←back to thread

The man who killed Google Search?

(www.wheresyoured.at)
1884 points elorant | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
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 #
barbariangrunge ◴[] No.40140388[source]
Machine learning or not, seo spam sort of killed search. It’s more or less impossible to find real sites by interesting humans these days. Almost all results are Reddit, YouTube, content marketing, or seo spam. And google’s failure here killed the old school blogosphere (medium and substack only slightly count), personal websites, and forums

Same is happening to YouTube as well. Feels like it’s nothing but promoters pushing content to gain followers to sell ads or other stuff because nobody else’s videos ever surface. Just a million people gaming the algorithm and the only winners are the people who devote the most time to it. And by the way, would I like to sign up for their patreon and maybe one of their online courses?

replies(16): >>40140491 #>>40140498 #>>40140642 #>>40140643 #>>40140674 #>>40141129 #>>40141155 #>>40141191 #>>40141598 #>>40141729 #>>40141971 #>>40142421 #>>40143040 #>>40143790 #>>40146457 #>>40241886 #
freetinker ◴[] No.40140674[source]
A bit chicken-and-egg. Another perspective: Google’s system incentivizes SEO spam.

Search for a while hasn’t been about searching the web as much as it has been about commerce. It taps commercial intent and serves ads. It is now an ad engine; no longer a search engine.

replies(2): >>40141000 #>>40141660 #
dazc ◴[] No.40141000[source]
Best exercise bike articles, and such, are what lots of people people actually search for. There is no incentive to provide quality work which answers these queries hence the abundance of spam and ads.

If you want to purchase consumer products at your own expense and offer an impartial opinion on each of them then you will have no problem getting ranked highly on google. You will lose a lot of money doing so, however, and will also be plagiarized to death in a month. The sites you want to be rid of will outrank you for your own content, I have been there and have the t-shirt.

replies(1): >>40178205 #
1. eastbound ◴[] No.40178205[source]
> Best exercise bike articles, and such, are what lots of people people actually search for

Google doesn’t have to return the SEO-optimized page. Google has other options:

- Return 10 results of the 10 top products,

- Derank any site that seems SEO-optimized,

- Derank any commercial site,

- Derank any site with a cookie banner (implying the user is tracked and the writer is trying to write what the user wants to read) or the infamous mailing list popup,

- Prioritize comparisons from brick-and-mortar journals, or give credentials to other vectors of trust,

- Act as a paid directory, where only paid answers appear,

- Return individual positive and negative comments about products, extracted from review pages, maybe even in a graph (“Good for USB-C according to 95% of the reviews, provides an electric shock according to 7% of non-affiliated comments”).

There WERE many options. Google CHOSE to rank awful sites that provide decreased value, and worse than that, it chose that all other sites won’t be viable, killing them. Google chose the face of the internet today.