Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Has Google search become quantitatively worse?

news.ycombinator.com

171–180 of 515 posts

Re: Ask HN: Has Google search become quantitatively worse?

#171
There's a whole class of searches that no longer have value because of SEO. Try "best exercise bike" or anything that can be similarly monetized and you will of course end up at a well-crafted page designed to monetize you.

My deepest apologies for saying this, but for any type of query that has a monetization angle, I now add "site:www.reddit.com" to the query to find actual discussion about it.

Normal Reddit disclaimers apply as much of what you find is garbage but at least if you search "best exercise bike" confined to reddit you'll get real opinion not hellbent on monetizing you.

Re: Ask HN: Has Google search become quantitatively worse?

#172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that is also my observation. They will show content that completely does not contain your query words if that content is just popular enough. The result is that niche technical topics get drowned out by related popular discussions. Also, I am by now 100% sure that Google has just stopped indexing the long tail. Like if I search for function names of public source code that I downloaded from GitHub, Google won't…

(same poster) BTW, amazon.com is in my opinion even more infuriating. I just searched for "Odense Marzipan" (which is a 100+ years old brand serving the royal danish court) and they show me pictures of gamepads made out of chocolate along with a note: Your search "odense marzipan" was automatically translated into "odicht marzipan". Then searching for "odicht" out of curiousity, they auto-correct it to "olight". So I…

It must be a recent thing as well as I recall being able to get good results from them last year at Xmas when I was searching for some science books for the kids. This year my searches got absolute garbage in return.

Re: Ask HN: Has Google search become quantitatively worse?

#173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that is also my observation. They will show content that completely does not contain your query words if that content is just popular enough. The result is that niche technical topics get drowned out by related popular discussions. Also, I am by now 100% sure that Google has just stopped indexing the long tail. Like if I search for function names of public source code that I downloaded from GitHub, Google won't…

(same poster) BTW, amazon.com is in my opinion even more infuriating. I just searched for "Odense Marzipan" (which is a 100+ years old brand serving the royal danish court) and they show me pictures of gamepads made out of chocolate along with a note: Your search "odense marzipan" was automatically translated into "odicht marzipan". Then searching for "odicht" out of curiousity, they auto-correct it to "olight". So I…

Just a theory, but "dense" in English translates to "dicht" in German.

Re: Ask HN: Has Google search become quantitatively worse?

#174
Not sure why anyone would think an answer to such a question lies here. There are teams of PhDs working on search inside Google with high levels of secrecy. We are to somehow deduce based on just the output of some searches what quantitative effects those works have? I'm not even sure Google itself can answer that question.

Re: Ask HN: Has Google search become quantitatively worse?

#175

I've found that double-quotes are basically mandatory in any search now. (this is Google shorthand for "results MUST include this term", you probably know that.) I might be looking for some sort of broad topic, like how do a I do a particular thing in SwiftUI , and it will return a bunch of stuff about SwiftUI that sort of skirts the topic. A search for do "a particular thing" "SwiftUI" is more likely to succeed.

This is what everyone in this thread seems to be missing. Google is exactly as useful to me as it was 25 years ago, in fact much more so in fact by way of several orders of magnitude more information being available on the web. About ten years ago I had to switch to consistently using double quotes for technical searches to raise the signal-to-noise ratio, but there are a huge number of contributing factors to that.…

> This is what everyone in this thread seems to be missing. Google is exactly as useful to me as it was 25 years ago, in fact much more so in fact by way of several orders of magnitude more information being available on the web.

> About ten years ago I had to switch to consistently using double quotes for technical searches to raise the signal-to-noise ratio, ...

I remember double quotes being infinitely more useful 10 years ago than they are today and much more strict (i.e. good for technical searches). You could put actual code syntax into double quotes and it would return meaningful results containing that syntax. Nowadays there is no way I'm aware of to force google to respect every single character within double quotes — it's much more fuzzy now and frequently characters like `!;.,/\|{}[]` are ignored/dropped from inside quotes and the quality of (technical) results suffers. It's the 80/20 optimization problem discussed elsewhere in this thread...

Re: Ask HN: Has Google search become quantitatively worse?

#176

Everytime one of these threads show up, I find myself wondering why someone doesn't launch a technical and research focused competitor. There seems to be such broad agreement that Google is now terrible for research that there's for sure a market for it. Edit: I'd love to see a some-of-the-web search engine like this. Start just with university sites, prepress archives, quality forums, public dev Slacks, etc.

