Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Previews New Search Infrastructure

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the not-standing-still dept.

Google 129

Google has announced a "developer preview" of a new search infrastructure, though one wouldn't have to be a developer to try it out. Google is asking for feedback on how the search results in the new regime stack up against the old. Matt Cutts has posted a mini FAQ. Some early testing indicates that the new search may be faster in some cases, and return more relevant results, than the old one. Those who attempt to game Google search for a living will be scrambling henceforth. Has anyone identified the new crawler bot in log files?

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First Post (0, Offtopic)

master5o1 (1068594) | more than 5 years ago | (#29020327)

Maybe this will stop Slashdot from giving me mod points :|

Re:First Post (1)

Barny (103770) | more than 5 years ago | (#29020451)

If I had mod points you would have gotten a "+1 interesting" :P

But that is just me, I mod em how I see em.

Re:First Post (5, Informative)

darkvad0r (1331303) | more than 5 years ago | (#29020543)

stop spending them, that'll do (at least it worked for me)
alternatively, you could check your settings and set the relevant option to "I don't want to help" (see the FAQ)

Re:First Post (2, Funny)

master5o1 (1068594) | more than 5 years ago | (#29020695)

But that's too easy.

I can help you (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29020939)

If you don't want to use them, I can do that for you. For some reason, I seem to never get mod points. So... Please PM me your password.

-Yours, Anonymous " Coward

Re:I can help you (1)

linhares (1241614) | more than 5 years ago | (#29021665)

letmein

don't tell anyone man

Major Disapppointment (0, Flamebait)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#29020389)

Really? This is google's new search engine? Wow.

I've been waiting for them to launch something like sig.ma, but way better. Looks like they're falling behind. Which is not to say that Bing is catching up --- I don't even consider that competition.

Re:Major Disapppointment (1)

gnick (1211984) | more than 5 years ago | (#29020401)

It's a cat and mouse game. Google's built a slightly better mouse.

Not remotely a MS fanboi, but at least Bing's trying. If you can build a better mouse, please do. Google's the best game in town.

Re:Major Disapppointment (5, Interesting)

koolfy (1213316) | more than 5 years ago | (#29020819)

two words :
Exalead [exalead.com]
Yauba [yauba.com]

Exalead is more powerful, and Yauba is a little less effective for specific search like "gentoo bug kernel 2.6.30 fglrx", but guarantees 100% anon, and is pretty powerful and useful in some cases.

Google is not the better search engine on the web, their new engine is very good, but google itself hasn't envolve since... I don't know, it's always the same, and we barely see new features added. (take a look at exdalead labs).

After testing several search engines, it appears that google is not the one with the best ideas, and that pertinence and engines of others like exalead aren't bad enough to consider them inferior to google. Google is the most known, and others well known like bing are not as powerful as those two less-known search engines.

Re:Major Disapppointment (5, Insightful)

ChienAndalu (1293930) | more than 5 years ago | (#29020983)

Since when is "putting cruft on search results page so that it is barely usable" and "not implementing sessions and cookies" evolution? Google won because it was nice and clean compared to altavista and yahoo.

Re:Major Disapppointment (0)

koolfy (1213316) | more than 5 years ago | (#29021077)

Google won because it was nice and clean compared to altavista and yahoo.

Back then, yes, but now it's not enough, not anymore. The web is a total mess, and the categories Yauba lets you choose, and the pertinence algorythm it has (that you, sir, failed to test/mention)are just what we (I?) need to get through homonyms or searches with high probability to give HUGE amount of results

That's only one example of the tons of features each one of those two search engines has, and that you didn't even mention.
PS: anonymity is becoming something more than "no sessions and no cookies" nowadays, it's a serious issue. Just look at how much data Google possesses about you, and do NOT erase.

Re:Major Disapppointment (5, Insightful)

ChienAndalu (1293930) | more than 5 years ago | (#29021191)

You seem to equate "features" with quality of the search engine.

Some value

- speed
- a clean interface and
- relevance of the search results (which can be improved by analyzing my previous searches)

If you want to surf the web anonymously, use TOR. Trusting the site saying "we don't have server logs, PROMISE" is silly.

Re:Major Disapppointment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29022039)

If you use Tor for anonymity, consider using Scroogle [scroogle.org] for your search engine.

Re:Major Disapppointment (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 5 years ago | (#29022541)

You seem to equate "features" with quality of the search engine.

