It's not delisted. Anna's Archive is huge. The fact that Google participates in an entirely voluntary transparency log that gives you this information should illustrate to you where they stand on the issue of their needing to be compliant to the DMCA. It isn't clear to me why online communities constantly invent fan fiction of evil enemies when organizations merely comply with a reasonable interpretation of the law of the land they are incorporated in.
> &start= parameter. This parameter controls which result number the page starts with. Google displays 10 results per page by default.
For page 1, start=0
For page 2, start=10
For page 3, start=20
Google only ever returns a maximum of <400 results. If you actually click through at 100/page, you'll only get 3.something pages of results. Despite what is says at the top re: results. Those results are not accessible.
Bing only returns 900. Kagi only 200. Deep search and surfing is pretty much gone on all major search "engines".
> Google only ever returns a maximum of <400 results.
That's perfectly fine. If I'm going to use a search engine, I'm not willing to sift through hundreds of potentially relevant results. I hope I find what I'm searching for in the first page, or at best in the first 3 pages or so.
What's not cool about Google is that now it hits you with AI slop with dubious quality right at the top, followed by a page of sponsored results, followed by some potentially useful results, followed by an entire ocean of spam traps and clone sites and really shady results with exotic never-seen-before TLDs that leaves you wondering whether clicking on a link will get in a hostile database. That's what's not cool about Google: is that you can't use it to search the web anymore.
I switched to Kagi a while back and ended up buying their annual subscription for unlimited searches. It's such a breath of fresh air, like a search engine from an alternate universe where Google just focused on search instead of adtech.
You can turn off personalization. (Operating under the assumption that most people search for facts, I personally don't see why one would ever want personalized results.)
Location based personalization is pretty useful - if I search for 'Bob's Discount Linguine' I want the one in my neighborhood.
Lots of niche things (like programming) also reuse common english words to mean specific things - if I search e.g. 'locking' it's nice to get results related to asynchronous programming instead of locksmiths because google knows I regularly search for programming related terminology.
Of course it's questionable whether google does a good job at any of this, but I absolutely see the value.
I often find myself searching for information that's not from my locality. This sort of 'location personalization' frustrate such efforts so much that I rarely 'google' these days. What's the point of having access to the internet if that access is going to be restricted like this without consent? If they want to make my search experience more relevant, they should provide me an option to limit my search, rather than callously assume my intentions.
It's much more egregious on the Android play store. Many apps like banking, transportation and online shopping apps are geolocked for installation, sometimes even without the developers' request or knowledge. What if I'm flying over there in two days, or just want to help someone who's already there? And even when I'm there, I have to prove my presence by supplying the local credit card details! Nothing else is enough - not GPS, not cell tower IDs, not the IP ranges or whatever else.
This is just outrageous because I can't even get a device that I paid for, to work for me. This is just sheer arrogance at this point - a wanton abuse of their co-monopoly privileges. However, I'm not under any delusions that they're here to improve my digital experience. These corporations profit by restricting their "users'" experience on an otherwise fully open internet.
I expected to be “personalized”. I’m definitely more into programming than dancing. I see 0 personalization tbh. And I tried a few different peoples phones.
I won't bother defending Google-style personalization as it exists for their search results, but since collisions in terminology across fields are common, it's not that hard to see how actual, thoughtful personalization could be useful. Someone searching for "Kafka" is going to want very different results based on whether they're thinking of software or literature. Opinions may also differ over the usefulness of sources, even for people ultimately interested primarily in facts; I find Kagi-style personalization (make your own domain list) very useful, but across Kagi's userbase Reddit is simultaneously one of the most lowered, most raised, and most pinned domains: https://kagi.com/stats?stat=leaderboard
Anecdotally I find myself appending 'reddit' to search terms very frequently. It's effectively shorthand for "I want to read about peoples direct experience with this thing", and reddit is huge and well crawled by search engines. It's astroturfed to hell especially around political topics, but I feel like it's easy to tell when discussions about random products are authentic.
