Google Begins Requiring JavaScript For Google Search (techcrunch.com) 91
Google says it has begun requiring users to turn on JavaScript, the widely-used programming language to make web pages interactive, in order to use Google Search. From a report: In an email to TechCrunch, a company spokesperson claimed that the change is intended to "better protect" Google Search against malicious activity, such as bots and spam, and to improve the overall Google Search experience for users. The spokesperson noted that, without JavaScript, many Google Search features won't work properly, and that the quality of search results tends to be degraded.
Re: Just switch from libcurl to selenium (Score:2)
If you've ever actually tried combining selenium with Google, you'd know why that doesn't work. And that same reason is almost certainly why they're requiring JavaScript.
I suspect it's nothing machine learning can't handle though.
Explain (Score:5, Insightful)
How could not having javascript affect a search? You're going to the same data.
What they really mean to say is not having javascript will affect their ability to throw more crap at you through "interaction".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, I want to know what these scripts are doing that makes them worth me not using an alternative search engine.
I suspect whatever they're doing will do the exact opposite - make it worth going elsewhere. The idea that it's for my good is laughable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bing has historically been reported as pretty good at porn searches. I have found they caught up to, and in some places exceeded, Google maps (excluding Street View).
But yeah, not any great options. I can't find any search engines with good results, good results formatting, and with good query syntax support.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Where to though? Isn't the only other real option is Bing? Bing is garbage
https://startpage.com/ [startpage.com]
Same Google results but without Google spying on you or "steering" you, and without the logo activist nonsense.
There is also https://duckduckgo.com/ [duckduckgo.com] although those results will mostly be Bing stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
StartPage is pretty much identical to Google results because it is a proxy. Except Google won't know who the query is coming from, so it won't be skewed/customized. Won't have an AI junk in it, either. It is normally fast, as well. Have used it for years. Although I primarily use DDG now, sometimes I also check StartPage if I can't find what I want.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It is not the same.
And not a proxy.
Google claims bottom line it has millions of hits, when startpage has literally 4 or 5 browser pages, and 50% of the viewing area is "sponsored" space.
Re: (Score:2)
>"It is not the same."
It is the same as any anonymous user's search. I have compared them many times to test.
>"And not a proxy."
It absolutely is a proxy. When you search on StartPage, StartPage then queries Google on your behalf, anonymously, and then processes and displays the results. That is exactly what a proxy does.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
" a proxy server is a server application that acts as an intermediary between a client requesting a resource and the server providing that resource.
Re: (Score:1)
It absolutely is a proxy. When you search on StartPage, StartPage then queries Google on your behalf, anonymously, and then processes and displays the results. That is exactly what a proxy does.
No.
That is an anonymizer. Obviously, to do that, you have to work like a proxy.
And: a proxy would not filter. It would deliver EVERYthing. And Startpage is not doing that.
Startpage is asking various search engines, not just one. And filters/proxies the 2 or 3 dozen highest hits of those. Perhaps a bit more.
Point is:
Re: (Score:1)
Startpage is garbage, too.
Does not even have 1% of the hits, google has.
The only benefit: I see it quickly and can do a google search instead.
Yes, I use startpage. But it regularly shows me: about 4 pages of hits. While google proclaims: 4 million hits.
Re: (Score:3)
>"Startpage is garbage, too."
Startpage will be no worse than Google, except it has none of Google's abusive tracking and tinkering.
>"Does not even have 1% of the hits, google has."
So what? That means absolutely nothing.
>"Yes, I use startpage. But it regularly shows me: about 4 pages of hits. While google proclaims: 4 million hits."
Not sure what you are talking about. After 5 pages, there are two more presented. And then two more pages, and more and more and more and more. I just searched for "w
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, I just tried it again.
No, after X pages (<-- insert your X) startpage shows nothing anymore.
So? Do I have a hidden setting?
Do you need a screenshot?
Re: (Score:2)
>"No, after X pages (-- insert your X) startpage shows nothing anymore."
I don't think you read what I posted.
