I can't prove it, but if bet anything the reason Google is getting worse is the same reason everything gets worse: engagement. They are likey optimizing results not for relevance but for engagement more and more.
Ask HN: Has Google search become quantitatively worse?
41–50 of 515 posts
Re: Ask HN: Has Google search become quantitatively worse?
#42The 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…
The "people also searched for" box is not just useless, but also very much messing with usability for me. Every time I click on a link, go back, then trying to click on the next link, this box shows up and I accidentally click on that (because it shows up with a little delay and an animation). This filter takes care of that box completely: www.google.com##.exp-outline www.google.com##[style="display: block; opacity:…
I cannot stress enough how infuriating it is when a page loads content under my mouse cursor at such a delay that I can manage to point at a link and click on it _before_ the new content is loaded so that I click/tap an unexpected link.
This happens _all_ the time on the Twitter app search bar.
Re: Ask HN: Has Google search become quantitatively worse?
#43The 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 gotten worse but the web itself? Again, quantitative results, please, not anecdata.
Re: Ask HN: Has Google search become quantitatively worse?
#44My tips: use also the image search to quickly identify promising pages (charts, tables for example).
Use the tools dropdown to specify the time period, for example last week or last 24h. If your WhatsApp started crashing today, relevant content is likely fresh.
When searching for articles, try to write the search like journalist would write the headline.
Use the double quotes aggressively to filter out unwanted pages (by hinting you want a certain phrase).
I don’t think I usually go past the first page. Instead I usually refine the search.
Can’t say about the quality. I still keep finding stuff and I don’t really have any way to measure how it was year or 5 ago.
Re: Ask HN: Has Google search become quantitatively worse?
#45Yes, it seems to come up on HN every week. I like to append "reddit" to many queries, for example "best bicycle for under $500 reddit", where you can read some interesting discussions, rather than a random SEO website with affiliate links.
That's what I do too, but one should be aware that marketers are gaming reddit. I recently tried looking in the Buy It For Life subreddit for a specific type of product, and it appeared to me that one company was taking advantage of that sub to promote their product.
That's where multiple threads across multiple subs comes in handy. If you look at one thread in one sub, then more than likely you will find astroturf.
But if you look in multiple threads and do some research, following up with searches related to the item in question, then read the comments, you should be good.
For example: Pony clamps were brought back by another company, but are now being made in China. There isn't anything inherently wrong with that, but I was concerned the quality of the new product would be much less than the old, made in the USA clamps. So, I searched for the specific clamp style from Pony, read about it, then followed up with searches related to ancillary brands that were talked about in the threads. There were some out-and-out product endorsements from the new company, and assurances that the new clamps would be quality. There were also 'natural' comments that sounded suspiciously similar to what the company owner was saying. . . .
I finally settled on a company that is made in Canada.
Re: Ask HN: Has Google search become quantitatively worse?
#46Everytime 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…
Perhaps technical users are more likely to be running an ad blocker and/or are overall less likely to actually click on ads. If you're going to have 1/10th the CPM by making this search engine vs. one geared towards everyone, why would you spend the extra time and CPU cycles powering it? Maybe a subscription model would work but you'd have to show just how better it is since you're competing against good-enough free search engines.
Re: Ask HN: Has Google search become quantitatively worse?
#47It 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…
That's probably my default search query for now to avoid all the marketing crap. But if this becomes the norm we will definitely see robots discussing their winter coat preferences.
You already need to be a little careful. I can't remember the specific search where I ran into it... but if you follow some user accounts recommending a specific brand you'll find that they have very shallow post histories.
This happens on Amazon reviews all the time as well.
What I end up doing is trying to find a post that isn't all-in on any specific solution... but lists pros and cons of multiple options, because it seems less likely that a content advertiser will post anything negative (or positive about a competitor).
Re: Ask HN: Has Google search become quantitatively worse?
#48It 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…
Isn't this just a defect in the corpus? There is likely no quantitative, objective information about the warmth of winter coats in articles that would include the phrase "warmest winter coat" because someone who undertook an objective analysis would be uncomfortable using that phrase, which has no real meaning. With your refinement, adding "reddit" to the end of the search, you just get a bunch of randos holding forth unscientifically and no real information. You've just gratified some bias of yours.
On the other hand, a different search for "R-values of winter coats" produces a few real gems, like https://outdoorcrunch.com/jackets/
Re: Ask HN: Has Google search become quantitatively worse?
#49Everytime 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 i…
Yeah, I tried Neeva for a few days, but it was slowing me down.
Re: Ask HN: Has Google search become quantitatively worse?
#50Everytime 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…
I've considered taking a stab at it, but I didn't for likely the same reason no one else has: no idea how to monetize it. Sure you can run ads, but your conversion rates will likely stink because you'd be selecting for non-suckers.