7 ms·

Back when Google search was good this query would have returned no results. As it should do. Now it desperately tries to dig up anything it can find just so the

by cedws 2y ago

Back when Google search was good this query would have returned no results. As it should do. Now it desperately tries to dig up anything it can find just so the number of results is not zero. Somebody at Google wanted to the increase search 'hit rate' KPI and this is the result.

refulgentis 2y ago
That doesn't sound right to me: Google used to suppress results with string matches? Why? If so, would that be a good thing? Why shouldn't I be able to find the vehicle via its ID?
- risenshinetech 2y ago
  These aren't string matches. Check again.
  - refulgentis 2y ago
    Ah, doh, thank you.
duxup 2y ago
Is there anyway we can somehow find out that is true? I could have sworn google always was happy to return some odd url matches, typically when the given results weren't great.
- cedws 2y ago
  Unless you have a time machine there's only anecdotal evidence, but there's plenty of it on HN. Seen many comments here reporting the same thing.
- beardyw 2y ago
  There was at one time a kind of game where you tried to find a search term that would return only say 3 results. It was hard, but some did get found. Having said that I have recently had some kind of "nothing found" result on several occasions. So it still happens. --edit-- In fact I just tried "ca7112b7167c15e621412c0fbc0a6c9" (omitting the last digit to avoid HN) and got: Your search - "ca7112b7167c15e621412c0fbc0a6c9" - did not match any documents. Suggestions: Make sure that all words are spelled correctly. Try different keywords. Try more general keywords.
  - doublerabbit 2y ago
    Google-Whack as I knew it. Where you tried to find only a search with one result. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googlewhack https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googlewhack
- dylan604 2y ago
  I've seen it come back with something along the lines of "it looks like there's not a lot matches" with some useless cartoon graphic. I see this a lot when searching for phone numbers. I've also seen the opposite like the forced "find something no matter how terrible of a match to avoid no results" as being described. You search for a number and no exact matches, but it returns things with different area codes same prefix different numbers. Or same area code, different prefix, same numbers. Or some such randomness that I can't even venture a guess as to why it thought the not one number matches would be interesting to me. Unless you're brave, I'd suggest not searching for random phone numbers with Safe Search off as you'll find some very interesting pages displayed that have absolutely nothing to do with the number being searched.
- rurp 2y ago
  I remember when Googlewhacks[0] used to be a thing. Zero result search queries weren't interesting enough because they were too easy to find. [0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googlewhack https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googlewhack
- Gormo 2y ago
  Just do an image search for "google search returned no results screenshot". Plenty of examples.
noqc 2y ago
Garbage in garbage out is fine here, no? I hate google quite as much as the next person here, but this seems like a non-issue. If I type in a random string, it should be assumed that I'm searching for something.
- ryanianian 2y ago
  Sometimes you really do want exactly that "random" string. This is common with error messages, model numbers, build hashes, etc. If I'm searching for B9GDSIGH as the model number for my refrigerator, I really don't want to see B9GDSIGY.
  - kimixa 2y ago
    But if it links to the B9GDSIG series refrigerator, which has the 240v H and 120v Y subtypes, then it would be correct in suggesting that? Same with error messages - they often have timestamps, or local object IDs/memory addresses, which you also want to be fuzzy-matched. I think the issue is the de-emphasis of "power" modifiers for google - it's less obvious how to say "This part of the string needs exact match, this can be fuzzy"
  - dylan604 2y ago
    In that case, click the "must contain" link and it resubmits with the query wrapped in quotes. Or, just quote the query yourself on the first go if you know it must match
    - ryanianian 2y ago
      Google no longer (hasn't in a while) respected quotes. It's very hard to get Google to actually say there aren't any results even when in fact there are no matching results.
      - dylan604 2y ago
        They respect it when they submit it then, as every time I've used that function to see them update the query with quotes it comes back with different results. I've never cared to look at the search query in the URL, so maybe they also add and additional parameter that tells the back end specifically to obey the quotes on this resubmitting???? So at some point, the quotes aren't ignored
SquareWheel 2y ago
If you put quotes around the string (the "exact match" operator), the only results are this very thread. So it seems to be working as intended. Basically, you did a fuzzy search and got a fuzzy result. Usually that's what people want. Quotes will let you fine-tune results. Or if you want all results to be strict by default, use verbatim mode. I tested that with the above string and again, only this thread showed up.
- underwater 2y ago
  But it’s clearly not what people want. Ask any person if a search for a hex encoded ID should be a fuzzy match for a different ID and the answer will be no. As technical people, it’s easy to infer what’s happening under the hood and make excuses for the weirdness. But food product design is about having strong opinions about what should happen, and ignoring our bias is around the limitations of the tech or the status quo. In an age where I can have an entire conversation with a computer or generate a video from text the world’s greatest search engine still doesn’t understand that you can’t fuzzy match an ID? It increasingly feels like Google search is stuck in the past.
  - fragmede 2y ago
    Who is this "any person" who's searching for random hex, and how much do you think they care of Google shows them a car instead of whatever thing they're not even actually looking for? the idea that this mythical "any person" even cares about the difference between a useless car result and a page that says no results and then they just move on with their lives is projecting a lot of your own biases onto a hypothetical.
    - ipsum2 2y ago
      Obviously no one would search a completely random hex, but it may represent an ID somewhere, and they want to find out more information about it. e.g. a SHA or MD5 hash.
      - deleted 2y ago
shadowgovt 2y ago
I can't tell you the number of times I've searched for random serial numbers and gotten the exact product I seek. I'm glad Google indexes this random crap.
Galatians4_16 2y ago
I miss when Google had thousands of results, and you could browse past page 5. Now it just lies to you.
1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
An experiment would be to create high quality, non-commercial websites with pages containing these hex strings and see if the pages appear in Google SERPs. The fact that Google returns car dealerships when the user is searching for hex strings is telling.

