4 ms·
It's even worse than I imagined. As of now, at least in Canada, Google Shopping returns zero result when I search for "Burgundy" [1]. For comparison, Amazon.com
by smnrchrds 9y ago
It's even worse than I imagined. As of now, at least in Canada, Google Shopping returns zero result when I search for "Burgundy" [1]. For comparison, Amazon.com returns 100,000 results for the same query [2]. We have known about Scunthorpe problem [3] for decades now. There is no excuse for this.
[1] https://www.google.ca/search?q=Burgundy&tbm=shop https://www.google.ca/search?q=Burgundy&tbm=shop
[2] https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?field-keywords=Burgundy https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?field-keywords=Bur...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scunthorpe_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scunthorpe_problem
- smsm42 9y ago[1] works fine for me (US). Is it for Canada only?
- smnrchrds 9y agoIt appears to have been fixed. I should have taken a screenshot instead of posting a link :(
- true_religion 9y agoWhy would they block this?
- karakot 9y agoburGUNdy
- dragonwriter 9y agoI get piles of results for burgundy in the US.
- Slansitartop 9y ago> I get piles of results for burgundy in the US. They've had several hours to change their filters since this story went live.
- dragonwriter 9y agoBut they haven't done anything to lots of the other exclusions people have noted, or to the fact that misspellings that still correct to the banned term (“pistil”, “rifel”) evade the filter entirely. It's kind of odd that they would correct it to let “burgundy” work but not address any of the other issues. So, if nothing else, the nature and priority of their corrections (if that is what it is) is noteworthy.