Originally Posted by lowededwookie
How many people actually physically type in Google.com into the URL bar and then do the search? I know I don't. I type it into the Search box in Safari.
People don't care about what they use so long as it gives accurate results and so far ALL search engines fail. They have to fail based on the fact they are using boolean searches and so a human not versed in computer thinking will fail to get the results that are required when we think of sentences as wholes not as an entity made of singular parts.
Sorry for not quoting the whole post for reasons of brevity which was very interesting, and reflects my thoughts. That's my main beef with google, that they brought a simple proposition way back when, effectively implemented, but since then they've spread out into all areas, without actually caring that much for their core users, and their core product.
They spent more than a decade to include an option for searching forums (discussions as they call them), and another about time targeting the results. That's hardly what one can call innovative. At the same time they were very effective in letting all that ad cash flow in. Surely, so many more things can be done with search engines, but google's domination hasn't helped. I don't give a rat's ass about google wave if I have to wait till a few months ago to have simple forum search (which still isn't well implemented)
I don't think highly of google, and seeing their CEO in their keynotes, he came across (other than a bad Steve Jobs impersonator) as a rather slow witted geek. Slow in terms not of geeky aspects, but in terms of common sense, vision and general intellect and perception, the things that high rate geeks are usually worse at. I just think they found a historical chance solely because everyone else was too close minded in searches, and have been milking this ever since.
Where's some modicum of AI (lol, not apple insider) in the searches after more than a decade of immense profits? Where's all that supposed talent in google working on this? Too busy scanning books so they can then blackmail whole industries, libraries and governments to become the big brother for publishing? Too busy gathering personal data on pretty much anyone? What the crap is that 20% creative time bs? What's been so revolutionary about the google, a half decent gmail interface coupled with lots of free space out of their ludicrously high profits?
All those supposed so intelligent algos behind the search boil down to crawling the web for specific words, and using links for ranking. Big f.cking deal. Over the years a lot of people (myself included) have had a lot of good ideas on how google might add some very important missing elements to their searches, but it seems google hasn't really incorporated any of these.
Where's some lexicographical analysis and sense in the search? Why not form clusters of words that might be used for a search? When I search for a critical review or article, is it too hard for google, to analyse a few thousand similar searches and the respective pages, to automatically come up with a cluster of phrases to search that reflect what we mean when we are looking for a critical point of view on an issue. When I type in disadvantages, or criticism I am not looking for these specific words, I am looking for their meaning. How hard is it, say for a example to go over a few book or film reviews and cluster together some phrases commonly used when someone is writing a critical review (I should be saying negative instead, that's more accurate in this context). Then when you type blah blah book negative, you don't find only the the name of the book and the word negative. The current scenario is a Neanderthal level of searching the web.
And that could apply to pretty much any area where words and phrases can be associated and one can find a way to incorporate this intelligence in the search. I am not saying this will be easy or straightfoward, but dammit after all that 20% creativity talk and the self promotion for these guys, they should have at least released some beta AI, or advanced search engine. It's not really innovative to use the ~ sign before a word, so that google searches for synonyms of it as well. That takes about a couple of minutes to implement, get a thesaurus, and each time google sees ~ it searches all the words in the thesaurus for the input word. Big f.cking deal.
How hard is it to maintain a good directory of the web? Once when the open directory was well maintained it used to be a treat to use, and something that couldn't be replaced by a search engine, dumb as they are. How hard is it to have the search engine then search within this directory. Say I want to search within governmental organisations, or uk newspapers, or charities. It doesn't take a genius to put a few clerks there, keeping an up to date directory, if they can't do that, just licence the damn yellow pages, and then search within any group of categories within those of them that have a webpage.
If I want to search within university web sites, why do I have to manually specify say site:.edu, or site:ac.uk. Just make a category of universities worldwide and let me search it, how hard is that?
And these are just suggestions that are barely scratching the surface, most of them dead simple to implement, with a modicum of common sense and vision. But of course they are very into their megalomania (scanning all printed books of the world, producing google waves (....) ) or maintaining their ad profits, for them to even care about these. Although I would side more with the view that they also do lack the common sense required for these...
Anyway, this was an overlong post, I won't bore you any more with other suggestions, there are plenty out there. I just think google has crossed the line with accusing apple of being the big brother, when they are the single most big brother-ish company in the world. Apple just tries to keep their ecosystem consistent and opt to choose which technologies to support, to preserve the much valued user experience, and sell their hardware. At the same time there hasn't been a single company of their size that has contributed more to open standards. And here you have people tracking 90% of the worlds people searching the web, scanning all the books of the world so they can become some big brotherish world publisher, ripping almost everyone off being the world's big de facto brother advertiser, and wreaking havoc on the mobile phone industry by releasing a supposed free os, solely for the purposes of dominating the ad market there too an portraying this (in a most treacherous way) as their love for a free widely available mobile os. Sure apple is bad for disallowing flash in their own hardware devices, and these megalomaniacs are a ok for wanting everyone to pay up to them via their ads in a mobile os set to dominate the world. If there ever was a reversal of reality...but Orwell did write about this in 1984...
What's even more insulting is that they portray themselves as huge innovators for throwing about various hit and miss projects around their search engine, which itself remains way far behind what the times would require. Of course they are lucky because equally moronic directors run the bings and yahoos (apt name by the way) of this world, and the start ups with brains, sense and vision lack the all important clout to be any serious competition to google.