Some value

- speed
- a clean interface and
- relevance of the search results (which can be improved by analyzing my previous searches)

If you want to surf the web anonymously, use TOR. Trusting the site saying "we don't have server logs, PROMISE" is silly.

Use http://www.scroogle.org/ [scroogle.org] if you like Google results but don't want to feed the evil empire. There's even an SSL search plugin for it.

Re:Major Disapppointment (1)

ChienAndalu (1293930) | more than 5 years ago | (#29022615)

Again, with this approach you have to trust some invisible code running on a foreign machine.

Re:Major Disapppointment (1)

Vu1turEMaN (1270774) | more than 5 years ago | (#29023757)

Again, with accessing the internet in general you have to trust invisible code running on a foreign machine. And if you disagree, just tell me your ISP. I guaruntee you they have all sorts of invisible code.

Take off the tin-foil hat and climb out of the steel box, please.

Re:Major Disapppointment (2, Interesting)

ChienAndalu (1293930) | more than 5 years ago | (#29023937)

My head is fine without any tinfoil, thank you. I have much personal information on google and don't care much about anonymity. I often use my real name on the Internet (maybe even here someday).

But I know that difference of using a site that says "I promise you anonymity" and Tor.

Re:Major Disapppointment (2, Interesting)

ubrgeek (679399) | more than 5 years ago | (#29021141)

I found and started playing around with iseek [iseek.com] for my Master's classes and have been impressed with the results. Being able to ask questions using natural language is really helpful when I'm not sure exactly for what terms I'd be searching when I first start looking for answers.

Re:Major Disapppointment (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29021305)

The real problem is that the web is ever-expanding in it's multimedia capabilities... and our ability to index such media is falling woefully behind. We don't have any magic software to scan through a video, identifying objects, and sorting out major themes to tag it with... that's left to the folks who upload them. The same could be said for pictures and audio... and even, in some cases, text. How many times have you been searching for some form or other that some company keeps a PDF of that is a scanned image from a hard copy (so that the text is not search-able)?

More hard research needs to be done into automatically creating indexing terms for all of the various media out there. Once this starts to happen, we have a chance (albeit small) of taming the web.

Re:Major Disapppointment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29021525)

Any information where I can find the bullshit name generator that was used to make up these names? :)

Re: Two Engines (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 5 years ago | (#29021647)

I'll look.

I used Yahoo because for a while they did have a couple nice privacy public announcements. I tried Ask, but that feels a little clunky for some uses.

Re:Major Disapppointment (1)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 5 years ago | (#29022081)

Thanks for the tip. If I had mod points, I'd mod you up, sadly I don't.

However, a tip of the hat for "Exalead", it looks like a nice search engine. A little graphic-heavy, but I searched for something and it started giving me subcategories of the search based on the contents of the page. That was surprisingly slick.

Re:Major Disapppointment (2, Insightful)

religious freak (1005821) | more than 5 years ago | (#29020405)

Yeah, I kinda feel you there. I'm kind of itching for some real leap in progress; I think it's due. Semantic queries ala wolfram alpha (well, not LIKE wolfram alpha, but what wolfram is trying to do) are where I'd expect things to go. Seems like the old guard are running out of ideas.

Re:Major Disapppointment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29020583)

Well it is there... to an extent.
But it seems they don't believe Wolfram is any competition anyway, and to be perfectly honest, they aren't.
Yes, i know i know, they aren't competing, but they really are.

Google don't really need to compete much, feature-wise.
The word Google exists! That is enough for them, if they are as recognised as Coke, they can sit back and watch the monies roll in. (figuratively speaking, they still do a lot of work in the back)
Google is simple, straight-to-the-point no-nonsense results, and that is what people want, they don't want some flashy video ad of the next super-awesome film or some crap TV show, they want a site.
Hell, some people don't even think of Google as a site, more as a piece of the computer.

Re:Major Disapppointment (4, Interesting)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 5 years ago | (#29020741)

The least they could do is update the calculator.. I mean, why can't I put in "2 pounds of chocolate in cups" and get an answer? I realize that finding out the density of chocolate may be difficult for Google to do, but why not team up with Wikipedia (have people add things like densities to articles, and then Google can crawl that and use it for calculator results). Or even easier, things that can be found on the periodic table, like "10 kg of lithium in moles" or "atomic weight of calcium".

