6 ms·

Would you rather have "There are no results for Hurricane Karina" than "Here are results for Hurricane Katrina"? Honestly..

flutas 3y ago
I'd rather have "no results for 'hurricane Karina' did you mean 'Hurricane Katrina'?" If you assume something ("oh they meant X not Y", then when your assumption is wrong you (Google) just look stupid.
- dotcoma 3y ago
  Or in bad faith.
- xnx 3y ago
  It's also a fair perspective to have "If Google knew what I meant, why didn't they just show me those results and save me the click?"
  - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
    Because Google doesn't know that I think, it's an an unfair perspective to pretend/assume it does. When it acts as if I'm wrong, it's wrong.
    - joshuamorton 3y ago
      Are you open to the idea that most people disagree with you and prefer a system that does do these things?
      - pharrington 3y ago
        In that case, have the fuzzy search be the default, and have an option to opt out of fuzzy search. The current state of Google search is always use fuzzy search - it cannot be disabled anymore. Even clicking the "No results found for X, did you mean Y" link submits a new fuzzy search query with Y.
        xnx 3y ago
        The name of the option is "verbatim" and you can turn it on in advanced settings.
  - soraminazuki 3y ago
    That's what the "did you mean" links were for. Though Google PR is brings up "relevant ads" every time they're criticized for cyberstalking, they seem to care less about relevant search results. They insist on showing me pages upon pages of links that completely disregards my search queries.
- jjfoooo4 3y ago
  The current behavior shows results for hurricane katrina, with a reasonably prominent link to search hurricane karina. Given (I’m assuming) is empirical evidence that the former was the intent a huge majority of the time, what’s unreasonable about this?
- vkou 3y ago
  You would. I, and most other people using the Internet on a crappy mobile keyboard wouldn't. Fortunately, for you, there's a link you can click on that will force the query using your precise search terms, on every auto-corrected search page. You still get what you want, it's just not the default. And it shouldn't be the default.
  - salawat 3y ago
    >I, and most other people using the Internet on a crappy mobile keyboard wouldn't. Sounds like your problem is crappy UI enforced through attempts to minimize production cost at the expense of enabling the use of the human processing medium to effectively integrate with an electronic device. My error rate typing on mobile skyrocketed with the loss of haptic feedback.
    - vkou 3y ago
      No, it sounds like the software solves a real-world problem for me, as opposed to adhere to some theoretical ideal.
      - salawat 3y ago
        The real world problem was created by the removal of haptic feedback from the physical keyboard. No problem you had was solved. The only people's problem who was solved was handset manufacturers. Don't knock ideals. Most of the world has a vested interest in convincing you they aren't possible. They most certainly are.
Wertulen 3y ago
Yes, if I earnestly meant to search for Hurricane Karina.
KennyBlanken 3y ago
I'd rather get "there are 10 results for bicycle clowns NYC" than a bunch of hits for clowns on motorcycles in NYC. Google has been steadily increasing its "fuziness" to the point that it considers words like "motorcycle" and "bicycle" synonyms. It's made it more and more difficult to get the results you're looking for. They even do it to search terms you put in quotes.
- techdragon 3y ago
  This fuzziness is slowly getting worse in my opinion. I notice it seems like Google had gotten more and more willing to assume unrelated words/concepts are sufficiently interchangeable that it can happily return both in a search query for either … and I’ll be honest here… single behaviour is the number one reason I’m on the edge of leaving google search forever… doing a takeout export of my gmail and fucking the hell off to only using iCloud for personal and Microsoft 365 for work and professional… Google’s continued erosion of their core user facing product “search” (the real core product is advertising but that’s not the majority of people interacting with google are interacting with google for… and an argument could be made that googles only real product customers care about anymore is YouTube but the quality of that experience fluctuates wildly depending on how stupid they are being any particular day due to asinine policies and abusive relationships where they seem to desperately want to destroy the goodwill of the creators that upload content like it’s some kind of fetish and they just have to know the creators hate them otherwise the job of working at YouTube isn’t satisfying…) is indicative of a complete failure to care about the core competency of the company… and companies that fail to care about their core competency are rotting hulks doomed to die…
kristopolous 3y ago
Absolutely. Without question. It's a computer, that's what they're supposed to do. Precision and determinism is what makes them great. This is like saying if you had say, a pocket calculator but hit a key at an incidental angle and the calculator then presumed you meant the next number over and gave you that answer instead. It's incorrect - that's not what computers are supposed to do.
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
  > It's a computer, that's what they're supposed to do. Precision and determinism is what makes them great. > This is like saying if you had say, a pocket calculator but hit a key at an incidental angle and the calculator then presumed you meant the next number over and gave you that answer instead. It's incorrect - that's not what computers are supposed to do. This deserves wide consideration. (Replying because hidden upvotes can't convey that.)
- 0ct4via 3y ago
  Yes and no -- yes, theoretically the output should only be based on the input - if you input 1+3 instead of 1+2, the answer given should be 4, not 3. Optimization exists though, and an interface and search algorithm isn't a simple calculator. Suggesting the correct term when you misspell or mistype something is precision -- it's both identifying the lack of results for your erroneous input, and suggesting the correct input to get the result you're most likely searching for. That's literally the point of optimization. If Search was still the same as it was in the late 90's, Google wouldn't be able to do half the things it does. Are you going to make similar gripes about autocomplete, or GPS that reroutes when you fail to make the planned/"correct" turn? Comparing an intelligent and contextual search interface and result, with simple arithmetic, is a patently false analogy.
  - kristopolous 3y ago
    > That's literally the point of optimization. If Search was still the same as it was in the late 90's, Google wouldn't be able to do half the things it does. That'd be great. The newer half of it is terrible. > Are you going to make similar gripes about autocomplete, or GPS that reroutes when you fail to make the planned/"correct" turn? Absolutely valid. I never use autocomplete as it is vapid and incorrect. Also I don't use gps routing because it does this. The "smart" rotates and "smart" zooms around the screen ignoring my input isn't desired. These systems presume the user is profoundly, unbelievably stupid and can't, for instance, understand cardinal directions. It's why when you enter a url like "http://somesite.com.:80/ http://somesite.com.:80/" it will be like "well I think you meant https://somesite.com https://somesite.com" and then just ignore all your very explicit protocol and port instructions and whisk you off to an https, even if it's broken and doesn't work or similarly if you explicitly select a subsection of a url that starts at the first character, it will invisibly tact on the protocol to the beginning of your selection to be helpful ... as if the user is helplessly befuddled and perplexed by the protocol syntax. These aren't optimizations or improvements. They're diffusive and reductive interfaces that disempower the user, they're everywhere now and it's why everything sucks. Here's what you're advocating for in the physical world - a smart flathead screwdriver that can't be used to pry or wedge anything. In fact, if you try to do that it will have special built in motors and then work against your intentions, wobbling around looking for a flathead screw and then refusing to work if it can't find any. Presuming the user is a completely incompetent clumsy dumbfuck and ONLY working under that modality is not an improvement. This has somehow become a core design assumption in the SV and it needs to die.
twic 3y ago
When i search for "Java dispose HttpClient" i would definitely rather get no results (because you can't) than results on how to dispose an HttpClient in .net, which is what i got when i did that on friday.

