Search the Community

I need help to change my search engine back to English, in Japanese mode it keeps giving unwanted results. So one day my google search engine just suddenly changed to Japanese ( I live in Japan atm). I remember there supposed to be a button right under the search bar that allowed me to change language but this time it dissapeard. How do I switch this thing to English again? PS I need this quick and a bit tilted with stuff going so sorry if I was too blunt or missed out some info.

My first time at this forum thing. Please forgive and inform my errors. I have noticed Google going to a "server not found page" when I use a VPN. It directs me to turn my VPN off. I can get to the page directly through the URL bar once I know what the URL is but to link through Google I get the error. I think Google is trying to discourage VPN use. This bothers me. The question: What is the best search engine now? Do they all do this now?

Recently, a personal MacBook that my friend uses, automatically switched to another search engine. When I try to go into the settings to change it, it is grayed out. I tried resetting the settings and even reinstalled chrome. Somebody help.

Yep, you read that right. Google reportedly pays Apple $9 billion/year to remain the iPhone’s default search engine When Apple first introduced the iPhone, the decision to use Google as the default search engine on mobile Safari was essentially a no-brainer. After all, Google was unquestionably the dominant search engine at the time and Microsoft’s Bing wouldn’t even arrive on the scene until June of 2009. Despite increased competition with respect to search over the past few years, there’s no denying that Google is still the best search engine on the planet. That said, Apple has for some time now let iOS users change the default search engine on mobile Safari to Bing or DuckDuckGo. Google’s prominence in mobile Safari, though, isn’t a benefit Apple bestows upon the search giant free of charge. On the contrary, Google pays a lot of money to enjoy its status as the default search engine on the iPhone and iPad. Hardly a surprise, the bulk of Google’s revenue still comes from search-based advertising and the company has long been willing to pay somewhat astronomical fees in order to remain front and center on mobile Safari. As to how much Google pays for that privilege, well, that’s an interesting story. The only official number we’ve seen comes from a 2014 court document which revealed that Google at the time was paying Apple $1 billion a year for default search engine status. Since then, analysts have claimed that the annual fee has jumped considerably, with a report from last year relaying that Google in 2017 paid Apple upwards of $3 billion. That said, Goldman Sachs analyst Rod Hall now claims that Google may be paying Apple as much as $9 billion in 2018 to keep its search engine front and center for iOS users. Keep in mind that Hall’s figure — which was originally brought to light by Business Insider — is nothing more than an estimate as both Google and Apple remain tight-lipped on the issue. In any event, Hall claims that the annual fee Google pays out to Apple is on the rise due to an increase in the number of Google searches that originate via Siri. Looking ahead, Hall writes that Google could end up paying Apple as much as $12 billion in 2019 to keep Google as the default search option. Hall’s figures seem remarkably high, so you’ll definitely want to take his report with a requisite grain of salt. Either way, the relationship between Apple and Google in this regard is as mutually beneficial as can be. From Apple’s perspective, they’re getting what essentially amounts to free money. And Google, on the other hand, enjoys prime placement amongst iPhone and iPad users who, on average, are more coveted amongst advertisers. Source: https://bgr.com/2018/09/28/google-search-iphone-default-9-billion-year/ I have no quotes, but many sources. Hopefully this will clear any doubt of reliability. https://www.businessinsider.com/aapl-share-price-google-pays-apple-9-billion-annually-tac-goldman-2018-9 https://9to5mac.com/2018/09/28/google-paying-apple-9-billion-default-seach-engine/ https://searchengineland.com/report-google-to-pay-apple-9-billion-to-remain-default-search-engine-on-safari-306082

Hi All,Was working on my nephews PC and was told that when he searched in Chrome it would always use bing.So I did all the usual checks like make sure Google was default search engine in settings. Removed all other search engine options but still when you highlight something in a webpage and click on search the results all come back using bing as the search engine.I reset the settings and even uninstalled it but it keeps doing the same thing.Any suggestions please?

This actually makes me feel like we don't have the worst government in the world here in the US. I would have used the phrase "full retard" in the title, but I felt that might offend someone and I don't feel like having to go back and change it. Although I'm sure one of the mods would just change it and yell at me lol. So, France has decided that every single image indexed by a search engine, has to be paid royalties. Of course, this makes no sense. In the US, thankfully, multiple cases on things like Google Images have found that indexing the images and showing thumbnails is clearly fair use. But that's not how it's going to work in France. Wait....wat? Source: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160826/10092035354/france-passes-copyright-law-demanding-royalties-every-image-search-engines-index-online.shtml I feel like we ALL know where the "royalties" are going to end up, and it's definitely NOT with the content creators, or average people who just decided to post their daily adventures on Facebook or whatever the French people use (I feel like it's probably Facebook, could be wrong. If anyone from France can tell me that'd be nice.). This is just.....France what are you even doing? French people, even we, in the US, as corrupt as we are, have already basically decided that indexing is fair use, because it's not publishing and it's not "reproducing", it's INDEXING, it's saying "you wanted this, well you can find all of these things, at these places". This is the equivalent of a library, having to pay royalties, to place a book that they have on the shelf, in the index card catalog. It's just flat-out stupid. Feel free to disagree with me. If you think these royalties will actually find their way to the little people who created them, please explain why. It'd be awesome if that actually happened, but I cannot see it happening.

This is so funny.. we were joking around in Software Design and Development class about who uses Bing these days; so we tried to compare Bing and Google Search side by side..

