5 ms·

How are 'relevant' and 'accurate' different in this case? (serious question) For example if I search for "python books" I get results about books teaching the

How are 'relevant' and 'accurate' different in this case? (serious question) For example if I search for "python books" I get results about books teaching the programming language. I'm a programmer and this makes sense in that it is both 'relevant' and 'accurate'. If my girlfriend does the same search she gets books about snakes. She is a biologist so it is again both 'accurate' and 'relevant'. The problem arrises if she gets results about programming because she does not know or care about it. It is technically 'accurate' but now the product is useless to her. Look at the Wikipedia article for "python". There are too many uses for the word. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Python http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Python

DanBC 15y ago
Google is great for the general population. You type a bunch of words, and Google will guess what you mean, and will usually return useful results. I don't want that. I don't mind having to work a bit harder to get results, so long as those results are excellent. So, for your example, I want to have to type an extra word (either programming or snakes or herpatology or whatever) to provide the context that Google would otherwise get from wherever. I understand that most people don't want what I want, which I why I try and avoid the many Google-bashing posts. (I'm not part of that crowd; I don't think Google is evil. Just less useful for me in lots of situations.) I prefer consistency and repeatability over slowly changing weirdness.
- skybrian 15y ago
  Have you tried verbatim search? In the left column of the search results page, click "more search tools", then "verbatim".
- batista 15y ago
  I don't want that. I don't mind having to work a bit harder to get results, so long as those results are excellent. So, for your example, I want to have to type an extra word (either programming or snakes or herpatology or whatever) to provide the context that Google would otherwise get from wherever. I'm all anti-Google, but this makes no sense to me. You want to type an extra word? "I don't want to be tracked and sold to advertisers", or "I don't want to be second-guessed" makes much more sense.
  - DanBC 15y ago
    This is a subset of "I don't want to be second guessed". I'd happily give up Google's guess of what I want, and I realise that sometimes I'm going to need to type an extra word. I type slowly, about 60 words a minute. That extra word is an extra second of typing, but it makes the results a lot more useful to me. There's other advantages. (Maybe these aren't as obvious or real to other people.) Thinking about the words I use forces me to think about the problem, and forces me to think around what I'm doing and why.
coryrc 15y ago
And when you want to learn more about snakes or her more about programming, it will be that much harder to get good results because google's bias will be working against you. It also increases the effect of grouping people into only social groups of the same philosophy and reducing exposure to other points of view. Not good for society. So even if I could fix it for myself, it is bad in general.
- Foxo 15y ago
  Then you would just need to clarify it further... It's not as if when you type "python language" or "python programming" that Google will respond with "No, sorry, you're only interested in snakes." I believe it's simply meant to help clarify unambiguous queries, and increase the ranking of the results that I'm normally interested in. At the bottom of almost every search you make, it says "Did you mean" - I would like them to make it easier to find, and I'd imagine they will. I'm often looking up stuff related to code - I would love Google to know what languages I use, and present me with results specific to them. If I'm looking up something different, I'm sure Google will present me with their best guess of what I might mean...
mark_integerdsv 15y ago
...three weeks before your birthday, your girlfriend - frantically searching for a Python book to surprise you with, wades through hundreds of results pertaining to snakes, eventually gives up in exasperation and decides to head to the nearest Borders and... Oh wait. I see your point in the post above but disagree. People should control their search results based on what they are searching for, relevance is objective to ones personality, not subject to it.
- fpgeek 15y ago
  And during her frantic searching, his girlfriend won't try something as simple as "python programming book"? I find that hard to believe, especially if her default association for "python" is the snake.
  - mark_integerdsv 15y ago
    I'm almost certain she would use a more sensible search term. In fact: she'd most likely have the title already, having picked the brains of a friend or colleague. You seem to have missed the point of my (admittedly flimsy) example though. What I am trying to illustrate is that the alleged relevance of a set of results biased on the basis of an individual's profile is incredibly insular (and harmful) if it's there at all. Boiling it down even further: I believe that search results should reflect what is on the Internet, not just that portion of it that Google deems 'relevant.' ...anything else, in my opinion, skates dangerously close to what most people railed against in the great Net Neutrality debate of 09.
    - fpgeek 15y ago
      > What I am trying to illustrate is that the alleged relevance of a set of results biased on the basis of an individual's profile is incredibly insular (and harmful) if it's there at all. > Boiling it down even further: I believe that search results should reflect what is on the Internet, not just that portion of it that Google deems 'relevant.' And what I'm trying to illustrate is that you're taking an overly simplistic approach to the question. Google takes in a lot of signals (links, country and language, past behavior with respect to previous queries, sites you've asked to be blocked, ...) and now social signals. Where do you draw the line and why? And why isn't a user responding with more detailed guidance ("I didn't mean X [even though I often do], I mean Y right now") a reasonable exceptional flow some of the time?
landhar 15y ago
What about showing the disambiguation options ? based on wikipedia's disambiguation page ? THAT would be useful
- rodion_89 15y ago
  I agree, I prefer those types of results. DuckDuckGo is very good at providing that. A search for "python" returns both a disambiguation section and regular listed results. http://duckduckgo.com/?q=python http://duckduckgo.com/?q=python
  - landhar 15y ago
    Yes, I've been switching back and forth from DuckDuckGo and Google many times over the past three years. At the beginning I liked some of the features that DuckDuckGo had (bangs, disambiguation) but Google would always win on overall web coverage and speed. Lately, I find myself using DuckDuckGo for longer and longer periods of time before stumbling on a query that gives me a better answer in Google. But speed is still an issue (Google has spoiled us on that front).
potatolicious 15y ago
That's not exactly SPYW though. SPYW is where you type in "python books" and the top half of the screen consists of your programmer friends talking about Python. Or when your girlfriend types in "python books" and the top of the screen consists of her biologist friends talking about snakes. That's what I'm seeing with my search results. I have no qualms with Google trying to "understand" me and offer more relevant links.

