Ask HN: What's Up with Google?
Recently, I notice more and more search results Google are locked behind registration gates, and not only does Google list them at all, they're often the top results (Think Quora, Pinterest). I never had issues accessing the content in the results but recently, it's bad. Does no one at Google care? Are the people in charge investors at Pinterest/Quora?
220 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 226 ms ] threadNow they suggest "flexible sampling" [0] to let "users" view a limited amount of content per time period.
This is a game Google has been playing for a while that goes beyond SEO and seems to really be some issue with publishers. But to be fair there are a number of instances where publishers want free access to Google's search pages and users while requesting a fee for writing the content they indexed in the first place.
[0] https://developers.google.com/search/docs/advanced/appearanc...
If content is blocked to me 70% of the time, shouldn’t there be a commensurate penalty? These publishers are shitting up Google results while harvesting free traffic to goose their new user acquisition numbers.
It’s the degradation of the organic Google product experience, I’ve always been baffled why they allow it.
What's your point? A gigacorp has tons of inertia?
I still find what I need, that's all I care about. And I can't remember seeing a pinterest link on the first page.
Sometimes low quality sites will have the advantage and sometimes high quality sites will have the advantage. Google is working with a bias to high quality, but they are fighting a broad fight against persistent opponents. Every so often Google does a big algorithm refactor to try and make life hard for these sort of sites.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Google_Search
Indeed. Many have lazy useragent implementations though
Unfortunately DDG is much worse in a different way - it seems incapable of dealing with synonyms. I can't recall a specific example since I switched back to Google, but it's on the order of searching for Python and getting results for Java (wrong subtree of the taxonomy), searching for Wellington and getting results for the whole of New Zealand (ignoring specifiers), or searching for double glazed windows and getting results for Microsoft Windows (no understanding of the semantics of the words being related).
For products that are core, large UI changes tend to just annoy a lot of users, unless there's something really amazing about the change. Even then, people are hesitant to like new UIs. Engineers and designers definitely want to try new things, but balancing those against messing with UIs that a billion+ people use is hard.
My general take on drive and calendar, if they are trying to improve these cases for enterprise users. There's a lot of very non-sexy work going on to make these improvements, and they aren't always visible.
But it's small improvements that make the big difference. A small user interface element added or removed to speed up an interaction. An updated user experience so that data can be found or organized in a slightly different way.
I could pick on almost everyone of Google's products and have gripes about some UI or UX choice. Missing functionality here, overly complex there, etc. Every product has obvious low hanging fruit that could be improved.
That's what parent is referring to (I assume). There's no more micro-innovation happening. If it's not a change that makes 100 bazallion dollars, then it's just not a change worth doing, apparently.
A good example is changing the typeface of text labels in every product to match the new Google logo, which Google seem to have been continuously doing for years on end now. I would argue this even has negative value, as it creates a mix of two typefaces (Roboto and Product Sans) in every product that used to have one, which causes every future UI design decision to be saddled with the extra cost of deciding which of the two to use.
Protonmail understood this and catered to this need without much fuss: https://i.imgur.com/1ZhWOsC.png
Also the latest updates to Sheets in the menubars have been welcome
The stuff just works.
From the experience of having several critical business SaaS tools go thru constant UX changes that disrespect the user and make the product less stable, I'm actually glad Google still have some respect for the user.
That's why i will gladly buy gsuite for the businesses i provide advice to, yet actively considering replacements of core business infra of which im a power user....for several years.
Its hard to keep something running with no bugs, or downtime.
Its even harder to change something, and keep it bug free, and with no downtime.
e.g. grep, vim.
You're welcome.
Instead, I am guessing (maybe hoping) that we see a return of the moderated directories, like Yahoo or DMOZ of old. A 2.0 spin on these directories, with lessons learned from all the years.
Imagine that you just go to StackOverflow and search there directly for your answer. Want a funny laugh, go to your favorite comedy website (like facebook.com) and search directly. Want some news, go to CNN or Fox (depending on your persuasion) and fill your echo chamber.
Not kidding. I think search as we know it is dead. And there is a new paradigm just sitting out there ready for the next generation to make.
A directory of well known lists of websites with specialty search engines available on each.
Increasingly I've had to use `site:<domain name>` syntax with DDG, but DDG has clearly become significantly worse in recent months. This was confirmed by others in another HN thread recently. Even if I use the site-syntax or use quotes to specify exact match (which DDG used to honor), I'll often get nonsense results whereas Yandex somehow manages to find results that aren't on DDG or Google.
And yeah, I've been having to use search engines on specific sites like Wikipedia because I know there's gonna be less shenanigans.
Sometimes I wonder if I'm living in the past. Do normies actually use search engines anymore?
And from there, search a repertoire of Scheme related articles, tips, blogs, etc.
This model already exists, somewhat, in the form of scholarly articles, medical journals, etc. But there seems to be some innovation needed.
