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

It seems that Google is forgetting the old web

stop.zona-m.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 311 posts

Re: It seems that Google is forgetting the old web

#171

Post by arbol »

JohnFen wrote: post #156
Liquix wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotally and perhaps unrelated - has anyone else noticed a decrease in the accuracy and general quality of Google search over the past 2-4 months? They've had to have been utilizing ML to 'improve' searches for some time now, but the quality of the results has decreased suddenly and inexplicably (for me).

> Anecdotally and perhaps unrelated - has anyone else noticed a decrease in the accuracy and general quality of Google search over the past 2-4 months Yes. Not just over the past 2-4 months, but over the past five years or so. It's become so bad that Google is no longer the most useful search engine for me.

What would you recommend instead?

Re: It seems that Google is forgetting the old web

#172

Post by a1369209993 »

sitkack wrote: post #141
Liquix wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotally and perhaps unrelated - has anyone else noticed a decrease in the accuracy and general quality of Google search over the past 2-4 months? They've had to have been utilizing ML to 'improve' searches for some time now, but the quality of the results has decreased suddenly and inexplicably (for me).

2-4 months? Try at least a year. Google search results are now that creamy scum that floats between an industrial wasteland and the tidal flats it was built upon during the changing of the tides.

Upwards of five years, actually. It was already declining when they decided to fuck the +WORD operator for their Facebook ripoff.

Re: It seems that Google is forgetting the old web

#173

Post by awj »

revvx wrote: post #166
kickscondor wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I disagree. (Though I think your record of things is correct!) Certainly if you look at this as a bot war then Google's actions make sense: we need our bots to outsmart the 'bots' (human bots even!) that are writing blogs. But look at it another way: you have lots of humans writing - and it's all of varying quality. Why not let the humans decide what's good? The early Web was curated by humans, who kept directo…

I agree with you. Maybe the problem is that PageRank (or whatever they call it these days) has run its course. I mean, it supposed to gauge "what humans think is good", but it's failing miserably. It's indeed time for a more curated, artisanal, web.

PageRank is predicated on an assumption that most pages (and thus, most links) are created/curated by humans. This was true when it was invented, but appears to be less likely now.

What gives me pause here is all the anecdotes in this thread about other engines getting results right. If the real answer is "PageRank has been successfully flooded by bots", then everyone would have bad results.

What I suspect, off nearly no evidence, is that Google is using ad tracking to inform a notion of search relevancy. My nearly unjustified belief is that that system is the one being flooded by bots.

Re: It seems that Google is forgetting the old web

#174

Post by revvx »

identity-haver wrote: post #123
Liquix wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotally and perhaps unrelated - has anyone else noticed a decrease in the accuracy and general quality of Google search over the past 2-4 months? They've had to have been utilizing ML to 'improve' searches for some time now, but the quality of the results has decreased suddenly and inexplicably (for me).

About 2-3 months ago they basically nuked Youtube's search and recommendation. This was associated with some bad press about those features coming up with "harmful content" like unapproved radical politics & conspiracy theories. Now you basically see mostly curated front-page stuff plus some user stuff that had probably never come up in search before (e.g. a fairly common search term will come up with videos that are…

IMO, Youtube changed for the better. It used to focus on controversial and current, now it focus on curated and evergreen content. Exactly the kind of thing people in this thread are missing from Google Search.

Maybe some similar change is coming to Search.

Re: It seems that Google is forgetting the old web

#175

Post by Funes- »

marttt wrote: post #49
kickscondor wrote: post #17

While it's become impossible to browse the wider Web with Google, it's getting a bit easier elsewhere. A few helpful search engines: * https://millionshort.com/ * https://wiby.me/ * https://pinboard.in/search/ A recent movement to build personal Yahoo!-style directories: * https://href.cool/ (my own project) * https://indieseek.xyz/ * https://districts.neocities.org/ * https://the.dailywebthing.com/ The above resourc…

There's also Kenneth Goldsmith's UbuWeb, a curated directory of (hard or impossible-to-find) avant-garde art, music, writing, video. Launched in 1996. http://ubu.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UbuWeb

This one's great. I've lost count of how many films I've watched that I would have never found otherwise.

