3 ms·
This is marketing. That's all it is. It may as well be called "Search engine alternative to Google declares Google's secret sauce is dying". This reminds me of
by jmyeet 4y ago
This is marketing. That's all it is. It may as well be called "Search engine alternative to Google declares Google's secret sauce is dying".
This reminds me of posts from 10 years ago where "the future of search of social" (this post says "user-centric" instead). Even Google feared that outcome (given the then-meteoric rise of Facebook; oh how the turns have tabled). Personally I find the musings in this post to border on nonsencial.
But here's the interesting part: certain ideas are sticky just people want them to be true. The core one here is that "search is broken" or even the lesser "Google is getting worse". It's one many on HN like to push. I don't think theres any quantitative empirical evidence of this. It's people wanting it to be true and you'll see it on every thread about DDG (as one notable example).
Silicon Valley is littered with the corpses of "Google killers" who seem to have all fallen into different versions of this trap.
- noogle 4y agoBut Google search results ARE not satisfactory. The existence of Q&A forums in the age when information is broadly online (and thus is accessible to Google) indicates a need that is not answered by Google. Google's algorithm may be the best out there, but it still falls short of what is needed. Anecdotally, I often find it fails to conduct word-sense disambiguation, handle negation or answer edge case. My general impression is that Google's algorithm focuses on topical similarity (pages that talk about the query's topic) rather than answering the query.