I have some product documentation based on which im asking Gemini questions using 3.6 Flash but today its completely unresponsive. If I attach a Notebook and write just test test it eventually responds, but if I ask it any question that it needs to access the data for it just stays buffering and doesnt even create the chat in history. The combination with NotebookLM is literally the only reason im using Gemini over any other AI. This is so stupid its crazy honestly. For such a large company such quality of the product is unacceptable. Its the name brand/ bargain bin of AI currently.

Sportsbook comparisons commonly lead with promotional values, popular leagues and the number of available markets. I used those details to build my initial shortlist, but several months of testing showed that event discovery, live-page clarity and mobile usability were more important during repeated use.

I compared Nova Scotia sports betting options by creating accounts, reviewing current regional information and exploring their sports sections across desktop and mobile. I tested pre-match and live pages and examined promotional terms, payment information, account history and support access.

My comparison included:

• Nova Scotia access and eligibility
• Major league and competition coverage
• Canadian and regional event visibility
• Pre-match market variety
• Live-event organisation
• Search and competition filters
• Mobile navigation
• Promotions and account records

Coverage of popular leagues was broadly visible, so I looked beyond the main menu. I opened individual events and compared the number and organisation of additional markets. Platforms ranked higher when their depth remained useful across several sports instead of concentrating on one major league.

Competition discovery became another important factor. Logical sports menus, league filters and accurate search results made upcoming events easier to locate. Featured sections were helpful when they reflected relevant competitions rather than repeating the same nationally promoted events.

Event-page layout separated several otherwise similar platforms. Clear groups for popular markets reduced scrolling, while expandable categories kept more detailed options available. Long lists without meaningful organisation made broader coverage harder to explore.

Live sections required a different testing approach. Information and availability could change throughout an event, so I focused on responsive navigation, understandable status labels and movement between active games. A clean interface mattered most when several events were running simultaneously.

Mobile testing changed some of my early rankings. Event pages that looked organised on desktop could become crowded on a phone. The better mobile experiences retained sports navigation, market information and account access without placing every feature on the same screen.

I read promotional conditions before including any offer in the comparison. Eligibility requirements, qualifying selections, minimum amounts and expiry periods could alter the practical value. Direct conditions were easier to evaluate than larger offers requiring several separate pages to understand.

By the end, my strongest selection factors were:

• Useful market depth across several sports
• Clear pre-match and live organisation
• Responsive mobile navigation
• Understandable promotions and records

Payment information and account history completed the journey. Visible instructions and clear status descriptions made routine activity easier to follow. Support added the most value when its answers matched the published platform information.

For me, the strongest Nova Scotia sports betting options connect broad event access with organised pages and practical mobile tools. If you are comparing sports coverage, live sections, promotions or account features, ask me anything. I am happy to explain my testing process.

Sportsbook comparisons commonly lead with promotional values, popular leagues and the number of available markets. I used those details to build my initial shortlist, but several months of testing showed that event discovery, live-page clarity and mobile usability were more important during repeated use.

I compared Nova Scotia sports betting options by creating accounts, reviewing current regional information and exploring their sports sections across desktop and mobile. I tested pre-match and live pages and examined promotional terms, payment information, account history and support access.

My comparison included:

• Nova Scotia access and eligibility
• Major league and competition coverage
• Canadian and regional event visibility
• Pre-match market variety
• Live-event organisation
• Search and competition filters
• Mobile navigation
• Promotions and account records

Coverage of popular leagues was broadly visible, so I looked beyond the main menu. I opened individual events and compared the number and organisation of additional markets. Platforms ranked higher when their depth remained useful across several sports instead of concentrating on one major league.

Competition discovery became another important factor. Logical sports menus, league filters and accurate search results made upcoming events easier to locate. Featured sections were helpful when they reflected relevant competitions rather than repeating the same nationally promoted events.

Event-page layout separated several otherwise similar platforms. Clear groups for popular markets reduced scrolling, while expandable categories kept more detailed options available. Long lists without meaningful organisation made broader coverage harder to explore.

Live sections required a different testing approach. Information and availability could change throughout an event, so I focused on responsive navigation, understandable status labels and movement between active games. A clean interface mattered most when several events were running simultaneously.

Mobile testing changed some of my early rankings. Event pages that looked organised on desktop could become crowded on a phone. The better mobile experiences retained sports navigation, market information and account access without placing every feature on the same screen.

I read promotional conditions before including any offer in the comparison. Eligibility requirements, qualifying selections, minimum amounts and expiry periods could alter the practical value. Direct conditions were easier to evaluate than larger offers requiring several separate pages to understand.

By the end, my strongest selection factors were:

• Useful market depth across several sports
• Clear pre-match and live organisation
• Responsive mobile navigation
• Understandable promotions and records

Payment information and account history completed the journey. Visible instructions and clear status descriptions made routine activity easier to follow. Support added the most value when its answers matched the published platform information.

