4 ms·

I watched one of my friends who says Google is useless use Google one day. If I were looking for a song, I would type in something like “song used at beginning

I watched one of my friends who says Google is useless use Google one day. If I were looking for a song, I would type in something like “song used at beginning of X movie indie rock” He would type in “X songs.” I basically find everything in Google in one search and it takes him several. I type in my thought straight whereas he seems to treat Google like a dumb keyword index.

layer8 2y ago
Interesting, because keyword search works quite well for me, and I assumed it was natural-language searchers who are getting worse results.
TeMPOraL 2y ago
Google used to be a "dumb keyword index" in the past. It worked better that way. You had some modicum of control over the matching process. For the past 10 years or so, Google turned more into "try to guess what a novice normie means", which removes user control (no more actually working verbatim search or logical operators...), and... well I failed to develop a mental model of how exactly it works. It's not a proper keyword search anymore, and it's not a proper DWIM system with true understanding of natural language like LLMs are. It's something... in between, inferior to both. Actually, typing out "what a novice normie means" made me realize what is the probable reason Google turned out the way it is: optimizing for new users. However, a growing userbase means most users are new to Internet in general, and (with big enough growth) most queries are issued by people who are trying a search engine out for the first time, and have no clue how or why it works - and those queries are exactly the kind of queries Google is now good at, queries like example you provided.
- harrall 2y ago
  With modern Google, if I’m searching for something that could either be a band or a song, I can put “band” and I will get only results for the band, even if the page doesn't include the word "band." But if you insist on a dumb keyword search, Google still does that fine if you use quotation marks now in addition to the operator (e.g. +"band"). But I just tried +"band" with my band-vs-song example and all I got were worse results that excluded the artist's website because the artist didn't write the word "band" anywhere on the page -- as expected for a dumb keyword search. There was no easy way to perform my band-vs-song search back then because Google didn’t understand context and the website doesn’t have the correct keywords. But modern Google knows context and I employ this fact regularly, allowing me to find stuff with modern Google like a magician compared to old Google or even Altavista.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
scarface_74 2y ago
Funny anecdote. I use to be afraid of searching for something in the city I lived in by putting the name of the city after it. https://www.cityofcumming.net/ https://www.cityofcumming.net/

layer8 2y ago

Interesting, because keyword search works quite well for me, and I assumed it was natural-language searchers who are getting worse results.

TeMPOraL 2y ago

Google used to be a "dumb keyword index" in the past. It worked better that way. You had some modicum of control over the matching process. For the past 10 years or so, Google turned more into "try to guess what a novice normie means", which removes user control (no more actually working verbatim search or logical operators...), and... well I failed to develop a mental model of how exactly it works. It's not a proper keyword search anymore, and it's not a proper DWIM system with true understanding of natural language like LLMs are. It's something... in between, inferior to both. Actually, typing out "what a novice normie means" made me realize what is the probable reason Google turned out the way it is: optimizing for new users. However, a growing userbase means most users are new to Internet in general, and (with big enough growth) most queries are issued by people who are trying a search engine out for the first time, and have no clue how or why it works - and those queries are exactly the kind of queries Google is now good at, queries like example you provided.

harrall 2y ago
With modern Google, if I’m searching for something that could either be a band or a song, I can put “band” and I will get only results for the band, even if the page doesn't include the word "band." But if you insist on a dumb keyword search, Google still does that fine if you use quotation marks now in addition to the operator (e.g. +"band"). But I just tried +"band" with my band-vs-song example and all I got were worse results that excluded the artist's website because the artist didn't write the word "band" anywhere on the page -- as expected for a dumb keyword search. There was no easy way to perform my band-vs-song search back then because Google didn’t understand context and the website doesn’t have the correct keywords. But modern Google knows context and I employ this fact regularly, allowing me to find stuff with modern Google like a magician compared to old Google or even Altavista.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

scarface_74 2y ago

Funny anecdote. I use to be afraid of searching for something in the city I lived in by putting the name of the city after it. https://www.cityofcumming.net/ https://www.cityofcumming.net/