There seems to be so many things that it could be much more helpful with, and it can't be that hard since it already can answer questions like "What is the mass of the earth times the speed of light squared? [google.com] ", so why can't I ask for the "mass of the earth expressed as energy" (or possible "mass of the earth in joules")?

I guess it's probably just that Google doesn't get many ad clicks when people ask the calculator questions :(

Re:Major Disapppointment (3, Funny)

eric_brissette (778634) | more than 5 years ago | (#29022433)

I doubt it has anything to do with ad revenue. There are too many possible variables for this type of search to be useful.

Chocolate in what form? chips? a solid brick? syrup? cocoa powder? melted?

Two lbs of sawdust in cups. What type of wood? Birch? Poplar? Maple? Walnut? Sawdust from a chainsaw or a table saw?

You have got to be kidding me. What next? Two lbs of filing cabinets in gallons?

Re:Major Disapppointment (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#29022529)

I wouldn't be so synical "i'm feeling lucky" and mozilla browser bar queries, both cost google in ad clicks but google provide them anyway, I would guess its because google isn't meant to be a caluclator and they included an advnaced version of units but its not that important to them. Getting into human language searches simply isn't worth it/a good idea, people should learn to search (learning to search should be/ is easy) a computer guessing what you meant to ask will never be as good as just asking the right question in the first place!

Re:Major Disapppointment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29022575)

How dare you claim that Google Calculator can't answer your simplistic questions? Hell, it can give you the answer to life the universe and EVERYTHING [google.com] !

Re:Major Disapppointment (1)

Viktor Karlsson (1372741) | more than 5 years ago | (#29022781)

I stopped reading after seeing "2 ... cups", that +5 Interesting isn't enough to risk my eyes.

Re:Major Disapppointment (1)

rekenner (849871) | more than 5 years ago | (#29023277)

Because every type of chocolate in the world is uniformly dense. Mmhm. Right.

Re:Major Disapppointment (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 5 years ago | (#29023405)

It may be that youre expecting too much-- I dont think the average person even with access to density data could answer that question: are they chocolate chips (less density / more airspace)? What % cocoa? Melted? Solid? Powder? Is it white chocolate? I would rather that google give me exact, correct conversions when it can, than to guess in situations where it doesnt have the info it needs and leave me with worse-than-no-information.

Re:Major Disapppointment (1)

ginbot462 (626023) | more than 5 years ago | (#29023795)

There called scales dude. Though, I'd go digital. Those key ring ones are a joke for your "chocolate".

Re:Major Disapppointment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29024037)

Don't forget this calculator search:

"number of horns on a unicorn"

(which the developer put in to impress his girlfriend)

Re:Major Disapppointment (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 5 years ago | (#29024187)

The least they could do is update the calculator.. I mean, why can't I put in "2 pounds of chocolate in cups" and get an answer?

Because it's a stupid question. Is that liquid chocolate? Dry, shaved chocolate? And what type? Dark chocolate? Milk chocolate?

Here, I have a better solution for you: Get a kitchen scale. Seriously, it's a virtually required tool for any serious home cook. A decent one will only set you back $50 or so, and I guarantee will be worth every penny.

Re:Major Disapppointment (1)

SammyIAm (1348279) | more than 5 years ago | (#29024899)

Take a look at True# [truenum.com] . Granted, it would be nice to have all this functionality as part of the same engine we use to search the web, but at least someone's doing it.

Re:Major Disapppointment (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#29022449)

sig.ma caters to a different need than google, if a i google something i want links not info, i will then read about my chosen topic on a page dedicated to it!
sure google could announce semantic.google.com which caters to what you want but it should never replace google's primary search!

New crawler bot... (5, Insightful)

Gavin Scott (15916) | more than 5 years ago | (#29020411)

Why would there be a new crawler?? How many more copies of the Interwebs does Google need?

G.

Re:New crawler bot... (2, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 5 years ago | (#29020431)

Why would there be a new crawler?? How many more copies of the Interwebs does Google need?

The answer to your question is: "Yes. Yes indeed."

Thank you for betatesting our new rethoric responder.

Re:New crawler bot... (2, Interesting)

libcrypto (599315) | more than 5 years ago | (#29020437)

My thoughts exactly. They probably developed a new algorithm for finding the best results. There is no need for a new crawler. Found this link on search engine architecture which is helpful. http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html [stanford.edu]

Re:New crawler bot... (1)

lhunath (1280798) | more than 5 years ago | (#29020835)

Sure; because we all know the web is static and never changes.