Some people search for shopping, or business details, in which case personalization can improve (or disimprove) result relevance based on knowing where you currently are, what day and time it is, what you tend to order etc. etc.
And some people search for songs/images/videos/books/articles.
> I personally don't see why one would ever want personalized results.
The same short combination of words can mean very different things to different people. My favorite example of this is "C string" because when I was a kid learning C I was introduced to a whole new class of lingerie because Google didn't really personalize results back then. Now when I search "C string" Google knows exactly what I mean.
For what it's worth, this is my first pro-Yandex comment after 17 years on Hacker News.
It's a major tech company service based in Russia, so presumably controlled by the government of Russia.
But the results produces for a query like "watch (obscure movie) online stream" are far better than what Google or Bing produces. If you need to check a scene of a specific episode of an obscure TV show, it's the fastest method (but happy to hear alternatives).
Also, the websites it links to aren't operated by the government of Russia.
Where I am, both yandex and Google are services from a foreign land.
I can't say about Yandex because I haven't used it much, but I have used Google and its services enough to know that it may appear neutral but its services do reflect politics of its origin country. For an outsider, I doubt Yandex is going to be any different than Google in those matters.
Man I need to get around to downloading the z-archive torrents before annas archive is taken down. If I eliminate large PDFs and non english books I think I can fit it on two 32 TB drives with BTRFS z-std compression max setting. https://annas-archive.org/torrents
How large? Isn't that going to result in an arbitrary filter of books? In other domains, large PDFs are due to PDF production errors, such as using color or needlessly high resolution, and not so much due to the volume of content - at least for text.
Let me know of those efforts, I wanna have an English/German/French backup of the archive, too. But as you said HDDs and filesystems are the problem, really.
Maybe I'll have to build a torrent splitter or something, because the UIs of all torrent clients are just not built for that.
Google does search now? I mean, it's great to see but I'm not sure how this is going to challenge the convenience of my chosen brand of chatbot being able to find the same info without being scammed by 100 seo optimised junk sites.
Yeah they’re pretty terrible now. Reminds me, this is an interesting article about search engines getting worse and failing, but the author didn’t get into the spam aspect iirc: https://archive.org/details/search-timeline
Is there a good search engine which does not execute any JavaScripts on files that it scans? (This is not the same as excluding web pages that use JavaScripts (I have seen some search engines that do this); I still want to be able to search for them, but I do not want the search queries (or the summaries of the results) to include anything that is only displayed due to JavaScripts.)
No matter what my chosen brand of chatbot is, it can't help but hallucinate between 25% and 90% of the links it offers me. If it's not it's just proxying a google search for you itself.
1. Your chatbot doesn't have its own internet scale search index.
2. You're being given information that may or may not be coming in part from junk sites. All you've done is give up the agency to look at sources and decide for yourself which ones are legitimate.
I'm not sure I've ever relied on google to tell me what a site like this had, when the site itself is fully indexed, as this one is. Freetext search over the metastate of title, author, format, date (when available) -seems to work.
Good point. So there is definitely a social utility in search over text which google does have, for the trove it scanned, hands and cats-pawprints and all.
I’m pretty sure Google indexing pages from Anna’s archive would only get metadata, because AA doesn’t have the full text of the books on those pages. I think to get the full text you have to download the torrents, and I don’t think Google was doing that.
I was surprised that those pages showed up in book title searches at all. Makes sense to get rid of them, you don't want a search for a book to be topped by a link to pirate the book. The top-level domains still come up, and people who know they want to pirate a book can still find the site.
I was more suggesting that I want my LLM provider to launder the IP so it avoids copyright law. The LLM provider is a fancy search engine where copyright does not apply to the results.
Do LLMs filter piracy requests? For example, how will it respond to 'find me a free copy of the Lord of the Rings movies' or more explicitly 'find me a pirated copy ...'?
