Google is not suffering from memory loss, it's getting smarter day by day, The old school methods of expecting exact keywords are not going to work. This will eventually come down to context – knowing what you like, where you are and what you tend to search for.
Google Memory Loss
421–430 of 552 posts
Re: Google Memory Loss
#422Slightly off topic; Not on the Results Accuracy for a minutes. Obviously, indexing the whole Web is crushingly expensive, and getting more so every day Why? CPU, Memory, SSD has all gotten a lot faster and bigger. Bandwidth is also a lot cheaper for Google since they essentially owns the fibre. Faster Algorithm may have an even bigger impact. I would have thought information, in terms of text ( Not Video a…
Developers say this type of shit all the time and people wonder why we don't have fast software.
Re: Google Memory Loss
#423Earlier quoted context omitted.
Something tells me the solution of removing "bad" pages isn't as trivial as you seem to imply it is here...
The important point is that it's orthogonal to search. You can make SEO-penalization as complicated as you want without affecting search. The only thing search should be able to deal with is a SEO-penalty which is just a number.
Is your point that SEO-penalization is just a sorting implementation concern? I think Google does far more than that - perhaps removing/banning sites or categories of content that are deemed to be gaming their system.
Re: Google Memory Loss
#424Earlier quoted context omitted.
The good thing is SEO optimized content is relatively trivial to distinguish from the snippet, and other search engines like DuckDuckGo feel far more reliable and consistent without being overrun by SEO junk. You do have a point however.
Not really, not for most people, especially for farm sites like eHow. If you ask how to make a tequila, you'd get an SEO-optimized eHow site instead of say, an authoritative page of the world's top tequila expert. If DDG was so good, people wouldn't need to use !g for tail queries so much. Too much anecdotal claims every time these issues come up and no objective quality evaluation.
I'd venture that most people are happy with the eHow results. Those wanting more depth may have to look through 1-2 pages of results, but I don't think most people want/need "tequila expert" level depth when searching for that. I'm not saying this is correct or "desirable," just saying that's one justifiable explanation for this behavior.
Re: Google Memory Loss
#425Yeah, while most of the time modern Google has an awesome capability of understanding what you are searching for, sometimes it feels like a chat bot which didn't fully get what you said to it. It seems to understand some part of what you are asking for but miserably fails to answer the complete question (in some cases) :D
Re: Google Memory Loss
#426Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me it's obviously speed. Reducing the search space or cache or however you want to define it is the best way to increase speed. When milliseconds count that's important.
This is sad because humans are much much slower than computers and even 1 whole second is nothing to us. At least I am quite willing for Google to take a second or more to give me more thorough results. A query that takes 900 milliseconds is better than the same one taking 150 milliseconds but returning poorer results. The additional 750 milliseconds are virtually unnoticeable in human time and a small sacrifice to m…
2 seconds is a human patience threshold. Google aims for 500ms (750ms is very noticeable).
https://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2016/02/how-slow-is-too-slo...
Re: Google Memory Loss
#427Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if what you're seeing is a result of the Internet growing, not specifically Google degrading. Which is to say, as the indexable dataset grows, you'd expect the individual indices to turn up more and more heterogeneous results over time.
It could be the internet (content) growing, or it could be the search engine changing, but to me, the most salient change over 20 years is the internet user base changing. At the risk of sounding elitist, the users of the internet have become a lot dumber on average. Search engines therefore grew dumber relative to the one that was tuned to people who were early adopters and used the tool for more productive purposes…
With respect: yes, that does sound elitist. I would avoid assuming early use cases were more productive than subsequent average use cases (for one thing, it risks defining "productive" as "stuff I like to do," not via some more objective metric like "revenue generated," "human needs satisfied," or "questions answered").
Re: Google Memory Loss
#428Not later than yesterday, hearing about Dolores from the Cranberries, it reminded me of Amy Mac Donald (whose voice I find similar) hit "This is the life" from ten years ago. In this song it mentioned official lyrics "Talking about Robert Ragger and his 1 leg crew". Being of curious nature I searched for the reference ("Robert Ragger") to know who is this Robert Ragger (and who is this 1 leg crew) . Bing got it immediately. Google 1st result is a self referencing forum from 2009 telling there are plenty of result and you just have to google it : https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/talking-about-robert...
For those who don't do the search. (It's officially misspelled and instead referring Robert Riger, an art photographer, (hence the one leg crew :) ))
Re: Google Memory Loss
#429I loved AltaVista. It didn't provide the cleverness of Google; you had to bring your own. I'd construct searches of the pattern:
(word OR word) AND (word NEAR word)
and get excellent results. Of course, the Web was much smaller then.
Re: Google Memory Loss
#430But, by posting this article you will probably have ruined your own evidence. :-D
"Nice try!" :D