←back to thread

The man who killed Google Search?

(www.wheresyoured.at)
1884 points elorant | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0.849s | source | bottom
Show context
gregw134 ◴[] No.40136741[source]
Ex-Google search engineer here (2019-2023). I know a lot of the veteran engineers were upset when Ben Gomes got shunted off. Probably the bigger change, from what I've heard, was losing Amit Singhal who led Search until 2016. Amit fought against creeping complexity. There is a semi-famous internal document he wrote where he argued against the other search leads that Google should use less machine-learning, or at least contain it as much as possible, so that ranking stays debuggable and understandable by human search engineers. My impression is that since he left complexity exploded, with every team launching as many deep learning projects as they can (just like every other large tech company has).

The problem though, is the older systems had obvious problems, while the newer systems have hidden bugs and conceptual issues which often don't show up in the metrics, and which compound over time as more complexity is layered on. For example: I found an off by 1 error deep in a formula from an old launch that has been reordering top results for 15% of queries since 2015. I handed it off when I left but have no idea whether anyone actually fixed it or not.

I wrote up all of the search bugs I was aware of in an internal document called "second page navboost", so if anyone working on search at Google reads this and needs a launch go check it out.

replies(11): >>40136833 #>>40136879 #>>40137570 #>>40137898 #>>40137957 #>>40138051 #>>40140388 #>>40140614 #>>40141596 #>>40146159 #>>40166064 #
1. jokoon ◴[] No.40138051[source]
simplicity is always the recipe for success, unfortunately, most engineers are drawn to complexity like moth to fire

if they were unable to do some AB testing between a ML search and a non-ML search, they deserve their failure 100%

there are not enough engineers blowing the whistle against ML

replies(3): >>40139005 #>>40139537 #>>40147562 #
2. ants_everywhere ◴[] No.40139005[source]
I definitely think the ML search results are much worse. But complexity or not, strategically it's an advantage for the company to use ML in production over a long period of time so they can develop organizational expertise in it.

It would have been a worse outcome for Google if they had stuck to their no ML stance and then had Bing take over search because they were a generation behind in technology.

3. 1024core ◴[] No.40139537[source]
> most engineers are drawn to complexity like moth to fire

Unfortunately, Google evaluates employees by the complexity of their work. "Demonstrates complexity" is a checkbox on promo packets, from what I've heard.

Naturally, every engineer will try to over-complicate things just so they can get the raises and promos. You get what you value.

replies(1): >>40147483 #
4. Terr_ ◴[] No.40147483[source]
I've heard a similar critique for Google launching new products and then letting them die, where it's really driven by their policies and practice around what gets someone a promotion and what doesn't.
replies(1): >>40152654 #
5. nothercastle ◴[] No.40147562[source]
Engineers love simplicity but management hates it and won’t promote people that strive towards it. A simple system is the most complex system to design.
6. broknbottle ◴[] No.40152654{3}[source]
Yep, promo doc bs that will be immediately abandoned as soon as the promo goes through in X quarter.