4 ms·

They tried and failed at the beginning of the 20th century. Google tried again, using computers, at the beginning of the 21st century, and failed catastrophica

by zepto 5y ago

They tried and failed at the beginning of the 20th century. Google tried again, using computers, at the beginning of the 21st century, and failed catastrophically.

pphysch 5y ago
Google succeeded by not trying to manually classify everything, unlike e.g. Yahoo.
- zepto 5y ago
  Google didn’t succeed. Most search results now are worse than in 2004.
  - pphysch 5y ago
    According to what metric?
    - zepto 5y ago
      Organizing the world’s information and making it accessible.
      - pphysch 5y ago
        That is not a metric.
        zepto 5y ago
        No but it’s their original mission statement, which is similar to that of the Mundaneum, and Google has failed at it.
        pphysch 5y ago
        According to what metric?
        zepto 5y ago
        You can keep asking that question, and it will continue not to add value to the discussions. Google’s metrics are based on increasing ad revenue. It doesn’t take a lot to see how that works against their mission statement.
        pphysch 5y ago
        You could be direct and admit "I don't have any measurable evidence to substantiate my claims at this time. They are based on my personal feelings on the matter", rather that exhaust everyone with mental gymnastics.
        zepto 5y ago
        I suggest you read the other responses to your comments.
        hnbad 5y ago
        Insisting on metrics does not make you more rational, it just makes you more obnoxious. Not every insight requires quantitative metrics to be useful or trustworthy and not every insight based on quantitative metrics is correct or superior: https://mcnamarafallacy.com/ https://mcnamarafallacy.com/
        pphysch 5y ago
        > Those who are concerned about falling into the trap of the McNamara Fallacy shouldn’t abandon quantitative measurements and metrics. Quantification is a valuable analytic tool, when it’s applied properly.
        zepto 5y ago
    - skinkestek 5y ago
      To let others better answer your question: how long have you used Google and for (roughly) what purposes? An answer from me, during lunch break, sorry I didn't have time to make it shorter: I started using Google somewhere between 2001 and 2003. Back then it was a no brainer since all other engines either - had much smaller indexes, - were full of ads, - mixed ads and results - didn't respect your queries Today Google: - probably has the largest or second largest index (I'm not really sure about the NSA index : ) - yet you cannot get to the results you know are there because they insist on using you as a guinea pig for their AI that (roughly speaking) silently and transparently rewrites your question to something else that they rather want to answer. - they have at least two ways to override this AI: doublequotes and the verbatim operator, -but conveniently let the AI override this too. - if you end up in the wrong cohort you end up having yourself and your family insulted by their incredibly annoying ad targeting until you enable your ad blocker. - up to half the pages are now ads - and they keep experimenting with ways to make ads more visually similar to organic search This is just the beginning, before we start talking about their lousy customer service, their eagerness to please China etc. In fact, the quality is so bad now that Duckduckgo is just as good. I'm optimistic though: People keep blaming it on black hat seo and webspam but already we see a number of other engines doing interesting things in this space. I switched to a competitor recently and can happily say that what was supposed to be a brief test now seems to be a permanent solution: So far it feels like I have my Google from 2008 back (Decent index, smart matching, intelligent ranking ) and then some (lenses and various other smart features).

by zepto 5y ago

They tried and failed at the beginning of the 20th century. Google tried again, using computers, at the beginning of the 21st century, and failed catastrophically.

pphysch 5y ago

Google succeeded by not trying to manually classify everything, unlike e.g. Yahoo.

zepto 5y ago
Google didn’t succeed. Most search results now are worse than in 2004.
- pphysch 5y ago
  According to what metric?
  - zepto 5y ago
    Organizing the world’s information and making it accessible.
    - pphysch 5y ago
      That is not a metric.
      - zepto 5y ago
        No but it’s their original mission statement, which is similar to that of the Mundaneum, and Google has failed at it.
        pphysch 5y ago
        According to what metric?
        zepto 5y ago
        You can keep asking that question, and it will continue not to add value to the discussions. Google’s metrics are based on increasing ad revenue. It doesn’t take a lot to see how that works against their mission statement.
        pphysch 5y ago
        You could be direct and admit "I don't have any measurable evidence to substantiate my claims at this time. They are based on my personal feelings on the matter", rather that exhaust everyone with mental gymnastics.
        zepto 5y ago
        I suggest you read the other responses to your comments.
        hnbad 5y ago
        Insisting on metrics does not make you more rational, it just makes you more obnoxious. Not every insight requires quantitative metrics to be useful or trustworthy and not every insight based on quantitative metrics is correct or superior: https://mcnamarafallacy.com/ https://mcnamarafallacy.com/
        pphysch 5y ago
        > Those who are concerned about falling into the trap of the McNamara Fallacy shouldn’t abandon quantitative measurements and metrics. Quantification is a valuable analytic tool, when it’s applied properly.
        zepto 5y ago
  - skinkestek 5y ago
    To let others better answer your question: how long have you used Google and for (roughly) what purposes? An answer from me, during lunch break, sorry I didn't have time to make it shorter: I started using Google somewhere between 2001 and 2003. Back then it was a no brainer since all other engines either - had much smaller indexes, - were full of ads, - mixed ads and results - didn't respect your queries Today Google: - probably has the largest or second largest index (I'm not really sure about the NSA index : ) - yet you cannot get to the results you know are there because they insist on using you as a guinea pig for their AI that (roughly speaking) silently and transparently rewrites your question to something else that they rather want to answer. - they have at least two ways to override this AI: doublequotes and the verbatim operator, -but conveniently let the AI override this too. - if you end up in the wrong cohort you end up having yourself and your family insulted by their incredibly annoying ad targeting until you enable your ad blocker. - up to half the pages are now ads - and they keep experimenting with ways to make ads more visually similar to organic search This is just the beginning, before we start talking about their lousy customer service, their eagerness to please China etc. In fact, the quality is so bad now that Duckduckgo is just as good. I'm optimistic though: People keep blaming it on black hat seo and webspam but already we see a number of other engines doing interesting things in this space. I switched to a competitor recently and can happily say that what was supposed to be a brief test now seems to be a permanent solution: So far it feels like I have my Google from 2008 back (Decent index, smart matching, intelligent ranking ) and then some (lenses and various other smart features).