4 ms·

Not only lacking, but it is degraded from what we had 7 years ago. Back in the days I used to tweak search query a bit and was getting different results. Now w

Not only lacking, but it is degraded from what we had 7 years ago. Back in the days I used to tweak search query a bit and was getting different results. Now when one tweaks a query, they get the same results over and over again, thus rendering any search attempts useless.

sylvinus 7y ago
To be fair, you have to consider that the size of the web has continued to increase exponentially during the past 7 years, plus all the SEO tactics that are getting complex as the stakes are raised. Not an excuse to have a degraded service, but the challenge of just maintaining quality is huge.
- heavenlyblue 7y ago
  Everything grows exponentially, but I could bet that the web had grown about 3X (between 2012 and 2019) given the first result I clicked given by Google. Also given the fact that I worked for an SEO company I can definitely tell you that’s bot the money-making enterprise anymore since it mostly consisted of opportunists who happened to know about internet before anyone else before.
Spooky23 7y ago
The internet has changed a lot in seven years and has transformed in the last 20. It’s more like AOL in the 90s. Between Facebook, Twitter and other content silos, the internet as it was in 2002 is mostly gone.
tudorw 7y ago
Agreed, all the changes have made things worse for everything aside their bottom line, if there are any HUI/GUI/UX/UI/HCI people out there that think they can do better I'm holding a contest on Instagram, #icandobetterthangoogle, the prize? The global domination of the search industry :)
QuesnayJr 7y ago
It's degraded so much that I have to wonder if it's just optimizing for a different set of users. If you do a natural language query for celebrity news, it works really well now.
- snaky 7y ago
  Indeed. That's unfortunate, but there's no place for (free) services aimed at power users in the Internet.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    The logical end of this is where every query returns one of about five most popular pages. But then, why do you need a search engine?
- skinnymuch 7y ago
  Really for anyone going deeper it isn’t good. I know someone who works on patterns amongst celebs. Basically celeb news, but geekier. They have complained similarly about not being able to drill down for specific words. They already know the general celeb news so that doesn’t help.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  In 1999, Google Web Search optimised for ~100 million users. In 2019, Google Web Search optimised for ~10 billion users. Expanding self-selected elite groups rarely sustains intelligence and skill levels. This isn't a swipe at general intelligence, it's just a flat fact of mass media, one that's been widely recognised (though often lamented on a moral basis) for well over a century. I've labled this "the tyranny of the minimum viable user". The other factor is that manipulating the medium has become increasingly attractive. That's not just old-school SEO (black or white), but propaganda, psyops, and similar activities. Google are very much part of this battleground, and seem to have taken considerable time coming up to speed with even grasping this. I suspect they're now aware, if not sufficiently competent. A friend, Woozle, has described this as a fundamental epistemic paradox as systems grow -- what was previously useful for a few becomes increasingly attractive to manipulators. Though Shoshana Zuboff's Three Laws predate their observations by about 30 years.
swalsh 7y ago
To be fair, this is likely not because their technology degraded, but rather these particular sites SEO's technology is vastly improved. They have probably automated their targeting so as to be highly ranked on even the most esoteric phrases.
ageitgey 7y ago
It's so frustrating that Google auto-removes more and more words out of your query in order to increase "relevance". A lot of times, a search like "How to do <FEATURE> in <PRODUCT>" returns a bunch of results where it helpfully auto-removes "<FEATURE>" from the query rendering the results totally useless. Example: https://twitter.com/ageitgey/status/1182308994968428544 https://twitter.com/ageitgey/status/1182308994968428544

sylvinus 7y ago

To be fair, you have to consider that the size of the web has continued to increase exponentially during the past 7 years, plus all the SEO tactics that are getting complex as the stakes are raised. Not an excuse to have a degraded service, but the challenge of just maintaining quality is huge.

heavenlyblue 7y ago
Everything grows exponentially, but I could bet that the web had grown about 3X (between 2012 and 2019) given the first result I clicked given by Google. Also given the fact that I worked for an SEO company I can definitely tell you that’s bot the money-making enterprise anymore since it mostly consisted of opportunists who happened to know about internet before anyone else before.

Spooky23 7y ago

The internet has changed a lot in seven years and has transformed in the last 20. It’s more like AOL in the 90s. Between Facebook, Twitter and other content silos, the internet as it was in 2002 is mostly gone.

tudorw 7y ago

Agreed, all the changes have made things worse for everything aside their bottom line, if there are any HUI/GUI/UX/UI/HCI people out there that think they can do better I'm holding a contest on Instagram, #icandobetterthangoogle, the prize? The global domination of the search industry :)

QuesnayJr 7y ago

It's degraded so much that I have to wonder if it's just optimizing for a different set of users. If you do a natural language query for celebrity news, it works really well now.

snaky 7y ago
Indeed. That's unfortunate, but there's no place for (free) services aimed at power users in the Internet.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  The logical end of this is where every query returns one of about five most popular pages. But then, why do you need a search engine?
skinnymuch 7y ago
Really for anyone going deeper it isn’t good. I know someone who works on patterns amongst celebs. Basically celeb news, but geekier. They have complained similarly about not being able to drill down for specific words. They already know the general celeb news so that doesn’t help.
dredmorbius 7y ago
In 1999, Google Web Search optimised for ~100 million users. In 2019, Google Web Search optimised for ~10 billion users. Expanding self-selected elite groups rarely sustains intelligence and skill levels. This isn't a swipe at general intelligence, it's just a flat fact of mass media, one that's been widely recognised (though often lamented on a moral basis) for well over a century. I've labled this "the tyranny of the minimum viable user". The other factor is that manipulating the medium has become increasingly attractive. That's not just old-school SEO (black or white), but propaganda, psyops, and similar activities. Google are very much part of this battleground, and seem to have taken considerable time coming up to speed with even grasping this. I suspect they're now aware, if not sufficiently competent. A friend, Woozle, has described this as a fundamental epistemic paradox as systems grow -- what was previously useful for a few becomes increasingly attractive to manipulators. Though Shoshana Zuboff's Three Laws predate their observations by about 30 years.

swalsh 7y ago

To be fair, this is likely not because their technology degraded, but rather these particular sites SEO's technology is vastly improved. They have probably automated their targeting so as to be highly ranked on even the most esoteric phrases.

ageitgey 7y ago

It's so frustrating that Google auto-removes more and more words out of your query in order to increase "relevance". A lot of times, a search like "How to do <FEATURE> in <PRODUCT>" returns a bunch of results where it helpfully auto-removes "<FEATURE>" from the query rendering the results totally useless. Example: https://twitter.com/ageitgey/status/1182308994968428544 https://twitter.com/ageitgey/status/1182308994968428544