6 ms·

> Google is using too much popularity-based machine learning to "correct" what you're searching for. It's become difficult on Google to search for a non-popular

> Google is using too much popularity-based machine learning to "correct" what you're searching for. It's become difficult on Google to search for a non-popular thing that happens to be close to a popular search target. This has been getting me lots lately. It used to be 1 attempt, maybe 2, to find what I'm after.. lately I find myself regularly needing to try >4 different searches before getting what I'm after. I've consciously noticed that Google seems to have lost the whole thing that made them so great in the first place.

pavanky 12y ago
I don't see a reason to search twice if I already know a key word I am searching for. If Google returns a "popular" result, I usually add a second keyword to specifying the domain which usually returns the correct result.
- weaksauce 12y ago
  I have been using ddg for a good amount of time now and every day I have to use !g to search on Google because the results are too literal. I like the privacy stand that they are taking but it's not close to the search relevancy for a lot of queries.
  - blueskin_ 12y ago
    Being literal is one of its best features, I think, at least in comparison to other search engines. I don't want a google-style filling my search in with long lists of antonyms, related words, or context-changing term reordering... Words that literally mean the same thing are fine (although ideally that would be a selectable setting), but substituting words for something only peripherally related is not.
    - collyw 12y ago
      I try to use Duckduckgo, but end up resorting to google a lot, because the personalized searches are useful. I end up looking up Django documentation a lot, and if you try searching for "Django" on DDG, I end up with the film. Google knows I want the web framework. Would there be a way to be personalized and anonymous at the same time? Or is that an oxymoron?
      - icebraining 12y ago
        Well, they could do client-side filtering/sorting, saving the personalization parameters in local storage. It'd require the server to send a bunch more results up front, though, otherwise the client would have little to work on.
      - mrweasel 12y ago
        I use DuckDuckGo mostly, I always want a specific part of the Django documentation, say so I don't get the movie links (except for an ad). As you say "django" gives you the movie, but "django class based views" gives you what you would expect. For most search I feel that DuckDuckGo has become increasingly good, while Google has become worse. It might be because I don't login or flush cookies when I close my browser, but that would mean that Google rely on personalization to a disturbing degree.
        collyw 12y ago
        Sure, but it was a kind of general example I was giving. My problem when I specify class based views, is that it usually takes me to version 1.3, while Google points me to the dev version (usually I want the most recent stable version so neither is perfect in that respect, but Google is usually closer).
  - dredmorbius 12y ago
    ProTip: !sp will give you StartPage proxied Google results. Google search goodness without Google tracking. My progression is DDG => !SP => !G
nostrademons 12y ago
Try verbatim mode, available under Search Tools -> All Results -> Verbatim or by adding &tbs=li:1 to the URL.
- iLoch 12y ago
  Perfect usability.
- blueskin_ 12y ago
  Why am I only learning about this now? :( It's like the mode to disable 'personalised results' (AKA filter bubbles) - I've explained it to several people in the last few months and they were all amazingly grateful. Of course, we still don't have any way to measure where there is no filter bubbling with them off, or just less... :(
- bhrgunatha 12y ago
  Project Mycroft has hundreds of configuration files for browser search plugins, including Google verbatim. http://mycroftproject.com/search-engines.html?name=google+verbatim http://mycroftproject.com/search-engines.html?name=google+ve...
- denzquix 12y ago
  But if you'd like to search Verbatim and also restrict your results to the most recent month/year/etc., even though these are separate dropdowns under Search Tools, you're out of luck. Google seemingly just won't allow this.
- JeremyNT 12y ago
  Astounding - this small feature dramatically improves my results with google. This is the first time I've even heard of this mode. As with the original article, I think this speaks to the massive power of the "default". Once upon a time Google's "default" was excellent for my use case, but it's slowly degraded over the years, and rather than dig through all of its options trying to make Google useful again, I just whined about it and started looking at competing services. Changes in default behavior should be embarked upon with extreme caution. This is especially true when considering the way google does this (with many incremental changes that are totally invisible individually). I feel like if they more prominently highlighted 1) what they were changing and 2) how to work around it they could avoid much backlash from "power" users. Firefox, in contrast, makes it very clear what they're doing when they change the default search engine, and it's pretty easy to switch back to google. But clearly for a large number of users, that "default" will be good enough.
mojuba 12y ago
When smart engineers try to guess what non-smart non-engineers would be looking for on the Internet, they end up with an over-algorithmized mess that Google has become lately. And now, among other things, Google is losing power users. They shouldn't forget that they gained popularity in the beginning by word of mouth which in this industry literally means: by power users' recommendations to others. It's the power user who would (or wouldn't) be replacing Bing with Google on his family member's new laptop. This is crucial in my opinion: don't try to guess what people want to find, just guess how they want to be looking for something - anything.
- blueskin_ 12y ago
  Unfortunately, that always happens. New product gains power users, starts to dumb down to appeal to room temperature IQs, loses power users again. See also: Firefox.
  - sp332 12y ago
    What are you missing in Firefox that you can't get back 100% with add-ons?
    - Dylan16807 12y ago
      Well this is unrelated to 'dumbing down' but setting a minimum tab width below 30 pixels is remarkably painful these days. It used to be a single config setting, then a single rule in userchrome, but now it takes an add-on that removes Australis and a couple dozen lines of custom fragile CSS that took far too long to write.
  - Fuxy 12y ago
    As far as I'm aware as a long time Firefox user it has never lost any functionality. The menus may appear a bit mor simplified at the surface but if you dig down you will find what you are looking for.
  - amelius 12y ago
    Yes, but how do we prevent this from happening? That's the big question!
amelius 12y ago
Try using a Google+ account. That way, Google can learn about you, and it doesn't need to resort to "popular" search results.
- blueskin_ 12y ago
  So the solution is to have your privacy invaded? Count me out.
  - amelius 12y ago
    You could use different user profiles to protect yourself from excessive privacy invasion.
    - blueskin_ 12y ago
      Because it isn't like Google love to share data between services and cross reference user activity or something, is it? Oh, wait...
  - hahainternet 12y ago
    You want a company to omnisciently select from billions of webpages the most appropriate result for you. You refuse to tell them anything about yourself. That's not having your privacy invaded, that's wanting to have your cake and eat it too.
    - blueskin_ 12y ago
      No, I don't want omniscience. I want them to actually match the fricking keywords I give them. Is that too much to ask in these days of privacy invasion for profit?
      - WorldWideWayne 12y ago
        Yeah, I don't want search results based on my personality just gimme the facts!

