311–320 of 515 posts
Yandex is the most entertaining search engine. Not always the best results but it reminds me of Google from 2003. Just look at these insane results, not a single DMCA takedown or SEO spam result to be found https://yandex.com/search/?text=free+movies
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 t…
> Common sense and technological advancement tells us that, quantitatively, Google search has become better year over year, for all their relevant metrics/cost functions. lmfao. so you're telling me "quantitatively" that google search results have gotten better, without citing any data at all, but with an appeal to common sense and "technological advancement"? what if i told you that search is an adversarial problem,…
Yes. If that sounds so unacceptable or strange to you, I suggest you try it. Works really well when reasoning about unavailable data, or researching a field with slow peer-review process.
> what if i told you that search is an adversarial problem
Then I get an adversarial reaction and a downvote from you.
> it's possible for google's tech to be getting better slower than the aggregate tech power used to game google search is getting better? is this not a patently obvious possibility?
Yes, that's plausible. Should be measurable quantitively too. Can you cite some data on this? :)
We could compare to the available data on the quality of (HTML) e-mail spam filtering over the years, which all have kept up. Like pg said: Spam is solved, when skilled spammers start creating content which does not look, feel, or talk like spam. So webcontent-spammers still are on the first 2 pages of Google, but with content not classifiable as spam/content farm.
> which benefit google's interests rather than their users.
One of Google's interest is their user. But perhaps not the type of user you are. Studies have shown the value that the tech of Google is delivering its users per year. This value was in the thousandths, and this value has risen. Meanwhile, Google makes about tens of dollars per user per year, less for technical users which don't click ads or block these.
> it's not some kind of gotcha impossibility for google's tech to get much worse over time
It really is, no way to mince it. Google search is funded by Google ad tech. Google ad tech has improved ML by a ton. To say Google tech is getting worse, is to totally overlook deep learning revolution, word2vec, transformers, BERT, etc. etc. etc. To state that, is to reveal the truth that you are ignorant of major technological advances in the past decade, only looking at the issue from the viewpoint of a single atypical Google-search user. What would you even do with quantitive SEQ data?
Do you really think it is possible that Google runs an implementation test of a new ranking model, and deploys it, while all measurements, human labeling, and user tests show it is doing worse? Of course not! Only if you think you are smarter, could you think that Google search changed and has gotten worse.
If Google does ML like the rest of the industry, all model changes move up their designed levers, or these changes are not committed. So if Google was unable to improve search, then Google would have looked exactly like 2008 Google. The fact that it does not, shows either you or Google is wrong. If I had to make a bet...
The results keep getting "refined" so as to suit the popular 80% of queries, while getting much worse for any technical or obscure queries. Forced synonyms and "people also searched for" are typically useless and almost infuriating. Once you get off the first or second page, the results get even worse-- with pages entirely unrelated to the query (e.g. not even containing the searched phrases). They are probably testi…
For what it’s worth, I have been using the new you.com headed by Richard Socher as my search engine for the last 2 weeks. The condensed search results with sections from reddit, wikipedia, stack overflow or arxiv is really great. It’s really suited for technical users.
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 discla…
I've been on both sides of paid reviews on Reddit.
I still do the same thing because in some subs you'll get actual conversation in the comments, but it's definitely being manipulated.
Google seems to also have a heavy recency bias. I've tried to search for news articles that were even a month old and have had trouble locating links to stories I know happened. I don't know any tricks to working around this. And if I don't recall specifically when the article came out (say, somewhere around 6 months ago), I'll usually give up. Any tips on finding "historical" results?
It works if you put it in "Verbatim" mode for that particular search, but I don't know how to make it permanent. Does anyone know if there's a way to always force it to use "verbatim" mode?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(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…
Amazon also really seems to push what they _want_ to sell over what they have available. A while back I spent a lot of time looking around for a basic SATA bluray drive on Amazon before finally giving up. All I could find was burners for several hundred dollars when I really just needed a drive to quickly rip a single disc I'd bought. I spent probably an hour scrolling through results and trying all sorts of variatio…
There's got to be a reason no-one (to my knowledge) has done this: They probably forbid affiliates from doing their own indexing and ranking. Does anyone know for sure?
If you email me, I will send an invite to Kagi Search beta which deals with the problems you mentioned, namely: - A ranking algorithm that penalizes commercial and ad/tracking bloated pages - Ability to "mute" or "prefer" domains - Ability to search for discussions - Customize type and appearance of search results Kagi Search is a new startup in the search space and we are currently in the closed beta. https://kagi.c…