Live data from Hacker News

Google 2000 vs. Google 2011

mattcutts.com

61–65 of 65 posts

Re: Google 2000 vs. Google 2011

#61
Google 2k11 is a radically better product than Google 2k:

1) Crawling is now continuous, and fast. You no longer have to wait months for an index update to see a new site on the Googles. Even pages well down the head of the importance distribution get crawled, indexed, and searchable in minutes.

2) Search in Japanese is ridiculously better. Just trust me on this. It has gone from being Hotbot2001 to (English) Google 2005 quality, which is impressive given the natural language problems Japanese throws at you, and the underdeveloped state of the link graph.

3) The Google symbiosis with particular sites on the Internet - most relevantly to my interests, Wiki and StackOverflow - has successfully incentivized the creation of sufficient basic and in-depth content that it is virtually inconceivable that you can come up with a generic English term and have a total failure on it. (e.g. the top ten for [manatees] will now exceed an eighth grade science report in informational content, which was a very hit or miss proposition in 2000.)

4) Google seems to have gotten over themselves in one critical respect: they used to vocally glorify non-intervention in the SERPs, as if G were the blind oracle of the net. This lead to truly stupid issues like a particular neoNazi group ranking at #1 for "Jew" and Google running an AdWords ad against "Jew" to explain that Google was content neutral between Jews and Nazis and in this case the Nazis just happened to be more loved by The Algorithm so there.

I don't know about internally, but on the basis of external evidence, Google is now willing in search quality on the behalf of users. This is a good thing. (Now if they were humble and cautious about wielding immense power, that would be a good thing, too. I get the persistent impression that they still think of themselves as the wee little underdogs, cuddly academics in the dorm room, rather than being Ma Bell.)

Re: Google 2000 vs. Google 2011

#62

While I also agree that Google's search results have gotten better, I just feel (this is very subjective of course) that they should be far better today than they currently are. I don't think they're leaps and bounds better and I think they should be. I'm not one to constantly point to yesteryear and claim they were better but I do look at where they are today and think they should be further along than they are. I g…

>> Had Google stayed more focused on search instead of all these side businesses, search could be far more developed than it currently is today.

I agree. Basic text search could be better, but if Google would stay focused, they could develop other technologies to stay ahead, for example - searching for something in texts written in other languages (with machine translation), search in radio stations, search what was said in a video, etc...

Re: Google 2000 vs. Google 2011

#63

I think Groucho Marx could sum up this article as "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?" I didn't keep a record of my searches from 2000, but I do remember that I was extremely impressed and satisfied with google back then. That is no longer the case. I am frustrated on daily basis by the results of many searches. It's not really your fault though. I blame it on mono culture. Google has such a huge hold…

We were all very impressed with IE6 in 2001 as well and now even with IE9 that is no longer the case.

Re: Google 2000 vs. Google 2011

#64
post #12

I don't get people who say Google is getting worse myself. If any of you know search engine building so well and aren't working for another search engine (like DuckDuckGo) why not take your expertise to Google and help fix the problem?

FYI DDG just uses the bing API and then does some fancy stuff on top of it, so technically they're not a "better search engine" they're just a prettier bing.

Well, how do you know what it does? Have you seen the code? Do you know what exactly it does? Making claims such as these without knowing the facts is certainly not professional behaviour.

Re: Google 2000 vs. Google 2011

#65
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please take a look in earlier threads. Google doesn't even listen to patio11 before he writes a blog post that reaches #1 on HN.

Actually, I passed patio11's blog post around widely within Google. Feedback like that is welcome because it prompts us to think about what we need to do better.

You passed patio11's blog post around before or after it hit HN front page? (If it was distributed inside Google before reaching HN front page, I was wrong.)
Post reply on HN