Anna's archive has already fulfilled G's needs (training Gemini) so now it's time to pretend it never existed ;)
It's not delisted. Anna's Archive is huge. The fact that Google participates in an entirely voluntary transparency log that gives you this information should illustrate to you where they stand on the issue of their needing to be compliant to the DMCA. It isn't clear to me why online communities constantly invent fan fiction of evil enemies when organizations merely comply with a reasonable interpretation of the law of the land they are incorporated in.
Did Anna's Archive also organize much of the world's information and made it universally accessible, for some time?
They’re… yes. Yes, that’s exactly what they have done and continue to do. Are you familiar with it?
That phrase is Google's mission statement.
I think the comment is saying Google was also doing that.
Anna's archive doesn't engage in privacy-eroding antitrust/monopolistic activities (yet), so there's that I suppose...
They're doing one site less now
This should remain as the top comment.
Feels weird to say but I have found using Yandex of all places an excellent search engine for content that get taken down by DMCA requests.
Eg if you want to watch a movie that's not on Netflix using a web stream the search results are far better.
Feels like Google circa 2005.
I've been playing around with a variety of search engines such as Kagi, Startpage, Ecosia, DDG.
All of them are better than google in finding relevant results. Lol
Google is way too "personalized".
Google hides the most relevant results on the 3rd page. It was confirmed in trial disclosures a few months ago. Their concern isn’t public search.
Doesn't https://www.google.com/search?q=your+search+query&ei=...&sta... give you page 3? Or at least, try jittering it a bit and compare to frontpage results.
> &start= parameter. This parameter controls which result number the page starts with. Google displays 10 results per page by default. For page 1, start=0 For page 2, start=10 For page 3, start=20
Google only ever returns a maximum of <400 results. If you actually click through at 100/page, you'll only get 3.something pages of results. Despite what is says at the top re: results. Those results are not accessible.
Bing only returns 900. Kagi only 200. Deep search and surfing is pretty much gone on all major search "engines".
> Google only ever returns a maximum of <400 results.
That's perfectly fine. If I'm going to use a search engine, I'm not willing to sift through hundreds of potentially relevant results. I hope I find what I'm searching for in the first page, or at best in the first 3 pages or so.
What's not cool about Google is that now it hits you with AI slop with dubious quality right at the top, followed by a page of sponsored results, followed by some potentially useful results, followed by an entire ocean of spam traps and clone sites and really shady results with exotic never-seen-before TLDs that leaves you wondering whether clicking on a link will get in a hostile database. That's what's not cool about Google: is that you can't use it to search the web anymore.
Seems to not be empirically true.
I switched to Kagi a while back and ended up buying their annual subscription for unlimited searches. It's such a breath of fresh air, like a search engine from an alternate universe where Google just focused on search instead of adtech.
You can turn off personalization. (Operating under the assumption that most people search for facts, I personally don't see why one would ever want personalized results.)
Location based personalization is pretty useful - if I search for 'Bob's Discount Linguine' I want the one in my neighborhood.
Lots of niche things (like programming) also reuse common english words to mean specific things - if I search e.g. 'locking' it's nice to get results related to asynchronous programming instead of locksmiths because google knows I regularly search for programming related terminology.
Of course it's questionable whether google does a good job at any of this, but I absolutely see the value.
Personalization would be good if it meant recognizing that I dislike blogspam, SEO'd pages, advertisements, and assuming my location.
I often find myself searching for information that's not from my locality. This sort of 'location personalization' frustrate such efforts so much that I rarely 'google' these days. What's the point of having access to the internet if that access is going to be restricted like this without consent? If they want to make my search experience more relevant, they should provide me an option to limit my search, rather than callously assume my intentions.
It's much more egregious on the Android play store. Many apps like banking, transportation and online shopping apps are geolocked for installation, sometimes even without the developers' request or knowledge. What if I'm flying over there in two days, or just want to help someone who's already there? And even when I'm there, I have to prove my presence by supplying the local credit card details! Nothing else is enough - not GPS, not cell tower IDs, not the IP ranges or whatever else.
This is just outrageous because I can't even get a device that I paid for, to work for me. This is just sheer arrogance at this point - a wanton abuse of their co-monopoly privileges. However, I'm not under any delusions that they're here to improve my digital experience. These corporations profit by restricting their "users'" experience on an otherwise fully open internet.
