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

161–170 of 552 posts

Re: Google Memory Loss

#161

Post by derefr »

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…

All this is true, and yet when I use Google Chrome's search autocomplete (which is partly server-side and partly client-side), it will usually fill in exactly the query that will get me what I want (rather than what query I think will get me what I want) before I even start typing it, using some combination of searches I've done before and the indexed text of open Chrome tabs.

Google by itself isn't very good, but Googling from the Google Chrome address bar these days is something else.

Re: Google Memory Loss

#162

Post by dingo_bat »

aglionby wrote: post #69
ohazi wrote: post #17

I've convinced myself that this happens in gmail / hangouts history search too. It'll very confidently tell you that here are the only six results for your search term going back to the beginning of time, but if you go and manually dig up something that you know is there from ten years ago, then all of a sudden there are seven results the next time you search for the same term. I haven't done this methodically, and I…

I've had this for Chrome history as well. There have been multiple times where I'm sure I've browsed a site with some keyword in the title and it just doesn't show up in search. I don't tend to have a clue about the time window it would be in either so I can't go looking for it, so I can't prove it.

Chrome is much better than Edge in this regard. I have a website bookmarked and tagged with a very rare specific word. In edge, typing the keyword will never show up my bookmark. Instead it shows crap from around the world. Firefox and chrome do the right thing, my bookmark is the first suggestion.

Re: Google Memory Loss

#163

Post by userbinator »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #153
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…

It’s a bit funny and sad how Google has both managed to seem overly clever to the point of being clumsily useless, and at the same time, continues to offer the original search experience that people pine for but no one knows or can be bothered with: add “intext:” before keywords and it’s the experience you’re wishing for.

I just tried a few of my old "dry" queries (as in, things I've always wanted to look for but can't seem to get good results) and didn't notice much difference... Furthermore, after a total of 3 "Next Page"'s, I got IP-banned with a CAPTCHA.

I've had similar experiences recently with "site:" and the other colon-operators, so not entirely unexpected, but still immensely infuriating. It's almost like any real attempt to find what you're looking for, if it's rare, will result in punishment. :-(

Re: Google Memory Loss

#164

Post by derefr »

colordrops wrote: post #126
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…

This same AI effect can be seen in the Android keyboard, where _properly_ spelled words will be replaced after typing another word or two because it's been determined to be more likely what you want. It's infuriating.

I don't know; I'm pretty happy that I don't have to type apostrophes any more. I can just go on typing words like "ill" and "wed" and it'll figure out after a few more words that those should be "I'll" and "we'd".

Re: Google Memory Loss

#165

Post by Trufa »

aglionby wrote: post #69
ohazi wrote: post #17

I've convinced myself that this happens in gmail / hangouts history search too. It'll very confidently tell you that here are the only six results for your search term going back to the beginning of time, but if you go and manually dig up something that you know is there from ten years ago, then all of a sudden there are seven results the next time you search for the same term. I haven't done this methodically, and I…

I've had this for Chrome history as well. There have been multiple times where I'm sure I've browsed a site with some keyword in the title and it just doesn't show up in search. I don't tend to have a clue about the time window it would be in either so I can't go looking for it, so I can't prove it.

I'm just glad I'm not the only one!

Re: Google Memory Loss

#166

Post by on_and_off »

bamboozled wrote: post #70
on_and_off wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google also returns the article with this query

That depends, considering search results are usually tailored to suit individuals (if logged in).

True, but it could not return this article for anybody if it was not indexed.

Although it is fair to assume that Tim's blog post and all these new links pointing to the old article have triggered it's reindexation.

It feels a bit like quantum physics, now that the article is out, the state of the web has been observed and has changed.

Re: Google Memory Loss

#167

Post by derefr »

dannyw wrote: post #115
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 incre…

Using the Google of 10-years-ago on the Internet of 10-years-ago, or using the Google of 10-years-ago on the Internet of today? Because I imagine doing the latter would just result in an endless wasteland of SEO-optimized content leadgen pages.

Re: Google Memory Loss

#168

Post by Baeocystin »

colordrops wrote: post #128
nostromo wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Searching using “Verbatim” can be helpful. What’s particularly infuriating is when searching with verbatim still ignores keywords.

I still remember the day that stopped working. I decided that was the day Google died.

Is that when the + command was overridden in search to refer to G+ instead of 'this is a mandatory search item'?

I am still shocked they ever thought that was a good idea, or that surrounding quotes was an acceptable replacement.

Re: Google Memory Loss

#169

Post by sincerely »

fixermark wrote: post #142
sincerely wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that's the case then this seems like a symptom of a problem I've been thinking about for a while...is it safe to build systems where it's impossible for someone to understand how it works? What happens when it breaks down? Who will be responsible?

You just described human society in the large, and the answer appears to be "We muddle on."

I think this phenomenon has become a lot more important in the last few decades...I think it was fully possible for one person to understand how a car worked, how household appliances worked, etc, until quite recently
Post reply on HN