flutas 3y ago

I'd rather have "no results for 'hurricane Karina' did you mean 'Hurricane Katrina'?" If you assume something ("oh they meant X not Y", then when your assumption is wrong you (Google) just look stupid.

dotcoma 3y ago
Or in bad faith.
xnx 3y ago
It's also a fair perspective to have "If Google knew what I meant, why didn't they just show me those results and save me the click?"
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
  Because Google doesn't know that I think, it's an an unfair perspective to pretend/assume it does. When it acts as if I'm wrong, it's wrong.
  - joshuamorton 3y ago
    Are you open to the idea that most people disagree with you and prefer a system that does do these things?
    - pharrington 3y ago
      In that case, have the fuzzy search be the default, and have an option to opt out of fuzzy search. The current state of Google search is always use fuzzy search - it cannot be disabled anymore. Even clicking the "No results found for X, did you mean Y" link submits a new fuzzy search query with Y.
      - xnx 3y ago
        The name of the option is "verbatim" and you can turn it on in advanced settings.
- soraminazuki 3y ago
  That's what the "did you mean" links were for. Though Google PR is brings up "relevant ads" every time they're criticized for cyberstalking, they seem to care less about relevant search results. They insist on showing me pages upon pages of links that completely disregards my search queries.
jjfoooo4 3y ago
The current behavior shows results for hurricane katrina, with a reasonably prominent link to search hurricane karina. Given (I’m assuming) is empirical evidence that the former was the intent a huge majority of the time, what’s unreasonable about this?
vkou 3y ago
You would. I, and most other people using the Internet on a crappy mobile keyboard wouldn't. Fortunately, for you, there's a link you can click on that will force the query using your precise search terms, on every auto-corrected search page. You still get what you want, it's just not the default. And it shouldn't be the default.
- salawat 3y ago
  >I, and most other people using the Internet on a crappy mobile keyboard wouldn't. Sounds like your problem is crappy UI enforced through attempts to minimize production cost at the expense of enabling the use of the human processing medium to effectively integrate with an electronic device. My error rate typing on mobile skyrocketed with the loss of haptic feedback.
  - vkou 3y ago
    No, it sounds like the software solves a real-world problem for me, as opposed to adhere to some theoretical ideal.
    - salawat 3y ago
      The real world problem was created by the removal of haptic feedback from the physical keyboard. No problem you had was solved. The only people's problem who was solved was handset manufacturers. Don't knock ideals. Most of the world has a vested interest in convincing you they aren't possible. They most certainly are.

