Is Google Getting to be Useless?

[sengsational]

I had the same epiphany as the OP, but it was about 10 years ago.


Back then (or earlier), I considered my self an expert at crafting a query that found what I was really looking for. It involved some syntax, so more like an SQL query than a 'natural language' query. But as time passed, it became less and less effective and it seemed like I'd get results of "what they wanted me to see" as opposed to "what I asked for".


If you want to know something about things that "everyone" is asking questions about, you can use a 'natural language' query, and very often it will nail it; DW amazes me with her speed to answer questions just talking into her phone and then the phone answers with audio. But the questions are usually main-stream and not that 'hard'.



If you want to know something from far off in the 'tails' of knowledge, you often need to narrow your search. I often find a site that I consider worthy, then append the "site:www.worthysite.com" to my query. I'd like to be able to specify a black list for those "answers" sites that give lame answers, like how to change a tire: 1) park car, 2) assess safety, 3) find spare tire, 4) change the tire. Geeze! Anyway, sounds like I'm producing a matching a rant with the OP, hehe!

 

[Chuckanut]

No doubt google search’s are getting more and more commercial.

 

[John Galt III]

I had the same epiphany as the OP, but it was about 10 years ago.


............... Back then (or earlier), I considered my self an expert at crafting a query that found what I was really looking for. It involved some syntax, so more like an SQL query than a 'natural language' query. But as time passed, it became less and less effective and it seemed like I'd get results of "what they wanted me to see" as opposed to "what I asked for".


........... .

+1. I often spend 15 minutes trying to arrange what should be an easy combo of search words, to get some specific info, and all I get is 1,000 sites addressing some related info but does NOT answer my question. Example: What is the price of one pint of beer at Joe's Tavern? No answer! A million Joe's Tavern websites, a million reviews of Joe's tavern, a huge list of the different types of beer and ales and wines available at Joe's Tavern, who likes them, who doesn't, and when they first started carrying them, etc ad infinitum. . But, of course, **never.. a... price.... mentioned ***, not even on a ******* menu !!! Gaarrrggghhh.... But the other search engines seem just as bad, or worse.

 

[target2019]

Zipcode Joe's Tavern pint of beer price

 

[John Galt III]

Zipcode Joe's Tavern pint of beer price

Doesn't help. The 1,000 Joe's Tavern websites I referred to in my hypothetical were 1,000 websites referring to the same exact Joe's Tavern. I exaggerated a bit. Some hyperbole, maybe. But sometimes there are many different url's for the same exact business.

 

[JoeWras]

There's also a bias to throw you at youtube... another Alphabet property.

It used to be you needed info on how to change the weedlezip valve on the fombast, and you could get a ton of nice, wordy blog hits with pictures. Those are now pushed way down in deference to somebody who produced some shaky picture, and you have to wade through the video to get the little answer you really want. Again, ad revenue is involved here on many different levels.

 

[dixonge]

One issue: the 'filter bubble' problem

https://fs.blog/2017/07/filter-bubbles/

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0...21235&linkId=088f019456a4762a12a43c867a25fee3

Ways to bypass it (and hopefully improve search results)

https://duckduckgo.com

https://startpage.com

Both anonymize your search, bypassing Google's considerable data profile on you. Supposedly.

 

[mpeirce]

AFIK DDG does use google search engine, it just uses it better.

Not really, it has it's own spider (indexer) and so on, but what you may be thinking about is that DDK can be directed to send your query to google.

ddg> look this up g!

The "g!" directs it to google. And it's done in a private way so that google doesn't know it was you asking. Can be useful at times.

There are other "bang shortcuts" (as they are called) supported by Duck Duck Go:

https://duckduckgo.com/bang

 

[Bamaman]

I mostly use Bing. It's much shorter and easier to type.

 

[sengsational]

There are other "bang shortcuts" (as they are called) supported by Duck Duck Go:

https://duckduckgo.com/bang

Thanks for that bit of information!


Back in the old days, in some search schemes, bang meant 'not'.


But I like that bang means "search only that site". Like the "site:www.somesite.com", but a lot easier to type.

 

[ls99]

Not really, it has it's own spider (indexer) and so on, but what you may be thinking about is that DDK can be directed to send your query to google.

ddg> look this up g!

