Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Has Google search become quantitatively worse?

news.ycombinator.com

31–40 of 515 posts

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

#31

Way, way worse. There was a time you could force Google to only return pages with a specific term by wrapping it in double quotes (or further back, prefixing with a plus). This was useful when trying to learn about a specific error message/code. Now, it's a total crapshoot, and you may not get a single useful result at all.

For many searches like that I use 'tools->all results->verbatim'. Seems to help.

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

#32

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.

Neeva is worth looking at. I recently switched to it exclusively for a week and found it as good as Google for 90% of what I do. (FWIW, previous attempts doing this with Bing or DuckDuckGo last about a day before I get so mad I switch back.)

Right now Neeva seems very good at navigational queries, which I do 90% of the time. It's still not as good at deep research queries for obscure things. Probably related: Neeva is relying on Bing for a big chunk of their queries. But they are building their own index.

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

#33

Way, way worse. There was a time you could force Google to only return pages with a specific term by wrapping it in double quotes (or further back, prefixing with a plus). This was useful when trying to learn about a specific error message/code. Now, it's a total crapshoot, and you may not get a single useful result at all.

Came here to say this. I have noticed this increasingly in the last few weeks, constantly getting 1st page results with the exact-match term struck through and semi-relevant-but-not-really results. Struggling to think of motivation for why this would be. Or is it a byproduct of shifts elsewhere.

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

#34

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…

Sometimes it feels the less SEO-optimized content there is for a topic, the better the search results are. Privately I de-googled a while ago (exceptions are youtube and youtube music, but then I don't have spotify). Now using DDG, and I don't miss anything. Google is better for picture search by proposing similar ones when clicking on one.

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

#35

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 want a curated search engine so badly. I feel like some enterprising developer could craft one specifically geared towards developers. Imagine a search that doesn't ignore operators like '?.' and where you can set persistent conditions on every single query without having to type it out. This would help prevent you from needing to type in the language you are searching for in every query.

Oh, and the cherry on top is completely abandoning the idea of Natural Language Processing. Go right back to keywords only.

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

#36
post #8

What do you mean by "worse" - it's hard to assess something defined in a qualitative manor quantitatively.

For me its the batting average of "do I find what I'm looking for before giving up". I don't think my queries have gotten more esoteric over time and yet I've been striking out more and more in the last 3 years. Maybe I should start a personal log and actually quantify this so I can post it here in 5 years.

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

#38
post #30

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've pondered this, too. Why not a DMOZ 2.0 type concept, where you seed the index with high quality sites and grow from there. Freshness won't matter as much for most topics, so crawling X times per day probably won't be necessary. Maybe have user defined flags to indicate the types of results they want (large sites, small sites, high authority, technical sites-- maybe different sort by features) with backlinks/doma…

I think something that needs to be actively maintained like DMOZ is bound to burn out. I've been thinking about how you could passively maintain an index of good resources.

Imagine a service that provides you with a personal search engine in exchange for a list of your bookmarks. Those bookmarks provide the signal for what sites to index for the public search engine.

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

#40

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.

Not only that, we just need one that works the way Google used to work. You know, something like the old algorithm that made Google famous and made competitors obsolete.

what you want is the internet with only a couple hundred million people connected, only a million or so content creators.

Unless you have some pretty evil supervillain scheme, no moral compass, and succeed.... that world is never coming back.

Post reply on HN