1. The web is growing at an exponential rate.
2. The existing part of the web must be rechecked every so often for updates.

The result; an ever-increasing demand for data processing. Smarter algorithms for what to crawl and how to process the resulting data is definitely a necessity to keep on top of things.

Re:New crawler bot... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29020943)

Of course, a question might then be why the new crawler would leave different traces from the old crawler.. /questioningcat is questioning

Re:New crawler bot... (2, Interesting)

Will.Woodhull (1038600) | more than 5 years ago | (#29024297)

New crawlers are needed because the web is changing.

  1. The automated cross referencing system on some blogs requires new logic to identify which article is the true search target, and which ones are simply referencing that article.
  2. The increasing use of ajax techniques to update portions of a web page requires a new approach to crawling.
  3. Other new ways of delivering content are also forcing changes, but these two are sufficient to make the point. Teh intarwebs is changing, and teh spiders need to be redesigned to crawl through all them new types of tubes.

Some of these problems will be mitigated by HTML5 (assuming that web developers adopt the new standard-- which is likely for those not married to the Microsoft ecosystem). But even when HTML5 becomes fully mature, there will need to be some big changes in crawler and indexing technology.

New algorithm = more relevant results (5, Insightful)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 5 years ago | (#29020445)

The more relevant results may be just because the algorithm is new, so the SEOs couldn't yet optimize for it. If it really gives more relevant results will be seen after it is the main search algorithm for some time.

Remember, in the beginning the old algorithm used to be very good in finding relevant results.

Re:New algorithm = more relevant results (5, Interesting)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#29020579)

Remember, in the beginning the old algorithm used to be very good in finding relevant results.

I'm not convinced that the degradation is entirely due to SEO. Google used to be a much more technical search -- when you used specific terms, you got specific matches. It seemed to be very much like Altavista with AND between each term. Now, you get a mix of things, as if it was OR between each term. Granted, *that* could be just SEO.

Secondly though, if you search for X, you're asked if you meant Y, and your search results already seem to be for the popular Y result they think you meant.

Likewise, you used to be able to search for hyphenated-terms (I hyphenated all time because it's usually a character less, and requires less editing after the fact than putting quotes around words), but now, it seems to split them into two terms.

I think google have dumbed down their search for people who don't know how to use search engines.

Re:New algorithm = more relevant results (3, Interesting)

dublindan (1558489) | more than 5 years ago | (#29020693)

I agree. What I hate is if I search for "foo bar baz" it seems to ignore that I put quotes around it.. If I put quotes, I'm looking for EXACT matches.. but Google seems to still treat it as foo OR bar OR baz... :'(

Re:New algorithm = more relevant results (4, Informative)

dnwq (910646) | more than 5 years ago | (#29020791)

I don't know about you, but I get exact matches for "foo bar baz" [google.com] .

Re:New algorithm = more relevant results (2, Insightful)

MadMaverick9 (1470565) | more than 5 years ago | (#29021219)

Well - I guess "EXACT" means different things to us then ...

In my world "foo bar baz" is not the same as:

"foo, bar, baz"
"foo, :bar, :baz"
"foo = bar = baz"
"foo->bar->baz"

Oh well ... could just be me ...

Re:New algorithm = more relevant results (4, Interesting)

Serious Callers Only (1022605) | more than 5 years ago | (#29021375)

Google seems to ignore punctuation, that's why you'd get those results.

You put in "foo, bar, baz", it searches for "foo bar baz". It does not search for foo OR bar OR baz, as you suggested, it just strips the punctuation, and then searches for that exact phrase. There's a guide to the methodology you can google for [google.com] .

I understand why they omit punctuation, but It'd be nice if you could ask it to search including punctuation easily (not sure if you can), as it makes searching for code or precise phrases (with puncutation) very difficult.

Re:New algorithm = more relevant results (1)

arielCo (995647) | more than 5 years ago | (#29021521)

I understand why they omit punctuation, but It'd be nice if you could ask it to search including punctuation easily

You can. Try +sig.ma [google.com] as opposed to sig.ma [google.com] and sigma [google.com] . You're basically telling it to be strict-er about that search term - less fancy stemming and all that.

Still +u.n.c.l.e. [google.com] is basically a fail. Sigh.

Re:New algorithm = more relevant results (1)

edalytical (671270) | more than 5 years ago | (#29023719)

"foo bar baz" may be a bad example, but Google does selectively ignore terms even when you put them in quotes. It didn't used to and it drives me crazy. But you are correct, even if the example is flawed.

