I totally read that as "Is AI a solution in search of a problem?" at first, but I guess that summarises the article pretty well too.
Is AI the solution to search's problem?
21–30 of 39 posts
Re: Is AI the solution to search's problem?
#22Maybe I’m an outliner. But I’m not buying it. To me, it misses to analyze and address a fundamental problem of why google “got so bad”. I believe this is mainly a problem of the top 5%. There is reason why google presents their results like they do. It’s not like they’re a bunch of idiots not knowing their craft. Yes, for those of use around the internet since 1996, the results got worse. But since then the entire po…
I'm not buying this explanation. Google isn't delivering information based on what's relevant to users, Google is funneling you into their business: to funnel you into someone else's business. And they're doing it not by being very useful, but by being the default you reach for on every product you buy. To set up your life to not use google is a big hassle, I can safely say this because I've done it. This is not simp…
This is mainly an effect of Google being such a dominant player though. The sort of search results that are dominating Google is essentially a sort of local minimum in the fitness function.
It's pretty easy to create an search engine that outperforms google in dealing with SEO by valuing different things than Google. But as long as you have a system with a strong monopoly in search directing a huge swath of web traffic, there will be a sort of evolutionary pressure in the direction of what we're seeing on Google.
It's not a function of the sort of search enginge Google is, but its market position, and the fact that there is a metric shit-ton of money to be made in successfully adapting to its algorithms.
Re: Is AI the solution to search's problem?
#23Maybe I’m an outliner. But I’m not buying it. To me, it misses to analyze and address a fundamental problem of why google “got so bad”. I believe this is mainly a problem of the top 5%. There is reason why google presents their results like they do. It’s not like they’re a bunch of idiots not knowing their craft. Yes, for those of use around the internet since 1996, the results got worse. But since then the entire po…
Agree. But not sure what you mean by the "top 5%". Google have deliberately stopped trying to provide an index of the web. They now focus solely on revenue (advertising) maximization. A search will show paid sites, then popular sites, up to a few pages, and that's it. For example, search for "brioche buns" - you can't convince me that there are only 420 pages in the entire www that refer to "brioche buns" :(
Sorry I was not more precise. I meant the top 5% of internet users. The most experienced / most demanding users.
Re: Is AI the solution to search's problem?
#24Honestly, 'google has gotten so bad', it is just a meme.
It is just not true.
Use any of the competing search engines for even a day and you'll come running back to Google. Believe me, I tried it. I really wanted to switch to Bing or the Duck, but they just don't compare. If the search results of Google are not to your liking it is because search is hard. Also login, if you are a super user, Google will catch on to this as well.
Re: Is AI the solution to search's problem?
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not buying this explanation. Google isn't delivering information based on what's relevant to users, Google is funneling you into their business: to funnel you into someone else's business. And they're doing it not by being very useful, but by being the default you reach for on every product you buy. To set up your life to not use google is a big hassle, I can safely say this because I've done it. This is not simp…
This is mainly an effect of Google being such a dominant player though. The sort of search results that are dominating Google is essentially a sort of local minimum in the fitness function. It's pretty easy to create an search engine that outperforms google in dealing with SEO by valuing different things than Google. But as long as you have a system with a strong monopoly in search directing a huge swath of web traff…
But this doesn't negate what I've said. Google no longer cares what results appear in front of you below the ads, unless those results are verboten topics, in which case they're hidden.
I use Marginalia reasonably often and quite like it BTW. It's a good tool. But there's a reason most of the popular alternatives to google are metasearch engines, it's because outperforming google is hard. So google threw in the towel, gave up competing on quality and now simply buys their way into every web connected product as the default interface to information to ensure hegemony. Marginalia succeeds at sifting through the SEO for the reasons you said, but then comes the problem of actual search, and even with Google being the big gas giant attracting all the garbage, nobody competes with peak google in quality, for a variety of reasons.
Re: Is AI the solution to search's problem?
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is mainly an effect of Google being such a dominant player though. The sort of search results that are dominating Google is essentially a sort of local minimum in the fitness function. It's pretty easy to create an search engine that outperforms google in dealing with SEO by valuing different things than Google. But as long as you have a system with a strong monopoly in search directing a huge swath of web traff…
But this doesn't negate what I've said. Google no longer cares what results appear in front of you below the ads, unless those results are verboten topics, in which case they're hidden. I use Marginalia reasonably often and quite like it BTW. It's a good tool. But there's a reason most of the popular alternatives to google are metasearch engines, it's because outperforming google is hard. So google threw in the towel…
There is an aspect of cannibalization, Google can't really grow much more than they already have in the search niche and most other things they've tried (cloud, streaming video, social media, shopping, music) has competent competitors. The only way to present black numbers to the investors is to essentially milk the cow harder in a way that makes their offering worse.
I do agree that what has allowed Google to stick around is indeed that they're very well rounded. There are many competitors that do one or a few things better, but there isn't really a compelling replacement.
My point though is that most of Google's problems with "SEO" stem from their monopolistic position in the market. Their search engine is essentially a firehose of cash flowing into whatever ranks well. This creates a sort of dynamic where what ranks well gets more money, and is able to proliferate; and what ranks poorly dies off. This is essentially an evolutionary process. What is perceived as adversarial SEO is essentially Google's own shadow. It takes that shape it does because of the things they value.
Search engine spam is not just a flaw in Google's algorithms, it is a consequence of their position in the market.
Whatever replaces google, whether it's some sort of AI or Marginalia Search (not very likely) will have exactly the same problem as long as it exerts the same dominance over the web's traffic.
Re: Is AI the solution to search's problem?
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree. But not sure what you mean by the "top 5%". Google have deliberately stopped trying to provide an index of the web. They now focus solely on revenue (advertising) maximization. A search will show paid sites, then popular sites, up to a few pages, and that's it. For example, search for "brioche buns" - you can't convince me that there are only 420 pages in the entire www that refer to "brioche buns" :(
>About 11,300,000 results I get a lot more than 400.
[deleted]
Re: Is AI the solution to search's problem?
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree. But not sure what you mean by the "top 5%". Google have deliberately stopped trying to provide an index of the web. They now focus solely on revenue (advertising) maximization. A search will show paid sites, then popular sites, up to a few pages, and that's it. For example, search for "brioche buns" - you can't convince me that there are only 420 pages in the entire www that refer to "brioche buns" :(
>About 11,300,000 results I get a lot more than 400.
Those results aren’t real. If you actually try to retrieve them, you will find out that Google stops delivering unique results after a few pages. (Other search engines are the same in this respect.)
Re: Is AI the solution to search's problem?
#29Honestly, 'google has gotten so bad', it is just a meme. It is just not true. Use any of the competing search engines for even a day and you'll come running back to Google. Believe me, I tried it. I really wanted to switch to Bing or the Duck, but they just don't compare. If the search results of Google are not to your liking it is because search is hard. Also login, if you are a super user, Google will catch on to t…
I think the key is appending the word 'reddit' at the end of every search. Come to think of it, this feels like the precursor to ChatGPT since ChatGPT often feels like it responds with a Reddit comment that has been awarded and voted to the top anyway.
Re: Is AI the solution to search's problem?
#30Honestly, 'google has gotten so bad', it is just a meme. It is just not true. Use any of the competing search engines for even a day and you'll come running back to Google. Believe me, I tried it. I really wanted to switch to Bing or the Duck, but they just don't compare. If the search results of Google are not to your liking it is because search is hard. Also login, if you are a super user, Google will catch on to t…
Since we’re sharing anecdata, here’s mine: Kagi delivers better results than Google for my daily programming-related queries and I haven’t looked back since switching 6 months ago.