Here's another big art repository:

https://monoskop.org/Monoskop

And a very well-documented collection (a "wiki") of paintings, also non-profit:

https://wikiart.org

Re: It seems that Google is forgetting the old web

#176

Post by therein »

JohnFen wrote: post #156
Liquix wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotally and perhaps unrelated - has anyone else noticed a decrease in the accuracy and general quality of Google search over the past 2-4 months? They've had to have been utilizing ML to 'improve' searches for some time now, but the quality of the results has decreased suddenly and inexplicably (for me).

> Anecdotally and perhaps unrelated - has anyone else noticed a decrease in the accuracy and general quality of Google search over the past 2-4 months Yes. Not just over the past 2-4 months, but over the past five years or so. It's become so bad that Google is no longer the most useful search engine for me.

It all started going downhill since Google's "Hummingbird" switch to be honest. Interviewing for Google, I actually brought this up with an engineer in the search team during the lunch.

He said they haven't noticed any regressions. I said I figured that would be the case but I can definitely feel the difference as a daily user.

Re: It seems that Google is forgetting the old web

#177

Post by behringer »

Liquix wrote: post #164
lnanek2 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe bad organic results lead to more ad clicks.

Most definitely. But the folk at Google are very smart, very rich, and already run the most lucrative ad platform in the world. Wouldn't hamstringing their flagship product for the sake of a few extra $B/yr harm them in the long run as more and more users switch to other search engines? They had to have considered that and made the change anyway. What's the endgame? I don't feel it's more ad clicks.

What makes you think they wouldn't? Everything else google seems to do is in the interest of short term profits. Look at all the great products they've shut down simply because they weren't all that profitable.

It's my opinion that a large portion of the websites on the front page of any search (quora and pinboard anyone) are completely bought and paid for.

Re: It seems that Google is forgetting the old web

#178

Post by typon »

puzzle wrote: post #165
typon wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Make it opt-in. Instead of requiring every search to be finished in less than 0.5 seconds, allow users to tick a box that says "Take your time" and pull indices from slow storage in that case. If I know I want something niche, I am willing to wait the extra few seconds or even a minute.

Behind the scenes, a search on Google involves at least a thousand machines. How much extra state (internal connections, memory for partial results, etc.) would such a new search type create? How do you deal with a new kind of hot spots now? What if millions of people suddenly activate such an option? What if a botnet does it?

All good points :)

Re: It seems that Google is forgetting the old web

#179

Post by therein »

a1369209993 wrote: post #172
sitkack wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2-4 months? Try at least a year. Google search results are now that creamy scum that floats between an industrial wasteland and the tidal flats it was built upon during the changing of the tides.

Upwards of five years, actually. It was already declining when they decided to fuck the +WORD operator for their Facebook ripoff.

So you're also saying ever since Hummingbird [0], Google search hasn't been the same.

I agree.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Hummingbird

Re: It seems that Google is forgetting the old web

#180

Post by behringer »

asark wrote: post #93
founderling wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is an example: http://www.gnoosic.com/discussion/metallica__5.html No matter how you search for the content on Google, nothing comes up: https://www.google.com/search?q="Metallica+only+played+2+son... DuckDuckGo has it: https://duckduckgo.com/?q="Metallica+only+played+2+songs+fro... I checked the wayback machine and the content has constantly been on that url for over 10 years. This is the first example of an ol…

I've had this problem recently. I can craft a search for something just slightly obscure and specific that should, nonetheless, have had plenty of hits on the "old web", let alone now on the many-times-larger web. But "no pages found". Loosen up the search and it's nothing but Google-friendly blogspam that isn't remotely related to what I'm trying to find. I call bullshit.

Loosen it up? You mean google didn't automatically remove your keywords for you?
Post reply on HN