Wertulen 3y ago

Yes, if I earnestly meant to search for Hurricane Karina.

KennyBlanken 3y ago

I'd rather get "there are 10 results for bicycle clowns NYC" than a bunch of hits for clowns on motorcycles in NYC. Google has been steadily increasing its "fuziness" to the point that it considers words like "motorcycle" and "bicycle" synonyms. It's made it more and more difficult to get the results you're looking for. They even do it to search terms you put in quotes.

techdragon 3y ago
This fuzziness is slowly getting worse in my opinion. I notice it seems like Google had gotten more and more willing to assume unrelated words/concepts are sufficiently interchangeable that it can happily return both in a search query for either … and I’ll be honest here… single behaviour is the number one reason I’m on the edge of leaving google search forever… doing a takeout export of my gmail and fucking the hell off to only using iCloud for personal and Microsoft 365 for work and professional… Google’s continued erosion of their core user facing product “search” (the real core product is advertising but that’s not the majority of people interacting with google are interacting with google for… and an argument could be made that googles only real product customers care about anymore is YouTube but the quality of that experience fluctuates wildly depending on how stupid they are being any particular day due to asinine policies and abusive relationships where they seem to desperately want to destroy the goodwill of the creators that upload content like it’s some kind of fetish and they just have to know the creators hate them otherwise the job of working at YouTube isn’t satisfying…) is indicative of a complete failure to care about the core competency of the company… and companies that fail to care about their core competency are rotting hulks doomed to die…

kristopolous 3y ago

Absolutely. Without question. It's a computer, that's what they're supposed to do. Precision and determinism is what makes them great. This is like saying if you had say, a pocket calculator but hit a key at an incidental angle and the calculator then presumed you meant the next number over and gave you that answer instead. It's incorrect - that's not what computers are supposed to do.

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
> It's a computer, that's what they're supposed to do. Precision and determinism is what makes them great. > This is like saying if you had say, a pocket calculator but hit a key at an incidental angle and the calculator then presumed you meant the next number over and gave you that answer instead. It's incorrect - that's not what computers are supposed to do. This deserves wide consideration. (Replying because hidden upvotes can't convey that.)
0ct4via 3y ago
Yes and no -- yes, theoretically the output should only be based on the input - if you input 1+3 instead of 1+2, the answer given should be 4, not 3. Optimization exists though, and an interface and search algorithm isn't a simple calculator. Suggesting the correct term when you misspell or mistype something is precision -- it's both identifying the lack of results for your erroneous input, and suggesting the correct input to get the result you're most likely searching for. That's literally the point of optimization. If Search was still the same as it was in the late 90's, Google wouldn't be able to do half the things it does. Are you going to make similar gripes about autocomplete, or GPS that reroutes when you fail to make the planned/"correct" turn? Comparing an intelligent and contextual search interface and result, with simple arithmetic, is a patently false analogy.
- kristopolous 3y ago
  > That's literally the point of optimization. If Search was still the same as it was in the late 90's, Google wouldn't be able to do half the things it does. That'd be great. The newer half of it is terrible. > Are you going to make similar gripes about autocomplete, or GPS that reroutes when you fail to make the planned/"correct" turn? Absolutely valid. I never use autocomplete as it is vapid and incorrect. Also I don't use gps routing because it does this. The "smart" rotates and "smart" zooms around the screen ignoring my input isn't desired. These systems presume the user is profoundly, unbelievably stupid and can't, for instance, understand cardinal directions. It's why when you enter a url like "http://somesite.com.:80/ http://somesite.com.:80/" it will be like "well I think you meant https://somesite.com https://somesite.com" and then just ignore all your very explicit protocol and port instructions and whisk you off to an https, even if it's broken and doesn't work or similarly if you explicitly select a subsection of a url that starts at the first character, it will invisibly tact on the protocol to the beginning of your selection to be helpful ... as if the user is helplessly befuddled and perplexed by the protocol syntax. These aren't optimizations or improvements. They're diffusive and reductive interfaces that disempower the user, they're everywhere now and it's why everything sucks. Here's what you're advocating for in the physical world - a smart flathead screwdriver that can't be used to pry or wedge anything. In fact, if you try to do that it will have special built in motors and then work against your intentions, wobbling around looking for a flathead screw and then refusing to work if it can't find any. Presuming the user is a completely incompetent clumsy dumbfuck and ONLY working under that modality is not an improvement. This has somehow become a core design assumption in the SV and it needs to die.

twic 3y ago

When i search for "Java dispose HttpClient" i would definitely rather get no results (because you can't) than results on how to dispose an HttpClient in .net, which is what i got when i did that on friday.