4 ms·

He mentions DEC, but I'd go further and note that Google is making the same mistake Digital did with Alta Vista - namely, returning irrelevant search results be

He mentions DEC, but I'd go further and note that Google is making the same mistake Digital did with Alta Vista - namely, returning irrelevant search results because it thinks you really must be searching for Y even though you entered X. This gets especially annoying when one searches for a specific word and gets a page full of results that don't have it. Getting rid of the +word search syntax in favor of quotation marks was also a bad move - it makes it much more tedious to edit your query when you're trying to tell Google "Hey, I'm really searching for that word."

PhantomGremlin 8y ago
Getting rid of the +word search syntax in favor of quotation marks was also a bad move I also loved the +word feature. But didn't they want the '+' for something to do with Google+? That's dead so maybe they can release '+' back to the search people? Actually they won't adopt +word again. As you say, more and more "irrelevant search results". Thankfully the "verbatim" option helps me. I don't know how normal people get verbatim results, that left-hand column only appears for me because I don't allow JavaScript. Otherwise the option is missing!?
- hartator 8y ago
  > Actually they won't adopt +word again. As you say, more and more "irrelevant search results". Thankfully the "verbatim" option helps me. I don't know how normal people get verbatim results, that left-hand column only appears for me because I don't allow JavaScript. Otherwise the option is missing!? It's under Tools > All Results > Verbatim, or `tbs=li:1` in the url.
lubujackson 8y ago
It's the problem of maximizing gross acceptableness vs. accuracy. If there is a term that has 1,000 results but could be a misspelling of a term that returns 100,000 results, Google will always go with mob rule. It's like when the bean counters take over and shave a nickel here, save a penny there, until everyone leaves because your product has become garbage. Optimizing for search happiness sounds good on paper but winning on edge cases SHOULD be Google's strength - instead, it is their biggest weakness. I wouldn't even mind the mob rule if Google still had a way to clarify your searches by default. Instead, they continue to assume more and more user intent and remove more and more options for clear user input.
- anoncake 8y ago
  That does not explain why Google ignores entire words. People misspell words, yes, but who accidentally enters random other words in addition to their search terms?
  - pas 8y ago
    A lot of people actually. English has a lot of dialects, people have different styles of communication, and Google tries to search across all that. It tries to guess at intent and match that to their index. Does this help? I have no idea, and at least nowadays it offers to include that word explicitly with one click.
- Izkata 8y ago
  Fun little hidden feature that implies they're aware of this: On the results page, under search tools, is an "All Results" dropdown you can change to "Verbatim" to get what you actually want.
slededit 8y ago
I'm shocked they don't have a filter for that. If you input an obscure term with no common misspellings it should be the main key used. Instead they just omit it entirely. They do seem introspective enough to include a "must include this word" link in the results.
mike00632 8y ago
I suspect that Google search has become even more functional while it appears less. Often now I'll search for an exact phrase and use quote marks but it will return results that only contain parts of the phrase. I think there is still a way to have the function of quote marks or the "+" but it's hidden behind some menus or other commands.
iliaznk 8y ago
I used to work as a translator and I'd often google some phrases wrapping them in quotes to see how often and what contexts they occurred in. I still do sometimes while writing letters in English. But that's become much harder now because now Google is too "smart" and can guess that I'm really interested in the query from a linguistic point of view and almost always the first page of results is some linguistic forums and stuff like that, while I just want real-world examples, not posts from all sorts of linguistic equivalents of StackOverflow.
- pas 8y ago
  There's an ngram search through Google Books, that might help you with this.
growlist 8y ago
Let's not forget, returning the polar opposite of what you are searching for. I'm an adult, let me search for what I want!

PhantomGremlin 8y ago

Getting rid of the +word search syntax in favor of quotation marks was also a bad move I also loved the +word feature. But didn't they want the '+' for something to do with Google+? That's dead so maybe they can release '+' back to the search people? Actually they won't adopt +word again. As you say, more and more "irrelevant search results". Thankfully the "verbatim" option helps me. I don't know how normal people get verbatim results, that left-hand column only appears for me because I don't allow JavaScript. Otherwise the option is missing!?

hartator 8y ago
> Actually they won't adopt +word again. As you say, more and more "irrelevant search results". Thankfully the "verbatim" option helps me. I don't know how normal people get verbatim results, that left-hand column only appears for me because I don't allow JavaScript. Otherwise the option is missing!? It's under Tools > All Results > Verbatim, or `tbs=li:1` in the url.

lubujackson 8y ago

It's the problem of maximizing gross acceptableness vs. accuracy. If there is a term that has 1,000 results but could be a misspelling of a term that returns 100,000 results, Google will always go with mob rule. It's like when the bean counters take over and shave a nickel here, save a penny there, until everyone leaves because your product has become garbage. Optimizing for search happiness sounds good on paper but winning on edge cases SHOULD be Google's strength - instead, it is their biggest weakness. I wouldn't even mind the mob rule if Google still had a way to clarify your searches by default. Instead, they continue to assume more and more user intent and remove more and more options for clear user input.

anoncake 8y ago
That does not explain why Google ignores entire words. People misspell words, yes, but who accidentally enters random other words in addition to their search terms?
- pas 8y ago
  A lot of people actually. English has a lot of dialects, people have different styles of communication, and Google tries to search across all that. It tries to guess at intent and match that to their index. Does this help? I have no idea, and at least nowadays it offers to include that word explicitly with one click.
Izkata 8y ago
Fun little hidden feature that implies they're aware of this: On the results page, under search tools, is an "All Results" dropdown you can change to "Verbatim" to get what you actually want.

slededit 8y ago

I'm shocked they don't have a filter for that. If you input an obscure term with no common misspellings it should be the main key used. Instead they just omit it entirely. They do seem introspective enough to include a "must include this word" link in the results.

mike00632 8y ago

I suspect that Google search has become even more functional while it appears less. Often now I'll search for an exact phrase and use quote marks but it will return results that only contain parts of the phrase. I think there is still a way to have the function of quote marks or the "+" but it's hidden behind some menus or other commands.

iliaznk 8y ago

I used to work as a translator and I'd often google some phrases wrapping them in quotes to see how often and what contexts they occurred in. I still do sometimes while writing letters in English. But that's become much harder now because now Google is too "smart" and can guess that I'm really interested in the query from a linguistic point of view and almost always the first page of results is some linguistic forums and stuff like that, while I just want real-world examples, not posts from all sorts of linguistic equivalents of StackOverflow.

pas 8y ago
There's an ngram search through Google Books, that might help you with this.

growlist 8y ago

Let's not forget, returning the polar opposite of what you are searching for. I'm an adult, let me search for what I want!