13 ms·

No, Google results are trash. Here are three examples from this week: - I Googled "speed work running", wanting some workout suggestions. I visited four or fiv

No, Google results are trash. Here are three examples from this week: - I Googled "speed work running", wanting some workout suggestions. I visited four or five results that either didn't have concrete suggestions, were poorly written, or overly verbose. I ended my search with little faith that I was getting good advice. I typed the same thing into ChatGPT and got a suggestion of 6 different workouts that all seemed coherent. - I asked Google Home "How do I make overnight oats". It replied, "I found a result for [...], should I read it?" then "The first ingredient is Nutella". That's it, that's all it said. I tried the same search on the web, and every result Google result was spam that was 20 paragraphs of inane blog content with a recipe tacked on the end. Again, ChatGPT then gave me a sane, baseline, recipe. - I searched Google for "how much caffeine is in coffee". It gave me a calculator that said, "40 mg" and then a suggestion an alternative search for "Q: How much caffeine is in an average cup of coffee? A: between 80 to 100 milligrams". It turns out the calculator was normalizing the caffeine content to caffeine per 100mg of coffee. I'm using Google exactly how their product is training me to use it, but the failure modes are all consistent. Google's AI features has not real understanding of the world, so their instant answers are frequently nonsensical. And Google clearly can't filter out SEO garbage. Even if they could filter out SEO garbage, Google's early success killed the golden goose. 99% of web publishers are publishing content for Google, not for their readers and web publishing has become a cynically commercial affair. Individual publishers have by and large moved on from the web to other creator-focused platforms. So, the quality and experience of web content is absolute rubbish. Results are filled with cookie banners, ads, signup prompts, verbose SEO filler, poor writing, lack of authority, etc.

