4 ms·

I remember this article from 2017 about the google snippet for how long it takes to caramelize an onion. https://gizmodo.com/googles-algorithm-is-lying-to-you-

I remember this article from 2017 about the google snippet for how long it takes to caramelize an onion. https://gizmodo.com/googles-algorithm-is-lying-to-you-about-onions-and-blam-1793057789 https://gizmodo.com/googles-algorithm-is-lying-to-you-about-... The gist of the story is the author wrote an article debunking the recipe myth that you only need 5 minutes. In their tests it was 25 - 45. Google snippet would report "about 5 minutes" and link to the article as a reference. I think the information summaries at the top of searches have been wrong for a while.

pradn 2y ago
It's certainly wrong, but its not out of place w/ the sheer number of recipes and blogs saying the same thing. It's parroting "common wisdom" which is wrong. It's not as egregious as some of the generative AI results spewed out by the lowest-cost-inference LLMs they hooked up to Google search a few months back.
- nox101 2y ago
  It was still a common occurrence for google to display incorrect results that weren't common wisdom. I had tons of such experiences. One I remember was searching for "healthy body weight for x of age y" where x was man,woman and y was my age. Google said 50lbs higher than I expected. I clicked through to the article. The article said the average was this high number, not a healthy weight.
  - pradn 2y ago
    Yes, totally. Automated, fallible systems. Ultimately it's a cost issue. If they wanted to, they could fact check the top million question queries - but they don't want to spend on that.
    - kevindamm 2y ago
      How familiar are you with the knowledge graph update process? There is actually a significant amount of spend going into reviewing the wrong answers to top queries and updating to fix/tweak them.
      - pradn 2y ago
        Yes, there's humans in the loop for the knowledge graph. I'm unsure if snippets are reviewed in the same way.
- refulgentis 2y ago
  Your assumption basis is completely wrong, not only on when it came about. Bizarrely, Google spelled out that the AI answers weren't from an LLM in post-debacle PR, like it was a good thing
daedrdev 2y ago
I think I actually ran into that exact search issue and was confused why my onions were not cooking well, lmao

pradn 2y ago

It's certainly wrong, but its not out of place w/ the sheer number of recipes and blogs saying the same thing. It's parroting "common wisdom" which is wrong. It's not as egregious as some of the generative AI results spewed out by the lowest-cost-inference LLMs they hooked up to Google search a few months back.

nox101 2y ago
It was still a common occurrence for google to display incorrect results that weren't common wisdom. I had tons of such experiences. One I remember was searching for "healthy body weight for x of age y" where x was man,woman and y was my age. Google said 50lbs higher than I expected. I clicked through to the article. The article said the average was this high number, not a healthy weight.
- pradn 2y ago
  Yes, totally. Automated, fallible systems. Ultimately it's a cost issue. If they wanted to, they could fact check the top million question queries - but they don't want to spend on that.
  - kevindamm 2y ago
    How familiar are you with the knowledge graph update process? There is actually a significant amount of spend going into reviewing the wrong answers to top queries and updating to fix/tweak them.
    - pradn 2y ago
      Yes, there's humans in the loop for the knowledge graph. I'm unsure if snippets are reviewed in the same way.
refulgentis 2y ago
Your assumption basis is completely wrong, not only on when it came about. Bizarrely, Google spelled out that the AI answers weren't from an LLM in post-debacle PR, like it was a good thing

daedrdev 2y ago

I think I actually ran into that exact search issue and was confused why my onions were not cooking well, lmao