I clearly wrote "I am up to page 24 before it stopped. I am not sure why they have a limit, perhaps to prevent abuse or something."
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I see what you mean. I never noticed the limit varies and thought it was always the same. You bring up a good question.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been using Brave exclusively for a year or two and it definitely suffices. Would recommend. Fallback to Google when I can't find an answer I need but Google only rescues that situation maybe 30% of the time.
Re: (Score:1)
Autocomplete suggestions ... starting prefetching results on the server, instead of waiting for you to hit SUBMIT.
If you are so stupid, that you do not know/see that, then you are probably better off with a different search engine :P
The idea that it's for my good is laughable. :P
Before you stop laughing and perhaps cough on your own spit: check first if JavaScript is on or off in your browser
Re: Explain (Score:1)
Even after having explicitly allowed google.com as outlined in the error page, it still doesn't return results. What kind of testing budget does google have?
Re: (Score:1)
The testing budget is perhaps billions of users, haha.
Re:Explain (Score:4, Informative)
[Forcing javascript] is intended to "better protect" Google Search against malicious activity, such as bots and spam
Disabling javascript is intended to "better protect" the searcher against malicious activity, such as bots and spam
Re: Explain (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
User-facing content is not a new field, it has been largely solved including the presenting of videos. Web pages have been around a while, this area is pretty mature.
What relies on JS is thus not user-facing content. It is primarily not desirable things. Prevention of it can safely be assumed a net positive. This can be determined by simple game theory, without even checking what it does.
And when we do, what behaviors do we find? Ads and paywalls, yes, but also tracking you down to your very cursor, your cl
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Explain (Score:2)
How could not having javascript affect a search? You're going to the same data.
No, definitely not the same data. Same page appearance maybe, but that's not the same thing.
Re: (Score:1)
Google search results pages without javascript has been systematically broken for a while. They removed the ability to use enter key to do a search. Then there is a state for further searches where the search button disappeared. Then a search would bring up an empty first page and you had to scroll to the bottom and go to page 2 to see the results of the search. Then you had to reload the search results page because it would return a blank page (somehow reloading would bring up more info) and then final
Re: (Score:1)
The web platform is too complex (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The web platform is too complex (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I install Firefox with addons on any computer I touch. It works absolutely fine if you add uBlock Origin, Privacy Badger, Disable Autoplay, Unshort.Link, Bypass Paywalls, JShelter and a few others...
I'm already using the first three but was unaware of the rest. JShelter especially looks really promising. Thanks!
Re: (Score:3)
I use DuckDuckGo on all my computers. It does a good job of blocking lots of crap without installing lots of add-ons.
I've been using it for several years now and I'm always happy with the search results.
Re: (Score:1)
However, this was back when Google was still indexing the web, so I was comparing it to that. Now that Google is mostly indexing products for sale (and a handful of super-established sites like Wikipedia that I could just go to directly), I should probably try DDG again, or look for other alternatives. *Especially* given this JS-is-required nonsense.
Re: (Score:1)
Google has far exceeded Internet Explorer's monopoly from the 90s
Hmmm. What could it be. What would posses nearly 70% of PC users to go out of their way to download a second browser, replacing Firefox on Linux, Safari on MacOS, or Edge on Windows?
Microsoft's legal problems weren't that their browser was preferred by most users. It was that they exploited their desktop OS monopoly to build a browser monopoly. If a user runs Chrome, it's because they went out of their way to download and install it, not because they were forced into it by bundled software.
far exceeded
Chrome's market s
Re: (Score:2)
>"Hmmm. What could it be. What would posses nearly 70% of PC users to go out of their way to download a second browser"
Many years of effective "advertising" on all of Google's sites.
>"It was that they exploited their desktop OS monopoly to build a browser monopoly."
And their non-standard "standards" trying to lock everyone into the browser. Something Google has already pulled, although not as badly yet.
>"Chrome's market share as of the end of 2024 was 68%, and IE peaked at over 90%, so no. 68% is
Re: (Score:3)
What you are forgetting is that all major multiplatform browsers that are not Firefox *are* Chrome underneath, because they are based on Chromium. So you can throw all those metrics into a single mostly-Google-controlled bucket. So I wouldn't say he was "fibbing".
