7 ms·

For everyone who is suggesting Google search quality has taken a hit, I would suggest a quick test to see for yourself that Google is still WAY better than the

For everyone who is suggesting Google search quality has taken a hit, I would suggest a quick test to see for yourself that Google is still WAY better than the competitors when it comes to long tail queries. Example: someone compiled a list of things they learned from indiehackers.com interviews. http://www.toomas.net/2017/07/18/reverse-engineering-a-successful-lifestyle-business-heres-everything-ive-learned-from-reading-indiehackers-com/ http://www.toomas.net/2017/07/18/reverse-engineering-a-succe... There are a lot of quotes on that page, and unfortunately none of them are linked back to the original interview. Some quotes are very interesting, so I wanted to find the original interview. I took some of those quotes, put them in double quotation marks, and searched on Google, DuckDuckGo and Bing. By the way, you can only replicate these results by adding the double quotation marks. Results: Google always shows toomas.net in the top results, and almost always finds the relevant interview article on the indiehackers website. DDG (usually) finds the article written on toomas.net, but not the indiehackers interview. Bing often fails to list toomas as the top result, and doesn't find the indiehackers interview at all.

stock_toaster 7y ago
> For everyone who is suggesting Google search quality has taken a hit, I would suggest a quick test to see for yourself that Google is still WAY better than the competitors when it comes to long tail queries. I think these are both true. Google quality has certainly fallen in my opinion (perhaps as a result of having to constantly counter SEO tricks). Other search engines still have quite a bit of catching up to do as well.
unicornporn 7y ago
> DDG (usually) finds the article written on toomas.net, but not the indiehackers interview. Bing often fails to list toomas as the top result, and doesn't find the indiehackers interview at all. Are you able to explain this? Bing and DuckDuckGo are the same thing. DDG uses Bing's API (for non bang searches).
- bubble_talk 7y ago
  I cannot explain it, hopefully someone from DDG actually chimes in :-) If they just use the Bing API, how can their results be better than Bing? I suppose they also use other sources.
  - unicornporn 7y ago
    I find their results are usually as crap as Bing, especially when you use a localized version. That's why I use StartPage (uses Google).
  - Mathnerd314 7y ago
    https://help.duckduckgo.com/duckduckgo-help-pages/results/sources/ https://help.duckduckgo.com/duckduckgo-help-pages/results/so... says "a variety of partners, including Oath (formerly Yahoo) and Bing."
  - judge2020 7y ago
    I'm also seeing crawls from duckduckgobot so they're working on their own system at the moment. It may already be deployed for some easy queries.
- carlob 7y ago
  As far as I know duckduckgo used being for images and some other stuff, but not for the main text search.
- stonogo 7y ago
  > Bing and DuckDuckGo are the same thing. DDG uses Bing's API (for non bang searches). This is not, and has never been, true. Why do people like you keep saying it?
lol768 7y ago
Bing seems to simply ignore the quotes in your query after the first result (for query "This idea that you need to water down your pricing or offer a free beta period is bogus") and then just displays random results. Even SoundCloud is listed there..
JohnJamesRambo 7y ago
Is saying you are better than Bing and DuckDuckGo saying a lot?
- bubble_talk 7y ago
  OK, are you suggesting there is a search engine which produces better results for this specific case?
  - kuschku 7y ago
    The version of Google they had in 2010?
    - jsjohnst 7y ago
      More like 2003-2005 for me. By 2007, the quality was sliding due to them targeting mainstream folks, and deprioriting the tech fridge stuff that I care about.
    - bryanrasmussen 7y ago
      would google have returned results from a JS rendered site back then? The ability to index client side JS rendering puts google ahead of their competition, as more sites become JS rendered they support google's monopoly.
      - kuschku 7y ago
        Improving one minor feature can’t fix something where the basic functionality has been broken. That’s like Yahoo designing a fancier logo while the company falls apart.
the_mitsuhiko 7y ago
> For everyone who is suggesting Google search quality has taken a hit, I would suggest a quick test to see for yourself that Google is still WAY better than the competitors when it comes to long tail queries. Maybe but it's pretty clear to me that Google now no longer indexes entire websites. This as far as I can tell has not been a concern in the past.
syshum 7y ago
Saying other search providers are worse does not refute the statement that Google Search has been reduced in quality. The reduction in Google Search quality is their need to be "helpful" with their desire to use my past search results, and other "big data" they gobble up about me to "improve" my specific results when in fact it makes it worse. That is just the base line, then you have the 100's of other things they have done to the search over the years for political, regulatory and other reasons. Google search gets objectively worse every year than the previous year.
