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

Google is FUBAR

extremetech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 278 posts

Re: Google is FUBAR

#111

Post by DanBC »

freehunter wrote: post #77
chintan wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For the majority of users Can I have an independent "authoritative" search engine and "cool" social networking tool. You both have Ad platforms on your respective platforms to "promote" products. Thank you. Disclaimer: A singleton instance of an average user

>Can I have an independent "authoritative" search engine and "cool" social networking tool. Yes, you can. But Google wants to make search better. There's no denying it's gotten worse as time goes on (and SEO gets better). The only thing to do next is to understand what you're looking for by understanding you. "I don't want relevant search results, I just want relevant search results!" This is the problem Google faces…

But I don't want relevant search results. I want accurate search results. I hate being limited by the bubble; I hate having to cut away rubbish related to what a search engine thinks I want.

Re: Google is FUBAR

#112

Post by api »

There are "wheels of reincarnation" in computing: http://www.retrologic.com/jargon/W/wheel-of-reincarnation.ht...

One of these is the PC/mainframe decentralization/centralization cycle. Right now we're completing as swing back from decentralized PCs to centralized mainframes, except now the latter is called "cloud" and "software as a service."

I think it's time for the pendulum to start swinging the other way.

What we need are software platforms for large-scale, secure, reliable decentralized computing over wide area networks. Then we need to use these to enable decentralized meshed Facebook, Google, etc. competitors.

Re: Google is FUBAR

#113

Post by SomeOtherGuy »

mkr-hn wrote: post #52
atomicdog wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It just occurred to me a main reason they chose "Don't be evil" as their slogan. The foundation of the company is a slippery slope They came up with the "don't be evil" thing when they were young idealistic hipsters who just wanted to be different from the suit-wearing status quo. They had no idea of how big they would eventually become so it had nothing to do with reminding them of the "slipperly slope". The moment…

You've taken a nuanced interpretation and condensed it down into a generic, obvious, and uninteresting soundbite.

>into a generic, obvious, and uninteresting soundbite

You forgot "accurate".

Re: Google is FUBAR

#114

Post by fred_nada »

smspence wrote: post #101
manish_gill wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Today it just picks whatever it believes is what you are searching for and wont budge. This is especially annoying when you are just starting out on a search of a topic you know nothing about and need a random factor to get going. Preciously the reason why I've started using DuckDuckGo as my primary search engine. In my experience, it almost always provides unbiased results.

Could you give a specific example of a search that you've done on Google that gives you bad results? And that would give you better "unbiased" results on DuckDuckGo? I would like to try and do a side-by-side comparison. Also, what do you mean by "unbiased"? What is the "bias" that Google has? I am trying to find real, concrete examples of all of the complaints in this thead, and I can't really find any.

search nfc championship game in google. In my results MG Seigler's g+ account is ranked #5. Above the nfl, nytimes, espn, etc. It is a G+ post where he says "going to the nfc championship game with Sarah Lacy" - Keep in mind, I am not friends with him nor is he in my circles, etc. So instead of getting an article from a sports news outlet about the post I get a MG Seigler status update.

http://duckduckgo.com/?q=nfc+championship+game http://www.bing.com/search?q=nfc+championship+game&go=&#...

Re: Google is FUBAR

#115

Post by 5l »

joebadmo wrote: post #85
5l wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it interesting that a motto so straight forward a child could understand now requires knowledge of the context and history in which it was coined in order to interpret it correctly. From the Wikipedia article[0]: Buchheit, the creator of Gmail, said he "wanted something that, once you put it in there, would be hard to take out," adding that the slogan was "also a bit of a jab at a lot of the other companies, e…

Unfortunately, things like privacy policies and appropriate use of personal information aren't as straightforward, even for children. "Theoretically, there's no difference between theory and practice," right? Also, if you think the concept of evil is easy or straightforward, well, let's just say I'm a proponent of a broad liberal arts education.

Nobody coerced them into any of this. The founders of Google can steer their company in all sorts of directions.

If they choose to take their company to a place where they can no longer easily discern 'evil' from 'not evil', then I think it's fair to say that they're not adhering to the spirit of their motto.

To be honest, my main concern is that they seem to be driven primarily by commercial considerations in dealing with Facebook, rather than serving their users best interests. That, more than the specifics of what they're doing, is what really worries me.