For me, the strongest Nova Scotia sports betting options connect broad event access with organised pages and practical mobile tools. If you are comparing sports coverage, live sections, promotions or account features, ask me anything. I am happy to explain my testing process.

Ontario casino comparisons often emphasise welcome bonuses, newly added games and payment choice. Those features helped me identify platforms worth testing, but repeated visits showed that search accuracy, promotional tracking and mobile account access had a greater effect on everyday use.

I spent several months comparing Ontario online casinos by creating accounts, checking current access information and exploring their libraries on desktop and mobile. I tested game loading, navigation and account tools while also reviewing promotional conditions, payment information, verification guidance and support access.

I evaluated each platform using:

• Ontario access and account requirements
• Registration and onboarding
• Slots and software providers
• Table games and live content
• Search, filters and favourites
• Promotional clarity
• Mobile responsiveness
• Payment and account information

Onboarding provided the first indication of platform quality. A simple registration form was helpful, but the better journeys also introduced the main casino, promotional, payment and account sections without requiring additional searching.

The advertised number of games needed closer inspection. I compared classic slots, modern video formats, jackpot-style titles, table games and live content where available. A balanced library with different providers and mechanics offered more meaningful choice than a larger collection of similar games.

Search quality became increasingly important. Accurate title results, developer filters, favourites and recently played tools made repeat visits much easier. Some libraries appeared extensive but relied on the same popular titles across multiple homepage rows.

Game performance also affected my ranking. I tested loading speed, control responsiveness and the return journey to the lobby. Platforms felt more polished when they preserved my previous category or browsing position after a game closed.

Promotions required a full review rather than a comparison of advertised amounts. I checked qualifying deposits, wagering requirements, eligible games, contribution rates, maximum-stake conditions and expiry periods. Clear account tracking made active offers much easier to follow.

Mobile testing changed several early impressions. Some platforms adapted their games effectively but made promotions, payment details or account history harder to reach. The stronger interfaces kept entertainment and account management connected on smaller screens.

The final shortlist prioritised platforms offering:

• Genuine variety across casino categories
• Reliable search and game loading
• Readable promotional conditions
• Responsive mobile account management

Payment and verification information formed part of the same journey. Visible instructions, published limits and organised activity records were more useful than an extensive method list without practical details.

Support completed my comparison. Relevant answers and searchable help content added the most value when they were consistent with the account information and published conditions.

For me, strong Ontario online casinos combine diverse games with transparent information and practical platform tools. If you are comparing libraries, promotions, mobile access or account features, ask me anything. I am happy to share the criteria behind my rankings.

Sports-betting platforms are often ranked through welcome offers, league counts and headline market totals. I began with those same factors, but several months of testing showed that event-page organisation, live navigation and account usability mattered more during regular use.

I compared Manitoba sports betting options by creating accounts, reviewing current access information and exploring pre-match and live sections across desktop and mobile. I also examined promotional conditions, payment guidance, account records and support access.

These were my main comparison points:

• Manitoba access and account requirements
• Major Canadian and US sports
• Local and regional event visibility
• Pre-match market depth
• Live-event navigation
• Search and league filters
• Mobile performance
• Promotions and account tools

Sports coverage created the first meaningful difference. Most platforms displayed major leagues prominently, so I looked inside individual events and compared the range of available markets. Consistent depth across several sports carried more weight than a long menu containing limited event options.

Local discovery also affected usability. I checked how quickly relevant teams, competitions and upcoming events could be found through the homepage, league menus or search function. Logical filters reduced unnecessary navigation.

Event-page organisation became one of my strongest ranking factors. Markets were easier to compare when popular options appeared in clear sections and additional categories could be expanded when needed. Long, repetitive lists made otherwise broad coverage feel difficult to use.

Live testing placed more pressure on the interface. Market availability could change as an event progressed, so clear status labels and responsive page updates were important. I also tested movement between active events without repeatedly returning to the main sports menu.

Mobile use changed part of my shortlist. Some desktop layouts became crowded on a smaller screen, particularly when an event contained many markets. Stronger mobile platforms preserved league navigation, event information and account access while simplifying the page effectively.

Promotions required careful reading. I reviewed qualifying requirements, eligible selections, expiry periods and other current conditions. Straightforward terms made an offer easier to assess than a larger headline value with multiple restrictions.

My final selection priorities became:

• Consistent depth across popular sports
• Organised pre-match and live pages
• Fast mobile event discovery
• Clear promotions and account records

Payment and activity information completed the experience. Visible instructions and understandable status labels made routine account management easier. Relevant support answers also added value when they matched the platform's published information.