The "g!" directs it to google. And it's done in a private way so that google doesn't know it was you asking. Can be useful at times.

There are other "bang shortcuts" (as they are called) supported by Duck Duck Go:

https://duckduckgo.com/bang

Thanks for the link, very useful.

 

[Mdlerth]

Everything will forever remain just as it is right now

Google will always be the internet search engine of choice. It won't become bloated with ads or cookies or tracking software. And it won't try to manipulate users in any way.

Same goes for Apple and Microsoft and Amazon; their dominance cannot be challenged. Facebook and Netflix are here to stay.

Also, Toyota will never be able to compete with General Motors. You can believe everything you read in the New York Times. The Curse of the Bambino will haunt the Red Sox til the end of time; ditto for the Cubs and the goat.

 

[Qs Laptop]

Recently, I have noticed a distinct change in what results Google shows me when I search for something. When I would put in a specific statement, the first page would usually show something relevant to what I was looking for. More recently, these will be "down the list" more as the ads are displayed first. Now, I am noticing that Google tends to just IGNORE some of the search query. As an example, I searched for "USAA will not insure beach home" and it didn't return a SINGLE result (I did not proceed past the first page) that was relevant. Were there ads for USAA? Of course! (I attached a pic of my search results).

Those are not ads. Those are relevant search results based on your search terms, which are:

USAA
will
not
insure
beach
home

You should have put "will not insure beach home" in quote marks to make it an exact search phrase. Otherwise you will get the results you asked for.

I have also noticed that my Google "Now" feed (on tablet/mobile phone) will continue to show subjects I have ZERO interest in...such as weight loss. I will go to the settings page and no where is there an interest that is remotely close to weight loss. And if I pull down the specific story (where you can tell Google that you aren't interested in that subject or news provider) the subject are will not be there...you can say "don't show stories from XXX news" but nothing about "don't show stories about weight loss".

This could be happening because at one point you clicked on a story about weight loss, fat people, dieting or something similar. This click must carry a lot of emphasis with advertisers so they continue to target you with these ads.

As an example, about six months ago, curious as to how she looks nowadays, I clicked on a story about actress Elizabeth Hurley turning 54 years old. I still get feeds in my Google News app: "Elizabeth Hurley looks stunning in two piece bikini" or "Elizabeth Hurley looks smashing in lavender gown".

There is a way to flush your cookies, ad search history from Chrome browser to get rid of these annoying ads, but, funny, Google makes it difficult to find out how to do it!

 

[ExFlyBoy5]

site:usaa.com Does USAA insure vacation home

Tweak the search as you may see fit.

Except, USAA isn't going to fess up on a FAQ (or similar) page that they aren't insuring many beach areas...you would have to call or start an online quote.

Sounds like grandpa was a smart man. ;-)

To me this thread reflects a decline in Google search usefulness, as witnessed by many tech savvy people.

Thanks, GrayHare. I had something more condescending to say, but decided against it. I think I am a pretty tech savvy guy and am pretty familiar with searching complex databases (recent examples are Lexis Nexis and Westlaw) and how you can manipulate the search to optimize results. These techniques were once useful to me on Google but not so much anymore.

I also understand that Google is out there to sell ads to eyeballs, and I have no issue with that...it's the usefulness that I am questioning.

OK...looks like there is kid on my lawn; I have to go yell at them now.

At any rate, I will give DDG a try and see if that brings some improvement.

 

[Qs Laptop]

Well, "search engine loading" has been around for quite a while. Sites that want you to see them on top of your search results will "load" their sites with key terms. I just assumed that what you're talking about, is the result of loading.

This is called "keyword stuffing" and Google became wise to this years ago. It's no longer an effective way to rise in the Google search results. In fact, Google penalizes webmasters for doing this.

 

[target2019]

Except, USAA isn't going to fess up on a FAQ (or similar) page that they aren't insuring many beach areas...you would have to call or start an online quote.

Then add a negative sign before site.

-site:usaa.com Does USAA insure vacation home

Also recommend adding the state.

Lots of interesting hits in the search.

