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

Google 2000 vs. Google 2011

mattcutts.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 65 posts

Re: Google 2000 vs. Google 2011

#21

Post by alexbosworth »

I think it's about content: Google has transformed the webs' spam gardens by promoting crap sites.

Because Google pushed low substance sites high in their search results, this created a vicious cycle where sites were rewarded for creating mass volumes of inane 'content', which has now become a huge percentage of the web

Google isn't just an observer to the system, search results impact the ecosystem as a whole. A complicated environment is something that is challenging to test and to predict, although that is what Google internally is geared for.

Personally I'm also annoyed by Google's Adsense policies that emphasize inane content: (They without warning blocked me for a post of a painting that included a nude figure).

Re: Google 2000 vs. Google 2011

#22

Post by Someone »

blehn wrote: post #19
redstripe wrote: post #13

I think Groucho Marx could sum up this article as "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?" I didn't keep a record of my searches from 2000, but I do remember that I was extremely impressed and satisfied with google back then. That is no longer the case. I am frustrated on daily basis by the results of many searches. It's not really your fault though. I blame it on mono culture. Google has such a huge hold…

I think what Matt is trying to say is that your memory of what Google was like in 2000 could be inaccurate. So he's demonstrating what Google was actually like in 2000. Of course you were impressed and satisfied with Google back then — it was so much better than the alternatives. I'm sure you would have been just as (perhaps more) satisfied if 2011 Google existed in 2000. We've had 11 years to pinpoint the deficienci…

A reason could be that it would slow down searches too much. Firstly, all your searches would have to hit a server storing your blacklist. Secondly, it makes caching results of popular queries neigh impossible. Finally, some people will build blacklists so large and convoluted that the top hit on some of their searches would only be on Google's page 20.

Re: Google 2000 vs. Google 2011

#23

Post by vaporstun »

While I also agree that Google's search results have gotten better, I just feel (this is very subjective of course) that they should be far better today than they currently are. I don't think they're leaps and bounds better and I think they should be.

I'm not one to constantly point to yesteryear and claim they were better but I do look at where they are today and think they should be further along than they are.

I guess when I look at certain segments of technology in 2000, some other companies have stayed more focused on their primary goal and have made phenomenal achievements since then. For example, OS X wasn't released to consumers until 2001 and the iPod didn't exist. Yet look where we are today. I have an iPhone in my pocket with incredible computing power, a very good refined interface, and a fantastic OS. Apple has stayed very focused on OS and consumer device design and pushed the field forward very far, with everyone else scrambling to catch up. This is their main business, and while they have other side projects (like the AppleTV) they stay focused on their main thing which is making great devices for consumers.

While Google, whose primary business was search+, now operates in many different business segments. Their focus has widened greatly and now they have email, payment processing, online document editing, 2 operating systems, automated cars, and the list goes on and on. Now, I have great love for many of these products and services so I do not suggest that it was a bad idea for them to do them, but I think it is apparent that search has suffered as a consequence.

Had Google stayed more focused on search instead of all these side businesses, search could be far more developed than it currently is today. I think they got complacent while being on top and tried to find other places to allocate their resources. Which, from a business perspective, I understand, but from a search perspective it seems tragic.

Therein lies my disappointment with Google, not that they haven't been innovating or improving search, they have. But they have spent so much time and resources on other things that search is not as far along as it should be.

+ Certainly it could be argued that their primary business is and always has been advertising and search is just one of the many vehicles for pushing said advertising, but the word Google is now synonymous with search and, marketing speak aside, I consider it their primary focus.

Re: Google 2000 vs. Google 2011

#24

Post by blehn »

Someone wrote: post #22
blehn wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what Matt is trying to say is that your memory of what Google was like in 2000 could be inaccurate. So he's demonstrating what Google was actually like in 2000. Of course you were impressed and satisfied with Google back then — it was so much better than the alternatives. I'm sure you would have been just as (perhaps more) satisfied if 2011 Google existed in 2000. We've had 11 years to pinpoint the deficienci…

A reason could be that it would slow down searches too much. Firstly, all your searches would have to hit a server storing your blacklist. Secondly, it makes caching results of popular queries neigh impossible. Finally, some people will build blacklists so large and convoluted that the top hit on some of their searches would only be on Google's page 20.