Chrome != Chromium. Chromium is an open source browser engine. It's really awful that browsers like Brave, Opera, Edge and dozen other smaller players are able to build competitors to Chrome, on tech primarily built by Google. If you're trying to make an argument about why to hate Google, sorry, this ain't it.
Re: (Score:3)
>"Chrome != Chromium."
I will guess chrome is something like 90% Chromium.
>"It's really awful that browsers like Brave, Opera, Edge and dozen other smaller players are able to build competitors to Chrome, on tech primarily built by Google. If you're trying to make an argument about why to hate Google, sorry, this ain't it."
Actually, it absolutely is.
Google controls 100% of everything in Chromium, and therefore, everything those other browsers are built on. It gives them total control over a huge amoun
Re: (Score:3)
Google controls 100% of everything in Chromium
They control is so much that their biggest competitor, Microsoft, was able to take their many years of development and use it to build their own competing product.
What we need are at least three independent
That'd be nice. When someone is building a browser-based product, and they have a choice of spending 5 years developing a browser engine, and 6 months integrating Chromium, what do you think they choose. These are real people with schedules and they aren't rewarded by good vibes and ideals.
and not for any good reason
You should talk to the developers about why they chose Chr
Chrome syncs passwords with Chrome, for one (Score:3)
What would posses nearly 70% of PC users to go out of their way to download a second browser, replacing Firefox on Linux, Safari on MacOS, or Edge on Windows?
[...]
If we were talking mobile, you might have a point.
You may have answered your own question.
Web use is the sum of desktop web use and mobile web use. StatCounter currently lists mobile as 64% of web use and desktop as 36%. What possesses desktop users to also buy a mobile phone are 1. portable web terminal and mobile Internet hotspot, 2. running mobile applications that aren't ported to desktop operating systems, 3. running second-factor authenticators, and 4. making and receiving voice calls and sending and receiving text messages to and from phone numbers.
Re: (Score:1)
Eh. Until now, the list of sites that I have any interest in at all that don't work without Javascript, has been (and for the moment, even with Google, still is) shorter than the list of sites that I use regularly that *only* work properly with Javascript disabled and are completely impossible to read otherwise (e.g., Slashdot, Wikia/Fandom).
However, with Google jumping ship, I fear that other
That's degrading (Score:5, Insightful)
Google started degrading their own search results 4-5 years ago, and that has only accelerated with the use of [phony, IP-stealing] "AI" to display monitized results on the first 1-1/2 pages.
Google Search (Score:2)
If you're still using Google Search in 2015 you;re behind the times.
What, that was 10 years ago? Jesus Christ. Now it's like riding a dinosaur. Use something else. Perplexity.ai is pretty good.
Re: (Score:3)
google.com/shopping is really verging on unusable. There's so much spam it feels like they are hardly even listening to your search terms.
Re: (Score:1)
Absolutely! This This This!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problems is, now the Ads division basically runs all of Google. They're the only department, apart from, maybe, legal, that can send directives to the other divisions of Google that must be adhered to. This accelerated after the DoubleClick purchase. At this point, Google is an Ad company that happens to make some secondary products to support the ads.
Re: (Score:2)
I tried searching Google Shopping for a book by ISBN, zero results. They have that book on Google Books though, so they obviously know the ISBN number. Only reason I could imagine they don't want to use such a useful and unique identifier is that then they can't give you similar-sounding sponsored results.
Happy Hogie Day! (Score:2)
I tried searching Google Shopping for a book by ISBN, zero results. They have that book on Google Books though, so they obviously know the ISBN number.
I too have had zero results when searching for copies for sale of a book that is out of print and not very common, such as an obscure children's picture book from 2005. Just because a book has been published (and is therefore on Google Books) doesn't mean anyone wants to sell you a copy.
Or could you help me find a copy of Happy Hogie Day! by Megan E. Bryant? ISBN is 0448439719 or 9780448439716. Amazon also finds 0 copies for sale.
