4 ms·

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but it sure seems like this is for ad retrieval, if anything- not search results. I've never seen a set of search results

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but it sure seems like this is for ad retrieval, if anything- not search results. I've never seen a set of search results that felt like a different search. My issue with Google results stems from them being low quality. Like all the stack overflow and GitHub issue clone sites before the real results. I don't think this is wired getting bought or bullied- I think the author was mistaken and they retracted the story. Google serving specific ads and optimizing that algorithm to maximize profit is expected imo

karaterobot 3y ago
> I've never seen a set of search results that felt like a different search. They'll certainly ignore search terms, modifiers like quotation marks, and so on. If the result looks like what you meant to search for, that means they're doing their job right I suppose, but they are definitely only using your literal query as a suggestion. (I did not get to read the original article, I have no idea if this comment of mine is off the mark with respect to the claims of that article)
- Thorrez 3y ago
  Can you give an example of Google ignoring quotation marks? I've seen this claim many times on HN but I've never seen a link showing it happening. Disclosure: I work at Google but not on Search.
  - karaterobot 3y ago
    You may be right! Since I don't use Google search much anymore, and have my search history turned off anyway, I can't recall any specific examples from my own life. So, I searched and found internet threads like this one: https://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/144207/google-for-the-exact-phrase-and-no-quotation-marks-dont-help https://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/144207/google-fo... Where the complaint is that searching for "map accuracy" (in quotes) results in pages without that literal string in them, implying that Google is ignoring the quotes to give the user what it thinks is a better list of results. But, when I try to duplicate this three year old problem, I can't replicate it, at least not on the first page of results. And when I try to contrive my own example, searching for a literal phrase that would not exist in any web document (an example: "He beheld nonlinear radish-scented vestments") there are 0 results, which is exactly what I'd expect if Google was obeying the quotation marks. So, this is probably not true anymore, and you've got me doubting my memory now, but I am still fairly certain that it has happened to many on multiple occasions. /shrug
    - 93po 3y ago
      Google behaves differently for different users and trying to replicate a single user's issue is probably never going to be fruitful
    - Thorrez 3y ago
      I believe it's always been the case that quotes work. Here are 3 possible explanations for what you remember: Google search will return results that match the quoted query only through invisible text. So you you might get a result that seems to not contain your text, but if you check the source code or the DOM, the text will be there, hidden. When checking for equality, search will ignore certain punctuation and HTML. So your text might not be there exactly, but once punctuation is stripped, it's there. In the time between Google crawling the page and you viewing it, the page may have been edited. That SO example may be a case of the 2nd reason. For example a page saying <title>Map Accuracy</title> <p>Map accuracy is a measure of... technically contains the text "accuracy map" once you strip out HTML and normalize whitespace and case.
rockskon 3y ago
So why did they take the article down as opposed to only appending the note at the end of the article like they've done elsewhere? It's long been rumored that Google coerces news outlets to publish (or not publish) certain topics lest they find themselves downranked or missing from search queries for a while or get penalized with adsense. With the removal of an article besmearching Google, I begin to wonder if there's any truth to those rumors.
- mst 3y ago
  The article seemed very strange to me, so I'm not surprised it's been pulled. (my overriding thought as I read it being "I'm sure google does assorted morally dubious things in this area but this really doesn't seem like their style of evil, and I suspect the article is either a misrepresentation or mistaken")
  - rockskon 3y ago
    My point is that it's highly unusual for a news outlet to outright remove an article as opposed to editing it and giving a note explaining why. Or a note saying the article is not accurate but leaving it up for historical purposes.
    - mst 3y ago
      My point is that it isn't unheard of for something sufficiently badly wrong, and that article cleared the bar hard enough that I was honestly surprised that wired published it at all. I find it highly likely that Google -do- try to influence coverage, mind, but I don't think that was the primary factor in play here.
- joenot443 3y ago
  Because in this case, the _entire premise_ of the article was wrong. You're welcome to wonder all you like, but in this case the obvious answer is the correct one. The author (Megan Gray) wrote a bad piece because she misunderstood how a technology worked, leaving Wired no choice but to take it down. Read the article, come to your own conclusion. https://archive.ph/3a0wY#selection-715.112-715.649 https://archive.ph/3a0wY#selection-715.112-715.649 When I read that I was floored - not because I expected even remotely that it might be true, but because I couldn't believe just how far Wired's quality bar had fallen. It doesn't read like a piece written by someone who's familiar with how the internet works.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

karaterobot 3y ago

> I've never seen a set of search results that felt like a different search. They'll certainly ignore search terms, modifiers like quotation marks, and so on. If the result looks like what you meant to search for, that means they're doing their job right I suppose, but they are definitely only using your literal query as a suggestion. (I did not get to read the original article, I have no idea if this comment of mine is off the mark with respect to the claims of that article)