If there were such a "site" that focused on and aggregated Scheme related documentation, you'd think that being listed on that search-directory would be totally acceptable to the website owner. After all, a web article or blog generally wants to be read, especially by an interested reader.
Somehow we need to get back to the web being like a library, with a librarian and a well organized categorical index for references.
Getting humans back into the search loop I think is where we're going to circle to. Like asking your local librarian for information about a topic that is in their special collection.
on edit: I remember Carrot2 had the ability to derive categories from an index dynamically at one point, so when we put all the Danish laws into it and you searched for murder it generated categories such as Knife Murder etc. anyway here is the online Carrot2 with a search on Scheme https://search.carrot2.org/#/search/web/scheme/folders
on edit2: obviously this Carrot2 online thing is just a demo, they don't have a particularly big or up to date index. I'm also not sure how well Carrot2 would scale as it was, IIRC, an academic project to investigate different ways of searching / organizing search results. Check out the treemap.
From my experience, they have diluted that functionality in favour of keyword and context matching against popular searches. Often the thing I want to find is not the most popular thing. Breaking out of that and the search bubbles you get associated with is becoming increasingly difficult. I find myself more and more clicking past the first page if results hoping what I want is there just with less SEO. Rarely is there anything relevant beyond page 3. I definitely remember sometimes digging multiple pages deep into the search results and still finding useful information.
In the early days of Google the speed at which you got the search results was a major factor, I remember being surprised at the speed of response and the quality of the results the first time I was introduced to Google. They still include the search time at the top of the results.
I would prefer to regain strict boolean logic in search at the cost of increased search time. I often care more about actually finding what I want than how fast the result can be returned.
Maybe something like the default search works as it does today as it gives a fast result that has a high likelihood will contain what most people want to see. Then allow for advanced search that strictly adheres to the search terms but could take a few minutes to return the results.
Maybe the start of this is taking a Wikipedia article on Price Parity and then enumerating the referenced articles in the footnotes and putting a search engine over those perhaps.
I don't know. But there's got to be something better than what we have right now. I feel another leap of search innovation happening soon.
A good search engine can and should ask you about this and present you with your choices. Or, of course, they can choose what to show you to optimise for something, be it response time, resource consumption or ad profit.
Seems to me that users would still benefit from a cross-site search capability (eg to follow your example, what if you want something funny not from a specific site or you don't know which sites offer something)
It's subjective but most of the pressure seems to be because the search quality has dropped off recently, not that I'm no longer willing/eager to search.
Don't you think it's more likely in a post keyboard/computer-literate world Search web sites are displaced by vendor-provided App search boxes?
You wanted news? Here's the CNN proprietary app in this beautiful walled garden! Enjoy the ads and total loss of privacy! [This app requires the following permissions: ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US]
Not impossible, but given the proliferation of content on the web and the endless possibilities for competing organizing schemas and editorial choices, it would pretty much have to be a directory of directories.
So, each directory could be it's own self-organizing community, like a subreddit.
[0]: https://neeva.com/p/signup?o=s&c=c3af6jnfmc2dehs8tq5g
Ugh, that triggers me hard. I haven't lived in Germany nor Sweden for ~7 years now and Google never really figured out (despite me telling it so) that I don't need gmaps results in Stockholm and Berlin, and that yes, all my g products should be showing the English UI.
If these folks are ex-google they might consider not doing shit like this in the first place.
I feel like Google could be 10 times better if it allowed the user to block/boost pages.
You can Duck for 'google' to find out more about it.
https://developers.google.com/search/docs/advanced/guideline...
Still, some sites may condition on User-Agent or otherwise present different content than a clean browser and I think those should be de-listed for cloaking.
(Happens every time because I don't whitelist Google cookies, because are you kidding.)
Edit: Yes, you can do this if you click on settings -> show more settings -> show more countries and pick the country you want. Which seems like a pain.
Unfortunately Google downranks primary sources and sends secondary sources to the top. Essentially the Web has become cable television instead of a global system for the open exchange of knowledge and information and something about that is super depressing and rubs me the wrong way.
We felt like it's important that you can select your preferred sources and downvote sources you don't like.
For this and other reasons we separate the experience into a private and personalized mode. So you get exactly what you want based on your explicit settings (like StackOverflow code snippets or arxiv papers) and can have hardcore privacy when you want that (where your location isn't used, not even your searches are stored like on DDG).
Private mode is even more private than DDG so we will likely have to do private ads just like them.
But for the personalized experience we have a few ideas that I think are more creative and more aligned with users and privacy but not fully fleshed out yet. We're still a very small team but hoping to ship them this quarter.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29161545#29194124
One possible solution would be for you to use the same user-agent string that the search engines are using, thus you will see the same content.
https://developers.google.com/search/docs/advanced/crawling/...