Re: (Score:2)
No the copy exists, in fact their first result searching by title contains the ISBN, plus anything their fuzzy match accepts as having similar words. The search by ISBN fuzzy-matches the number...
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It's so annoying that they made it that clever just in order to make it useless so they can place more ads.
Re: (Score:2)
But who wants to use an account to search? It's not even about the money, it's about having all search queries (possibly) connected with your account.
Re: (Score:2)
For perplexity? You don't need to log in
apparently there's a workaround (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
We have already had a Google proxy for many years. It is called StartPage.
https://startpage.com/ [startpage.com]
All the same Google search results, but essentially anonymously, without the personalized Google "steering", without Google spying on you, without Googles AI "junk" polluting the results, and without the activist logo stuff.
https://duckduckgo.com/ [duckduckgo.com] if you want something different, although most of the results will be Bing (but without Microsoft spying on you or steering you).
Worse that it already is? (Score:5, Interesting)
Really? Now that would be an achievement.
Between the AI crud that's remarkably inaccurate and the litany of sponsored links, it's hard to get Google to return results of value anymore.
Perplexity (mentioned in systemd-anonymousd' comment) is one good alternative. Here's another (IMHO):
https://www.startpage.com/ [startpage.com]
Useful Google results without the crud.
Re: (Score:2)
DDG FTW.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like moving to DuckDuckGo for search was a great idea...
Re: (Score:1)
But the ddg people need to add opensearch capability to their main search page. They have it for ddg-lite but the main page doesn't for reasons that I've never understood.
So everybody switches (Score:1)
So everybody switches to a competitor (I think its called But Its Not Google )
"Degraded results" (Score:5, Funny)
The spokesperson noted that, without JavaScript, many Google Search features won't work properly, and that the quality of search results tends to be degraded.
You don't need any javascript to get degraded search results from Google.
I must say: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Google is doing an admirable job dismantling their own formerly untouchable market dominance.
Their browser market share went from 64.7% to 68.3% in 2024. So, seems like they are doing just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Google is doing an admirable job dismantling their own formerly untouchable market dominance.
Their browser market share went from 64.7% to 68.3% in 2024. So, seems like they are doing just fine.
He was referring to search engine market dominance, which is considerably easier to lose given that using a different search engine doesn't even require installing any software, just typing a different address, or changing a browser setting.
Re: (Score:2)
He was referring to search engine market dominance
You are certainly welcome to speculate, but I'm going to assume since we're in a thread discussing browser tech, we're talking about browsers.
But anyway, they lost less than 2% of they market share, down to 90%. If you call that "dismantling market dominance", alright. You're right, it's incredibly easy to lose market share of anything when you have 90% of the market. The CEO can get the wrong hair cut and they'll lose market share. Considering all of the entry level competitors, they are doing quite well t
Re: (Score:3)
You are certainly welcome to speculate, but I'm going to assume since we're in a thread discussing browser tech, we're talking about browsers.
Hmm. When I look up-thread, your post (the one I replied to) is the first one to mention browsers, and TFA is about search.
Anyway...
But anyway, they lost less than 2% of they market share, down to 90%. If you call that "dismantling market dominance", alright. You're right, it's incredibly easy to lose market share of anything when you have 90% of the market. The CEO can get the wrong hair cut and they'll lose market share. Considering all of the entry level competitors, they are doing quite well to only lose 2%.
It's also very easy to lose dominance in the search market because there's very little in the way of lock-in, which was my point. Slashdotters like to complain about how awful Google Search is, but market share doesn't seem to support that contention.
Can we throw this internet out and get a new one? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Can we throw this internet out and get a new o (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Internet at large started dying a long time ago, with the advent of NAT. We have the ability to return the Internet to usefulness with IPv6, but I don't see it happening without a government mandate to discontinuing IPv4. It's just like had to be done to get us from analog to digital TV. The technology existed long before the switchover, but the market would not do it without government intervention.
The Web (which is what you're calling the Internet) is just a port on the Internet.