- Demigod33 7y ago
  Is there a bang to disable personalized results?
- fauigerzigerk 7y ago
  I agree that personalization is often not helpful, but I think the more important reason for Google getting worse is that the web is getting worse.
  - bitL 7y ago
    That doesn't explain why DDG returns more useful results for many development-related queries.
    - fauigerzigerk 7y ago
      I get the feeling that DDG specializes in dev related content a little bit.
iamnothere 7y ago
Depending on your searches, YMMV. I finally switched to DDG at work because Google refused to show me relevant results for some (admittedly obscure) searches related to lensing in F#, preferring instead to give me political opinion pieces(!) that were completely irrelevant to my query, along with various results about video games. DDG had no such problems. This is one example of many, but it was the last straw for me. I guess techies aren't Google's core audience anymore, I get that, but it feels like we've lost a valuable tool.
- hedora 7y ago
  For the last decade, the competitors have been meeting or beating Google search relevance in test where the branding is removed. People that can actually notice a major difference in result quality should probably go work on search optimization.
Hedja 7y ago
It's worth mentioning that indiehackers.com is a JavaScript-only website and doesn't work with JS turned off. Google's spider can execute JS, while others do not. This is why indiehackers.com doesn't show up, not because of the search engines themselves. I have a similar issue with a side project of mine. JS-only websites solve this with server-side rendering or static generation.
- taf2 7y ago
  When I think of a search engine I think of it as two things. 1. A web crawler 2. A search index Or as a good boss used to say garbage in garbage out... the quality of the engine is as much a function of the index’s ability to rank as the quality of the input from the crawler... the fact that none of the other engines crawl with JS enabled is a huge competitive advantage for google
  - hobs 7y ago
    Well sure, but you could also just make a website with a modicum of thought and then all search engines will have no problem. Anything that loads no resources unless I have javascript enabled (and is a general purpose website, not some 3d toy or whatever) is trash.
    - damnyou 7y ago
      I mean, clearly this site has value to the OP so it is obviously not trash. What value a service provides is what matters in the end. Implementation details are secondary.
      - yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
        Pulling gems out of trash does not make it not trash.
  - missblit 7y ago
    Bing also renders JavaScript [1][2]. Though there's not a lot of information out there about the details like what browser engine they use. [1] https://blogs.bing.com/webmaster/october-2018/bingbot-Series-JavaScript,-Dynamic-Rendering,-and-Cloaking-Oh-My https://blogs.bing.com/webmaster/october-2018/bingbot-Series... [2] https://searchengineland.com/bing-crawling-indexing-and-rendering-a-step-by-step-on-how-it-works-307592 https://searchengineland.com/bing-crawling-indexing-and-rend...
ses1984 7y ago
Google being better then competitors on this one query tells nothing, especially regarding Google's performance compared to its past self.
- propogandist 7y ago
  Slight tanget, but it might be interesting to some on search results and how Google's search results can sway users. Googles been able to use ephemeral experiences (like autocomplete and answer boxes) to influence users, especially undecided voters. The research, which was reproduced by a German team, is believed to have influenced 2+ million people in the US election alone -- take a listen on the congressional testimony http://naplay.it/1157/37:25 http://naplay.it/1157/37:25 (recommended listen speed is 1.5X)
  - joshuamorton 7y ago
    That testimony is highly misleading. Taking the highest estimates possible, which are based on essentially a conspiracy theory, the number of influenced voters is much lower than 2 million. He claims they moved 2.5 million votes, not voters. This relies on an assumption of straight ticket voters and about 20 votes per voter. He doesn't correct people when they make the votes/voters mistake. And even that new number, 100k voters swayed is not really well founded. He makes a couple of overlapping claims, one of them I looked into deeply and found that using his own papers, a reasonable way of expressing it was that 8-10k additional votes for Clinton was a reasonable upper bound, as he claimed, might be affected. And the number was likely lower (and was only that high because more people identify as democrat than republican in the US). (I work at Google, but take interest in this mostly because it's just terrible abuse of mathematics)

