6 ms·

> As far as SPYW goes, it's all about giving the users more relevant results. For the majority of users, Facebook/Twitter results are more relevant than Google

> As far as SPYW goes, it's all about giving the users more relevant results. For the majority of users, Facebook/Twitter results are more relevant than Google Plus results. There's nothing in the rule book that says you can't leverage a successful property to promote another, but it's unfair to everyone to try to pass that off as a move to increase relevance in search results. Disclaimer: I'm a Facebook engineer who doesn't take SPYW personally.

chintan 15y ago
> For the majority of users Can I have an independent "authoritative" search engine and "cool" social networking tool. You both have Ad platforms on your respective platforms to "promote" products. Thank you. Disclaimer: A singleton instance of an average user
- petenixey 15y ago
  You're THE Average User? We've been trying to sign you up for months!
- freehunter 15y ago
  >Can I have an independent "authoritative" search engine and "cool" social networking tool. Yes, you can. But Google wants to make search better. There's no denying it's gotten worse as time goes on (and SEO gets better). The only thing to do next is to understand what you're looking for by understanding you. "I don't want relevant search results, I just want relevant search results!" This is the problem Google faces. They've made their choice.
  - DanBC 15y ago
    But I don't want relevant search results. I want accurate search results. I hate being limited by the bubble; I hate having to cut away rubbish related to what a search engine thinks I want.
    - zmj 15y ago
      There is no such thing as an objectively "accurate" search result. It's all relative to the question in your head.
      - DanBC 15y ago
        That's fine. I used poor wording. By gathering more information about me, and making more guesses about what I want, Google is making a stronger bubble. Sometimes they guess well. Sometimes they guess really badly. For many people this is great and exactly what they want. Sometimes it's what I want; sometimes Google's stemming or synonyms gets me a result that I would have struggled to find. But, sometimes, I want Google to search for the words I enter. I want Google to return the same results to me as it does to Bob and Ann (if they're both in my country). I don't care that [roses] gives me a different result to [roses roses roses]; I do care that Ann gets a different result for [roses] than Bob does. I can't explain why I care, and I'm happy to accept that I'm wrong. (For example, hopefully once people pick up that Google serves different results they'll stop saying Just Google It, which is good advice but sucks if you've Googled it and found only three forum posts with people being told to just Google it.) I guess a lot of this is age and weariness. I remember a time when a Google search result would be an opportunity for serendipity to point me towards great sources of information. Some person, an expert, had a little plain html page with a few diagrams and a lot of text and I'd have to work to understand it. Now? Not so much. I get a lot of content farms (But I'm really grateful to Google for tweaking those down, and allowing me to block content from certain domains) or flash heavy brand sites (See especially photographers and watch manufacturers.) or a narrow band of not fun sites.
        freehunter 15y ago
        >Sometimes they guess well. Sometimes they guess really badly. How do you know this will happen? They haven't turned their new algorithm on yet. You're claiming an idea hasn't worked in the past, but the idea has never been tried before. The reason they're changing their search results is because their search results are starting to suck more. They're trying to fix your complaint. Want the same shitty search full of SEO spam? Sign out. Otherwise you're just bitching. >(But I'm really grateful to Google for tweaking those down, and allowing me to block content from certain domains) THIS IS WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO. If you don't like content farms chances are no one else does either. And yet you complain.
josefresco 15y ago
Popularity does not equal relevancy. Just because FB and TW are 'popular' does not mean the results I (or a search engine) get from them are any more 'relevant' to my search than other "niche" social networks like Google Plus.
spindritf 15y ago
> For the majority of users, Facebook/Twitter results are more relevant than Google Plus results. Seems like Google would like to change that.
- rexf 15y ago
  That implies that Google is going against the user's best interests by providing less relevant search results today with SPYW. Which I'd agree with. In my own network, Fb > Twitter > G+
chalst 15y ago
The first Google response to the Twitter complaint suggested that they would be happy to index FB & T content if only that content were opened up to them in a way that let them do their job properly. Do we know that Google really wants SPYW to be the walled garden that FB & T claim? Where's the evidence?

chintan 15y ago

> For the majority of users Can I have an independent "authoritative" search engine and "cool" social networking tool. You both have Ad platforms on your respective platforms to "promote" products. Thank you. Disclaimer: A singleton instance of an average user

petenixey 15y ago
You're THE Average User? We've been trying to sign you up for months!
freehunter 15y ago
>Can I have an independent "authoritative" search engine and "cool" social networking tool. Yes, you can. But Google wants to make search better. There's no denying it's gotten worse as time goes on (and SEO gets better). The only thing to do next is to understand what you're looking for by understanding you. "I don't want relevant search results, I just want relevant search results!" This is the problem Google faces. They've made their choice.
- DanBC 15y ago
  But I don't want relevant search results. I want accurate search results. I hate being limited by the bubble; I hate having to cut away rubbish related to what a search engine thinks I want.
  - zmj 15y ago
    There is no such thing as an objectively "accurate" search result. It's all relative to the question in your head.
    - DanBC 15y ago
      That's fine. I used poor wording. By gathering more information about me, and making more guesses about what I want, Google is making a stronger bubble. Sometimes they guess well. Sometimes they guess really badly. For many people this is great and exactly what they want. Sometimes it's what I want; sometimes Google's stemming or synonyms gets me a result that I would have struggled to find. But, sometimes, I want Google to search for the words I enter. I want Google to return the same results to me as it does to Bob and Ann (if they're both in my country). I don't care that [roses] gives me a different result to [roses roses roses]; I do care that Ann gets a different result for [roses] than Bob does. I can't explain why I care, and I'm happy to accept that I'm wrong. (For example, hopefully once people pick up that Google serves different results they'll stop saying Just Google It, which is good advice but sucks if you've Googled it and found only three forum posts with people being told to just Google it.) I guess a lot of this is age and weariness. I remember a time when a Google search result would be an opportunity for serendipity to point me towards great sources of information. Some person, an expert, had a little plain html page with a few diagrams and a lot of text and I'd have to work to understand it. Now? Not so much. I get a lot of content farms (But I'm really grateful to Google for tweaking those down, and allowing me to block content from certain domains) or flash heavy brand sites (See especially photographers and watch manufacturers.) or a narrow band of not fun sites.
      - freehunter 15y ago
        >Sometimes they guess well. Sometimes they guess really badly. How do you know this will happen? They haven't turned their new algorithm on yet. You're claiming an idea hasn't worked in the past, but the idea has never been tried before. The reason they're changing their search results is because their search results are starting to suck more. They're trying to fix your complaint. Want the same shitty search full of SEO spam? Sign out. Otherwise you're just bitching. >(But I'm really grateful to Google for tweaking those down, and allowing me to block content from certain domains) THIS IS WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO. If you don't like content farms chances are no one else does either. And yet you complain.

josefresco 15y ago

Popularity does not equal relevancy. Just because FB and TW are 'popular' does not mean the results I (or a search engine) get from them are any more 'relevant' to my search than other "niche" social networks like Google Plus.

spindritf 15y ago

> For the majority of users, Facebook/Twitter results are more relevant than Google Plus results. Seems like Google would like to change that.

rexf 15y ago
That implies that Google is going against the user's best interests by providing less relevant search results today with SPYW. Which I'd agree with. In my own network, Fb > Twitter > G+

chalst 15y ago

The first Google response to the Twitter complaint suggested that they would be happy to index FB & T content if only that content were opened up to them in a way that let them do their job properly. Do we know that Google really wants SPYW to be the walled garden that FB & T claim? Where's the evidence?