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

Everything that's wrong with Google Search in one image

bitbytebit.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 740 posts

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

#191

Post by stinkbeetle »

rpdillon wrote: post #164
stinkbeetle wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not sure what you are unclear about, but yes I was re-emphasizing my point for you.

There were lots of "differentiators" that did not really matter, including speed. The differentiator was result quality, not how or when they were presented.

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

#192

Post by antisthenes »

FabHK wrote: post #178
stinkbeetle wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My memory says that wasn't such a big selling point. When Google first came out it blew all other search engines away in terms of result quality. If, back then, Yahoo and Altavista were minimalist and Google was a garish nightmare of ads and flashing gifs and nested banners and affiliate buttons, I would still have happily used it for the results. Google's search interface is still reasonably clean IMO. Nowhere near…

Of course it was the quality of the search results thanks to the algorithm (Page Rank) that at the time was unmatched and amazingly resilient, compared to the competition, against the primitive SEO tactics of the day (key word spamming etc.). However, the lean interface without blinkentags and ads was definitely a selling point. Also, IIRC, the guarantee that you'd only get sites that actually contained all the words…

There was a time when google's search web page was under 16kb.

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

#193

Post by AndrewStephens »

People are really starting to notice the sharp decline of Google search. I blogged[0] of a very similar experience a few months ago.

I don't even mind the AI Overview (too much) but the search results themselves are noticeably worse. In my example, the best search result and the one that the AI summary is clearly based on is the 6th ranked result.

Is Google doing this deliberately to make the AI Overview seem better?

In an ideal world, Google would use AI to provide better search results. Something like: "Here are the results for your search term A, which was slightly ambiguous. I suggest added term B or C depending on what you meant". It seems like that is not going to happen.

[0] https://sheep.horse/2025/4/yo_google%2C_thanks_for_the_ai_ov...

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

#194

Post by jsheard »

pitched wrote: post #175
homebrewer wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes it's good to live in a region that no one cares about. I just searched for Firefox in the Android Play Store application, there were no ads, and the first result was Firefox. I also don't get any ads in American and UK podcasts for the same reason (except for those read by the host, but there are few of those and they're easy to ignore).

Podcasts are normally plain mp3 (or similar) files that get downloaded as-is off an rss feed, as far as I understand. I don’t think anyone gets extra ads outside the sponsored/host-read ones.

The big podcast networks like iHeart are able to dynamically splice ads into episodes, so they can be targeted based on geoIP or whatever other signals they have on you.

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

#195

Post by pinkmuffinere »

Liwink wrote: post #184

I remember a company saying its most effective ads were search ads for their own name.. like what midjourney does https://postimg.cc/8JwL9WFx

> I remember a company saying its most effective ads were search ads for their own name

I don't have the full context, but this is almost a tautology. Of course you get the highest click-through-rate and highest conversion for searches that are your own name. You usually also get a relatively cheap bid, because most search engines prefer to prioritize relevant results, and you will be very relevant for your own name. But you would have gotten most of those clicks and conversion _for free_ even if you didn't advertise on your name, because the searcher would see your organic result. Advertising on your own name is defensive, not offensive -- you protect customers that are already yours, you don't get new ones.

source: I run marketing for a small business, we advertise on our own name too, and of course it is also the most effective if you calculate it naively.

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

#196

Post by chaseadam17 »

wk_end wrote: 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.)

When I search it I see the same thing as OP.

Screenshot: https://imgur.com/a/hlF6OoU

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

#197

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

MarsIronPI wrote: post #169
amatecha wrote: post #31

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

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.

Not at the very beginning. But when they first added ads, they were clearly marked in the top with a yellow background (and they didn't take over the whole page), and on the righthand column (and they were clearly marked as sponsored links).

I'd have to dredge it up but someone put up a site that showed the visual changes to ads over the past 15 years, and they've become more and more indistinguishable from organic search results, and they've taken over more of the page.

A great visual history of enshittification, and also how "growth at all costs" capitalism leads to that enshittification. Google was still taking in money hand over fist in the mid 00s when they had a few, clearly marked ads, but capitalism demands the line arcs upwards no matter what.

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

#198

Post by rchaud »

pitched wrote: post #175
homebrewer wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes it's good to live in a region that no one cares about. I just searched for Firefox in the Android Play Store application, there were no ads, and the first result was Firefox. I also don't get any ads in American and UK podcasts for the same reason (except for those read by the host, but there are few of those and they're easy to ignore).

Podcasts are normally plain mp3 (or similar) files that get downloaded as-is off an rss feed, as far as I understand. I don’t think anyone gets extra ads outside the sponsored/host-read ones.

Everyone posts to centralized RSS feeds these days. The company that owns the feed creates duplicates of the uploaded file, inserts ads into them, and serves a version of the file containing ads localized to the downloader's country.

If the same podcast is uploaded to Youtube through the uploader's official channel, it won't contain those ads and you're better off downloading that.

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

#199

Post by neilv »

I just got good first page hits and ranking for a search for "midjourney", but it looks like Midjourney is paying for 2 Sponsored spots on the first page, even though the user searched exactly for Midjourney's well-known brand name.

https://i.imgur.com/u025ZaU.png

On a search for exactly this particular well-known and fairly unique brand name, I think probably midjourney.com should've been the first hit, as a freebie, without needing to buy ads. (Either that, or the second hit, and the Wikipedia entry as the first.)

(Incidentally, it felt a bit retro not to get the usual clutter of AI/infoboxes/etc. at the top of the page this time.)

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

#200

Post by Icathian »

MarsIronPI wrote: post #169
amatecha wrote: post #31

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

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.

Nope. The slope has been slippery, but way back at the top of it there were zero ads on the page.
Post reply on HN