Re:New algorithm = more relevant results (4, Insightful)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 5 years ago | (#29020933)

Too bad this can only be modded to +5. It needs to be made 'sticky' to the top of the thread (and every goddamn Google programmer's forehead, ever).

Seriously: can we PLEASE have the ability to accurately filter things via syntax include/exclude and grouping again? I know it still 'works' but it doesn't work half a damn. Every once in a while I'll google for an error or some such and i'll have to prune it down to a handful of terms to even get results (and I know there should be more than just a handful for these kinds of things, because it's not uncommon.) Google is becoming almost useless for technical searches.

Re:New algorithm = more relevant results (5, Insightful)

PsychoSlashDot (207849) | more than 5 years ago | (#29021683)

I could live with the current semantics just fine if there were two Google modes: research and purchase. When I search for "Laserjet 4000" in research mode, I'm explicitly saying that I'm searching for pages ABOUT Laserjet 4000 printers, and absolutely not looking for a way to BUY a Laserjet 4000. Contextually isolating these two modes would be hugely helpful. When I want to buy a Widget and I'm simply looking for the best deals, I don't want a bunch of pages where people are reviewing or discussing the product. When I want to fix my Widget, I don't want a bunch of pages trying to sell me a new one. Sometimes a mixture is good, but for me it usually isn't.

Re:New algorithm = more relevant results (1)

magnosis (1366143) | more than 5 years ago | (#29022725)

One word:
ADS.

Re:New algorithm = more relevant results (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29023273)

Mod parent +10 Overdue

Re:New algorithm = more relevant results (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29023285)

Try searching for -price

Re:New algorithm = more relevant results (5, Informative)

Paaskonijn (1220996) | more than 5 years ago | (#29020961)

Secondly though, if you search for X, you're asked if you meant Y, and your search results already seem to be for the popular Y result they think you meant.

Try searching for +X.

Re:New algorithm = more relevant results (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 5 years ago | (#29021873)

Try searching for +X.

This is confusing lots of people. I should probably go find a Firefox extension that automatically fixes + and lets.me.use.dots for phrases again.

Re:New algorithm = more relevant results (1)

edschurr (999028) | more than 5 years ago | (#29025251)

I also find the way Google drops terms annoying. The problem is that you can't simply add + (plusses) to all your search terms, because then Google won't search for near hits, like words with plurals and misspellings. You may not like that feature anyway, but personally I'm OK with that sort of doctoring of my search results.

Re:New algorithm = more relevant results (2, Interesting)

value_added (719364) | more than 5 years ago | (#29021037)

Google used to be a much more technical search ...

I tend to agree, but IIRC, casual searches for technical terms were never that good. In my case, I invariably still get an unfiltered (read "near-endless") list of links to mailing list posts (identical content hosted by different list aggregators), or my favourite, the same frigging README file stored on what seems to be every other server on the internet. At least in the past, some of us could rely on usenet (as archived by Google groups) searches to separate out the chaff, but today everyone insists that web-forums are the way to go, so the signal-to-noise ratio is higher than ever.

Granted, there's typically few ads possible for technical searches, so Google has no monetary incentive to improve them, but you'd think some geek employed by Google and trying to find useful information in a web search would step up and suggest an improvement or two.

Then, again, maybe he's searching for things like deals on cameras (or Britney Spears) like everyone else. ;-)

Re:New algorithm = more relevant results (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29021881)

there's typically few ads possible for technical searches

A handful of years ago, I'd sometimes see ads that said things like, "In the market for a Fourier Transform? We have the best selection at the lowest prices!" They can always bring those back.

(I did wonder how such ads even got there. It was as if someone substituted a dictionary into a ad template and took them all.)

Re:New algorithm = more relevant results (1)

rjstanford (69735) | more than 5 years ago | (#29022933)

Those were always fun to click on, too. They'd often just dump you out at an Amazon storefront, costing the ad purchaser a few cents in the meantime. Maybe that's why they went away?

Re:New algorithm = more relevant results (2, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 5 years ago | (#29020593)

The web itself has changed too, for reasons other than SEO (though it's sometimes hard to tell which is which). PageRank isn't a universal law of nature, with the "best" result to any particular query being related to how many incoming links a particular site has. Rather, it's a heuristic based on something that often happened to be true--- the most useful information was located on pages at sites that were frequently linked to. It's possible that correlation is no longer as strong as it used to be.