I just add another keyword to narrow the search result. I don’t think I’ve ever wanted results based on anything other than the query.
Search results are still location-specific even if you disable personalization.
Can you show me what results you see for “locking”? I see dancing move in all profiles I have.
Wow you're right. Locking dance moves and videos.
Weere you expecting to see padlocks or doorlocks or what?
I expected to be “personalized”. I’m definitely more into programming than dancing. I see 0 personalization tbh. And I tried a few different peoples phones.
I won't bother defending Google-style personalization as it exists for their search results, but since collisions in terminology across fields are common, it's not that hard to see how actual, thoughtful personalization could be useful. Someone searching for "Kafka" is going to want very different results based on whether they're thinking of software or literature. Opinions may also differ over the usefulness of sources, even for people ultimately interested primarily in facts; I find Kagi-style personalization (make your own domain list) very useful, but across Kagi's userbase Reddit is simultaneously one of the most lowered, most raised, and most pinned domains: https://kagi.com/stats?stat=leaderboard
Anecdotally I find myself appending 'reddit' to search terms very frequently. It's effectively shorthand for "I want to read about peoples direct experience with this thing", and reddit is huge and well crawled by search engines. It's astroturfed to hell especially around political topics, but I feel like it's easy to tell when discussions about random products are authentic.
> Kafka" is going to want very different results based on whether they're thinking of software or literature.
Speak for yourself. I've worked in several "Kafka-esque" software organizations.
Some people search for shopping, or business details, in which case personalization can improve (or disimprove) result relevance based on knowing where you currently are, what day and time it is, what you tend to order etc. etc.
And some people search for songs/images/videos/books/articles.
> I personally don't see why one would ever want personalized results.
The same short combination of words can mean very different things to different people. My favorite example of this is "C string" because when I was a kid learning C I was introduced to a whole new class of lingerie because Google didn't really personalize results back then. Now when I search "C string" Google knows exactly what I mean.
yep Yandex all days when I wanna wear an eye patch and pirate the seas.
Hmm, Yandex Ad Network is allowed monetize western e-commerce sites, they divested their Russian assets by 2024.
I just tested, indeed very good results!
Ah yes, using a Russian service, what could go wrong. Weekly Yandex astroturfers strike again.
For what it's worth, this is my first pro-Yandex comment after 17 years on Hacker News.
It's a major tech company service based in Russia, so presumably controlled by the government of Russia.
But the results produces for a query like "watch (obscure movie) online stream" are far better than what Google or Bing produces. If you need to check a scene of a specific episode of an obscure TV show, it's the fastest method (but happy to hear alternatives).
Also, the websites it links to aren't operated by the government of Russia.
Where I am, both yandex and Google are services from a foreign land.
I can't say about Yandex because I haven't used it much, but I have used Google and its services enough to know that it may appear neutral but its services do reflect politics of its origin country. For an outsider, I doubt Yandex is going to be any different than Google in those matters.
Genuine question: what can go wrong?
The damn commies will destroy our film industry and blackmail pirates into revealing classified information! Or maybe nothing.
Oooh scary, watch out for the Russian Boogeyman!
> Ah yes, using a Russian service, what could go wrong.
Nothing if you know what you're doing.
> Weekly Yandex astroturfers strike again.
People doing things you don't like doesn't mean they don't exist.
Man I need to get around to downloading the z-archive torrents before annas archive is taken down. If I eliminate large PDFs and non english books I think I can fit it on two 32 TB drives with BTRFS z-std compression max setting. https://annas-archive.org/torrents
> eliminate large PDFs
How large? Isn't that going to result in an arbitrary filter of books? In other domains, large PDFs are due to PDF production errors, such as using color or needlessly high resolution, and not so much due to the volume of content - at least for text.
Let me know of those efforts, I wanna have an English/German/French backup of the archive, too. But as you said HDDs and filesystems are the problem, really.
