4 ms·

Read an article which mentioned that Google degraded the search service because good results no longer made financial sense, perverse incentive is that it benef

Read an article which mentioned that Google degraded the search service because good results no longer made financial sense, perverse incentive is that it benefits them better for a customer to pay money for ads than provide a good search (meaning that competition for keywords is now the algorithm). The next innovation in search then necessarily must be to find a different funding model for the engine besides ads, otherwise the same perverse incentive will arise.

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
This hits the nail on the head. I feel like Google results have gotten worse not because technical problems need to be solved, but because the financial incentives means that I'm now scrolling through tons of ads, little "tidbits" that have just gotten more annoying over time, AMP carousels, and god forbid I'm searching for anything that happened over 20 years ago that has any slight resemblance to a current event - all I get are pages and pages about the current event, and Google has "memory-holed" the past. IMO, all startups have a sweet-spot where they've figured out what the market needs, and they can be profitable, but they haven't yet sucked that bone dry to where they're forced to extend more tentacles to grow their revenue. For Google, for me, that was about the 2007-2012 time frame. Any other competitor would have the same financial pressures eventually. Long term, it's impossible to "not be evil".
pronlover723 5y ago
That's ridiculous. Google's search dies if people stop using it. They stop using it if the results are poor. There are no perverse incentives here unless you believe Google is hoping to cash out tomorrow and close its doors.
- amirkdv 5y ago
  It's not ridiculous at all. > They stop using it if the results are poor. These are not laws of nature. There are so many reasons why most people would still use $X even if the performance of $X was underwhelming.
- robertlagrant 5y ago
  The quality would have to degrade dramatically for people to stop using Google em masse for that reason. It can still degrade a bit to increase revenue.

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago

This hits the nail on the head. I feel like Google results have gotten worse not because technical problems need to be solved, but because the financial incentives means that I'm now scrolling through tons of ads, little "tidbits" that have just gotten more annoying over time, AMP carousels, and god forbid I'm searching for anything that happened over 20 years ago that has any slight resemblance to a current event - all I get are pages and pages about the current event, and Google has "memory-holed" the past. IMO, all startups have a sweet-spot where they've figured out what the market needs, and they can be profitable, but they haven't yet sucked that bone dry to where they're forced to extend more tentacles to grow their revenue. For Google, for me, that was about the 2007-2012 time frame. Any other competitor would have the same financial pressures eventually. Long term, it's impossible to "not be evil".

pronlover723 5y ago

That's ridiculous. Google's search dies if people stop using it. They stop using it if the results are poor. There are no perverse incentives here unless you believe Google is hoping to cash out tomorrow and close its doors.

amirkdv 5y ago
It's not ridiculous at all. > They stop using it if the results are poor. These are not laws of nature. There are so many reasons why most people would still use $X even if the performance of $X was underwhelming.
robertlagrant 5y ago
The quality would have to degrade dramatically for people to stop using Google em masse for that reason. It can still degrade a bit to increase revenue.