reactordev 3y ago
You are using it right however your bias is evident on the results. A 20-something will just scroll through the blog content to get to the recipe at the end. No huss, no fuss. In fact, they’ll open multiple tabs of search results to compare recipes in the time it takes you to gawk at the fact that you have to scroll to the end. Where is the recipe? Why is there a video? Table of contents? No, a 20-something will just flick their screen wildly until they are at the bottom, and scroll up. Give me the results and backtrack to where I’m at. This I think is a result of their upbringing and everyone’s focus on results rather than process. So you may believe you are doing everything correct but you are just going through the motions. The web today is different than it was even 5 years ago. I wish I could search like I used to but we are where we are.
- Semaphor 3y ago
  > A 20-something will just scroll through the blog content to get to the recipe at the end. No huss, no fuss. In fact, they’ll open multiple tabs of search results to compare recipes in the time it takes you to gawk at the fact that you have to scroll to the end. Uh, I do that and I’m 37. But I don’t scroll, I click the button that says "recipe" that’s on pretty much every recipe site. IMO this is mainly about being used to the state of recipe sites on the internet, and has nothing to do with searching.
  - underwater 3y ago
    The state of recipe sites is 100% driven by Google. Those sites add the fluff because that is what Google rewards. The actual recipe quality doesn't matter. If I use my example, the page contains: * Bio of the author - Google SEO rewards content written by "real humans", so this is there to appease the bot. * Giant images of overnight oats - This helps the page rank highly on Google Image Search. * Fluffy paragraphs - "The beauty of overnight oats is that you can make them as simple or creative as you’d like. The base recipe is delicious, and filling all on its own. But if you’d like to spruce it up, you can add a variety of toppings and mix-ins, including fresh fruit, nuts, seeds, spices, jams, and more". Is that supposed to be text written for other humans? Google rewards original content, which means recipe sites need to include massive paragraphs of filler to appear like an authoritative source. * Ads - Gotta make the money. * More fluff "Here’s a few reasons why you should to whip up this recipe today…" - Again, this is not text written for humans. * Repeat the fluff, pictures and ads approximately 5 times. * Common questions "Do you have to use yogurt?" - Trying to appeal to Google Instant Answer searches. * Recipe - Finally! * Recipe rating - This allows the site to put a star rating and review count on Google, again, for SEO So, 95% of the content and functionality of that page is an attempt to convince Google into sending traffic, or ads generating revenue, rather than serving the end user. Content on the web has dramatically changed from 20 years ago because publishers are creating content for a broken machine and not for other humans. This negative feedback loop is hurting the web, and not just Google. This leaves the door open for upstarts like ChatGPT or TikTok to gain mindshare.
    - 3y ago
bfung 3y ago
While reading your Google examples, I don’t think I could parse out what you were intending as a human. Perhaps different keywords would work better? For example, “speed work running”, were you looking to improve sprinting? (I’m not a runner, so it almost reads to me like “working fast while on a treadmill”). Reading the rest of your example, maybe “sprint workouts” would give better results? (40+yr old guy here, Google had always worked for me, as many people had described it working for 20yr olds. Finding the right, specific enough set of keywords had always been my “trick”. Little did I realize I subconsciously generate embeddings like a LLM to Google search)
- underwater 3y ago
  "Speed work" is a class of running drills. The term is very common in running. I'll let ChatGPT explain. This was its response was given the same prompt, when I specifically asked it to give me options it's answer was more specific: Speed work in running is a type of training that focuses on improving your running speed and anaerobic fitness. It involves various structured workouts and drills designed to increase your stride turnover and overall pace. Speed work is essential for athletes who want to enhance their performance in races or simply become faster runners. Common forms of speed work in running include: Interval Training: Interval workouts involve alternating between periods of high-intensity running (fast) and rest or recovery jogging. For example, you might run fast for 1 minute and then jog or walk for 1-2 minutes to recover. This process is repeated multiple times. Fartlek Training: Fartlek, which means "speed play" in Swedish, is an unstructured form of speed work. During a fartlek run, you mix bursts of faster running with slower paces or jogging. You can do this based on how you feel or choose landmarks as your guide. Hill Repeats: Running uphill at a high intensity is an excellent way to build strength and speed. Hill repeat workouts involve running up a hill at a fast pace and then jogging or walking back down to recover. This is repeated for a set number of repetitions. Tempo Runs: Tempo runs are sustained efforts at a "comfortably hard" pace, typically just below your anaerobic threshold. This helps improve your lactate threshold and race pace. Track Workouts: These are structured speed sessions done on a running track. Common track workouts include 400-meter repeats, 800-meter repeats, and 1,600-meter repeats, where you run at a fast, consistent pace and take rest intervals between each repetition. Strides: Strides are short, fast runs of about 100 meters that help improve running form and leg turnover. They are typically done at the end of an easy run. It's essential to incorporate speed work into your training regimen gradually to avoid overuse injuries and adapt to the increased intensity. Make sure to warm up properly and cool down after each speed workout. Consult with a coach or experienced runner to create a personalized training plan that suits your goals and fitness level. Additionally, listen to your body and allow for sufficient recovery between speed sessions to prevent overtraining.
atorodius 3y ago
FWIW, my human brain did not understand your first query, in the second you conflate voice search with Google, and re the last, if I try it, it shows me a dropdown to select what I meant… (Generally just confused by how ppl always claim it’s trash or it got worse but there never is a solid benchmark)
onion2k 3y ago
if they could filter out SEO garbage I think the problem with Google is that 'garbage' is highly subjective, and what you think is awful is actually highly engaging for a lot of users. Google has massive amounts of data about what results users click on, how much time they spend on a website, how much scrolling they do, etc. To technical people we see that as SEO 'trapping' people to push engagement rankings up, but the reality is that it's just engagement. People could leave a site of they wanted to, but they don't. They scroll through those 20 paragraphs of recipe back story. That data means Google are finding accurate results. If anything this shows that Google's results personalization isn't taking your engagement into account. A problem that will get worse as more people block analytics.
danmaz74 3y ago
The problem with "SEO garbage" is that SEO is highly adaptive - whatever change Google does, SEO will almost immediately find a way to adapt and stay relevant. There is just too much money to be made for those involved.
- candiodari 3y ago
  No the problem is that Google did what they really, really promised never to do: to optimize for financial gain, keep people on the Google site, clicking on ads instead of telling them what they want to know. Like one of those 10-episode Netflix documentaries.
  - themoonisachees 3y ago
    Precisely. The main problem with google is that it's extremely hard to align yourself with the goals of humans with human needs, so they have to look at proxy metrics to rank sites before anyone actually hits them. Their current proxy metric appears to be that there is a lot of human-sounding text on the page, and so people optimizing for that are going to put a lot of text on the page, factual accuracy be damned. In the naughts, their metric used to be that many sites linked to yours, and so people optimized that by creating webrings.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
throwaway447 3y ago
- I searched Google for "how much caffeine is in coffee". It gave me a calculator that said, "40 mg" ... It turns out the calculator was normalizing the caffeine content to caffeine per 100mg of coffee." Man, you have strong coffee. :-(
genewitch 3y ago
you can't copyright a recipe itself, so in order to copyright the content on a website with recipes, you have to do that "My mother used to make this on dreary winter days, and we'd sit by the fire ..." Now, i was told this, repeatedly, over and over. It's probably false, but if it is false, cite the decision that precedented this.