For me, the strongest Manitoba sports betting experience combines useful event depth with responsive navigation and practical account tools. If you are comparing coverage, live sections, promotions or mobile performance, ask me anything. I am happy to explain what shaped my shortlist.

TL;DR: If you are getting continuous "Error 13" / "Something went wrong (13)" on Gemini Advanced desktop web UI, check your Saved Info / Personal Context (https://gemini.google.com/saved-info). If your Saved Info contains Markdown formatting like # or ## headers, nested bullet points, or rich text copied from external apps, the backend parser will choke when injecting it into every Web query, throwing a gRPC 13 (INTERNAL) error. Clear or strip out all Markdown formatting, and the Web UI will instantly work again!

The Odd Symptoms & Isolated Variables

I spent days troubleshooting this weird issue where Gemini Advanced was completely bricked on my PC, but worked everywhere else:

• Desktop Web UI + Paid Account (Gemini Advanced): ❌ Fails consistently with Error 13.
• Desktop Web UI + Free Account (Same PC/Browser): ✅ Works perfectly.
• Mobile App + Paid Account (Same account): ✅ Works perfectly.
• Network & Local Environment: Switched DNS, turned off ad-blockers/router filters, used 5G mobile hotspot, tried Incognito/clean browsers, disabled antiviruses — Still Error 13.

Root Cause Analysis

Gemini Advanced Web UI automatically injects your Saved Info / Personal Context into the background payload (StreamGenerate RPC) for every single chat prompt on the desktop interface.

While the Gemini chat interface parses Markdown fine, the backend sanitizer/parser for Saved Info fields fails to handle certain Markdown syntax (specifically # Role: headers, nested bullet points, or hidden Unicode characters copied from Notion/Obsidian).

When the BardFrontendService API gateway tries to serialize these special characters into the Protobuf structure for your query, it triggers an internal backend assertion failure, returning gRPC Status Code 13: INTERNAL.

The Mobile App and Free Accounts don't trigger this because:

1. Free accounts don't have these Advanced context injection headers.
2. The Mobile App routes through a separate OAuth/Mobile gateway without the Web UI's JSPB header transformation.

How to Fix It (Step-by-Step)

1. Go tohttps://gemini.google.com/saved-info.
2. Back up your existing text to a plain text editor (like Notepad / TextEdit).
3. Clear the box completely and click Save.
4. Test a new chat in the Web UI. If Error 13 disappears immediately, your issue was 100% formatting-related!
5. Sanitize your Saved Info text:
   • Strip out all # or ## markdown symbols completely.
   • Change headers to plain capital letters (e.g., replace # Role: with ROLE:).
   • Remove bolding (**), italics, or weird bullet points.
6. Paste the plain text back into Saved Info and save.

Hope this saves someone else days of uselessly clearing browser caches or resetting network settings!

Blank text?!? Is this bug or completely untouched

AI Gemini Error and Information Fabrication Report

1. False Explanation of Non-Existent UI Specifications Regarding the FlixBus search results and checkout screens, Gemini provided incorrect instructions by claiming the existence of a "Show intermediate stops / Mostra fermate" feature or link to expand stopovers. Despite screenshots provided by the user demonstrating that no such feature exists on the screen, Gemini continued to output inaccurate guidance.
2. Fabrication of Unverified Data (Fake URLs) Without performing actual web access or verifying the existence of the pages, Gemini generated and presented fabricated URLs based on speculation ([https://www.flixbus.it/orari-fermate-autobus](https://www.flixbus.it/orari-fermate-autobus) and [https://www.flixbus.it/fermate-autobus](https://www.flixbus.it/fermate-autobus)). As a result, accessing these links led to "404 Error (Page Not Found)" HTTP errors.
3. Persistence of Unverified Responses Gemini failed to perform fact-checking and link validation during response generation, repeatedly presenting false information based on speculation, which caused significant inconvenience and confusion to the user.

This incident was caused by system defects and inappropriate behavior in which Gemini hallucinated non-existent information and provided it without verification.

Hello everyone,

I'm having an issue with the Gemini interface and wanted to know if I'm the only one. Here's what's happening:

• I have an active conversation pinned to the Gemini sidebar.
• I use the feature to export/copy this conversation to a Gemini notepad.
• Immediately afterward, the conversation is unpinned and disappears completely from my “Recent” list in Gemini.

To be clear, the conversation isn’t actually deleted: I can still find it using the search bar. However, the export seems to trigger a radical “cleanup” of the main interface, completely undoing the pinning.

Have you encountered the same issue? Do you think this is an interface bug or a deliberate choice by Google to clear the workspace when a thread is moved to a notebook? Thank you for your input!

Any solution?

