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

Why Google is so unbearable, and how to fix it

ixns.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–437 of 437 posts

Re: Why Google is so unbearable, and how to fix it

#431

Post by s__s »

Schroedingersat wrote: post #412
s__s wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By hyper local I mean something relevant to a small geographic region like a city or state. To be clear, that aspect was mostly tangential to my point. I think the point is Google is really bad at understanding web apps, online services, or really any site that isn’t information rich. The majority of web apps for example only really need a landing page and a sign up form. But if that’s all you have Google’s algorithm…

> I think the point is Google is really bad at understanding web apps, online services, or really any site that isn’t information rich. You keep using that phrase, but it doesn't select for information richness, it selects for verbiage. This is at best orthogonal and more usually opposed to information richness.

Verbiage is the result of bad copy writing and/or lazy keyword stuffing. I don’t think they select for or reward verbiage, but for sure they’re not doing enough to treat it as a negative signal.

Re: Why Google is so unbearable, and how to fix it

#432

Post by mecha_ghidorah »

DharmaPolice wrote: post #321
makecheck wrote: post #138

Well whether you add “site:.edu” or not, Google still does the thing where they just spit out a pile of extra “matches” that don’t contain your search phrase AT ALL . Just thrown into the list, as if they have any business being there (oh wait, they do have business: Google’s business). Frankly, if it’s not reliable as a tool, it has no real value and I can’t believe it has come to this. Imagine if every time you ran…

Unfortunately the fuzzy search thing is in a kind of feedback loop in terms of user expectation. Because of Google users are used to typing the wrong thing and getting the right answer. If I search for "how old is Roger Redford" Google tells me that Robert Redford was born in 1936 (it doesn't even display the "Did you mean...?" correction). And to be fair, in 99% of cases the person probably did mean Robert Redford.…

The loss of "Did you mean..." is painful. I think that little button effectively meaning "I MEANT WHAT I SAID" is great for the general use case of typos and foggy memory, and not having it is such a loss of usability

Re: Why Google is so unbearable, and how to fix it

#433

Post by martimarkov »

benstrumental wrote: post #232
martimarkov wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's google's personalisation. I like freaking ppl out when I just ask them to google a famous politician's name and compare the results. Some times they get similar results on WiFi and very different on mobile data afterwards. Bringing awareness

Any idea why this happens? I don't understand why WiFi vs. mobile data would impact how they want to personalize the results.

Because of IP correlation AFAIK. But tbh not quite sure it's just something I've noticed.

Re: Why Google is so unbearable, and how to fix it

#434

Post by machiaweliczny »

nikanj wrote: post #81
jeremyjh wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't know if the task is impossible because Google has no incentive to do it at all, so we can't assume they are really doing their best. They created this situation and they profit from it just the way it is.

Build a better mouse trap etc, if the task was possible, DDG / Bing / Whoever could absolutely dominate the search market by providing a ”no crap results” option

I wonder how hard would it be to create ML algorithms that can classify something as crappy content. I am pretty sure it should be quite doable.

Re: Why Google is so unbearable, and how to fix it

#435

Post by Gunax »

baxuz wrote: post #426
Gunax wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YT Premium is expensive. Much more expensive than users expect. Most people underestimate the value of their attention. Youtube earned 7 billion USD in ad revenue last quarter. The value of our attention is a shock to most people. I suspect that YouTube may actually be losing money (as compared to ad revenue), even at the $12 / month--a price many users find outrageous. I am calling this the 'ad gap', which is differ…

Exactly. YouTube Premium is loaded. Its pricing is based around selling YouTube Music and YouTube Originals. I don't want either. I'd happily pay 5$/month for a YouTube Premium experience.

Sure, but my guess is that YouTube is earning more than that in advertising from you, even sans music and oroginals.

Re: Why Google is so unbearable, and how to fix it

#436

Post by mlom »

EricE wrote: post #422
mlom wrote: post #226

"Nothing wrong with that, making money is noble" this right here is why you never make any progress and never fix anything and you never understand why everything sucks, you keep rewarding perverse incentives and greed and then try to work around it as if greed were not the central problem. making money is not noble, making money does not represent increasing value, it only represents cornering tokens of others' labo…

Making money is the practical reality and the entire foundation of the modern world. Do you really think trading chickens or loafs of bread is more practical than exchanging money for goods and services? How ridiculously naïve! You should be ashamed that you have the utter privilege to hold such utterly ridiculous thoughts without the fear of starving or not having shelter.

get fucked eric, all slavers must be killed, you have no idea how secure food or shelter are for me, motherfucker. you think because i'm able to get here and talk to you that i'm in a situation like yours, and not facing homelessness or starvation? fuck you scum

Re: Why Google is so unbearable, and how to fix it

#437

Post by Schroedingersat »

s__s wrote: post #431
Schroedingersat wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think the point is Google is really bad at understanding web apps, online services, or really any site that isn’t information rich. You keep using that phrase, but it doesn't select for information richness, it selects for verbiage. This is at best orthogonal and more usually opposed to information richness.

Verbiage is the result of bad copy writing and/or lazy keyword stuffing. I don’t think they select for or reward verbiage, but for sure they’re not doing enough to treat it as a negative signal.

Well not directly, but you're heavily penalized for not keyword stuffing and then passing it through an AI tool until it is 'simple to read' (ie. says what you're trying to say extremely badly five times with almost-correct words to avoid anpiece of jargon).

As a result even the content made with earnest intent to communicate has to read exactly like blogspam in order to rank.

Post reply on HN