Live data from Hacker News

Everything that's wrong with Google Search in one image

bitbytebit.substack.com

161–170 of 740 posts

Re: Everything that's wrong with Google Search in one image

#161
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Had to dig up this link, 1999 review[0]: "Google (www.google.com) is a pure search engine - no weather, no news feed, no links to sponsors, no ads, no distractions, no portal litter. Nothing but a fast-loading search site. Reward them with a visit." [0] https://i.redd.it/uea6u7c4oje31.jpg

That didn't last long till they added paid results but at least they highlighted the paid results from the organic results... Those were they days when they used to have the motto of not being Evil. Accordingly, now, they are.

Yeah, I remember the long slow fade-out of the colored boxes the ads occupied. They went from like, pastel orange and green boxes, to lighter boxes, to even lighter boxes, to no boxes at all with the word Ad in a little symbol, to the way it is today where you have "Sponsored" on a different line than the ad, and you have to scroll below the fold to even see the first organic result, if there even is one, and only 2-5 organic results are even shown by default. And also of course in the mix, the AI Overview made up from I assume a handful of the spammy results being thrown through the cheapest, smallest model possible and summarized.

Re: Everything that's wrong with Google Search in one image

#162
Hmm I just tried that search and Midjourney's site was at the top.

Regardless, at this point, I consider Google Search "legacy software." I rarely use it anymore. Google's AI mode or ChatGPT Thinking perform much more nuanced searches for me and surface the results I'm looking for much faster.

I used to consider my Google-fu top notch, but even without Google Search "Classic" getting destroyed by SEO spam, it's still more work at the end of the day than AI models. I'm sure spam and irrelevance will be the eventual fate of these AI models too, but for now they're the new Google

Re: Everything that's wrong with Google Search in one image

#163
post #2

I'm not using an ad blocker; when I search for Midjourney on Google the real thing is my first result; I don't even see any sponsored content. Not sure what's happening for OP. (Please don't read this as a defense of Google on the whole.)

> I'm not using an ad blocker How do you tolerate the web without an ad blocker?

by buying everything that appears?

Re: Everything that's wrong with Google Search in one image

#164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speed. Altavista, Dogpile, Metacrawler and the rest were slow, and Google felt instant.

For me at least, it wasn't that either. It was the quality of the results. I would have put up with slow bloated adware Google results of early 2000s, compared to fast minimal sleek interface with results of Yahoo/Altavista/anything else I tried.

Are you just re-emphasizing your point? I was trying to point out another differentiator that many people commented on at the time.

Re: Everything that's wrong with Google Search in one image

#166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speed. Altavista, Dogpile, Metacrawler and the rest were slow, and Google felt instant.

For me at least, it wasn't that either. It was the quality of the results. I would have put up with slow bloated adware Google results of early 2000s, compared to fast minimal sleek interface with results of Yahoo/Altavista/anything else I tried.

The results were good. I remember admitting that for many things I really could have used 'I'm Feeling Lucky' and bypass the SERP entirely, but I disliked relinquishing that much control, so I never made a habit of it. Today I don't think I could trust it much of the time.

Re: Everything that's wrong with Google Search in one image

#167

I'm old enough to remember when a big selling point of Google was that it didn't do this.

I'm old enough to remember when the web didn't exist ... and when I dumped Altavista and Ask Jeeves and co for the cool kids: Google. I'm fucking livid. Well actually: mildly unimpressed. The cool kids rarely last as such and "do no evil" ended up behind a green tent and a single shot was heard. Actually, I am slightly stressed over this whole thing.

Instead of stressing, you could move on to supporting the next cool kids.

Re: Everything that's wrong with Google Search in one image

#168
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they didn't - hence the ads

But like always they didn't stop once they were a bit profitable with a few ads, instead they got greedier and greedier and made their product worse once they captured most of the market, I have wonder if there can exist some variant of capitalism that punishes becoming a bit too greedy, like a soft ceiling (tied to the minimum wage) over which most of the profits go to taxes, and a hard one where all profits over th…

> instead they got greedier and greedier and made their product worse once they captured most of the market

I wouldn't necessarily put it that way because not Google, nor any company, has moral capacity. They don't have souls. What they do have are incentive structures, and those flip when the stock goes public.

Pre-IPO: the board is mostly founders and VCs holding paper wealth. Their shares aren't liquid, so the only way they get paid is by making the pie way bigger for some future exit. That means "grow, grow, grow." and that means playing nice with customers.

Post-IPO: the board is legally stuffed with "independent" directors, whose pay comes in RSUs tied to the stock price. Now the shares are instantly tradable, and shareholders who can bail in a quarter want to see results in a quarter. Directors translate that into exec comp, and suddenly management's job is "make the stock go up right now."

Some theorists point out the obvious hack: take away the hot potato. Slow the game down. Make shares harder to flip, make earnings less frequent. If you could only trade stock once a year, you'd actually care what the company looks like in a year. If they only reported results annually, you'd be forced to think in years, not quarters.

Upside: management can focus on products and customers instead of quarterly guidance theater. Downside: investors hate being locked up, and capital gets more expensive because people price in that illiquidity. Transparency drops, execs get more room to bullshit.

It's a tradeoff: you can have maximum liquidity and hyper-efficient capital markets, but then you get short-term brain damage. Or you can slow the game down, but then you're basically asking people to trust managers more and accept worse capital efficiency.

Nobody;s found the perfect middle yet. LTSE[1] tried, dual-class shares are a kludge, and otherwise we just live with the cycle: grow like crazy private, IPO, then spend the rest of your corporate life addicted to quarterly earnings.

1. https://ltse.com/

Re: Everything that's wrong with Google Search in one image

#169

I'm old enough to remember when a big selling point of Google was that it didn't do this.

Had to dig up this link, 1999 review[0]: "Google (www.google.com) is a pure search engine - no weather, no news feed, no links to sponsors, no ads, no distractions, no portal litter. Nothing but a fast-loading search site. Reward them with a visit." [0] https://i.redd.it/uea6u7c4oje31.jpg

I thought Google always had ads, but at first they were clearly marked and always relevant?

Edit: I stand corrected. Ads were added later, but when first introduced they were clearly marked. I got my history wrong.

Post reply on HN