stock_toaster 7y ago

> For everyone who is suggesting Google search quality has taken a hit, I would suggest a quick test to see for yourself that Google is still WAY better than the competitors when it comes to long tail queries. I think these are both true. Google quality has certainly fallen in my opinion (perhaps as a result of having to constantly counter SEO tricks). Other search engines still have quite a bit of catching up to do as well.

unicornporn 7y ago

> DDG (usually) finds the article written on toomas.net, but not the indiehackers interview. Bing often fails to list toomas as the top result, and doesn't find the indiehackers interview at all. Are you able to explain this? Bing and DuckDuckGo are the same thing. DDG uses Bing's API (for non bang searches).

bubble_talk 7y ago
I cannot explain it, hopefully someone from DDG actually chimes in :-) If they just use the Bing API, how can their results be better than Bing? I suppose they also use other sources.
- unicornporn 7y ago
  I find their results are usually as crap as Bing, especially when you use a localized version. That's why I use StartPage (uses Google).
- Mathnerd314 7y ago
  https://help.duckduckgo.com/duckduckgo-help-pages/results/sources/ https://help.duckduckgo.com/duckduckgo-help-pages/results/so... says "a variety of partners, including Oath (formerly Yahoo) and Bing."
- judge2020 7y ago
  I'm also seeing crawls from duckduckgobot so they're working on their own system at the moment. It may already be deployed for some easy queries.
carlob 7y ago
As far as I know duckduckgo used being for images and some other stuff, but not for the main text search.
stonogo 7y ago
> Bing and DuckDuckGo are the same thing. DDG uses Bing's API (for non bang searches). This is not, and has never been, true. Why do people like you keep saying it?

lol768 7y ago

Bing seems to simply ignore the quotes in your query after the first result (for query "This idea that you need to water down your pricing or offer a free beta period is bogus") and then just displays random results. Even SoundCloud is listed there..

JohnJamesRambo 7y ago

Is saying you are better than Bing and DuckDuckGo saying a lot?

bubble_talk 7y ago
OK, are you suggesting there is a search engine which produces better results for this specific case?
- kuschku 7y ago
  The version of Google they had in 2010?
  - jsjohnst 7y ago
    More like 2003-2005 for me. By 2007, the quality was sliding due to them targeting mainstream folks, and deprioriting the tech fridge stuff that I care about.
  - bryanrasmussen 7y ago
    would google have returned results from a JS rendered site back then? The ability to index client side JS rendering puts google ahead of their competition, as more sites become JS rendered they support google's monopoly.
    - kuschku 7y ago
      Improving one minor feature can’t fix something where the basic functionality has been broken. That’s like Yahoo designing a fancier logo while the company falls apart.

the_mitsuhiko 7y ago

> For everyone who is suggesting Google search quality has taken a hit, I would suggest a quick test to see for yourself that Google is still WAY better than the competitors when it comes to long tail queries. Maybe but it's pretty clear to me that Google now no longer indexes entire websites. This as far as I can tell has not been a concern in the past.

syshum 7y ago

Saying other search providers are worse does not refute the statement that Google Search has been reduced in quality. The reduction in Google Search quality is their need to be "helpful" with their desire to use my past search results, and other "big data" they gobble up about me to "improve" my specific results when in fact it makes it worse. That is just the base line, then you have the 100's of other things they have done to the search over the years for political, regulatory and other reasons. Google search gets objectively worse every year than the previous year.