DanBC 15y ago

Google is great for the general population. You type a bunch of words, and Google will guess what you mean, and will usually return useful results. I don't want that. I don't mind having to work a bit harder to get results, so long as those results are excellent. So, for your example, I want to have to type an extra word (either programming or snakes or herpatology or whatever) to provide the context that Google would otherwise get from wherever. I understand that most people don't want what I want, which I why I try and avoid the many Google-bashing posts. (I'm not part of that crowd; I don't think Google is evil. Just less useful for me in lots of situations.) I prefer consistency and repeatability over slowly changing weirdness.

skybrian 15y ago
Have you tried verbatim search? In the left column of the search results page, click "more search tools", then "verbatim".
batista 15y ago
I don't want that. I don't mind having to work a bit harder to get results, so long as those results are excellent. So, for your example, I want to have to type an extra word (either programming or snakes or herpatology or whatever) to provide the context that Google would otherwise get from wherever. I'm all anti-Google, but this makes no sense to me. You want to type an extra word? "I don't want to be tracked and sold to advertisers", or "I don't want to be second-guessed" makes much more sense.
- DanBC 15y ago
  This is a subset of "I don't want to be second guessed". I'd happily give up Google's guess of what I want, and I realise that sometimes I'm going to need to type an extra word. I type slowly, about 60 words a minute. That extra word is an extra second of typing, but it makes the results a lot more useful to me. There's other advantages. (Maybe these aren't as obvious or real to other people.) Thinking about the words I use forces me to think about the problem, and forces me to think around what I'm doing and why.

coryrc 15y ago

And when you want to learn more about snakes or her more about programming, it will be that much harder to get good results because google's bias will be working against you. It also increases the effect of grouping people into only social groups of the same philosophy and reducing exposure to other points of view. Not good for society. So even if I could fix it for myself, it is bad in general.

Foxo 15y ago
Then you would just need to clarify it further... It's not as if when you type "python language" or "python programming" that Google will respond with "No, sorry, you're only interested in snakes." I believe it's simply meant to help clarify unambiguous queries, and increase the ranking of the results that I'm normally interested in. At the bottom of almost every search you make, it says "Did you mean" - I would like them to make it easier to find, and I'd imagine they will. I'm often looking up stuff related to code - I would love Google to know what languages I use, and present me with results specific to them. If I'm looking up something different, I'm sure Google will present me with their best guess of what I might mean...

mark_integerdsv 15y ago

...three weeks before your birthday, your girlfriend - frantically searching for a Python book to surprise you with, wades through hundreds of results pertaining to snakes, eventually gives up in exasperation and decides to head to the nearest Borders and... Oh wait. I see your point in the post above but disagree. People should control their search results based on what they are searching for, relevance is objective to ones personality, not subject to it.

fpgeek 15y ago
And during her frantic searching, his girlfriend won't try something as simple as "python programming book"? I find that hard to believe, especially if her default association for "python" is the snake.
- mark_integerdsv 15y ago
  I'm almost certain she would use a more sensible search term. In fact: she'd most likely have the title already, having picked the brains of a friend or colleague. You seem to have missed the point of my (admittedly flimsy) example though. What I am trying to illustrate is that the alleged relevance of a set of results biased on the basis of an individual's profile is incredibly insular (and harmful) if it's there at all. Boiling it down even further: I believe that search results should reflect what is on the Internet, not just that portion of it that Google deems 'relevant.' ...anything else, in my opinion, skates dangerously close to what most people railed against in the great Net Neutrality debate of 09.
  - fpgeek 15y ago
    > What I am trying to illustrate is that the alleged relevance of a set of results biased on the basis of an individual's profile is incredibly insular (and harmful) if it's there at all. > Boiling it down even further: I believe that search results should reflect what is on the Internet, not just that portion of it that Google deems 'relevant.' And what I'm trying to illustrate is that you're taking an overly simplistic approach to the question. Google takes in a lot of signals (links, country and language, past behavior with respect to previous queries, sites you've asked to be blocked, ...) and now social signals. Where do you draw the line and why? And why isn't a user responding with more detailed guidance ("I didn't mean X [even though I often do], I mean Y right now") a reasonable exceptional flow some of the time?

landhar 15y ago

What about showing the disambiguation options ? based on wikipedia's disambiguation page ? THAT would be useful

rodion_89 15y ago
I agree, I prefer those types of results. DuckDuckGo is very good at providing that. A search for "python" returns both a disambiguation section and regular listed results. http://duckduckgo.com/?q=python http://duckduckgo.com/?q=python
- landhar 15y ago
  Yes, I've been switching back and forth from DuckDuckGo and Google many times over the past three years. At the beginning I liked some of the features that DuckDuckGo had (bangs, disambiguation) but Google would always win on overall web coverage and speed. Lately, I find myself using DuckDuckGo for longer and longer periods of time before stumbling on a query that gives me a better answer in Google. But speed is still an issue (Google has spoiled us on that front).

potatolicious 15y ago

That's not exactly SPYW though. SPYW is where you type in "python books" and the top half of the screen consists of your programmer friends talking about Python. Or when your girlfriend types in "python books" and the top of the screen consists of her biologist friends talking about snakes. That's what I'm seeing with my search results. I have no qualms with Google trying to "understand" me and offer more relevant links.