reactordev 3y ago

You are using it right however your bias is evident on the results. A 20-something will just scroll through the blog content to get to the recipe at the end. No huss, no fuss. In fact, they’ll open multiple tabs of search results to compare recipes in the time it takes you to gawk at the fact that you have to scroll to the end. Where is the recipe? Why is there a video? Table of contents? No, a 20-something will just flick their screen wildly until they are at the bottom, and scroll up. Give me the results and backtrack to where I’m at. This I think is a result of their upbringing and everyone’s focus on results rather than process. So you may believe you are doing everything correct but you are just going through the motions. The web today is different than it was even 5 years ago. I wish I could search like I used to but we are where we are.

Semaphor 3y ago
> A 20-something will just scroll through the blog content to get to the recipe at the end. No huss, no fuss. In fact, they’ll open multiple tabs of search results to compare recipes in the time it takes you to gawk at the fact that you have to scroll to the end. Uh, I do that and I’m 37. But I don’t scroll, I click the button that says "recipe" that’s on pretty much every recipe site. IMO this is mainly about being used to the state of recipe sites on the internet, and has nothing to do with searching.
- underwater 3y ago
  The state of recipe sites is 100% driven by Google. Those sites add the fluff because that is what Google rewards. The actual recipe quality doesn't matter. If I use my example, the page contains: * Bio of the author - Google SEO rewards content written by "real humans", so this is there to appease the bot. * Giant images of overnight oats - This helps the page rank highly on Google Image Search. * Fluffy paragraphs - "The beauty of overnight oats is that you can make them as simple or creative as you’d like. The base recipe is delicious, and filling all on its own. But if you’d like to spruce it up, you can add a variety of toppings and mix-ins, including fresh fruit, nuts, seeds, spices, jams, and more". Is that supposed to be text written for other humans? Google rewards original content, which means recipe sites need to include massive paragraphs of filler to appear like an authoritative source. * Ads - Gotta make the money. * More fluff "Here’s a few reasons why you should to whip up this recipe today…" - Again, this is not text written for humans. * Repeat the fluff, pictures and ads approximately 5 times. * Common questions "Do you have to use yogurt?" - Trying to appeal to Google Instant Answer searches. * Recipe - Finally! * Recipe rating - This allows the site to put a star rating and review count on Google, again, for SEO So, 95% of the content and functionality of that page is an attempt to convince Google into sending traffic, or ads generating revenue, rather than serving the end user. Content on the web has dramatically changed from 20 years ago because publishers are creating content for a broken machine and not for other humans. This negative feedback loop is hurting the web, and not just Google. This leaves the door open for upstarts like ChatGPT or TikTok to gain mindshare.
  - 3y ago

bfung 3y ago

While reading your Google examples, I don’t think I could parse out what you were intending as a human. Perhaps different keywords would work better? For example, “speed work running”, were you looking to improve sprinting? (I’m not a runner, so it almost reads to me like “working fast while on a treadmill”). Reading the rest of your example, maybe “sprint workouts” would give better results? (40+yr old guy here, Google had always worked for me, as many people had described it working for 20yr olds. Finding the right, specific enough set of keywords had always been my “trick”. Little did I realize I subconsciously generate embeddings like a LLM to Google search)