Re: Google is FUBAR

#116

Post by tonfa »

victork2 wrote: post #42
Karunamon wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What makes me mad is that we don't have the choice. If you don't like the social results in your SERP, you realize it's a one click button to turn it off, right? Or were you talking about the +1? Nobody forces you to click on it. I don't get the rage. Google owns a multitude of different sites. Being able to sign into all of them at once is a godsend as far as I'm concerned. So much misplaced anger here..

Au contraire I don't have any anger. If their choice is to sacrifice relevancy for their other social services or they social bullshit, it is fine with me, I am not a fan of Google brand, just a user and I will take my business elsewhere. To tell you where the problems come from in my opinion: _ Everything is opt-out, not opt-in. After I realize than I am very pro-choice in term of user experience. _ The +1 thingy is…

> in the long term it will probably have a bad influence on how people receive and perceive information.

I would expect people doing web ranking in a search engine company to be aware of the "online filter bubble" phenomena. So in the longer term I hope it would be a signal used in ranking among many other (and see no reason why it couldn't be that way).

Re: Google is FUBAR

#118

Post by tonfa »

dereferenced2 wrote: post #74
cdh wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because you've logged out of a site doesn't necessarily mean the cookies have been deleted. Google can still track you just as effectively until you've cleared your cookies. In fact, if they store IP address and useragent information, they could continue tracking you even afterwards. Now, I don't know that they do that, but they certainly have the technical means to do so.

Pretty sure they do. Watch this ted talk about filter bubbling from last year: http://www.thefilterbubble.com/ted-talk He mentions they use ~30 points of info to identify you, even if you're logged out.

From the talk:

> Even if you're logged out, one engineer told me, there are 57 signals that Google looks at -- everything from what kind of computer you're on to what kind of browser you're using to where you're located -- that it uses to personally tailor your query results.

He says they are signals used during ranking, not something to identify people.

Re: Google is FUBAR

#119

Post by EGreg »

I remember when Facebook introduced the newsfeed, everyone was up in arms.

But this is more like when Facebook saw Twitter's growth numbers and got scared and decided to be more like it. So a private social network became more public and everyone (including Google) could link to it now.

It's a sad day when a company abandones what it has come to represent, and becomes something else.

But then again, if you want to use your own stuff, it's always there. You can always host your own applications! Wordpress instead of blogger. Your own email. This has always been possible.

Relying on centralized authorities you have to accept that this might happen.

Re: Google is FUBAR

#120

Post by bambax »

smspence wrote: post #64
bambax wrote: post #12

> Nothing happens on an Apple device without Cupertino’s knowledge, and as a result Apple can perfectly tailor its devices for it users (and ratchet up record-breaking quarterly earnings in the process). Are Apple's devices "perfectly tailored for it[s] users"? I don't see any of that tailoring when I use them. The reason why Apple ratchets up record-breaking earnings is that they build things people want; they build…

"Google is playing with fire... If they break search, they will die." Please explain how they might "break search". I keep seeing comments on HN about how Google is messing up search, and also G+ is ruining peoples' lives somehow. I have seen Google do absolutely nothing that you can't opt out of, or just plain ignore. For example, I technically have a G+ account, but I never ever click on G+ and I never actually see…

This article by Farhad Manjoo from Slate says better than I could why SPYW is silly and bad:

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2012/01/...

The best part:

Yet even the examples that Google employees have been showing off don’t seem very useful to me. On his blog, Matt Cutts, who heads Google’s Webspam team, points out how his query for general tso’s chicken is improved by social links. He follows Jennifer 8. Lee, the author of a book about Chinese restaurants, on Google+. When he searches for general tso’s, he gets a link to Lee’s definitive Quora post on the history of the dish. If you don’t follow Lee and you do the same search, you won’t get that post.

But I don’t see the logic here. Isn’t the Quora post a good result for general tso’s chicken whether or not you’re friends with Lee? And the reason it’s a good result is that she’s an expert on the topic, not that she’s your friend or colleague. If Lee’s post isn’t coming up for all Google searchers—rather than just the ones who are perceptive enough to follow her—it would seem to suggest something is amiss with Google’s algorithm. You shouldn’t have to friend a plumber in order to find a good link about unclogging your toilet.

It's probably true that you can "opt out", sort of; I don't have an account with G+ (probably never will), but I use Gmail.

If Google searches start to feature prominently links to content published by my regular email correspondents, then that will break search for me.

Post reply on HN