pavanky 12y ago

I don't see a reason to search twice if I already know a key word I am searching for. If Google returns a "popular" result, I usually add a second keyword to specifying the domain which usually returns the correct result.

weaksauce 12y ago
I have been using ddg for a good amount of time now and every day I have to use !g to search on Google because the results are too literal. I like the privacy stand that they are taking but it's not close to the search relevancy for a lot of queries.
- blueskin_ 12y ago
  Being literal is one of its best features, I think, at least in comparison to other search engines. I don't want a google-style filling my search in with long lists of antonyms, related words, or context-changing term reordering... Words that literally mean the same thing are fine (although ideally that would be a selectable setting), but substituting words for something only peripherally related is not.
  - collyw 12y ago
    I try to use Duckduckgo, but end up resorting to google a lot, because the personalized searches are useful. I end up looking up Django documentation a lot, and if you try searching for "Django" on DDG, I end up with the film. Google knows I want the web framework. Would there be a way to be personalized and anonymous at the same time? Or is that an oxymoron?
    - icebraining 12y ago
      Well, they could do client-side filtering/sorting, saving the personalization parameters in local storage. It'd require the server to send a bunch more results up front, though, otherwise the client would have little to work on.
    - mrweasel 12y ago
      I use DuckDuckGo mostly, I always want a specific part of the Django documentation, say so I don't get the movie links (except for an ad). As you say "django" gives you the movie, but "django class based views" gives you what you would expect. For most search I feel that DuckDuckGo has become increasingly good, while Google has become worse. It might be because I don't login or flush cookies when I close my browser, but that would mean that Google rely on personalization to a disturbing degree.
      - collyw 12y ago
        Sure, but it was a kind of general example I was giving. My problem when I specify class based views, is that it usually takes me to version 1.3, while Google points me to the dev version (usually I want the most recent stable version so neither is perfect in that respect, but Google is usually closer).
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  ProTip: !sp will give you StartPage proxied Google results. Google search goodness without Google tracking. My progression is DDG => !SP => !G

nostrademons 12y ago

Try verbatim mode, available under Search Tools -> All Results -> Verbatim or by adding &tbs=li:1 to the URL.

