News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The People Who Ruined the Internet by underwater on Wednesday November 01, 2023 @10:18PM (#38108178)
No, Google results are trash. Here are three examples from this week:

- I Googled "speed work running", wanting some workout suggestions. I visited four or five results that either didn't have concrete suggestions, were poorly written, or overly verbose. I ended my search with little faith that I was getting good advice. I typed the same thing into ChatGPT and got a suggestion of 6 different workouts that all seemed coherent.

- I asked Google Home "How do I make overnight oats". It replied, "I found a result for [...], should I read it?" then "The first ingredient is Nutella". That's it, that's all it said. I tried the same search on the web, and every result Google result was spam that was 20 paragraphs of inane blog content with a recipe tacked on the end. Again, ChatGPT then gave me a sane, baseline, recipe.

- I searched Google for "how much caffeine is in coffee". It gave me a calculator that said, "40 mg" and then a suggestion an alternative search for "Q: How much caffeine is in an average cup of coffee? A: between 80 to 100 milligrams". It turns out the calculator was normalizing the caffeine content to caffeine per 100mg of coffee.

I'm using Google exactly how their product is training me to use it, but the failure modes are all consistent. Google's AI features has not real understanding of the world, so their instant answers are frequently nonsensical. And Google clearly can't filter out SEO garbage.

Even if they could filter out SEO garbage, Google's early success killed the golden goose. 99% of web publishers are publishing content for Google, not for their readers and web publishing has become a cynically commercial affair. Individual publishers have by and large moved on from the web to other creator-focused platforms. So, the quality and experience of web content is absolute rubbish. Results are filled with cookie banners, ads, signup prompts, verbose SEO filler, poor writing, lack of authority, etc.

Re:The People Who Ruined the Internet by reactordev on Wednesday November 01, 2023 @11:12PM (#38108547)
You are using it right however your bias is evident on the results. A 20-something will just scroll through the blog content to get to the recipe at the end. No huss, no fuss. In fact, they’ll open multiple tabs of search results to compare recipes in the time it takes you to gawk at the fact that you have to scroll to the end. Where is the recipe? Why is there a video? Table of contents? No, a 20-something will just flick their screen wildly until they are at the bottom, and scroll up. Give me the results and backtrack to where I’m at. This I think is a result of their upbringing and everyone’s focus on results rather than process. So you may believe you are doing everything correct but you are just going through the motions. The web today is different than it was even 5 years ago.

I wish I could search like I used to but we are where we are.

Re:The People Who Ruined the Internet by Semaphor on Wednesday November 01, 2023 @11:42PM (#38108738)
> A 20-something will just scroll through the blog content to get to the recipe at the end. No huss, no fuss. In fact, they’ll open multiple tabs of search results to compare recipes in the time it takes you to gawk at the fact that you have to scroll to the end.

Uh, I do that and I’m 37. But I don’t scroll, I click the button that says "recipe" that’s on pretty much every recipe site.

IMO this is mainly about being used to the state of recipe sites on the internet, and has nothing to do with searching.

Re:The People Who Ruined the Internet by underwater on Thursday November 02, 2023 @12:05AM (#38108879)
The state of recipe sites is 100% driven by Google. Those sites add the fluff because that is what Google rewards. The actual recipe quality doesn't matter. If I use my example, the page contains:

* Bio of the author - Google SEO rewards content written by "real humans", so this is there to appease the bot. * Giant images of overnight oats - Needed to rank highly on Google Image Search. * Fluffy paragraphs - "The beauty of overnight oats is that you can make them as simple or creative as you’d like. The base recipe is delicious, and filling all on its own. But if you’d like to spruce it up, you can add a variety of toppings and mix-ins, including fresh fruit, nuts, seeds, spices, jams, and more". Is that supposed to be text written for other humans? Google rewards original content, which means recipe sites need to include massive paragraphs of filler to appear like an authoritative source. * Ads - Gotta make the money. * More fluff "Here’s a few reasons why you should to whip up this recipe today…" - Again, this is not text written for humans. * Repeat the fluff, pictures and ads approximately 5 times. * Common questions "Do you have to use yogurt?" - Trying to appeal to Google Instant Answer searches. * Recipe - Finally * Recipe rating - This allows the site to put a star rating and review count on Google, again, for SEO

So, 95% of the content and functionality of that page is an attempt to convince Google into sending traffic, or ads generating revenue, rather than serving the end user.

