3 ms·

I personally don’t even agree that Google returns irrelevant results. I am a DuckDuckGo user and I still use the !G flag when the results I’m getting aren’t go

by dangus 3y ago

I personally don’t even agree that Google returns irrelevant results. I am a DuckDuckGo user and I still use the !G flag when the results I’m getting aren’t good. Every time I go over to Google the results improve slightly. ChatGPT is a game changer when it comes to getting a system to understand the underlying meaning of my query. I used to give the example of searching for Frank Lloyd Wright’s height - doing so on a search engine would give you results about the buildings themselves. You’d have to dig for the simple information of how tall the dude was. Alas, Google actually fixed this and quickly displays the man’s actual height now. Microsoft and Google are both going to integrate AI into their search engines and they’ll both improve drastically as a result. We’re only scratching the surface on the subject.

brookst 3y ago
It’s not so much that Google returns irrelevant results as it is that Google returns results that are optimized for taking as long as possible to glean the information you’re looking for. Recipes are the classic example. Because Google upranks sites that people spend more time on after a click, most recipe searches yield pages that start with the history of flour milling and what milk is, before eventually getting to the desired recipe 5000 words later.
- dangus 3y ago
  I don’t agree that Google is optimizing for time wasting, either. The faster they get you to click an ad link the faster they get paid. The phenomenon with recipes that you mention has nothing to do with Google: it has more to do with copyright. You can’t copyright a recipe, but you can copyright written commentary about cooking a recipe. The recipe blogs also need enough content to place ads around.
- KMag 3y ago
  From my memory working on web indexing at Google roughly 15 years ago, there was a step function for detecting "short clicks" that indicated a page was irrelevant for that query. As long as the user spent above some minimum before returning to Google, increased time on the site didn't indicate higher quality. So, the real optimum is ranking for one or more popular searches (regardless of relevance), looking vaguely interesting, and just confusing enough that it takes a couple of seconds to realize this isn't the page you wanted. Either that, or being exactly what someone wants for one of the popular searches. Though, things may have changed, and my memory definitely has faded. Also, plenty of SEOs may have misunderstood short clicks as a quality signal, so even if maximizing time on site doesn't help, I wouldn't be surprised if SEOs still recommend it.
amadeuspagel 3y ago
> ChatGPT is a game changer when it comes to getting a system to understand the underlying meaning of my query. I used to give the example of searching for Frank Lloyd Wright’s height - doing so on a search engine would give you results about the buildings themselves. You’d have to dig for the simple information of how tall the dude was. > Alas, Google actually fixed this and quickly displays the man’s actual height now. That's really the only thing I want: A search engine that understands my queries. I don't want to chat with a computer.

by dangus 3y ago

brookst 3y ago

It’s not so much that Google returns irrelevant results as it is that Google returns results that are optimized for taking as long as possible to glean the information you’re looking for. Recipes are the classic example. Because Google upranks sites that people spend more time on after a click, most recipe searches yield pages that start with the history of flour milling and what milk is, before eventually getting to the desired recipe 5000 words later.

dangus 3y ago
I don’t agree that Google is optimizing for time wasting, either. The faster they get you to click an ad link the faster they get paid. The phenomenon with recipes that you mention has nothing to do with Google: it has more to do with copyright. You can’t copyright a recipe, but you can copyright written commentary about cooking a recipe. The recipe blogs also need enough content to place ads around.
KMag 3y ago
From my memory working on web indexing at Google roughly 15 years ago, there was a step function for detecting "short clicks" that indicated a page was irrelevant for that query. As long as the user spent above some minimum before returning to Google, increased time on the site didn't indicate higher quality. So, the real optimum is ranking for one or more popular searches (regardless of relevance), looking vaguely interesting, and just confusing enough that it takes a couple of seconds to realize this isn't the page you wanted. Either that, or being exactly what someone wants for one of the popular searches. Though, things may have changed, and my memory definitely has faded. Also, plenty of SEOs may have misunderstood short clicks as a quality signal, so even if maximizing time on site doesn't help, I wouldn't be surprised if SEOs still recommend it.

amadeuspagel 3y ago

> ChatGPT is a game changer when it comes to getting a system to understand the underlying meaning of my query. I used to give the example of searching for Frank Lloyd Wright’s height - doing so on a search engine would give you results about the buildings themselves. You’d have to dig for the simple information of how tall the dude was. > Alas, Google actually fixed this and quickly displays the man’s actual height now. That's really the only thing I want: A search engine that understands my queries. I don't want to chat with a computer.