Here are some resolutions that Google might consider making for 2025. The problem addressed in the fifth point particularly irks us when we’re doing research here at FOSS Force.
Source: Pixabay
You might have read that Google is planning to go hard on AI in 2025. I’m not surprised, but I am disappointed. Google doubling down on AI tech while its search results get less and less useful is frustrating.
More frustrating is the fact that there are ALL KINDS of things Google could do to make it search better that have NOTHING to do with AI. Imagine! Nothing to do with ridiculous water consumption, or jacked-up energy use, or copyright minefields. Just creating better access to information and making search results better.
Here are five ways Google could improve search in 2025 that have NOTHING to do with AI.
Reinstate Google Uncle Sam (Google killed it in 2011) and give users an authoritative place for government information instead of forcing them to search the general Web. Google used to offer a specialized place for users to search for American government information but killed it off in 2011. (I made a replacement in 2012 that’s still available.) Google should bring it back so users trying to find government content do not have to wade through the general SlopWeb. (I’ve been playing with a gov search using Mojeek.)
Similarly, use the FCC license database to create a Google News search for licensed news sources within the United States, searchable by city and state. How many stories about fake news outlets on the Web have you read about in the last year? Lots and lots. Meanwhile, in America the FCC licenses television stations and keeps a database online of licensed stations and their information, including Websites. Why the frick aren’t we using that in news search? It would be EASY for Google to use the FCC license database to create a Google News search (I did it) that exclusively serves content from verified outlets and which could be searchable by city as well as state (yes, CITY, because a wonderful human translated DMAs to zip codes), creating a useful search space for users which would be hard for slop outlets to penetrate (they’d have to get licensed by the FCC.)
Overhaul Google Books and give it the TLC and search result attention it deserves. Google created this massive site full of useful information and shoved it to the side in favor of nebulous AI declarations. Why? If Google Books can be searched by topic, why can’t that be integrated into the search results instead of an AI overview?
Outreach to state-level American governments, specifically Secretaries of State, to help bulk out local business information for the protection of consumers. I can go to the North Carolina Sec’y of State’s office and look up a business. If that information were available to Google Business listings, and local businesses were able to link back directly to local government licensure/information, that would serve to both protect the consumer and promote legitimate businesses.
Reinstate some result information, like first crawl date, to help users identify which sites are gaming their publication dates for more views. Google used to provide more information in its search result listings, including first crawl date and page size. Reinstating some of that information would help users pre-evaluate the search results for things like publishers messing with publication dates for extra views. I’d love the cache back as well, but I know better.
I have no idea what Google has planned for us in 2025, though I suspect a lot of it involves us getting AI rammed down our throats. For my part I will keep doing what I can to explore more ways to make search better, whether it’s by harnessing the power of contextual resources or using human indicators to create small, specific search spaces.
I have been writing about search engines since the early 1990s. My first book, Official Netscape Guide to Internet Research, came out in 1996. Since then I have authored or co-authored a number of books, including Web Search Garage, Information Trapping, and the New York Times bestseller Google Hacks. I have also written for a number of publications, including The Guardian and the Saturday Evening Post. Since 1998 I have written ResearchBuzz, a blog that covers both resource updates and search techniques and observations about the search world.
The last I knew (2022) there were *boxes* of firearm information containing names of people who should not have firearms that were kept on paper and microfiche at the ATF. It took TWO WEEKS for people to search these boxes of information.
Worse yet, legislature causes them to take NEW information and convert it into unsearchable records.
Google could not only create a database that would be reachable from the Internet that would tell a gun seller from their smartphone whether or not the person standing in front of them deserves the ability to buy their record or not, but could instantly make additions to the database. They they could scan in all existing records.
This is NOT rocket science!
This is STUPID, and has been going on for YEARS. Any legal purchaser of a gun should appreciate this being fixed.
The last I knew (2022) there were *boxes* of firearm information containing names of people who should not have firearms that were kept on paper and microfiche at the ATF. It took TWO WEEKS for people to search these boxes of information.
Worse yet, legislature causes them to take NEW information and convert it into unsearchable records.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/s-just-insanity-atf-now-needs-2-weeks-perform-routine-gun-trace-rcna39606
Google could not only create a database that would be reachable from the Internet that would tell a gun seller from their smartphone whether or not the person standing in front of them deserves the ability to buy their record or not, but could instantly make additions to the database. They they could scan in all existing records.
This is NOT rocket science!
This is STUPID, and has been going on for YEARS. Any legal purchaser of a gun should appreciate this being fixed.