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

Google Memory Loss

tbray.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 552 posts

Re: Google Memory Loss

#111

Post by lloeki »

amerine wrote: post #103
smoyer wrote: post #89

I've done essentially the opposite ... I use DuckDuckGo as my everyday search engine and only use Google when there's not an acceptable result there. Over the last couple of years, the number of times per week that I switch to Google has probably halved.

This is basically my exact experience. Once a long time ago I made DDG my default browser and it stuck. I really like using “!g” to switch quickly to google. If my search bar DDG search doesn’t return satisfactory results, I hit my address/search bar key (cmd+l for me), press left arrow/start-of-line key, type “!g “ and hit return. That gives me a google result page quicker than the time it would take to reach the mo…

Tip: while in your case you still have to type something to get rid of the selection, you don't have to put !g at the beginning, anywhere in the query will do. I mostly put it at the end.

Re: Google Memory Loss

#112

Post by 534b44a »

smoyer wrote: post #89

I've done essentially the opposite ... I use DuckDuckGo as my everyday search engine and only use Google when there's not an acceptable result there. Over the last couple of years, the number of times per week that I switch to Google has probably halved.

I used to do just that, but then I found myself always appending !g to the queries.

Re: Google Memory Loss

#113

Post by philipov »

Declanomous wrote: post #101
userbinator wrote: post #93

I've noticed this many times too, particularly recently, and I call it "Google Alzheimer's" --- what was once a very powerful search engine that could give you thousands (yes, I've tried exhausting its result pages many times, and used to have much success finding the perfect site many dozens of pages deep in the results) of pages containing nothing but the exact words and phrase you search for has seemingly degraded…

> has seemingly degraded into an approximation of a search engine that has knowledge of only very superficial information, will try to rewrite your queries and omit words (including the very word that makes all the difference...) I think the biggest irony is that the web allows for more adoption of long-tail movements than ever before, and Google has gotten significantly worse at turning these up. I assume this has s…

It doesn't help that it seems every other project out there is trying to name itself after common words in the lexicon. I dare you to try finding information on the Box library.

Re: Google Memory Loss

#114

Post by fallous »

I'm afraid the author has it wrong when he claims what Google cares about is "It cares about giv­ing you great an­swers to the ques­tions that mat­ter to you right now." It cares about making money via ad revenue. Even assuming that it gives you "great answers to questions that matter to you right now", it only cares about doing so if that results in making money via ad revenue. The result set is a means to an end, not the end itself. If more money can be made via ad revenue by providing some other result set, that is what it will become the preferred method.

Google is not a search business despite opinions to the contrary. A search business would have as its main source of revenue customers paying for either search results or the search technology itself. Google makes its money via the delivery of ads, through its own advertising sales and placement platforms and through the audience it can provide from its own content.

Re: Google Memory Loss

#115

Post by dannyw »

userbinator wrote: post #93

I've noticed this many times too, particularly recently, and I call it "Google Alzheimer's" --- what was once a very powerful search engine that could give you thousands (yes, I've tried exhausting its result pages many times, and used to have much success finding the perfect site many dozens of pages deep in the results) of pages containing nothing but the exact words and phrase you search for has seemingly degraded…

I'm glad I'm not alone in thinking this way. I wish I could use the Google of 10 years ago. Pre-personalization, pre-deep-learning RankBrain, just the reliable and consistent search engine where complex queries will return the result I want, if it is there.

Today, if I'm searching for something unpopular or specific, I usually get frustrated. You would expect the opposite to happen as the size of the web should increase over time.

Re: Google Memory Loss

#117

Post by snowwrestler »

I wouldn't be surprised if this issue is as mysterious to Google staff as it is to you.

Google Search no longer runs a clearly defined algorithm to find search results. It is a collection of AI systems that are trained continuously on a variety of data. There is probably no human alive who fully understands how Google makes decisions about which results to return and how to rank them. They just understand how to provide feedback to adjust results they don't like.

If the system gets rewarded for finding common things quickly, then it will adjust its internal algorithms to make that happen--perhaps even if that means dropping unpopular results altogether.

Re: Google Memory Loss

#118

Post by hasenj »

timbray wrote: post #74

[Tim here] Folks might notice that the article is once again find-able. Being 2 links from the top of Hacker News will do that…

It could be that "the last time someone linked to this page" timestamp contributes to the page's rank. If no one linked to a page in a very long time, Google will probably consider it _less relevant_.

Re: Google Memory Loss

#119

Post by Mystrl »

philipov wrote: post #113
Declanomous wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> has seemingly degraded into an approximation of a search engine that has knowledge of only very superficial information, will try to rewrite your queries and omit words (including the very word that makes all the difference...) I think the biggest irony is that the web allows for more adoption of long-tail movements than ever before, and Google has gotten significantly worse at turning these up. I assume this has s…

It doesn't help that it seems every other project out there is trying to name itself after common words in the lexicon. I dare you to try finding information on the Box library.

https://ccse.lbl.gov/BoxLib/

Is it this thing at the very top of the search results?

Re: Google Memory Loss

#120

Post by fixermark »

"[Up­date: Now you can, be­cause this piece went a lit­tle vi­ral. But you sure couldn’t ear­li­er in the day]"

And that's kind of the point, right? Beyond a certain threshold of popularity, some things aren't always available from every search query, because a distributed system can't have 100% uptime, consistency, and tolerance to network partitioning.

Post reply on HN