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

Paul Graham, the Commons, and How Google Stopped Being Google

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 104 posts

Re: Paul Graham, the Commons, and How Google Stopped Being Google

#11

Post by falling »

vibrunazo wrote: post #7
bambax wrote: post #4

The author is prompt to admit that this is pure speculation on his part, and so we don't know how and why Google became what it is; but I find his explanation very convincing. Serving personalized results to users may increase click-through rates but it degrades the idea we form of what Google is and what it does.

> Serving personalized results to users may increase click-through rates but it degrades the idea we form of what Google is and what it does. If it serves me better results, then how so?

Here’s how: http://dontbubble.us

I always thought that search personalization was of course better, until that page made me think about the downsides.

Re: Paul Graham, the Commons, and How Google Stopped Being Google

#12

Post by stanleydrew »

indiecore wrote: post #5
bambax wrote: post #4

The author is prompt to admit that this is pure speculation on his part, and so we don't know how and why Google became what it is; but I find his explanation very convincing. Serving personalized results to users may increase click-through rates but it degrades the idea we form of what Google is and what it does.

The problem of course is that what Google actually IS and what people THINK Google is are two completely different things. Google is an ad company, always remember that.

Google is not an ad company. People just like to say that because they think it's clever or surprising or something. Google does not produce ads. They sell ad space. So does Facebook. So does NBC. These are product companies selling ad space.

Re: Paul Graham, the Commons, and How Google Stopped Being Google

#13

Post by eli_gottlieb »

vibrunazo wrote: post #7
bambax wrote: post #4

The author is prompt to admit that this is pure speculation on his part, and so we don't know how and why Google became what it is; but I find his explanation very convincing. Serving personalized results to users may increase click-through rates but it degrades the idea we form of what Google is and what it does.

> Serving personalized results to users may increase click-through rates but it degrades the idea we form of what Google is and what it does. If it serves me better results, then how so?

Who says it serves you better results? If I type in "tea", am I searching for Tealuxe in Harvard Square or am I searching for the botanical and scientific material on a common drink or am I searching for recipes? The new "social+local" Google biases my results towards the former.

A search engine used to be a tool for reaching out into the world and finding something new. Now it searches through what I already know? What's the point in that?

Re: Paul Graham, the Commons, and How Google Stopped Being Google

#14

Post by robrenaud »

> It isn't that anymore, though. Searches are geospecific and social network-dependent. All of which is fine and useful, but that's not what made us love Google's search engine.

What makes you love Google is Google giving you the right answer.

If you live in the US, do a google search for dmv.

Did it pull the one from your state?

Do you really want an averaged across all searchers answer? California is probably the state the generates the most Google searches for dmv, but the California DMV is likely relevant iff you are in California.

This idea of one best search page for one query, independent of any other factors based on the user or users geography is really overly romantic and simplicistic.

On the other hand, the filter bubble stuff is a nice narrative, but it mostly makes for an interesting story rather than real problem. Having worked on search personalization at Google about 5 years ago, it's just hard to make that big impact on search results with personalization. "dmv" is a nice example where it's works brilliantly, but those ambiguous queries are pretty rare, and hence the more bread and butter stuff is still really driving most of the quality.

Re: Paul Graham, the Commons, and How Google Stopped Being Google

#17

Post by drhayes9 »

robrenaud wrote: post #14

> It isn't that anymore, though. Searches are geospecific and social network-dependent. All of which is fine and useful, but that's not what made us love Google's search engine. What makes you love Google is Google giving you the right answer. If you live in the US, do a google search for dmv. Did it pull the one from your state? Do you really want an averaged across all searchers answer? California is probably the s…

A little off-topic, but...

Why is this getting down-voted? Is it because you disagree with what this person is saying? I thought down-votes were only for things that didn't contribute to the conversation.

It feels like this is getting down-voted because people don't like that Google is doing these things. So, this person is getting down-voted 'cuz of Google? Huh?

Re: Paul Graham, the Commons, and How Google Stopped Being Google

#18

Post by brudgers »

bambax wrote: post #6
brudgers wrote: post #3

> "They make changes to the user interface and collect more data, analyzing what they've got to see what users "liked" more." I find this so utterly naive that I am incredulous. Google is a business. They don't tweek results based in favor of user preferences. They tweek results based on the amount of revenue they are likely to bring in. It's not an accident that [in the US] http://www.google.com/search?q=weather pro…

Either you didn't read the article or you didn't understand it. The author doesn't complain that Google search results aren't "the best possible for the most people"-- au contraire ! He complains they're not the same , that if you search from a given location or being in a given demographic you will get different results than other people, and that this fact erodes the trust users have in Google: how do I know if thi…

It isn't showing you what it thinks you will like at all.

It is showing you the most amount of pertinent advertising that it thinks you will tolerate while promoting sites containing similar advertising as high up the page rank as it thinks you will tolerate.

All those links to your G+ friends are promoted to keep you on Google's properties where they can make the most money when you click on an advertising link - think of Google like a DisneyWorld's Magic Kingdom and G+ like Downtown Disney.

Re: Paul Graham, the Commons, and How Google Stopped Being Google

#19

Post by brudgers »

bambax wrote: post #9
indiecore wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem of course is that what Google actually IS and what people THINK Google is are two completely different things. Google is an ad company, always remember that.

The argument that "it's a business" is weak and not very helpful. Google makes its money from advertising, but in order for it to place ads it needs to serve relevant results; serving "tailored" results because they generate more clicks is short-sighted (well, that's the argument anyway). If people become so distrustful of Google that they stop using it, and use a combination of DDG or Wolfram Alpha for example, then…

>"in order for it to place ads it needs to serve relevant results;"

or Google could serve ads by developing a suite of web apps, or a mobile operating system, or a even a social networking site.

Google could even serve ads on other people's websites when people visit those websites without going through their search service.

Re: Paul Graham, the Commons, and How Google Stopped Being Google

#20

Post by joering2 »

drhayes9 wrote: post #17
robrenaud wrote: post #14

> It isn't that anymore, though. Searches are geospecific and social network-dependent. All of which is fine and useful, but that's not what made us love Google's search engine. What makes you love Google is Google giving you the right answer. If you live in the US, do a google search for dmv. Did it pull the one from your state? Do you really want an averaged across all searchers answer? California is probably the s…

A little off-topic, but... Why is this getting down-voted? Is it because you disagree with what this person is saying? I thought down-votes were only for things that didn't contribute to the conversation. It feels like this is getting down-voted because people don't like that Google is doing these things. So, this person is getting down-voted 'cuz of Google? Huh?

> I thought down-votes were only for things that didn't contribute to the conversation.

yeah, well.. you need to see my posts on Apple threads.

Post reply on HN