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

Magic keywords on Google and the consequences of tailoring results

gabrielweinberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–56 of 56 posts

Re: Magic keywords on Google and the consequences of tailoring results

#51

Post by magicalist »

AJ007 wrote: post #45
capo wrote: post #21

Just so that everyone is on the same page on what is being discussed here: this is a “study” by a competitor who can't implement personalised search and thus is spreading FUD to spin that as a differentiating advantage. It might be a good marketing strategy as he managed to get coverage by a couple of outlets during the elections frenzy in the US, but this "filter bubble" buzz-phrase is nonsense. Don't fear personali…

"We also saw in Google chrome that magic keyword transformations sometimes jumped incognito sessions, meaning that if you started a new incognito mode, got a transformation, then shut it down and started a new incognito mode you could sometimes see the same transformation again (without searching for the same magic keyword again). This weird behavior was not reproducible in Firefox's private browsing mode." If that i…

Yeah, that jumped out at me as well, and actually seems somewhat irresponsible without more data (like a log of actual http traffic).

AFAIK (when I last checked), Chrome keeps no data between incognito sessions. If data is being kept, it should be extremely easy to spot and a bug should be filed. "This weird thing happened" isn't really a sufficient response to that theory.

If there isn't data being kept and transmitted, it means either the testers left open an incognito tab or something without noticing (easier to do than with private browsing, since private browsing closes all non-private browsing tabs until private browsing is over), or that google is tweaking results based on search history saved server side by ip address (and maybe other id-able browser characteristics), but only if the browser identifies itself as Chrome, not e.g. Firefox. There doesn't seem to be any real advantage there (and you'll likely just end up polluting anything but the coarsest of clustering), but that's just speculation.

I'm not able to reproduce the behavior in Chrome (though I'm having trouble reproducing even simple magic keyword behavior in incognito mode in the first place), so more data would be appreciated.

Re: Magic keywords on Google and the consequences of tailoring results

#52

Post by [deleted] »

Matt_Cutts wrote: post #11

I'm happy to give more context on this. Some people don't put all their information needs into a single query. For example, instead of searching for [iphone wikipedia] to find the iPhone page on Wikipedia, they'll do one search for [iphone] and then their next search will be [wikipedia]. Google tries to help with those sorts of search sessions. For 0.3% of queries, if we see a search for a query A and then another se…

[deleted]

Re: Magic keywords on Google and the consequences of tailoring results

#53

Post by brianfryer »

patrickaljord wrote: post #24

I'm tired of Gabriel Weinber telling me how bad Google is and therefor why I should use DDG instead. I'm happy with Google, I'm glad that when I search for "ruby" I get the programming language and that when my brother who works in jewelry searches for "ruby", he gets the gemstone. But seriously, tell me why DDG is awesome and unique, stop bashing the competition. It was fun at the beginning but now it's getting old.…

> I'm glad that when I search for "ruby" I get the programming language and that when my brother who works in jewelry searches for "ruby", he gets the gemstone.

I'd like to see screenshots of ^ that, if you are able to get your hands on them, please.

Re: Magic keywords on Google and the consequences of tailoring results

#54

Post by bajsejohannes »

Matt_Cutts wrote: post #11

I'm happy to give more context on this. Some people don't put all their information needs into a single query. For example, instead of searching for [iphone wikipedia] to find the iPhone page on Wikipedia, they'll do one search for [iphone] and then their next search will be [wikipedia]. Google tries to help with those sorts of search sessions. For 0.3% of queries, if we see a search for a query A and then another se…

I get what you're saying, but I would absolutely love a completely plain version of Google, where I didn't have to opt-out of anything ever again. Yes, sometimes it might be nice to get results that are in my neighbourhood or relevant to my interest, but sometimes I wish I could get what Google thinks is the globally most interesting response. Iterating and expanding on the query actually lets me learn about the subject.

So pretty please: http://vanilla.google.com . Just like the old days :)

Re: Magic keywords on Google and the consequences of tailoring results

#55

Post by orangethirty »

patrickaljord wrote: post #24

I'm tired of Gabriel Weinber telling me how bad Google is and therefor why I should use DDG instead. I'm happy with Google, I'm glad that when I search for "ruby" I get the programming language and that when my brother who works in jewelry searches for "ruby", he gets the gemstone. But seriously, tell me why DDG is awesome and unique, stop bashing the competition. It was fun at the beginning but now it's getting old.…

Allow me to give you a perspective from someone who strictly uses DDG (well, I sometimes use blekko).

Their search is lean. It doesn't feel exagerated by a lot of advertising optimization. It has the !bang feature that allows users to quickly refine searches. Though Blekko uses the /search-term which is also very useful. Back to DDG, their user experience (in my opinion) is better. Things are more clear and concise. Results for programming related stuff are very very good. In fact, if Nuuton manages to be half as good as DDG, I will have considered it a success. Not sucking up to anyone here, but I just love the damn thing. Been an user for more than a year.

Re: Magic keywords on Google and the consequences of tailoring results

#56

Post by angryasian »

skinnymuch wrote: post #50
angryasian wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if people really wanted to find the other side of the story its available to them. I absolutely love personalized search. When I search for something I want local results, I want results that are most relevant to me. Its been proven that people would only go to sites that support their ideas and beliefs already. So showing unbiased results make no difference.

So if things are already messed up, we should just throw our hands up, pander, and go along with it?

whats messed up ? I stated I like personalized search because 9/10 times I'm googling something its related and I'd want to be personalized , either by local or a topic i've searched before. Not personalizing results will probably make search worse and people less likely to search in the first place.
Post reply on HN