Re:New algorithm = more relevant results (1)

XcepticZP (1331217) | more than 5 years ago | (#29020767)

That is a perfect point. And everyone seems to be saying the same thing as you, but they call it Google being gamed by SEO. No one should know how to optimize their site for search engines, the people doing the searching should be the ones doing absolutely all the optimizing. Based on if they liked the site, if it was helpful, etc.

just what I like (1)

neonsignal (890658) | more than 5 years ago | (#29020563)

beautiful

http://www2.sandbox.google.com/ [google.com] - google without the ads!

Re:just what I like (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29020575)

Your browser load ads for you? That you didn't specifically ask for? Odd.... must be something wrong with your ad-blocker or script-control... ;-)

Re:just what I like (1)

Kokuyo (549451) | more than 5 years ago | (#29021255)

Google has ads?

Re:just what I like (1)

neonsignal (890658) | more than 5 years ago | (#29021353)

in newspeak, 'sponsored links'

Obligatory (0, Offtopic)

Zixaphir (845917) | more than 5 years ago | (#29020599)

Thank you, Bing!

What A Fucking Loser (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29020655)

Gotta love these random dipshits hanging out in forums desperately trying to bring Microsoft's latest failed search fiasco some tiny and pathetic bit of publicity.

Re:Obligatory (1)

TDyl (862130) | more than 5 years ago | (#29020721)

Oh, don't mention it Bob and get Dorothy off your lap.

What I'd like to see from Search 2.0 (3, Interesting)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 5 years ago | (#29020669)

Actually, I'm mostly fine with the speed and typical results I'm getting at the moment. What annoys me the most about searching is when the first several pages of results are full of links to places that require you to have an account before you can access the answer or download the file. If I could define a blacklist that automatically excludes some of the worst offenders from my queries, that would be worth far more to me than shaving a few milliseconds of each search.

Re:What I'd like to see from Search 2.0 (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29020833)

You mean, like you _can_ do now if you're logged in?
experts-exchange.com is completely banned from my searches.

Re:What I'd like to see from Search 2.0 (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29020915)

You can see content of experts-exchange.com "answer" using the "cached" link under the Google result, Then just scroll down past the bogus posts and you'll see the real posts.

Re:What I'd like to see from Search 2.0 (1)

astro-g (548659) | more than 5 years ago | (#29021011)

why bother? its all awefull anyway

Re:What I'd like to see from Search 2.0 (3, Interesting)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 5 years ago | (#29023469)

All that matters is that your referrer is google. Doesnt have to be cached-- if what you see on the live page is different from what the googlebot sees, google will drop them from the results for SEO violations.

Re:What I'd like to see from Search 2.0 (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29025077)

You can see content of experts-exchange.com "answer" using the "cached" link under the Google result, Then just scroll down past the bogus posts and you'll see the real posts.

You don't even need to use the cached version: the real pages themselves contain the answers at the bottom.

Re:What I'd like to see from Search 2.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29025133)

Or you can just go to the page and scroll all the way down, no google cache required...

Re:What I'd like to see from Search 2.0 (1)

shird (566377) | more than 5 years ago | (#29021187)

You can already do this using domain exclusion, possibly also by creating a 'custom search'. Or you may be looking for a site such as:
http://www.googeefree.com/ [googeefree.com]

However, keep in mind experts exchange does actually publicly display the results, you just have to scroll down.

Re:What I'd like to see from Search 2.0 (2, Informative)

cyclomedia (882859) | more than 5 years ago | (#29021659)

And the fact that if you ever search for the name of a piece of software the first 100 results are brothersoft.com, getyourfreeshithere.com, freesoftwarefix.com, warezfactory.com etc etc etc etc

Interesting Search Result (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29020771)

I entered "search engine" on the old infrastructure as well as the new. On the old engine, two of the hits on the first page were for bing.com and msn.com. On Google's new infrastructure neither of those sites shows up on the first page.

Maybe they are taking a page out of Microsoft's book?

Interesting (1)

acid06 (917409) | more than 5 years ago | (#29020885)

Turns out I'm much more relevant according to the new search than in the older one.

I have a long name (first name + 3 names). Previously, I would need to include at least my first name and two other names so I would be the first result. Now, a search for first name + second name already shows me at the top (even though there was a famous soccer player in Brazil, before I was born, with the same name).