Aha, good explanation, thanks. I still have to think with all of Google's brainpower, they could figure something out. They already allow "starred" results, which I presume would function somewhat similarly to a blacklist from a technical standpoint (just showing instead of hiding).

Re: Google 2000 vs. Google 2011

#25

Post by sahaj »

oyving wrote: post #2

It would be interesting if they set up a Google Retro and let people try and compare the old search and see if they still think it is an improvement over the newer systems.

it would be mostly useless. the content today on the web is very different from the content even a couple of years ago.

Re: Google 2000 vs. Google 2011

#26

Post by rapind »

nhebb wrote: post #16
tomwalsham wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the issue here is that for you the correct results set would be reputable domain name providers, whereas for many other people, the howto articles are in fact what they're looking for. Without having personal search switched on, they need to hedge their bets. (note: not having tried it I don't know how effective the personalized search is) In general these populist algorithms may tend to skew the results agai…

for many other people, the howto articles are in fact what they're looking for. That's a fair point, but one of the top 6 when I searched was from fourhourworkweek.com, so a whole other level of bias set in on my part. :) We've just forgotten how bad it was I still remember wanting to go to hotbot.com and accidentally typing hotbox.com. In a room full of people. So, some of my memories of early engine use are actuall…

Try misspelling a few other well known domains. That tactic is still in full force. I.e. http://goggle.com/ (hint: this is not google, so fill it in at your own risk).

Re: Google 2000 vs. Google 2011

#27

Post by redstripe »

cryptoz wrote: post #14
redstripe wrote: post #13

I think Groucho Marx could sum up this article as "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?" I didn't keep a record of my searches from 2000, but I do remember that I was extremely impressed and satisfied with google back then. That is no longer the case. I am frustrated on daily basis by the results of many searches. It's not really your fault though. I blame it on mono culture. Google has such a huge hold…

> I am frustrated on daily basis by the results of many searches. I have some speculation on this. Are you sure that your frustration comes from unusually poor results? Could it be that we're so used to things being perfect now, that a page of mediocre results looks like the end of the world? Look at 2000. No Shazam. If you heard a song on the radio, that was the end of the story. There were some services you could c…

Yes you can probably whip out the Louis CK. I'll admit that part of it is acclimatization. I've come to expect good results all the time.

That doesn't detract from the fact that results are bad for many searches and that the google monoculture has thwarted it earlier success. I'm absolutely sure that my satisfaction with their product has declined. I know I look forward to a better search engine than google. In 2000 google was the better search engine.

Re: Google 2000 vs. Google 2011

#28

Post by numbchuckskills »

I'm baffled by the # of comments suggesting human intervention in search results.

20-25% of searches in a day have never been seen before. It can be easy to under-estimate the complexity of organizing the world's information when it's already done so well.

Re: Google 2000 vs. Google 2011

#29

Post by citricsquid »

tibbon wrote: post #12

I don't get people who say Google is getting worse myself. If any of you know search engine building so well and aren't working for another search engine (like DuckDuckGo) why not take your expertise to Google and help fix the problem?

FYI DDG just uses the bing API and then does some fancy stuff on top of it, so technically they're not a "better search engine" they're just a prettier bing.

Re: Google 2000 vs. Google 2011

#30

Post by epi0Bauqu »

citricsquid wrote: post #29
tibbon wrote: post #12

I don't get people who say Google is getting worse myself. If any of you know search engine building so well and aren't working for another search engine (like DuckDuckGo) why not take your expertise to Google and help fix the problem?

FYI DDG just uses the bing API and then does some fancy stuff on top of it, so technically they're not a "better search engine" they're just a prettier bing.

FYI: no, actually we are a hybrid search eninge. We have our own crawling and indexing that is merged with about 15 external APIs.
Post reply on HN