Re:Can we throw this internet out and get a new on (Score:5, Insightful)
>"The Internet at large started dying a long time ago, with the advent of NAT. We have the ability to return the Internet to usefulness with IPv6"
I hate to break this to you, but switching to IPv6 will do essentially nothing when it comes to the "ens**tification" of the internet which is mostly due to things like horrible websites, horrible site designs, monopolistic search engines, draconian usage policies, tracking, spam, censorship, spying on users, selling user data, etc.
Re: Can we throw this internet out and get a new o (Score:1)
CGNAT blocks inbound SYN, breaking end-to-end (Score:5, Informative)
Carrier-grade network address translation (CGNAT) broke the Internet's end-to-end principle by making it impossible for residential equipment to receive incoming TCP connections. This in turn made it impossible for residential subscribers to run a personal website on an on-premises server. Without CGNAT, people would be more inclined to buy a domain name and run a low-traffic personal website instead of having to rely on big social networking silos (SNS) like X and Facebook. With CGNAT, they must buy both a domain name and virtual private server (VPS) hosting.
ISPs' common excuse for CGNAT is IPv4 address exhaustion. Wider deployment of IPv6 would break this excuse, as each subscriber would have a whole subnet full of routable addresses that a home server on a cheap single-board computer can use. Right now Frontier Communications (a US ISP) is dragging their collective behind by not providing IPv6, and the alternative in my city is Xfinity by Comcast (ecch) or Starlink by Mr. Muskrat (double ecch).
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, I think what really broke personal webservers, even for those technically inclined, was the era of massive insecurity created by the 'invention' of for-profit malware.
These days anything online NEEDS professionally managed security solutions against random automated DDoS, zombie networks, ransomware, all sorts of constantly evolving exploits. Even with professional stuff it can be iffy, but without it it's hopeless, and it's been like this ever since unpatched PCs got owned by Blaster worms within
The ad model causes bad content (Score:2)
When they get payed whenever you visit a link (or scroll or just have the page loaded), the incentives for content are very different.
Re: (Score:2)
Every developer ever has at one point wanted to completely rewrite the software they were maintaining. What they don't think about, is all the little one-off cases and issues and bugs that have been fixed in that old code base, that will have to be re-fixed in the new code base. And by the time it reaches parity with the old version, it's just as detestable.
Replace the internet with a new thing, and the new internet will become just as bad as the old internet.
It works, trust us! (Score:3)
Walker said Google's current approach to content moderation works
Narrator: it doesn't.
Maybe this is a stealth good thing (Score:2)
Maybe if you don't have JS enabled you won't get the AI stuff? Could they make it that easy to avoid?
This is a Prelude to full Ajax Serps (Score:1)
Expect more like this from entrenched players. (Score:5, Insightful)
The incoming super business friendly administration has already signaled free reign in return for an "inauguration fund donation"
Expect lots of blatant market leader abuse over the next 4 years.
Google Search downgraded at least 24 months now (Score:2)
I get several ads, followed by several paid placements, followed by a results that are the opposite of what I specified even with google foo of -terms and +terms .
I get my results from AI now and only verify with google. it hasn't been my primary search engine for over a year. It's results are corrupt and worthless.
What is a Google Search? (Score:2)
>"Google says it has begun requiring users to turn on JavaScript"
Good thing I haven't seen a Google search page in many, many years. Searches on all my machines are either duckduckgo.com or startpage.com
Bots and spam ... (Score:2)
JavaScript... (Score:2)
JavaScript seems a requirement for everything except static web pages.
I use https://get-star.org/ [get-star.org] (a friend showed it to me...) for search; the site requires JavaScript and pop-up windows, but is explicit about it.
JoshK.
Well it was just a matter of time (Score:2)
I mean the web used to be full of open standards. No longer did you need to have a special client software to be able to use online services, but could just use a "smart terminal" in the form of a browser. Javascript originally tried to extend that with some minor form of scripting on the client side.
Unfortunately now this made scripting on the client side simple enough so that we are back to special client software running as Javascript in the browser. While it has some advantages over client side software