I did just that. Well not specifically aimed at research, but the types of websites I'm interested in, written by humans, blogs and such. It's got some quality issues right now because I fucked up some of the keyword extraction logic and it's taken a while to identify just what's gone wrong. Even though it's a bit broken, it has some lucid moments. Just compare: https://www.google.com/search?q=mechanical+keyboards ht…

I love Marginalia, it's such a great project. You get really weird, but interesting results. Honestly I don't use it as much as I'd like, but it's still fun to go down a rabbit hole and read actual content.

Re: Ask HN: Has Google search become quantitatively worse?

#177

It feels like the algorithm (combined with the SEO/marketing industry) has effectively nuked discussions from organic results. Based on the search box suggestions I get, it seems many people work around this by appending reddit to their searches. If I search for "warmest winter coat" it's a bunch of untrustworthy content marketing until you try something like "warmest winter coat reddit" Unfortunately I prefer to avo…

When I searched it "warmest winter coats", I get:

first result is a list from a blog by some "Emergency prep guy" it basically lists 27 coats with information.

Second result is RT online with black Friday recommendations

Third is oprah daily with recommendations and shop links

So, reddit is also, as you said, full of false information + astroturfing as well. Besides not everyone is interested in diving into reddit rabbithole to find information on warm coats.

What do we want google to do? It tries to blend whatever is available, I don't think google got worse on this particularly, but it is probably a hopeless pursuit considering the status of the web. As for forums, adding "forum" at the end sees to work, but I agree it would be nice to have the option in the toolbox.

Re: Ask HN: Has Google search become quantitatively worse?

#178
post #73

- There is way more content to sift through, including video. - There are way more Google users, including grandmas. - Conversations have moved from discussion boards to walled gardens and chats. - Google relies more on neural network embeddings, so does a better job when you type full sentences and semantic similarity. - Google relies on authority signals and incoming links to a website, so non-commercial, hobbyist,…

>Anything academic, search on specific websites or Google Scholar. Anything technical/coding, search on StackOverflow. Anything cultural/commercial you want a peer answer, instead of a salesman answer, search on Reddit. Try to join like-minded communities where you can ask expert questions, and research new things in your field

This is much more like what Ye Olde Webbe was like. Sites competed to build communities that were repositories of information. Things like Reddit tried to build a generic silo so that they could silo information there, which I think is a bad thing long-term.

The biggest problem, as I see it, is sites just give up on doing their own search. Not surprising, as search is a hard problem, but it plays merry hell with the democratization of the Internet to foist the problem off onto Big Corporation Inc. to do the heavy lifting.

A related problem is that many sites simply don't have what could be called a "webmaster" anymore. Everything is contracted out, or part of a subscription service, or otherwise disconnected from the owner of the site having full control. If you're a small business that sells locally produced products, you're never going to appear in Google or Amazon searches, even if you have an Amazon store. You can't afford a full-time webmaster just for your site, and all of the various platforms, like Wordpress/Shopify/etc, deal in such volume that these small businesses will be largely ignored.

The ISV model for products like AutoCAD is possibly a good route. A team of well-versed engineers and designers can build things, but you need a direct customer representative to get at the juicy meat of what the end-user needs. Apply this sort of model to search, and you can aggregate over larger swathes of customers.

Re: Ask HN: Has Google search become quantitatively worse?

#180
post #43

The topic here says "quantitatively". Does anyone have any actual statistics or quantitative data on the quality of Google search results? All of these threads devolve into anecdotes and reminisces about the "good old days" and complaining about Pinterest. None of which is in the least quantitative. I'd be interested to see some actual data or research on the subject, if it exists. Or maybe it's not Google that's got…

> Does anyone have any actual statistics or quantitative data on the quality of Google search results?

Google has. They use this data expertly to improve search. Common sense and technological advancement tells us that, quantitatively, Google search has become better year over year, for all their relevant metrics/cost functions.

And likely, exactly because it has become better for all its users in aggregate, it has to become a bit worse for a certain group of power users. There, we can only rely on anecdotes and personal experience, but these tell us it actually has gotten worse.

Similarly, the web can become both worse and better. The really useful articles today are better researched, multi-modal, solid web of links, internet-first. Spam has also evolved. And "top 10 ways to do X"-McContent outranks better articles, because that is what the majority of Google users wants to see and clicks on. They truly have a better experience, while others' experiences suffer. It depends on what you measure.

Post reply on HN