iLoch 12y ago
Perfect usability.
blueskin_ 12y ago
Why am I only learning about this now? :( It's like the mode to disable 'personalised results' (AKA filter bubbles) - I've explained it to several people in the last few months and they were all amazingly grateful. Of course, we still don't have any way to measure where there is no filter bubbling with them off, or just less... :(
bhrgunatha 12y ago
Project Mycroft has hundreds of configuration files for browser search plugins, including Google verbatim. http://mycroftproject.com/search-engines.html?name=google+verbatim http://mycroftproject.com/search-engines.html?name=google+ve...
denzquix 12y ago
But if you'd like to search Verbatim and also restrict your results to the most recent month/year/etc., even though these are separate dropdowns under Search Tools, you're out of luck. Google seemingly just won't allow this.
JeremyNT 12y ago
Astounding - this small feature dramatically improves my results with google. This is the first time I've even heard of this mode. As with the original article, I think this speaks to the massive power of the "default". Once upon a time Google's "default" was excellent for my use case, but it's slowly degraded over the years, and rather than dig through all of its options trying to make Google useful again, I just whined about it and started looking at competing services. Changes in default behavior should be embarked upon with extreme caution. This is especially true when considering the way google does this (with many incremental changes that are totally invisible individually). I feel like if they more prominently highlighted 1) what they were changing and 2) how to work around it they could avoid much backlash from "power" users. Firefox, in contrast, makes it very clear what they're doing when they change the default search engine, and it's pretty easy to switch back to google. But clearly for a large number of users, that "default" will be good enough.

mojuba 12y ago

When smart engineers try to guess what non-smart non-engineers would be looking for on the Internet, they end up with an over-algorithmized mess that Google has become lately. And now, among other things, Google is losing power users. They shouldn't forget that they gained popularity in the beginning by word of mouth which in this industry literally means: by power users' recommendations to others. It's the power user who would (or wouldn't) be replacing Bing with Google on his family member's new laptop. This is crucial in my opinion: don't try to guess what people want to find, just guess how they want to be looking for something - anything.

blueskin_ 12y ago
Unfortunately, that always happens. New product gains power users, starts to dumb down to appeal to room temperature IQs, loses power users again. See also: Firefox.
- sp332 12y ago
  What are you missing in Firefox that you can't get back 100% with add-ons?
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    Well this is unrelated to 'dumbing down' but setting a minimum tab width below 30 pixels is remarkably painful these days. It used to be a single config setting, then a single rule in userchrome, but now it takes an add-on that removes Australis and a couple dozen lines of custom fragile CSS that took far too long to write.
- Fuxy 12y ago
  As far as I'm aware as a long time Firefox user it has never lost any functionality. The menus may appear a bit mor simplified at the surface but if you dig down you will find what you are looking for.
- amelius 12y ago
  Yes, but how do we prevent this from happening? That's the big question!

amelius 12y ago

Try using a Google+ account. That way, Google can learn about you, and it doesn't need to resort to "popular" search results.

blueskin_ 12y ago
So the solution is to have your privacy invaded? Count me out.
- amelius 12y ago
  You could use different user profiles to protect yourself from excessive privacy invasion.
  - blueskin_ 12y ago
    Because it isn't like Google love to share data between services and cross reference user activity or something, is it? Oh, wait...
- hahainternet 12y ago
  You want a company to omnisciently select from billions of webpages the most appropriate result for you. You refuse to tell them anything about yourself. That's not having your privacy invaded, that's wanting to have your cake and eat it too.
  - blueskin_ 12y ago
    No, I don't want omniscience. I want them to actually match the fricking keywords I give them. Is that too much to ask in these days of privacy invasion for profit?
    - WorldWideWayne 12y ago
      Yeah, I don't want search results based on my personality just gimme the facts!