5 ms·

Except google didn't need learning, in fact that's part of what made it so much more powerful, they early on dropped support for AND and OR and other boolean ke

by eterm 10y ago

Except google didn't need learning, in fact that's part of what made it so much more powerful, they early on dropped support for AND and OR and other boolean keywords which other search engines required to get good results. In fact one of google's early "hidden" successful features was using implicit AND not implicit OR, which had been the de-facto on other search engines, so searching for "gold plates" on other search engines would return results for "gold" and results for "plates", that seems crazy now but that's just how it was back then. "learning" how to search is precisely what google didn't require, they used data and some key insights to do a lot of "magic" behind the scenes to match the way people actually used search engines into results, and without needing to advertise being a "human" search engine like Ask Jeeves.

kazagistar 10y ago
You certainly did have to learn to use google, you just don't remember it, or remember it selectively. I frequently come across people who ask questions which seem simple to google for, but when they try ask google, they do so incompetently and get bad answers or no answers, because they fundamentally don't get keywords, how other uses of words can override your intended meaning, or how to clarify by adding further phrases, or removing extraneous detail.
- glimajr 10y ago
  I feel like nowadays you can just Google "how do I change my oil" or "why do spiders make webs" and I pretty much always get something good. It seems to me as if you can just ask Google the way you would a normal person. I know that wasn't always the case, but I'm curious what specifically you feel like you need to learn about using Google today.
  - zeven7 10y ago
    My wife does this. It drives me crazy; I'm thinking "That's not how you search! You should just type 'changing oil'." But she gets the results she's looking for anyway so she doesn't listen.
    - richardwhiuk 10y ago
      Why 'should' you?
      - zeven7 10y ago
        I was more poking fun at myself for thinking you "should" when the other way actually works fine.
        enraged_camel 10y ago
        You're actually more likely to get instruction-type results if you ask "natural" questions. You can test this by searching for "changing oil" and then "how do i change my oil" and comparing the results.
    - drivingmenuts 10y ago
      > My wife does this. It drives me crazy; I'm thinking "That's not how you search! You should just type 'changing oil'." But she gets the results she's looking for anyway so she doesn't listen. And why should she? Is she happy with the results? Google has done it's job. The keywords aren't there for you, they're there for Google so they can make searching work even if you lard up your search with unnecessary words.
eikenberry 10y ago
Teaching a child to use Google will show you that there is indeed quite a learning curve. It is not intuitive how you evaluate your results and refine your search to get good results.
- praneshp 10y ago
  That's possibly just inexperience on the child's part
  - tunap 10y ago
    I was explaining to an adult yesterday that using -x will remove x from his google results. He was stoked! Then he concluded further that he could use +x too! I hated to have to disappoint him.
    - shawn-furyan 10y ago
      IIRC +x keeps google from returning results that exclude the x term. e.g. "x y z" ~ "x y z" + "x y" + "y z" + "x z" + "x" + "y" + "z" where "+x y +z" ~ "x y z" + "x z" Still, I would imagine this isn't exactly the behavior your friend would have expected.
      - tunap 10y ago
        I was referring to the Google+ fiasco and how + is no longer an operator. Instead, now you have to "quote" "for" "inclusion". https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/websearch/search$20operators/websearch/H4XbbwWmtAY https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/webse...
  - sullyj3 10y ago
    What? The claim was that it doesn't require learning to use. If lack of experience is detrimental, then it needs to be learned.
jancsika 10y ago
That last sentence is key. Rather than force the user to structure their input based on the computer's constraints (and probably waste time learning/misunderstanding the computer's constraints), they forced the computer to (generally) output meaningful results given arbitrary user input. Can anyone thing of examples where the free software community has successfully created software that does this? I'm thinking of VLC trying-- and often succeeding-- in playing most of the damaged files I've thrown at it. But I'm drawing a blank otherwise...
xtracto 10y ago
There's a reason why the term Google-Fu exists ( http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/19967/what-does-google-fu-mean http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/19967/what-does-g... )

by eterm 10y ago

kazagistar 10y ago

You certainly did have to learn to use google, you just don't remember it, or remember it selectively. I frequently come across people who ask questions which seem simple to google for, but when they try ask google, they do so incompetently and get bad answers or no answers, because they fundamentally don't get keywords, how other uses of words can override your intended meaning, or how to clarify by adding further phrases, or removing extraneous detail.

glimajr 10y ago
I feel like nowadays you can just Google "how do I change my oil" or "why do spiders make webs" and I pretty much always get something good. It seems to me as if you can just ask Google the way you would a normal person. I know that wasn't always the case, but I'm curious what specifically you feel like you need to learn about using Google today.
- zeven7 10y ago
  My wife does this. It drives me crazy; I'm thinking "That's not how you search! You should just type 'changing oil'." But she gets the results she's looking for anyway so she doesn't listen.
  - richardwhiuk 10y ago
    Why 'should' you?
    - zeven7 10y ago
      I was more poking fun at myself for thinking you "should" when the other way actually works fine.
      - enraged_camel 10y ago
        You're actually more likely to get instruction-type results if you ask "natural" questions. You can test this by searching for "changing oil" and then "how do i change my oil" and comparing the results.
  - drivingmenuts 10y ago
    > My wife does this. It drives me crazy; I'm thinking "That's not how you search! You should just type 'changing oil'." But she gets the results she's looking for anyway so she doesn't listen. And why should she? Is she happy with the results? Google has done it's job. The keywords aren't there for you, they're there for Google so they can make searching work even if you lard up your search with unnecessary words.

eikenberry 10y ago

Teaching a child to use Google will show you that there is indeed quite a learning curve. It is not intuitive how you evaluate your results and refine your search to get good results.

praneshp 10y ago
That's possibly just inexperience on the child's part
- tunap 10y ago
  I was explaining to an adult yesterday that using -x will remove x from his google results. He was stoked! Then he concluded further that he could use +x too! I hated to have to disappoint him.
  - shawn-furyan 10y ago
    IIRC +x keeps google from returning results that exclude the x term. e.g. "x y z" ~ "x y z" + "x y" + "y z" + "x z" + "x" + "y" + "z" where "+x y +z" ~ "x y z" + "x z" Still, I would imagine this isn't exactly the behavior your friend would have expected.
    - tunap 10y ago
      I was referring to the Google+ fiasco and how + is no longer an operator. Instead, now you have to "quote" "for" "inclusion". https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/websearch/search$20operators/websearch/H4XbbwWmtAY https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/webse...
- sullyj3 10y ago
  What? The claim was that it doesn't require learning to use. If lack of experience is detrimental, then it needs to be learned.

jancsika 10y ago

That last sentence is key. Rather than force the user to structure their input based on the computer's constraints (and probably waste time learning/misunderstanding the computer's constraints), they forced the computer to (generally) output meaningful results given arbitrary user input. Can anyone thing of examples where the free software community has successfully created software that does this? I'm thinking of VLC trying-- and often succeeding-- in playing most of the damaged files I've thrown at it. But I'm drawing a blank otherwise...

xtracto 10y ago

There's a reason why the term Google-Fu exists ( http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/19967/what-does-google-fu-mean http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/19967/what-does-g... )