Thorrez 3y ago
Can you give an example of Google ignoring quotation marks? I've seen this claim many times on HN but I've never seen a link showing it happening. Disclosure: I work at Google but not on Search.
- karaterobot 3y ago
  You may be right! Since I don't use Google search much anymore, and have my search history turned off anyway, I can't recall any specific examples from my own life. So, I searched and found internet threads like this one: https://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/144207/google-for-the-exact-phrase-and-no-quotation-marks-dont-help https://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/144207/google-fo... Where the complaint is that searching for "map accuracy" (in quotes) results in pages without that literal string in them, implying that Google is ignoring the quotes to give the user what it thinks is a better list of results. But, when I try to duplicate this three year old problem, I can't replicate it, at least not on the first page of results. And when I try to contrive my own example, searching for a literal phrase that would not exist in any web document (an example: "He beheld nonlinear radish-scented vestments") there are 0 results, which is exactly what I'd expect if Google was obeying the quotation marks. So, this is probably not true anymore, and you've got me doubting my memory now, but I am still fairly certain that it has happened to many on multiple occasions. /shrug
  - 93po 3y ago
    Google behaves differently for different users and trying to replicate a single user's issue is probably never going to be fruitful
  - Thorrez 3y ago
    I believe it's always been the case that quotes work. Here are 3 possible explanations for what you remember: Google search will return results that match the quoted query only through invisible text. So you you might get a result that seems to not contain your text, but if you check the source code or the DOM, the text will be there, hidden. When checking for equality, search will ignore certain punctuation and HTML. So your text might not be there exactly, but once punctuation is stripped, it's there. In the time between Google crawling the page and you viewing it, the page may have been edited. That SO example may be a case of the 2nd reason. For example a page saying <title>Map Accuracy</title> <p>Map accuracy is a measure of... technically contains the text "accuracy map" once you strip out HTML and normalize whitespace and case.

rockskon 3y ago

So why did they take the article down as opposed to only appending the note at the end of the article like they've done elsewhere? It's long been rumored that Google coerces news outlets to publish (or not publish) certain topics lest they find themselves downranked or missing from search queries for a while or get penalized with adsense. With the removal of an article besmearching Google, I begin to wonder if there's any truth to those rumors.

mst 3y ago
The article seemed very strange to me, so I'm not surprised it's been pulled. (my overriding thought as I read it being "I'm sure google does assorted morally dubious things in this area but this really doesn't seem like their style of evil, and I suspect the article is either a misrepresentation or mistaken")
- rockskon 3y ago
  My point is that it's highly unusual for a news outlet to outright remove an article as opposed to editing it and giving a note explaining why. Or a note saying the article is not accurate but leaving it up for historical purposes.
  - mst 3y ago
    My point is that it isn't unheard of for something sufficiently badly wrong, and that article cleared the bar hard enough that I was honestly surprised that wired published it at all. I find it highly likely that Google -do- try to influence coverage, mind, but I don't think that was the primary factor in play here.
joenot443 3y ago
Because in this case, the _entire premise_ of the article was wrong. You're welcome to wonder all you like, but in this case the obvious answer is the correct one. The author (Megan Gray) wrote a bad piece because she misunderstood how a technology worked, leaving Wired no choice but to take it down. Read the article, come to your own conclusion. https://archive.ph/3a0wY#selection-715.112-715.649 https://archive.ph/3a0wY#selection-715.112-715.649 When I read that I was floored - not because I expected even remotely that it might be true, but because I couldn't believe just how far Wired's quality bar had fallen. It doesn't read like a piece written by someone who's familiar with how the internet works.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]