So, it is more relevant *for me*, but it's likely anyone who's isn't related to software development, would be searching for that soccer player and not me.

Either way, the results do seem more relevant overall (or at least more "modern"). And also it *feels* so much faster. I wonder if this is just because not many people are using it yet, when compared to the main site.

Pelé is that you? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29023143)

Edison Arantes do Nascimento is that you?

No kicking in the groin if it isn't, OK?

Could we please go back to Google Search ~v2003? (4, Interesting)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 5 years ago | (#29020905)

I don't know about anyone else, but I used to get much more search-contextual information on fringe information from Google, even when compared to a highly-tailored search. I don't know if Google does its indexing differently now, or if it's indexing/crawling different subsets of data, but the results are not only different, but often less useful in an academic/info-junkie sense.

For instance, searing for "hammurabi" now results in Wikipedia being the first link. This is true for most searches where there's a wiki page, and for many where the search phrase is simply mentioned in the wp page (yet there is no individual wp page for the topic). A lot of the sites I've got bookmarked when researching superstitions and myth surrounding his code (giants, atlantis, etc.) which are still present do not show up in the search results today - but did around 2003.

Likewise, search for anything which might have current cultural significance ('bush war crimes') and then compare it to something that had cultural significance just a couple years ago ('saddam war crimes'). The results are drastically different and (in the case of the former) cater to lazy people; they also make actually finding a -site- (as opposed to just a 'current event' article) on the topic somewhat more frustrating. (This is just an example, though there are plenty of other similar situations - forgive my 3am brain.)

Now, it might be that Google has actually gotten a lot better at returning pertinent results: so good that those little things I see and go "ohhh interesting! *click*" don't occur nearly as often, and as an info junkie, I view google as having degraded.

Who knows. Still head over heels better than Bing or anything else out there, as far as I'm concerned. I'm glad more progress on 'searching better' is being made. I just wish they'd not clog the works making -cultural- assumptions about what I'm after and stick to the semantics of my search phrases.

Re:Could we please go back to Google Search ~v2003 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29022175)

That's because quality sources don't sit around making geocities sites devoted to niche topics anymore (heh) -- they submit their work to existing sites as features, articles, and blog posts. The front page for those larger, more frequently updated sites end up getting all the Google juice, so the individual articles don't get so much by comparison.

That's a bad explanation and you already recognize that Google might actually be getting better, but I think most of the cause of this particular problem is changes in the arrangement of information into discrete sites.

Re:Could we please go back to Google Search ~v2003 (1)

bjourne (1034822) | more than 5 years ago | (#29023849)

I think you have a point but for some topics the difference in how google ranks results work out worse. For example there are about a dozen sites all archiving as many guitar tabs as possible and any search for guitar tabs will bring up those sites. However, those tab collections are mostly mirroring tabs posted on usenet groups, they don't contain any original information and the tabs are generally of low quality.

Then there are people who write high quality, detailed tabs that they publish in their own small tab collections. On butt ugly pages hosted on geocities with irrelevant gif animations and the whole early 90:s style kit. It is impossible to find those pages these days because all the big sites are much better adapted for seo so the only way to find them is to stumble on them by pure chance.

Social networking sites ranked lower (2, Insightful)

Paaskonijn (1220996) | more than 5 years ago | (#29021005)

I see that name searches for unimportant people (like myself) don't put the Facebook, Netlog, Myspace, ... results on top anymore.
Progress!

Re:Social networking sites ranked lower (1)

pamar (538061) | more than 5 years ago | (#29021695)

I see that name searches for unimportant people (like myself) don't put the Facebook, Netlog, Myspace, ... results on top anymore.

Progress!

You have pipl.com for that...

Google's Changes will impact long-tail more. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29021685)

1. From what I have seen, improved results are not coming from a different algorithm, but from an improved indexing. Long tail keyword searches are more likely to be influenced in these cases (where sites that rank might also be on the verge of falling through the cracks of Google's new indexing patterns)

2. From my experience, there appears to be a marked improvement in speed.

3. Don't under estimate the power of the Top 10. One thing that Google does very well is it only rarely screws with a simple top 10 list of the most relevant pages. Innovation in the search results GUI has rarely yielded success (Ask.com for example)

Bye-Bye content spinners!!!! (3, Insightful)

Tsu Dho Nimh (663417) | more than 5 years ago | (#29021829)

This is going to mess up the content spinners and the paragraph swappers who are trying to either attract ads or build a link farm. Those who have well-build, informative, content-rich pages can sit back and watch the fun.