Demigod33 7y ago
Is there a bang to disable personalized results?
fauigerzigerk 7y ago
I agree that personalization is often not helpful, but I think the more important reason for Google getting worse is that the web is getting worse.
- bitL 7y ago
  That doesn't explain why DDG returns more useful results for many development-related queries.
  - fauigerzigerk 7y ago
    I get the feeling that DDG specializes in dev related content a little bit.

iamnothere 7y ago

Depending on your searches, YMMV. I finally switched to DDG at work because Google refused to show me relevant results for some (admittedly obscure) searches related to lensing in F#, preferring instead to give me political opinion pieces(!) that were completely irrelevant to my query, along with various results about video games. DDG had no such problems. This is one example of many, but it was the last straw for me. I guess techies aren't Google's core audience anymore, I get that, but it feels like we've lost a valuable tool.

hedora 7y ago
For the last decade, the competitors have been meeting or beating Google search relevance in test where the branding is removed. People that can actually notice a major difference in result quality should probably go work on search optimization.

Hedja 7y ago

It's worth mentioning that indiehackers.com is a JavaScript-only website and doesn't work with JS turned off. Google's spider can execute JS, while others do not. This is why indiehackers.com doesn't show up, not because of the search engines themselves. I have a similar issue with a side project of mine. JS-only websites solve this with server-side rendering or static generation.

taf2 7y ago
When I think of a search engine I think of it as two things. 1. A web crawler 2. A search index Or as a good boss used to say garbage in garbage out... the quality of the engine is as much a function of the index’s ability to rank as the quality of the input from the crawler... the fact that none of the other engines crawl with JS enabled is a huge competitive advantage for google
- hobs 7y ago
  Well sure, but you could also just make a website with a modicum of thought and then all search engines will have no problem. Anything that loads no resources unless I have javascript enabled (and is a general purpose website, not some 3d toy or whatever) is trash.
  - damnyou 7y ago
    I mean, clearly this site has value to the OP so it is obviously not trash. What value a service provides is what matters in the end. Implementation details are secondary.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
      Pulling gems out of trash does not make it not trash.
- missblit 7y ago
  Bing also renders JavaScript [1][2]. Though there's not a lot of information out there about the details like what browser engine they use. [1] https://blogs.bing.com/webmaster/october-2018/bingbot-Series-JavaScript,-Dynamic-Rendering,-and-Cloaking-Oh-My https://blogs.bing.com/webmaster/october-2018/bingbot-Series... [2] https://searchengineland.com/bing-crawling-indexing-and-rendering-a-step-by-step-on-how-it-works-307592 https://searchengineland.com/bing-crawling-indexing-and-rend...

ses1984 7y ago

Google being better then competitors on this one query tells nothing, especially regarding Google's performance compared to its past self.

propogandist 7y ago
Slight tanget, but it might be interesting to some on search results and how Google's search results can sway users. Googles been able to use ephemeral experiences (like autocomplete and answer boxes) to influence users, especially undecided voters. The research, which was reproduced by a German team, is believed to have influenced 2+ million people in the US election alone -- take a listen on the congressional testimony http://naplay.it/1157/37:25 http://naplay.it/1157/37:25 (recommended listen speed is 1.5X)
- joshuamorton 7y ago
  That testimony is highly misleading. Taking the highest estimates possible, which are based on essentially a conspiracy theory, the number of influenced voters is much lower than 2 million. He claims they moved 2.5 million votes, not voters. This relies on an assumption of straight ticket voters and about 20 votes per voter. He doesn't correct people when they make the votes/voters mistake. And even that new number, 100k voters swayed is not really well founded. He makes a couple of overlapping claims, one of them I looked into deeply and found that using his own papers, a reasonable way of expressing it was that 8-10k additional votes for Clinton was a reasonable upper bound, as he claimed, might be affected. And the number was likely lower (and was only that high because more people identify as democrat than republican in the US). (I work at Google, but take interest in this mostly because it's just terrible abuse of mathematics)