Live data from Hacker News

How is search so bad? A case study

svilentodorov.xyz

261–270 of 416 posts

Re: How is search so bad? A case study

#261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real reason why search is so bad is that Google is downranking the internet. I should know - I blew the whistle on the whole censorship regime and walked 950 pages to the DOJ and media outlets. --> zachvorhies.com What did I disclose? That Google was using a project called "Machine Learning Faireness" to rerank the entire internet. Part of this beast has to do with a secret Page Rank score that Google's army of w…

Google's search rankings are based on opinions held by other credible sources. This isn't really blowing the whistle when, as you admitted, Google admits this openly. And maybe your site doesn't get ranked well because it's directly tied to project veritas. I don't like being too political, especially on hn and on an account tied to my real identity, but project veritas and it's associates exhibit appalling behavior…

In a political context, "credible" is often a synonym for "agrees with me". Anyone ranking "page quality" should be conscious of and try to avoid that, and yet the word "bias" doesn't even appear in the linked guidelines for Search Quality Raters.

Of course Google's own bias (and involvement in particular political campaigns) is well known, and opposed to Project Veritas, so it's quite possible that you are right and Google is downranking PV.

Would that be good? Well, that's an opinion that depends mostly on the bias of the commentator.

Re: How is search so bad? A case study

#262
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But those pretend complaints aren't his complaints. His complaint is "why does this archived reddit page from six years ago without any updates come up on search results for 'things within the past month'?" Which is... reasonable.

It is reasonable. It is also likely that whatever meta information reddit is sending back (in headers or tags) is probably not dated correctly for the time of the origin post. Google COULD offer more time machine features and perform diffing on pages. But a reddit "page" will always have content changes, as everything is generated from a database and kept fresh on the page. The ONLY metric therefore Google could use…

> It is reasonable. It is also likely that whatever meta information reddit is sending back (in headers or tags) is probably not dated correctly for the time of the origin post.

That could explain the first screenshot, but definitely not the second, where google has it tagged as years old.

Re: How is search so bad? A case study

#263
post #238
post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Despite the fact that I've had around 50 interviews and countless articles written about my disclosure, my website zachvorhies.com doesn't show up on Google's search index, even when using the exact url as a query! I am not sure what is happening but I directly searched for your website : zachvorhies.com on Google (in Australia, if that matters), which returned the website as the first result: https://i.imgur.com/Z…

[removed, for some reason I thought australia was part of the EU. I'm in the US, also did not see the site link through google]

I think the only time Australia has been part of some sort of European organization or group is when Australia competed in the Eurovision.

Anyhow, I would be interested to know what results you get in the EU.

Re: How is search so bad? A case study

#264
post #233

What was the query the author used? Did he try something like this " https://www.google.com/search?sitesearch=reddit.com&q=best+p...

Watch out with doing more complicated searches like extending those to a date range - they get people “banned” from using google search.

Even browsing beyond the first few pages of results can end you up having to play with captchas.

Also it's funny how they lie about having about a quadrillion results, and then when you're on page 12, suddenly that's all the 150 results they have, sorry.

Re: How is search so bad? A case study

#265
post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does for me. USA. [0] https://i.imgur.com/S2rPywz.png Also, is this guy a Q follower or something? The favicon is a Q.

I would think the quotes would make a difference. I was not using quotes, does using quotes in the US still return the website? I would use a VPN and test it out but I am at work right now.

Not using quotes, the first result I get is his twitter account, and the second is a link to a Project Veritas piece about this document leak he describes. Hardly seems like he's getting buried.

Re: How is search so bad? A case study

#266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

everyone knows the best way to search reddit is via google. The search engine bar in reddit is for optics only.

But does anyone know why search on Reddit is broken? Perhaps intentionally? I don't want to get tin foil hatty but perhaps more not readily apparent false positives = more user clicks = more revenue via ad serving?

Simple: because Google has a ton more data on what content is relevant on Reddit than Reddit itself does.