"Content Spinning" [associatedcontent.com] explained, kinda sorta

Coke, anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29022193)

Is it just me that sees parallels to Coke and their 'new' recipe? Maybe Google will have two search engines for a while: New Google and Google Classic. I don't know what New Google will taste like, but I bet it'll continue beating the shit out of Pepsi-Bing.

SEO results (0, Flamebait)

michaelmalak (91262) | more than 5 years ago | (#29022551)

Oh great, my site drops from position #4 to position #44, with no explanation as to why. And it makes no sense from an objective relevance standpoint. Before I paid for SEO, it was position #19 at worst.

I hope the SEO guys figure out this new regime soon.

Re:SEO results (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29022947)

Oh great, my site drops from position #4 to position #44, with no explanation as to why.

Maybe it is boring and no one gives a shit?

And it makes no sense from an objective relevance standpoint.

That you as owner have?

Before I paid for SEO, it was position #19 at worst.I hope the SEO guys figure out this new regime soon.

You know, interesting sites don't need SEO. Make a relevant site!

Re:SEO results (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29023817)

what a troll

Re:SEO results (2, Insightful)

PotatoFiend (1330299) | more than 5 years ago | (#29023145)

Oh great, my site drops from position #4 to position #44, with no explanation as to why.

Conversely, if a search result goes from #44 to #4 simply because someone paid some SEO firm to make that happen, the search results should state so explicitly. When you pay for SEO you're feeding a disease that renders the search algorithms increasingly ineffective. Gaming a public resource is selfish, and with this "reset" by Google you're witnessing how your actions can come back to hurt you in the long run.

And it makes no sense from an objective relevance standpoint.

Please explain how paid gaming of the system is objective.

Feedback crawl (1)

magnosis (1366143) | more than 5 years ago | (#29022779)

I wonder if the new search engine will crawl this page appropriately to get the feedback they're after ;)

sh1t (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29023169)

similarly Gr1sly

Try to get a date older than the Bible (1)

clawsoon (748629) | more than 5 years ago | (#29023695)

Try out the timeline view. It's pretty cool.

Then try to input a search query that makes the timeline go back further than 4500BC.

You can't do it, can you?

We reason thusly:

1. Google knows everything.
2. Google says nothing happened before 4500BC, which is very close to the date calculated for creation in the Bible.
3. Therefore, the universe must have been created by God about 6000 years ago.

QED.

(Did I do better or worse than an ID troll?)

well, I like it (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 5 years ago | (#29023927)

I have a site with a keyword that occurs only in relation to my topic. Before, I was #5 in search, with the wikipedia page and the government site above mine, then 2 .com websites that feature a ton of other content besides my topic. The new search dumped the two .com sites, ha ha, now I'm #3! I'm sure they did a ton of SEO to get there, because I used to be #3 about 2 years ago until they came on the scene and bumped me down.

Stupid wikipedia link is stuck at #1 and has been forever. And it's not because more sites link there (nobody does) or it's the best site to read on the topic (see if you can spot the errors! bonus points if you can spot the times I corrected an error only to have it reverted.) Government website is highly clicked on & linked to, but is actually rather not useful at all. It's crap, actually, and lots of the important info hasn't been updated since 2006. But I suppose Google looks at the domain name and gives it bonus mushroom levels if it matches some developer's idea of what should come first.

Google Search (1)

dontgetshocked (1073678) | more than 5 years ago | (#29023985)

My friends it all about money thru advertising.Google wins and we lose.

Switching to Bing (1)

canadian_in_beijing (1234768) | more than 5 years ago | (#29024041)

I'm been trying out Bing for the past month and prefer their results. I have to wonder if Google timed this new update because of the focus Bing is getting? Google thrives on media attention and this release puts the webmaster focus back on them.

---

Google results are not as clean and relevant as they once were...some result pages show video, news (plus it's irrelevant news most of the time), and some domains have sub domain search results. What happened to clean page results?

---

Also one of the main reasons I'm switching to Bing is because Google always pushes local results. I'm living in Costa Rica and have no interest in local spanish search results (yes when I type in English in Google some/half of the results come back in Spanish). For 90% of my searches I am after authority world results...not crappy local Costa Rica results. I would like to set my search results to Google International but can not (yes I can type 'Google.com international' in the search bar but why can't I permanently set my Google page to international?. Does anyone know if this is possible?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?