Live data from Hacker News

Google Instant Search Released

google.com

211–220 of 227 posts

Re: Google Instant Search Released

#211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i did, and i thought about your objection, but then i thought, nobody is trying to rank for online deg yet... what if they did?

for example, just type 'degree ' (make sure there's a space - you get results for "degree symbol" (or at least I do) - now all i have to do is rank for "degree symbol" and put links to my online degree affiliate links... there are certainly keyword results that are a) in autocomplete, b) substrings of keyword results also in autocomplete, c) easier to rank for than the longer phrase.

I think topic-modeling (a la the Latent Dirichlet Allocation article posted about seomoz the other day) will make this difficult to do (at least without confusing the people you want to convert).

Re: Google Instant Search Released

#212
post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or was called SearchWiki. It turned out that nobody liked or used it, so it was removed.

I liked the small satisfaction I got from 'X'-ing out spammy sites!

I believe it only had an effect on your personal view of Google. Otherwise, it would have been abused by competitors and 'SEO experts'.

Re: Google Instant Search Released

#213

Try typing 'F#', the instant results are irrelevant to F# the language (probably due to the # symbol), but when you click search they become relevant. I would prefer it to be consistent :)

This happens because the "instant" search results are basically precomputed search results of the "first suggestion".

When you type "F#" google search is actually suggesting you "f to c" and the results is displayed accordingly.

It seems that google is not simply executing the partial search as you type (it would be too expensive even for them)

See http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1674707

Re: Google Instant Search Released

#214
post #109
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You basically have to press enter if you want to search for a term with possible pornographic, violent or hateful content (that’s what they just said in their Q&A). That seems like a sensible solution to me. Safe Search doesn’t figure into it.

They probably do something like: if a search term returns a high density of SafeSearch-flagged top results, then don't autocomplete.

and if it doesn't autocomplete in the plain old search suggestions feature, then it will not appear in the instant results, because these are precomputed results for queries that are generated by the suggestion engine.

Re: Google Instant Search Released

#215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> every key press invokes hundreds of remote machines, Not really. Apparently Google has an improved cache system for the most common keywords. The pre-computed results come from just one machine.

Not really. Personalization, location, etc. affect a lot. I can't find the page I was reading, but it appears that in just running through all the first letters and seeing what is suggested (a is for...) some users are seeing personalized results. And if personalizations are showing up right from character 1, caching results can't really play a big role. Not at the user level anyways; results can certainly be cached…

The fact that you see location and personalization affects the search result doesn't actually mean that they perform a real search using the query that you are actually writing in your search bar.

One possible way (I'm not sure exactly how it works at google, but I can guess) is that the search result is computed in many steps, one of which searches the indices and generates a list of relevant results, which then are passed to a personalization layer which modifies (reorders, merges, trims) the index results and finally it's passed to a presentation layer which renders the html page (perhaps there are other layers too, irrelevant for this discussion).

So, the "instant" search would basically replace first layer, the actual search in the big indices with a precomputed search list for each phrase generated by search suggestions (or a cache of these, which is filled by actual searches if the element is not present). The personalization layer would be free to do things to that precomputed search results, incurring into smaller load because of several reasons: a) fewer users have personalization and on fewer b) personalization has to access less data, and the whole search retrieve functionality is more IO bound than cpu bound.

As for location, there could be one of these 'caches' per location.

I'm sure that they don't do any query "as you type" because the 'instant' page result is always the result of the first "search suggestion". Try to type "F#" (as user 'singular' suggested), the first suggestion is "f to c", and the search results are about temperature conversion.

Re: Google Instant Search Released

#216
post #83

Speaking from a UI standpoint, I find the leap of the bar from the middle to the top of the screen to be very disorienting. I know that the middle-of-the-page input field is a real visual trademark for Google, but if they want to push this feature, they might have to move the box up to where it is currently leaping.

I would prefer it if, when Google is in "instant" mode, the search bar is automatically on the top. Either that, or perhaps the search could just be shown at the bottom.

That said, the "jump" to the top is enough for me to disable the instant search. I've wanted to go back to it because it seems like a great idea, but that teleport to the top keeps confusing me, and those seconds of re-orientation negate the enhancements they intended to provide. This is my opinion based on my experience with it so far, of course.

Re: Google Instant Search Released

#218
post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Experiments have shown that 100 Ms is the threshold.

I think speed beyond a point doesn't add much to the experience. One would spend at least 2-5 seconds to check out the results and minutes to find the right article, few milliseconds would not matter. Instead if they return 'good results' in 1000 milliseconds also I would continue to use them.

If you examine the empirical evidence this is patently false. Milliseconds, on average, on the whole, in the long run, at scale, however you want to phrase it, do matter.

Re: Google Instant Search Released

#219
post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do wish there was a human curated search engine. Eg everytime you search for something and you find a useless spam site, you can flag it and then it's removed from the search. I'm sure something like that must exist already - does anyone know?

blekko lets you slash out individual sites from the search results. The exclusion just applies to you so spammers can't downvote reasonable sites. Has been popular to eliminate ehow.com from results. ehow isn't enough over the line for us to ban from the crawl entirely, but a lot of people don't ever want to see them in their results. we're still in private beta, but happy to give invites to anyone here who wants one…

Do you have a predefined list of 'These are SEO sites which add no real value' sites which I can include by default?

Re: Google Instant Search Released

#220

This doesn't work at all for me in Opera. Has anyone else had success in Opera? edit: Apparently Opera is not among the browsers listed here: http://www.google.com/instant/

It does work, you just need to mask as Firefox: http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/2010/09/08/google-instant
Post reply on HN