underwater 3y ago
"Speed work" is a class of running drills. The term is very common in running. I'll let ChatGPT explain. This was its response was given the same prompt, when I specifically asked it to give me options it's answer was more specific: Speed work in running is a type of training that focuses on improving your running speed and anaerobic fitness. It involves various structured workouts and drills designed to increase your stride turnover and overall pace. Speed work is essential for athletes who want to enhance their performance in races or simply become faster runners. Common forms of speed work in running include: Interval Training: Interval workouts involve alternating between periods of high-intensity running (fast) and rest or recovery jogging. For example, you might run fast for 1 minute and then jog or walk for 1-2 minutes to recover. This process is repeated multiple times. Fartlek Training: Fartlek, which means "speed play" in Swedish, is an unstructured form of speed work. During a fartlek run, you mix bursts of faster running with slower paces or jogging. You can do this based on how you feel or choose landmarks as your guide. Hill Repeats: Running uphill at a high intensity is an excellent way to build strength and speed. Hill repeat workouts involve running up a hill at a fast pace and then jogging or walking back down to recover. This is repeated for a set number of repetitions. Tempo Runs: Tempo runs are sustained efforts at a "comfortably hard" pace, typically just below your anaerobic threshold. This helps improve your lactate threshold and race pace. Track Workouts: These are structured speed sessions done on a running track. Common track workouts include 400-meter repeats, 800-meter repeats, and 1,600-meter repeats, where you run at a fast, consistent pace and take rest intervals between each repetition. Strides: Strides are short, fast runs of about 100 meters that help improve running form and leg turnover. They are typically done at the end of an easy run. It's essential to incorporate speed work into your training regimen gradually to avoid overuse injuries and adapt to the increased intensity. Make sure to warm up properly and cool down after each speed workout. Consult with a coach or experienced runner to create a personalized training plan that suits your goals and fitness level. Additionally, listen to your body and allow for sufficient recovery between speed sessions to prevent overtraining.

atorodius 3y ago

FWIW, my human brain did not understand your first query, in the second you conflate voice search with Google, and re the last, if I try it, it shows me a dropdown to select what I meant… (Generally just confused by how ppl always claim it’s trash or it got worse but there never is a solid benchmark)

onion2k 3y ago

if they could filter out SEO garbage I think the problem with Google is that 'garbage' is highly subjective, and what you think is awful is actually highly engaging for a lot of users. Google has massive amounts of data about what results users click on, how much time they spend on a website, how much scrolling they do, etc. To technical people we see that as SEO 'trapping' people to push engagement rankings up, but the reality is that it's just engagement. People could leave a site of they wanted to, but they don't. They scroll through those 20 paragraphs of recipe back story. That data means Google are finding accurate results. If anything this shows that Google's results personalization isn't taking your engagement into account. A problem that will get worse as more people block analytics.

danmaz74 3y ago

The problem with "SEO garbage" is that SEO is highly adaptive - whatever change Google does, SEO will almost immediately find a way to adapt and stay relevant. There is just too much money to be made for those involved.

candiodari 3y ago
No the problem is that Google did what they really, really promised never to do: to optimize for financial gain, keep people on the Google site, clicking on ads instead of telling them what they want to know. Like one of those 10-episode Netflix documentaries.
- themoonisachees 3y ago
  Precisely. The main problem with google is that it's extremely hard to align yourself with the goals of humans with human needs, so they have to look at proxy metrics to rank sites before anyone actually hits them. Their current proxy metric appears to be that there is a lot of human-sounding text on the page, and so people optimizing for that are going to put a lot of text on the page, factual accuracy be damned. In the naughts, their metric used to be that many sites linked to yours, and so people optimized that by creating webrings.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

throwaway447 3y ago

- I searched Google for "how much caffeine is in coffee". It gave me a calculator that said, "40 mg" ... It turns out the calculator was normalizing the caffeine content to caffeine per 100mg of coffee." Man, you have strong coffee. :-(

genewitch 3y ago

you can't copyright a recipe itself, so in order to copyright the content on a website with recipes, you have to do that "My mother used to make this on dreary winter days, and we'd sit by the fire ..." Now, i was told this, repeatedly, over and over. It's probably false, but if it is false, cite the decision that precedented this.