61–70 of 113 posts
Back to the Altavista days of +search +must +include +plus +signs +"and quotation marks" Seriously, the problem is advanced users get unexpected results with the query expansion and refinement layers they've added on. While dropping obscure words is helpful when grandpa has misformed queries, it's maddening for a technical user looking for a very specific, infrequent keyword. However for grandpa, it's probably a bett…
I've used google since it was google.stanford.edu, and it's clear to me the results have suffered. My feeling is that two of the problems are SEO and feedback effects of google's own popularity. SEO: When you cut through all the BS, the entire goal here is to make a less good match come first. And it works (sorta). Just consider crap sites like Experts Exchange that we've only learned about because they pollute many…
The results from Experts Exchange are typically useful, but you have to scroll all the way down past the ads and other crap to see the actual answers.
In my experience Google has not kept up with the assault of companies trying to beat its algorithms!
I've used google since it was google.stanford.edu, and it's clear to me the results have suffered. My feeling is that two of the problems are SEO and feedback effects of google's own popularity. SEO: When you cut through all the BS, the entire goal here is to make a less good match come first. And it works (sorta). Just consider crap sites like Experts Exchange that we've only learned about because they pollute many…
The results from Experts Exchange are typically useful, but you have to scroll all the way down past the ads and other crap to see the actual answers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The results from Experts Exchange are typically useful, but you have to scroll all the way down past the ads and other crap to see the actual answers.
Last time I checked, EE was hiding all actual answers to visitors. It doesn't really qualify as a useful link, then.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The results from Experts Exchange are typically useful, but you have to scroll all the way down past the ads and other crap to see the actual answers.
Last time I checked, EE was hiding all actual answers to visitors. It doesn't really qualify as a useful link, then.
I've used google since it was google.stanford.edu, and it's clear to me the results have suffered. My feeling is that two of the problems are SEO and feedback effects of google's own popularity. SEO: When you cut through all the BS, the entire goal here is to make a less good match come first. And it works (sorta). Just consider crap sites like Experts Exchange that we've only learned about because they pollute many…
Now, if you want something "quirky", why are you searching for a generic term? What kind of "useful" result do you want from a search on mashed potatoes? If you give them a crappy search query, they should be giving you as generic of results as possible.
One thing I've found is that if you are looking for something specific, don't search for something generic. If you wanted something "quirky", why didn't you do "mashed potatoes quirky"? Then you get a restaurant that features mashed potatoes heavily in their recipes, a carmelized onion mashed potato recipe, a mashed potatoes festival, several more "interesting" recipes, and a book called "Grinning in His Mashed Potatoes".
It sounds to me like the results have improved, not gotten worse, if you aren't getting a poem about mashed potatoes on the first page of search results for just "mashed potatoes".
Yes. One thing I noticed is that searches no longer require that all words in the query be present in the search results. Adding a + before a word is now required to ensure that it's present in results. That frequently results in me having to do 2-3 searches to find something that could previously be found with one.