& it looks cool Firefox has a brand new redesigning to it's search interface & it actually looks cool, The new GUI features a regular drop down search suggestion & you can open the results on another wesite via the given buttons (quick links directly instead of the old method of drop down arrow & change search engine that way) The New Interface looks pretty easy for a fluid & easy workflow , Demo Gif: Pretty neat feature & redesign , a great improvement for firefox users , Imo, I guess this is a very short framework news post from me today as that's the only update available as of now, nothing more, other than that you already know mozzila switched over to yahoo as default search partner, Hope they add in more features to it like this one, leave your thoughts on this down belooooo Link: http://techcrunch.com/2014/11/26/firefox-redesigns-its-search-interface-ahead-of-yahoo-switch/

First amendment is a checkmate Google has free speech right in search results(well..atleast one court agrees) A San Francisco court ruled last week that Google has the right to arrange its search results as it pleases, which confirms the company’s long-held position The new ruling may disappoint websites that feel they are at the mercy of Google for much of their traffic, and who would regulators to impose rules on Google. courts and regulatory bodies in the US have generally agreed that Google's search results are considered free speech. That consensus was upheld last Thursday, when a San Francisco Superior Court judge ruled in favor of Google's right to order its search results as it sees fit. How did it all start? The new ruling, which is the first since 2007 to address Google’s rights under the First Amendment, came after a website called CoastNews argued that Google had unfairly pushed it far down in its search results even though, CoastNews claimed, its site appeared at the top of results created by Bing and Yahoo. CoastNews suggested the poor rankings were because Google wanted to eliminate CoastNews as a potential competitor. The new ruling may disappoint websites that feel they are at the mercy of Google for much of their traffic, and who would regulators to impose rules on Google. Google responded by filing an “anti-SLAPP” motion, which is often used by defendants to guard against litigation that would deter free speech. In a one-paragraph ruling, Judge Ernest Goldsmith granted the request, saying CoastNews’ claims against Google related to “constitutionally protected activity.” the news is of somewhat importance because in a recent similar legal altercation with a search engine called Baidu, which was sued in America by pro-democracy activists for censoring political speech from US users. Nevertheless, the Manhattan US District judge in that case ruled that the search engine could organize its search results as it liked because it was protected by the First Amendment. First amendment or not , this gives immense power over to our favorite search results providers & they can manipulate or organize things in a way they seem fit, Google Chairman Eric Schmidt argued last month, the importance of search results may be declining at a time when more consumers are looking for information on retail sites like Amazon or on social media. this doesn't mean Google will be protected forever from other angry websites, here at home or elsewhere around the globe. But, should a similar lawsuit arise, it does allow the company to argue that a court has already agreed with it before. Good news if on good hands, bad news if they get a different idea, Google has a lot of power in this field of interweb , lets just hope they don't just outright blanket every other search term they find not worthy or even politics.. What are your thoughts on this News? Are you happy with the ruling or dissapaointed? Let me know in the comments down belooooooooooooooooooowww.. Bonus: Links: http://www.engadget.com/2014/11/17/google-search-results-first-amendment/ https://gigaom.com/2014/11/17/google-has-free-speech-right-in-search-results-court-confirms/ TLDR: Google wants to organize search items they way they like, Meaning they can pick & choose website they like to be up in the first page results, they now can ignore rival sites they think that will hurt their business it's gives Google more power to pick & choose (biased search results if they wish to)..

Wow! Now that's something i didn't expect from Yahoo.. Newly released Documents* says that Yahoo (along with other search engines out there) were threatened by the US government to comply with PRISM surveillance requirements, or face a $250,000 per day fine in 2008. While Yahoo fought the demand through the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, it ultimately lost and complied with the order, which paved the way towards mass surveillance of Internet users. *more than 1,500 pages of once-secret papers from Yahoo’s 2007-2008 challenge to the expansion of U.S. surveillance laws, contents of the documents are still a secret & only a few have been able to 'physically' see them. The FISC ruled that "the U.S. Government has sufficient procedures in place to ensure that the Fourth Amendment rights of targeted US persons are adequately protected and that the acquisition of foreign intelligence to be obtained through the directives issued to Yahoo!, as to these individuals, is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment." Additionally, it ruled that "any incidental acquisition of the communications of non-targeted persons located in the United States and of non-targeted U.S. persons, wherever they may be located, is also reasonable under the Fourth Amendment." portions of the documents remain sealed and classified to this day,only the very top yahoo officials had eyes only access to the released document, even some high tier yahoo team members haven't been able to get access to the declassified documents, the news is out from those who have seen it.. Yahoo, which endured heavy criticism after The Washington Post and Britain’s Guardian newspaper used Snowden’s documents to reveal the existence of PRISM last year, was legally bound from revealing its efforts in attempting to resist government pressure. The New York Times first reported Yahoo’s role in the case in June 2013, a week after the initial PRISM revelations. Link: http://www.electronista.com/articles/14/09/12/newly.released.documents.shed.light.on.2008.fisc.hearings/ Post your thoughts & comments down below...

The European Union Court of Justice has just ruled that search engines must remove links to information about private persons at their request, if the information related to the links is either out-dated or irrelevant. The case was based on an appeal by a Spanish national who felt his privacy was infringed upon by Google retaining links to a newspaper who published details of the impending auction of his home under insolvency proceedings in 1998. These articles were able to be retrieved by searching for the plaintiff's name in 2014. The court ruled that Google has to remove links such as these on request by the subject of the information under certain conditions which are mainly based on the perception of the public interest. Article on BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27388289 Link to court ruling: http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-05/cp140070en.pdf On the one hand, I think this is a good idea. However, I do think that the conditions need to be rather tight to avoid useful information from being censored (a politician wants to remove any links between him and a cause he donated to which would nowadays be judged as racist or otherwise discriminatory or that they received donations from certain sources) - these are things that are in the public interest. But nobody needs to know if your house was put up for auction 16 years ago.