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

Ask HN: Has Google search become quantitatively worse?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 515 posts

Re: Ask HN: Has Google search become quantitatively worse?

#251

Post by jdgoesmarching »

zinxq wrote: post #171

There's a whole class of searches that no longer have value because of SEO. Try "best exercise bike" or anything that can be similarly monetized and you will of course end up at a well-crafted page designed to monetize you. My deepest apologies for saying this, but for any type of query that has a monetization angle, I now add "site:www.reddit.com" to the query to find actual discussion about it. Normal Reddit discla…

I use this so often that I have it bound to a keyboard text replacement on all my devices. Recently Google has started inserting non-reddit posts to the top of my results even when I include this. Weirdly I’d be less upset if they were ads, but they aren’t. Just some articles that Google thought I wanted to see more than the website I specified.

It’s infuriating.

Re: Ask HN: Has Google search become quantitatively worse?

#252

Post by throwawayboise »

majkinetor wrote: post #159
micromacrofoot wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a reply to myself... but does anyone have ideas about how this can go away? Have we lost the internet to eternal marketing and data-mining arms races? Is this why people are flocking to search-opaque places like Discord? Sometimes I feel like that internet isn't for me anymore, and that's a little distressing.

We need a new protocol that will not allow that, such as gemini, which is not that good IMO and severely limited (you can't even add pics ffs). And of course, new search engine, something distributed and in the GNU domain.

You can link to images in gemtext. It's up to the browser whether to display them inline.

Re: Ask HN: Has Google search become quantitatively worse?

#254

Post by throwawayboise »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #126
micromacrofoot wrote: post #26

It feels like the algorithm (combined with the SEO/marketing industry) has effectively nuked discussions from organic results. Based on the search box suggestions I get, it seems many people work around this by appending reddit to their searches. If I search for "warmest winter coat" it's a bunch of untrustworthy content marketing until you try something like "warmest winter coat reddit" Unfortunately I prefer to avo…

This is a reply to myself... but does anyone have ideas about how this can go away? Have we lost the internet to eternal marketing and data-mining arms races? Is this why people are flocking to search-opaque places like Discord? Sometimes I feel like that internet isn't for me anymore, and that's a little distressing.

Yeah the internet has been turned into cable TV. You're paying for access, but the objective of 90% of the content is to get you to watch ads.

Re: Ask HN: Has Google search become quantitatively worse?

#255

Post by elliekelly »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #126
micromacrofoot wrote: post #26

It feels like the algorithm (combined with the SEO/marketing industry) has effectively nuked discussions from organic results. Based on the search box suggestions I get, it seems many people work around this by appending reddit to their searches. If I search for "warmest winter coat" it's a bunch of untrustworthy content marketing until you try something like "warmest winter coat reddit" Unfortunately I prefer to avo…

This is a reply to myself... but does anyone have ideas about how this can go away? Have we lost the internet to eternal marketing and data-mining arms races? Is this why people are flocking to search-opaque places like Discord? Sometimes I feel like that internet isn't for me anymore, and that's a little distressing.

The more I think about it the more I just don’t think it’s possible to have an internet that is supported by ad-revenue and isn’t user-hostile. The incentives are diametrically opposed.

We need a PBS/NPR of search engines.

Re: Ask HN: Has Google search become quantitatively worse?

#256

Post by nlstitch »

I indeed had some troubles today actually. We're finally moving from JDK7 to 8 and I was searching for recommended JVM settings.. but I only got old results and those results where biased on old info and their old presumptions. ( e.g. people meanwhile found stuff out so its good to have more relevant info on those findings, let alone newer patch versions can fix things that where broken previously)

Adding "last year" to the filters didnt help either; I just got general docs from Oracle, but no developer blogs with best practices, benchmarks or experiences from fellow devs.

Re: Ask HN: Has Google search become quantitatively worse?

