6 ms·

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 assumpti

by 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.

by flutas 3y ago

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.