Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Has Google search become quantitatively worse?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 515 posts

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

#411

Post by Volker_W »

Yes, feels like websites that consist of 3 sentences of actual information spreed across 5 paragraphs are winning.

Also, I don't like how google tries to demote controversial "wrong think".

Why doesn't google show stuff like https://based.cooking/ or https://www.stroustrup.com/bs_faq2.html higher?

I think it would be great if in the settings you could upload e.g. some python code that modifies some parameters. I would e.g. write something like

change_score("pinterest.com", -7) change_score("based.cooking", +8) change_score("stroustrup.com", +4)

Than you could share your code on e.g. hackernews. That way you could actually punish clickbait.

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

#412

Post by basch »

WORMS_EAT_WORMS wrote: post #86
micromacrofoot wrote: post #26

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…

What's kind of funny is there was a time where Google used to stand for --literally anything-- and would punish a site like reddit on search results for having such a user hostile interface. For some reason though (probably because they used AMP) they basically allow them to do anything they want. Multiple popups, hijacking click events for login modals, and hiding the content with no impact to search results. So now…

I suspect part of what is going on is that Google, and its employees, have forgot what Google was supposed to be. In some warped, misguided attempt to not be evil, they got confused and tried to be neutral.

Google should be opinionated. It should have a huge bias towards quality. It should not be hard for a small army of employees to be blackholing ANY crap product roundup site. Real product tests, where multiple items were actually purchased and compared, should always float to the top.

Just as much as needing to pay attention to what spam to suppress, they should be asking "what do we we want at the top" and whitelisting really great sources that always cut in front. Why should healthline ever appear before examine.com?

Instead, they have thrown their hands up, said the algorithm is in charge, and to interfere with it would be improper. Bollocks.

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

#413

Post by forty »

fxtentacle wrote: post #335
gambiting wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a public repo on GitHub that just doesn't show up on Google. Search for "github drv8830pico" - it's literally not in any results.

Haha I just tried and guess what? Your comment was the only result. Ask HN: Has Google search become quantitatively worse? https://news.ycombinator.com › item 4 hours ago — But of course, it's still on GitHub. ... Search for "github drv8830pico" - it's literally not in any results. DuckDuckGo works fine, though.

And now thanks to you, google recommends me to look into DuckDuckGo for that search https://ibb.co/WKg4h6Z :D

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

#414

Post by rokahnhn »

How about a company providing user agents which can undertake searches on one’s behalf (e.g. to Google, DDG, etc) and filter those results? There may not be a need to reinvent search but instead to filter search results. Such agents may preemptively download result pages and use machine learning and other users feedback to assess their relevance. It could also curate content more than ad blockers and Readability by, for example, hiding less relevant content (e.g. all recipes seem to follow some SEO-optimized format of posing pages of gibberish before presenting the actual recipe). This sounds like a browser or browser extension coupled with servers to maintain the relevance models. This may be coupled with a VPN so pages could be downloaded as that user and analyzed in the cloud and sent to the user only if/when needed.

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

#415

Post by honkycat »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #26

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…

For me, Discord is the new reddit.

When I want information about a product, I join the discord forum associated with that hobby and I ask for recommendations.

Since Discord is a chat service like IRC, I get replies from humans instead of shady astro-turfed websites.

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

#416

Post by betwixthewires »

> I think I might be stuck in some old habits of googling and I've lost touch with modern google.

I'm with you on that 100%. When did we arrive at the point where relevant keywords don't return relevant results? Is training an AI on natural language processing more important than keeping your flagship product reliable? And the blog spam...

I think google has gotten qualitatively worse. It's no longer a search engine, it is a recommendation engine. I flat out don't use it anymore for anything other than addresses. This wouldn't be so bad if most of the major competitors weren't just metasearch engines relying on google. Bing is no better.

It's gotten to be what it was like in 1999, you can't rely on a single engine for anything. So "default search" in browsers doesn't serve as useful a purpose anymore. I find myself using an assortment of engines, including Brave (IMO currently providing the best experience, although that doesn't say much right now) and obscure engines like gigablast.

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

#417

Post by a_e_k »

nafizh wrote: post #258
vgeek wrote: post #9

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.

I hadn't heard of that one before, but that's actually really nice. I really like how they're trying something new with the presentation and organizing the search hits by the source like that!

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

#418

Post by iudqnolq »

nitrogen wrote: post #237
makeitrain wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, Amazon search results are often infuriating. Most searches are flooded with similar items that need better filters and some notes on product differentiation. Amazon feels like a bazaar set up inside a Walmart where everyone is yelling at you to buy from them and you don't really know what you're going to get. I know it's a hard problem, but I can often look at the results and imagine some easy UX improvements.…

I wish shopping for consumer goods was as nice as faceted search on Octopart or Digikey. It seems that even for Amazon-sold products, either the products don't have relevant data listed accurately and consistently, or the faceted search doesn't let you query it. (And that leaves aside the issue of the product page of a really nice wastebasket I bought years ago being hijacked by a meat slicer.)

I just wish DigiKey let you filter by price, or even sort by price on mobile.

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

#420

Post by seoulmetro »

jrm4 wrote: post #107

Man, great anecdote I discovered yesterday: So "Cyrus" and "Joseph" are part of my grandfathers full name. If you Duck Duck Go his full name, no quotes, the front page is all him and relatives; ancestry dot com and whatever. If you Google it, no quotes? The front page is ENTIRELY "Miley Cyrus on Joe Rogan." Moreover, with quotes? Only 2 links total on the front page. So I'd say YES.

I typed "Korean traditional architecture" into YouTube and got a link to a Mr Beast video.

Google products are being strangled so as to make them utterly useless, but useful to Google's modus operandi.

Post reply on HN