Maybe I'll have to build a torrent splitter or something, because the UIs of all torrent clients are just not built for that.
Google does search now? I mean, it's great to see but I'm not sure how this is going to challenge the convenience of my chosen brand of chatbot being able to find the same info without being scammed by 100 seo optimised junk sites.
I have heard that chatbots aren’t affected by spam as much as Google when you ask them to search, is that true?
As much, yet. There’s still time and the OpenAI roadmap seems to promise ‘26 as the year.
Not sure. I understand they used to do search though.
(Love the username, BTW.)
Yeah they’re pretty terrible now. Reminds me, this is an interesting article about search engines getting worse and failing, but the author didn’t get into the spam aspect iirc: https://archive.org/details/search-timeline
Is there a good search engine which does not execute any JavaScripts on files that it scans? (This is not the same as excluding web pages that use JavaScripts (I have seen some search engines that do this); I still want to be able to search for them, but I do not want the search queries (or the summaries of the results) to include anything that is only displayed due to JavaScripts.)
No matter what my chosen brand of chatbot is, it can't help but hallucinate between 25% and 90% of the links it offers me. If it's not it's just proxying a google search for you itself.
Weird, I get pretty great results. Maybe I had hallucination rates like that 2 years ago, but not today.
Browser based iOS usage of ChatGPT, by chance?
Which model you using exactly?
1. Your chatbot doesn't have its own internet scale search index.
2. You're being given information that may or may not be coming in part from junk sites. All you've done is give up the agency to look at sources and decide for yourself which ones are legitimate.
I’m quite happy trading off the agency of wading through trash to an LLM. In fact, I would say that’s something they’re pretty good at.
It’s just regurgitating the same trash to you though.
As for point one, is that true? I thought ChatGPT and Perplexity had their own indexes.
https://annas-archive.org
I'm not sure I've ever relied on google to tell me what a site like this had, when the site itself is fully indexed, as this one is. Freetext search over the metastate of title, author, format, date (when available) -seems to work.
They don’t have full text search of document contents though do they? I know Google wouldn’t have this for AA pages either, just curious
Good point. So there is definitely a social utility in search over text which google does have, for the trove it scanned, hands and cats-pawprints and all.
I’m pretty sure Google indexing pages from Anna’s archive would only get metadata, because AA doesn’t have the full text of the books on those pages. I think to get the full text you have to download the torrents, and I don’t think Google was doing that.
No, thats more meta's trick. and they were "only doing it for the articles" not the pictures. I think. I dunno..
They were doing it for the videos too, but only for "personal use"...
https://www.wired.com/story/meta-claims-downloaded-porn-at-c...
Google's march to irrelevance continues with full steam.
They got a long way ahead of them then, considering they're still something like 97% of all search queries.
Actually ~90%, but that does not include AI search (chatgpt et al).
https://www.klatch.co.uk/search-engine-market-share
Go thing that Google hasn't been a part of my life for a while now. I use DuckDuck for search.
I've seen DDG censor stuff that was still on google
https://www.google.com/search?q=Anna%27s+Archive
And still it’s the top result in Google if one searches for Anna’s archive. How is it that that search result hasn’t been removed?
Presumably, the home page doesn't contain any copyright violations. This is only DMCA stuff targetting individual links.
Google has already removed URLs from the first page of "search" results.
I was surprised that those pages showed up in book title searches at all. Makes sense to get rid of them, you don't want a search for a book to be topped by a link to pirate the book. The top-level domains still come up, and people who know they want to pirate a book can still find the site.
Google search keeps getting less useful every day.
[dead]
Are they in ChatGPT and other LLM providers? No need for Google.
That's a good question: When LLM providers receive DMCA takedowns, how easily can they implement them? Use a post-LLM filter?
I was more suggesting that I want my LLM provider to launder the IP so it avoids copyright law. The LLM provider is a fancy search engine where copyright does not apply to the results.
Do LLMs filter piracy requests? For example, how will it respond to 'find me a free copy of the Lord of the Rings movies' or more explicitly 'find me a pirated copy ...'?