3 ms·

This. If Google kept at “Pages must be short and provide straight answers”, then we’d have much better search results today. Google is machine-gunning its foot

This. If Google kept at “Pages must be short and provide straight answers”, then we’d have much better search results today. Google is machine-gunning its foot since 2021, it’s really unclear to me whether they’re killing their baby just to make the job harder for competitors or something. For now… I open the Google Search results with a machete, and often don’t find any answer. Talk about severing your own foot to avoid gangrene.

ethbr1 2y ago
Why ascribe to malice, what can be explained by ineptitude? I just don't think Google cares enough about the web as a whole to make strategic decisions for content quality in aggregate. Sure it cares about geeky nuances and standards (e.g. page structure / load times), but Pichai isn't considering the impact on web content quality when debating an algorithm change or feature. If Google continues driving web quality off the cliff? Well, the business KPIs stayed green.
- n144q 2y ago
  > I just don't think Google cares enough about the web as a whole to make strategic decisions for content quality in aggregate. The only thing they care about is ad revenue. Google created Chrome which vastly improved browser user experience. Google is a major participant in web standard & JavaScript language evolution, among other work. That's all true, but not necessarily because they "care about the web", but rather it helps their ad business. If people put the entire world's information on websites, and people spend more time in browsers, Google ends up earning more money from ads.
hombre_fatal 2y ago
> If Google kept at “Pages must be short and provide straight answers”, then we’d have much better search results today. I disagree. Any prescription for what the ranking should be that isn't simply the most relevant result is a worse ranking. I don't care if the top search result is the fastest, leanest, shortest, straightest, most adless, most equitable answer to my query if it's not the best answer to my query. I'll take the slowest loading, most verbose, popup ridden, mobile-unfriendly site if it's the one that has what I asked for. Trying to add weights for things other than relevance is probably exactly where Google started going wrong. And then when it turned out badly, people propose yet more weights beyond relevance to fix the problem of irrelevance?
mrkramer 2y ago
It's fascinating to me that Google didn't yet crack the actual discovery of websites and information. Google is constrained to 10 search results by design because majority of people won't ever go to the second search results page. So basically they have to figure out how to put as much useful information and links on the first page of search results. Btw I think we need web directories now more than ever.

ethbr1 2y ago

Why ascribe to malice, what can be explained by ineptitude? I just don't think Google cares enough about the web as a whole to make strategic decisions for content quality in aggregate. Sure it cares about geeky nuances and standards (e.g. page structure / load times), but Pichai isn't considering the impact on web content quality when debating an algorithm change or feature. If Google continues driving web quality off the cliff? Well, the business KPIs stayed green.

n144q 2y ago
> I just don't think Google cares enough about the web as a whole to make strategic decisions for content quality in aggregate. The only thing they care about is ad revenue. Google created Chrome which vastly improved browser user experience. Google is a major participant in web standard & JavaScript language evolution, among other work. That's all true, but not necessarily because they "care about the web", but rather it helps their ad business. If people put the entire world's information on websites, and people spend more time in browsers, Google ends up earning more money from ads.

hombre_fatal 2y ago

> If Google kept at “Pages must be short and provide straight answers”, then we’d have much better search results today. I disagree. Any prescription for what the ranking should be that isn't simply the most relevant result is a worse ranking. I don't care if the top search result is the fastest, leanest, shortest, straightest, most adless, most equitable answer to my query if it's not the best answer to my query. I'll take the slowest loading, most verbose, popup ridden, mobile-unfriendly site if it's the one that has what I asked for. Trying to add weights for things other than relevance is probably exactly where Google started going wrong. And then when it turned out badly, people propose yet more weights beyond relevance to fix the problem of irrelevance?

mrkramer 2y ago

It's fascinating to me that Google didn't yet crack the actual discovery of websites and information. Google is constrained to 10 search results by design because majority of people won't ever go to the second search results page. So basically they have to figure out how to put as much useful information and links on the first page of search results. Btw I think we need web directories now more than ever.