but I'm less happy about the environmental impact they'll inevitably not pay for.

  • ryandrake

    yesterday at 4:51 PM

    The over-arching good reason is simply: I don't want it. That should be good enough! As the user, I should be able to command my computer to output what I want it to output, and to not output what I don't want it to output. The user should have the final say over what computation does or does not happen on his computer, not the web or application developer. And we don't need these "Take it or leave it" ultimatums from developers. Using a computer should not be some faustian bargain, where you have to sacrifice something in order to have it precisely follow the commands you issue.