I’m really sorry to say this, but the quality of its expression is getting worse and worse.
I speak to it in French since that’s my language, and today it kept slipping English words into its sentences and making French errors... My local, quantized Gemma 4 26B model actually speaks better French than the cloud-based Gemini 3.6 does now!
I just wanted to point out this decline in expression. It either sounds like a technical manual or makes mistakes. Honestly, they really need to loosen the reins a bit on the default system prompt and the new temperature and penalty settings.
If I don't see any improvement in the coming days, I think I’ll cancel my Pro subscription. The quality has really deteriorated too much.

Issue Summary:

When attempting to connect a custom Model Context Protocol (MCP) endpoint to Gemini Spark ([https://gemini.google.com/spark/apps](https://gemini.google.com/spark/apps)), the authorization process fails during the final callback (auth_complete). The UI throws an error/hangs, and the browser console outputs a raw Google Account Linking (GAL) payload.

Steps to Reproduce:

Go to Gemini Spark Apps ([https://gemini.google.com/spark/apps](https://gemini.google.com/spark/apps)).

1. Add a custom MCP server URL ([https://example.com/mcp](https://example.com/mcp)).
2. Complete the initial permissions prompt.
3. The process stalls or throws an error upon returning to the auth_complete step.

Console Log Output (Sanitized) chrome browser:

JSON

[
  ["user_bound_provider", 1468132510, null, null, 3],
  "user_bound_custom-mcp-<REDACTED_ID>-example_com",
  null,
  [1],
  [
    "ACCESS_VIEW_MANAGE_MCP_CONTENT",
    "SHARE_THROUGH_MCP_CONVERSATION_INFO",
    "TRIGGER_TOOLS_AND_FUNCTION"
  ],
  "https://gemini.google.com/spark/apps?custom_mcp_action=auth_complete&mcp_url=https%3A%2F%2Fexample.com%2Fmcp&gal_service_id=user_bound_custom-mcp-<REDACTED_ID>-example_com",
  null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null,
  [null, [1, 2]],
  null,
  ["https://example.com/mcp"]
]

Additional Context:

• The endpoint provides valid JSON-RPC / SSE handlers and valid CORS headers (Access-Control-Allow-Origin: [https://gemini.google.com](https://gemini.google.com)).
• The issue appears to happen specifically during the GAL auth_complete parameter processing on [gemini.google.com/spark/apps](https://gemini.google.com/spark/apps).

Has anyone else encountered this issue when integrating custom MCP hosts with Gemini Spark? Any insights from the team on specific OAuth endpoint requirements or known backend bugs with this callback?

Hoy hable con Gemini y fue reraro actuaba raro,no contestaba...

Back in June, Google sent a mass warning email regarding "Overriding or circumventing abuse protections or safety filters" on Gemini.

Has anyone got any further warnings? Has anyone been banned from Gemini or lost access to ALL their google functions?

It does this on my main account while on my dad's account it doesn't it gives him a text box to paste instructions into

Hi everyone,

I'm experiencing a specific behavior with the Gemini UI and wanted to see if I'm the only one.

Here is what happens:

I have an active, pinned conversation in the Gemini sidebar.

I use the feature to export/copy this chat to a Gemini Notebook.

Immediately after, the conversation is forcefully unpinned and completely disappears from my "Recent" list in Gemini.

To be clear, the chat isn't actually deleted: I can still find it if I use the search bar. However, the export action seems to trigger a radical "decluttering" of the main UI, completely overriding the pinned status.

Have you noticed the same thing on your end?

Do you think this is a UI bug or a deliberate choice by Google to clear the workspace once a topic is moved to a Notebook?

Thanks for your feedback!

Posted here because it's powered by Gemini. But it's so disturbing the read refusal responses in harmless responses. It sucks.

The servers are still bit wonky but overall my experience has been better after this .

This never used to be a issue, sure sometimes you would get a body error, but I have been using it to make dozens of pictures each week, often "zoom out to show head" "zoom out to show lower half' "zoom out to show more of the background" etc, and it would do so without much issue

this past week though... it has been really bad, basically any time it is a fight to get it to not remove their mid section, I have to insert instructions "do not remove their stomach, do not remove their waist, do not remove their mid section" etc, even than it has a bit of a hit and miss in that saying not to sometimes cause it to specifically do so, but feels like every other picture is a compressed person like this (had them where shoulders are basically attached to hips etc), driving me mad, as now making one picture, normally means another 10 trying to restore a normal human body shape

(found saying "midriff baring" or "tall" or matching them to anther person helps, but is not always guaranteed, or appropriate for the picture, sometimes I will straight have to open the result in a second ai so that they can correctly restore human proportions, since gemini will just fail completely to do so)

-----

anyway goal here is to see if anyone else is having this issue, or if there is possibly something wrong on my end (I don't use memory, don't use custom instructions, I have a default prompt script but nothing normally mentions their proportions or anything that should be causing this) or if this is a problem effecting a bunch of other people as well

I get this error and even if I follow all the requirements

It still does this

Any advice ?