#257

Post by willhinsa »

Reuzel wrote: post #180
wffurr wrote: post #43

The topic here says "quantitatively". Does anyone have any actual statistics or quantitative data on the quality of Google search results? All of these threads devolve into anecdotes and reminisces about the "good old days" and complaining about Pinterest. None of which is in the least quantitative. I'd be interested to see some actual data or research on the subject, if it exists. Or maybe it's not Google that's got…

> Does anyone have any actual statistics or quantitative data on the quality of Google search results? Google has. They use this data expertly to improve search. Common sense and technological advancement tells us that, quantitatively, Google search has become better year over year, for all their relevant metrics/cost functions. And likely, exactly because it has become better for all its users in aggregate, it has t…

> Common sense and technological advancement tells us that, quantitatively, Google search has become better year over year, for all their relevant metrics/cost functions.

lmfao. so you're telling me "quantitatively" that google search results have gotten better, without citing any data at all, but with an appeal to common sense and "technological advancement"?

what if i told you that search is an adversarial problem, and that it's possible for google's tech to be getting better slower than the aggregate tech power used to game google search is getting better? is this not a patently obvious possibility? it's not some kind of gotcha impossibility for google's tech to get much worse over time, even if they weren't hamstringing themselves by lots and lots of user-hostile changes which benefit google's interests rather than their users.

Re: Ask HN: Has Google search become quantitatively worse?

#258

Post by nafizh »

vgeek wrote: post #9

The results keep getting "refined" so as to suit the popular 80% of queries, while getting much worse for any technical or obscure queries. Forced synonyms and "people also searched for" are typically useless and almost infuriating. Once you get off the first or second page, the results get even worse-- with pages entirely unrelated to the query (e.g. not even containing the searched phrases). They are probably testi…

For what it’s worth, I have been using the new you.com headed by Richard Socher as my search engine for the last 2 weeks. The condensed search results with sections from reddit, wikipedia, stack overflow or arxiv is really great. It’s really suited for technical users.

Re: Ask HN: Has Google search become quantitatively worse?

#260

Post by kawfey »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #26

It feels like the algorithm (combined with the SEO/marketing industry) has effectively nuked discussions from organic results. Based on the search box suggestions I get, it seems many people work around this by appending reddit to their searches. If I search for "warmest winter coat" it's a bunch of untrustworthy content marketing until you try something like "warmest winter coat reddit" Unfortunately I prefer to avo…

Gotta use "site:reddit.com"

If I'm asking google or DDG for advice on a product, it's either going to be a reddit or Wirecutter for me. 99% of results on "best *" results in _*literally hundreds*_ of domains like "best*for2021.com" "buybest*.com" "top10*reviews.com" that are all generated by bots containing only the worst knockoff / counterfeit / Chinesium products and tons and tons of Amazon affiliate links.

E.g. I was trying to remember the name of a top-of-the-line soldering station brand (Metcal) I used back in college, so I kept trying permutations of "best professional soldering rework station" on google [0] and DDG [1]but it only comes up with low-end Chinese stations, a few mentions of Weller and Hakko, but no impartial reviewers, no forums or blogs, no discussions...nothing leading to Metcal.

Then I searched "best professional soldering rework station site:reddit.com" [2], I clocked the first 3 links, scrolled, and found Metcal on the second hit. [3]

I was surprised to see Wirecutter did a review [4], and arguably the Hakko FX-888D is the best soldering station ever made (and the X-Tronic is a fine budget runner-up) for *_MOST_* people, but it's still not a Metcal (the thermal capacity and regulation of their iron tips is just unparalleled even with nice Wellers and Hakkos - you can really feel the difference when working with THICC power ground planes and RF connectors).

[0] https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=best%20soldering%20rew...

[1] https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=best+soldering+rework+stati...

[2] https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=best+professional+soldering...

[3] https://www.reddit.com/r/electronics/comments/2c4hnl/best_so...

[4] https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-soldering-ir...

Post reply on HN