Re: How is search so bad? A case study

#267
How is search so bad?

My broad take is that previously search worked (Altavista era through early-mid Google) because it referenced organic links put in place by real humans and keywords, plus basic metadata like physical location of servers, freshness of content, frequency of update, metadata behind domains, etc.

Since the mid 1990s that has increasingly been gamed heavily, PageRank style approaches have come and sort of gone, and a vast majority of content accessed by consumers has moved to one of a small number of platforms or walled gardens, often mobile applications. I don't know for sure, but I'd assume with confidence that the majority of result inclusion decisions made by Google are now based on rejection blacklists, 'known good' safe hits and effectively minimizing anomalous results above the fold. Simultaneously, the internet has become an international place and the bar has been raised for new entrants such that an incapacity to return meaningful results in multiple languages bars a search engine from any significant market position. A huge percentage of results are either Wikipedia/reference pages, local news or Q&A sites. Further, huge amounts of what is out there is behind Cloudflare or similar firewalls which will probably frustrate new and emerging spiders.

The existing monopolies, having some established capacity and reputation in this regard, may have become somewhat entrenched and lazy, and do not care enough about improvement. They are literally able to sail happily on market inertia, while generating ridiculous advertising revenues. In China we have Baidu, and in most rest of the world, Google.

Who will bring about a new search engine? Greg Lindahl https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=greglindahl who formerly made Blekko is apparently working on another one.

I once wrote a small one (~2001) which was based upon the concept of multilingual semantic indices (a sort of non-rigorously obtained language-neutral epistemology was the core database). I still think this would be a meaningful approach to follow, since so much is lost in translation, particularly around current events. One problem with evolving public utilities in this area are that such approaches border on open source intelligence (OSI) and most people with linguistic or computational chops in that area leave academia and get eaten up by the military industrial complex or Google.

Now we have https://commoncrawl.org/the-data/get-started/ which makes reasonable quality sample crawl data super-available. Now "all" we need is people to hack on algorithms and a means to commercialize them as alternatives to the status quo.

Re: How is search so bad? A case study

#268

I have been thinking about the same problem since a few weeks. The real problem with search engines is the fact that so many websites have hacked SEO that there is no meritocracy left. Results are not sorted based on relevance or quality but by SEO experts' efforts at making the search results favor themselves. I can possibly not find anything deep enough about any topic by searching on Google anymore. It's just surf…

[deleted]

Re: How is search so bad? A case study

#269
post #222

I have been thinking about the same problem since a few weeks. The real problem with search engines is the fact that so many websites have hacked SEO that there is no meritocracy left. Results are not sorted based on relevance or quality but by SEO experts' efforts at making the search results favor themselves. I can possibly not find anything deep enough about any topic by searching on Google anymore. It's just surf…

> I can possibly not find anything deep enough about any topic by searching on Google anymore. > It kills my curiosity and intent with fake knowledge and bad experience. I need something better. It's hard for me to take this seriously when wikipedia exists, and almost always ranks very highly in search results for searches for "knowledge topics". Between wikipedia and sources cited on wikipedia, I find the depth of a…

[deleted]

Re: How is search so bad? A case study

#270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do your colleagues get to decide what is fact and what is fiction? It's our right, as humans, to be able to make that decision on our own after we encounter information. If Wikipedia gains a reputation for libel, then the onus should be on the public to stop trusting them. Google does not have the moral authority to censor the internet, and it's absolutely wrong for them to attempt this. Information should be fre…

They don't get to decide any such thing, and in fact, can't. Google (fortunately for all of us) doesn't run the Internet. They do run a popular search page, and have to decide what to do with a search like "Is the Earth flat?". Personally, I would prefer they prominently display a "no". Others would disagree, but a search engine is curation by definition, that's what makes it useful.

You would, and fortunately Google agrees with you, but imagine for a moment that they didn’t. 90% if the internet would suddenly see a ’yes’ to that answer, even if 99% of websites disagree.
Post reply on HN