by cedws 2y ago

refulgentis 2y ago

That doesn't sound right to me: Google used to suppress results with string matches? Why? If so, would that be a good thing? Why shouldn't I be able to find the vehicle via its ID?

risenshinetech 2y ago
These aren't string matches. Check again.
- refulgentis 2y ago
  Ah, doh, thank you.

duxup 2y ago

Is there anyway we can somehow find out that is true? I could have sworn google always was happy to return some odd url matches, typically when the given results weren't great.

cedws 2y ago
Unless you have a time machine there's only anecdotal evidence, but there's plenty of it on HN. Seen many comments here reporting the same thing.
beardyw 2y ago
There was at one time a kind of game where you tried to find a search term that would return only say 3 results. It was hard, but some did get found. Having said that I have recently had some kind of "nothing found" result on several occasions. So it still happens. --edit-- In fact I just tried "ca7112b7167c15e621412c0fbc0a6c9" (omitting the last digit to avoid HN) and got: Your search - "ca7112b7167c15e621412c0fbc0a6c9" - did not match any documents. Suggestions: Make sure that all words are spelled correctly. Try different keywords. Try more general keywords.
- doublerabbit 2y ago
  Google-Whack as I knew it. Where you tried to find only a search with one result. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googlewhack https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googlewhack
dylan604 2y ago
I've seen it come back with something along the lines of "it looks like there's not a lot matches" with some useless cartoon graphic. I see this a lot when searching for phone numbers. I've also seen the opposite like the forced "find something no matter how terrible of a match to avoid no results" as being described. You search for a number and no exact matches, but it returns things with different area codes same prefix different numbers. Or same area code, different prefix, same numbers. Or some such randomness that I can't even venture a guess as to why it thought the not one number matches would be interesting to me. Unless you're brave, I'd suggest not searching for random phone numbers with Safe Search off as you'll find some very interesting pages displayed that have absolutely nothing to do with the number being searched.
rurp 2y ago
I remember when Googlewhacks[0] used to be a thing. Zero result search queries weren't interesting enough because they were too easy to find. [0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googlewhack https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googlewhack
Gormo 2y ago
Just do an image search for "google search returned no results screenshot". Plenty of examples.

noqc 2y ago

Garbage in garbage out is fine here, no? I hate google quite as much as the next person here, but this seems like a non-issue. If I type in a random string, it should be assumed that I'm searching for something.

ryanianian 2y ago
Sometimes you really do want exactly that "random" string. This is common with error messages, model numbers, build hashes, etc. If I'm searching for B9GDSIGH as the model number for my refrigerator, I really don't want to see B9GDSIGY.
- kimixa 2y ago
  But if it links to the B9GDSIG series refrigerator, which has the 240v H and 120v Y subtypes, then it would be correct in suggesting that? Same with error messages - they often have timestamps, or local object IDs/memory addresses, which you also want to be fuzzy-matched. I think the issue is the de-emphasis of "power" modifiers for google - it's less obvious how to say "This part of the string needs exact match, this can be fuzzy"
- dylan604 2y ago
  In that case, click the "must contain" link and it resubmits with the query wrapped in quotes. Or, just quote the query yourself on the first go if you know it must match
  - ryanianian 2y ago
    Google no longer (hasn't in a while) respected quotes. It's very hard to get Google to actually say there aren't any results even when in fact there are no matching results.
    - dylan604 2y ago
      They respect it when they submit it then, as every time I've used that function to see them update the query with quotes it comes back with different results. I've never cared to look at the search query in the URL, so maybe they also add and additional parameter that tells the back end specifically to obey the quotes on this resubmitting???? So at some point, the quotes aren't ignored

SquareWheel 2y ago

If you put quotes around the string (the "exact match" operator), the only results are this very thread. So it seems to be working as intended. Basically, you did a fuzzy search and got a fuzzy result. Usually that's what people want. Quotes will let you fine-tune results. Or if you want all results to be strict by default, use verbatim mode. I tested that with the above string and again, only this thread showed up.

underwater 2y ago
But it’s clearly not what people want. Ask any person if a search for a hex encoded ID should be a fuzzy match for a different ID and the answer will be no. As technical people, it’s easy to infer what’s happening under the hood and make excuses for the weirdness. But food product design is about having strong opinions about what should happen, and ignoring our bias is around the limitations of the tech or the status quo. In an age where I can have an entire conversation with a computer or generate a video from text the world’s greatest search engine still doesn’t understand that you can’t fuzzy match an ID? It increasingly feels like Google search is stuck in the past.
- fragmede 2y ago
  Who is this "any person" who's searching for random hex, and how much do you think they care of Google shows them a car instead of whatever thing they're not even actually looking for? the idea that this mythical "any person" even cares about the difference between a useless car result and a page that says no results and then they just move on with their lives is projecting a lot of your own biases onto a hypothetical.
  - ipsum2 2y ago
    Obviously no one would search a completely random hex, but it may represent an ID somewhere, and they want to find out more information about it. e.g. a SHA or MD5 hash.
    - deleted 2y ago

shadowgovt 2y ago

I can't tell you the number of times I've searched for random serial numbers and gotten the exact product I seek. I'm glad Google indexes this random crap.

Galatians4_16 2y ago

I miss when Google had thousands of results, and you could browse past page 5. Now it just lies to you.

1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago

An experiment would be to create high quality, non-commercial websites with pages containing these hex strings and see if the pages appear in Google SERPs. The fact that Google returns car dealerships when the user is searching for hex strings is telling.