 

[morriss003]

Recently, I have noticed a distinct change in what results Google shows me when I search for something. When I would put in a specific statement, the first page would usually show something relevant to what I was looking for. More recently, these will be "down the list" more as the ads are displayed first. Now, I am noticing that Google tends to just IGNORE some of the search query. As an example, I searched for "USAA will not insure beach home" and it didn't return a SINGLE result (I did not proceed past the first page) that was relevant. Were there ads for USAA? Of course! (I attached a pic of my search results).

I have also noticed that my Google "Now" feed (on tablet/mobile phone) will continue to show subjects I have ZERO interest in...such as weight loss. I will go to the settings page and no where is there an interest that is remotely close to weight loss. And if I pull down the specific story (where you can tell Google that you aren't interested in that subject or news provider) the subject are will not be there...you can say "don't show stories from XXX news" but nothing about "don't show stories about weight loss".

Anyway, this is somewhat of a rant as well as a "have you noticed this, too?" I use Google for a lot of things, and I know that they are all interconnected but if I can't use it to do a simple search, then it becomes pretty useless and then how long before others think the same and abandon the platform?

So true. From "Don't be evil," Google has evolved into "G," Google's Evil Empire.

 

[samcat]

You know what...I agree with you. I have noticed that I have to scroll down farther than I used to to find a relevant link...

 

[mh]

You know what...I agree with you. I have noticed that I have to scroll down farther than I used to to find a relevant link...

I’ve been using DuckDuckGo lately. So far I’ve been happier with its search results

 

[davebarnes]

This is called "keyword stuffing" and Google became wise to this years ago. It's no longer an effective way to rise in the Google search results. In fact, Google penalizes webmasters for doing this.

It still works.
You have to be smart at it.
I do it for some of my customers.

 

[TappyGee]

One issue: the 'filter bubble' problem

https://fs.blog/2017/07/filter-bubbles/

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0...21235&linkId=088f019456a4762a12a43c867a25fee3

Ways to bypass it (and hopefully improve search results)

https://duckduckgo.com

https://startpage.com

Both anonymize your search, bypassing Google's considerable data profile on you. Supposedly.

Thank-you!

 

[CaptTom]

One issue: the 'filter bubble' problem

https://fs.blog/2017/07/filter-bubbles/

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0...21235&linkId=088f019456a4762a12a43c867a25fee3

Ironic that Amazon is selling that book.

Probably the biggest "filter bubble" is news sources. For example, Google News is a great aggregator which allows you to seek out different stories about the same topic from news outlets with different viewpoints, local and international.

But if you clear out your cookies before starting and stay logged out, you can stay outside the bubble. Better still, use ad blockers and tracker blockers like Ghostery, too.

If you really like having the browser remember you some places (like this forum) you can always set up a separate, "clean" browser that has all the blockers and clears cookies at close. Then do your news surfing or Amazon product searches from there.

In a "clean" browser you'll get a generic page, not one tailored to your prior browsing. To really see this in action, try it with YouTube. Instead of videos based on your past views you'll get the most popular themes from everyone else's views. It's actually pretty funny to see what's popular nowadays. And sad when you remember that these people are allowed to vote.

 

[Bir48die]

You know what...I agree with you. I have noticed that I have to scroll down farther than I used to to find a relevant link...

+1,000

I am so frustrated right now. I put in a key word and so many of the sites either don’t answer my question or don’t have any reference to it. When I get serious about looking something up I automatically go to page 2 and start there

 

[ExFlyBoy5]

+1,000

I am so frustrated right now. I put in a key word and so many of the sites either don’t answer my question or don’t have any reference to it. When I get serious about looking something up I automatically go to page 2 and start there

I feel better in that I am not alone in this. Just for giggles, I came up with a random legal topic/issue and used Google scholar to find (or attempt) relevant case law. Then, I went to a database that is specifically tailored to legal material and found that my search techniques were very effective in the traditional database whereas Google gave me a lot of stuff that really wasn't useful in my search. Granted, a legal search is different than a generic term(s) search, but I wanted to compare actual search methods to see if I have become less effective at these searches.

 

[Chuckanut]

I’ve been using DuckDuckGo lately. So far I’ve been happier with its search results

+1 on DuckDuckGo

Google is just to commercial these days. DDG has been my search engine of choice for at least a year.