291–300 of 433 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, give me a downvote button on Google results.
The lack of an ability to vote on search results seems like a baffling omission. Normally Google loves to crowdsource their work, but for this one area where we would actually want it, they decide that they know better when they clearly don't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be abused into the ground by the same people who set up these scam sites in the first place. For most things on the internet, the crappiness of the average person is the limiting factor.
What if they took only votes from people that pay and have account for X time? Also what’s the problem with adding revert per user? With some events architekture it should be trivial. They could even train AI on this data to automatically sugest suspects.
Sure it is worse for us but it is so much better for them. And it will get even worse since revenue growth has to go from somewhere.
And it will take decades for some other company to displace Google.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't design this UX, so can't be certain of the designer's intent. However, more charitable interpretations could be: 1. perhaps the user has accidentally chosen the wrong category? 2. perhaps the product they're looking for is miscategorised? (I've definitely seen these.)
But then tell me loud and clear that you did it . If WalterBright didn't see it it probably wasn't loud and clear enough.
I don't often come to Amazon's defence, but here it's IMO a bit of a stretch to infer malicious intent.
Let me search what I want to search the way pagerank trained me to. Keywords over sentences.
But if you want to start pushing in that direction why not just add a "you may find better results when phrased as" section which these models appear to be preferential towards.
From the examples, ngrok for example, search didn't even care to include the keyword in all searches, even if the page is more "popular" the fact you'd (and I have repeatedly had to) quote the term to insist it be included is nuts for a search engine.
Finding obscure bug solutions was already barely possible, but has become impossible when even explicit error messages are "interpreted" to 'why won't do ' on StackOverflow because it noticed that the program uses the same library and has had some searches with the same process name in the error line.
With sincere respect to the author, I stopped reading the article. Even though I found the topic interesting and am definitely inclined to believe that Google's search results are declining in quality, I felt that the search terms and criticisms were distractingly unfair. If someone were evaluating hammers and handed a bunch of hammers to beginners and judged the hammers by those results, I'd tune out there, too, for…
But I agree with you that the example search strings seems somewhat fabricated or at least especially selected to produce bad results. In my experience the best way to get good results is to use as little relevant search strings as possible. "databricks series b" has the right answer at position 1.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really. In these areas there's a general principle that the moment you start using a signal to enforce on bad actors that signal's value decays. It's sad, I actually think web3 could help curb abuse at scale by making it too expensive to scale horizontally. Imagine paying a "stamp" to send an email on the blockchain, spam email would dramatically drop. Maybe similar mechanics could be in play for other things but…
What is web3? What exactly is it? And how could it be used in this case?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be abused into the ground by the same people who set up these scam sites in the first place. For most things on the internet, the crappiness of the average person is the limiting factor.
What if they took only votes from people that pay and have account for X time? Also what’s the problem with adding revert per user? With some events architekture it should be trivial. They could even train AI on this data to automatically sugest suspects.
If you spend 5 minutes on it, can you think of a way? If you can, congratulations, now imagine millions of other people thought about the same tricks and you get the reason why Google can't ever really win against SEO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The lack of an ability to vote on search results seems like a baffling omission. Normally Google loves to crowdsource their work, but for this one area where we would actually want it, they decide that they know better when they clearly don't.
It's a huge vector for abuse. The signal:noise ratio wouldn't improve at all.
I’m also skeptical that all of Google’s enormous investment in ML and staffing is completely powerless to identify bad actors with atypical usage patterns. What seems far more plausible is that they’ve decided it isn’t costing them more in ad sales than it brings in. There are individual domains which would improve results by being blocked but they also pay for search ads so … unsolved grand challenge of computer science it is!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, give me a downvote button on Google results.
The lack of an ability to vote on search results seems like a baffling omission. Normally Google loves to crowdsource their work, but for this one area where we would actually want it, they decide that they know better when they clearly don't.
Having that explicit button might not really add any additional value.