Content on the web has dramatically changed from 20 years ago because publishers are creating content for a broken machine and not for other humans. This negative feedback loop is hurting the web, and not just Google. This leaves the door open for upstarts like ChatGPT or TikTok to gain mindshare.

Re:The People Who Ruined the Internet by reactordev on Thursday November 02, 2023 @01:05AM (#38109225)
100% agree that all the fluff is for the machines and not humans. The web has been broken this way since 2014. The feedback loop is real.
Re:The People Who Ruined the Internet by Semaphor on Thursday November 02, 2023 @02:11AM (#38109562)
Sorry, I might not have been precise enough, I did not mean to say that this is not because of Google, only that knowing how to use recipe sites is very distinct from knowing how to google, you even encounter those sites no matter what SE you use (I haven’t used Google in years).
Re:The People Who Ruined the Internet by pests on Thursday November 02, 2023 @02:43AM (#38109785)
This is more on copyright law than Google.

> Recipes can be protected under copyright law if they are accompanied by “substantial literary expression.

https://copyrightalliance.org/are-recipes-cookbooks-protecte...

So the fluff is both an attempt at that substantial literary expression, and a way to differentiate this version of the recipe from 1000 other versions of the _exact_ recipe because the recipe itself is not unqiue or copyrightable! Without it, recipe's would be penalized by the duplicate content penalty Google applies.

Re:The People Who Ruined the Internet by nulbyte on Thursday November 02, 2023 @05:19AM (#38110891)
I think this is more about ads then copyright. All these recipe blogs I've seen still follow with an uncopyrightable list of ingredients and simple directions. The recipe still isn't worthy of copyright, even if the content accompanying it is. Sure, the author may be working on something they are passionate about, but the site itself is all about the ad revenue.
Re:The People Who Ruined the Internet by jessriedel on Thursday November 02, 2023 @01:03AM (#38109218)
The fact that young people have gotten used to inefficiencies and have gotten good at partially working around them does not mean the inefficiencies aren't there.

This often works the opposite generational direction: when a young person has a flat tire they often call a road service and wait two hours, while the old guy would install the spare himself in less than 8 minutes. But either way, flat tires are inefficiencies that are best eliminated.

Re:The People Who Ruined the Internet by smsm42 on Thursday November 02, 2023 @02:51AM (#38109830)
Looks like what you're saying is that the results are garbage but people who don't know it could be better are fine with it, because they learned it's how the world works and can't be otherwise. While the ones who are cursed with the knowledge that it can be are left to complain.
Re:The People Who Ruined the Internet by candiodari on Thursday November 02, 2023 @03:19AM (#38109990)
I learned a trick recently. If you want "copyright-challenged" results, or exact results, try Yandex. It's a worse search engine and, therefore, better at matching exact text.
Re:The People Who Ruined the Internet by coldtea on Thursday November 02, 2023 @04:37AM (#38110550)
>A 20-something will just scroll through the blog content to get to the recipe at the end. No huss, no fuss. In fact, they’ll open multiple tabs of search results to compare recipes in the time it takes you to gawk at the fact that you have to scroll to the end. Where is the recipe? Why is there a video? Table of contents? No, a 20-something will just flick their screen wildly until they are at the bottom, and scroll up

I'm over 40 and do that (and the fuzzy stuff / open questions in the top comment).

In fact, most 20-somethings are much worse than this - some studies even pin them as worse with most computing use that is not about social media apps.

Re:The People Who Ruined the Internet by ravenstine on Thursday November 02, 2023 @10:27PM (#38123653)
This is pure victim blaming.
Re:The People Who Ruined the Internet by reactordev on Friday November 03, 2023 @11:23AM (#38130180)
If that's your take, it says more about you. We are ALL victims, to something. Sometimes it's our own fault (IP4), sometimes it's not (adtech). Next time, if you feel like a comment is negative or gas lighting or victim blaming or cancel-culture-worthy, you should state your reasons why you feel this way. Instead of stating your opinion as fact. No matter how right you think you are, there are always other perspectives (Israel/Palestine).
Re:The People Who Ruined the Internet by bfung on Wednesday November 01, 2023 @11:46PM (#38108763)
While reading your Google examples, I don’t think I could parse out what you were intending as a human. Perhaps different keywords would work better?

For example, “speed work running”, were you looking to improve sprinting? (I’m not a runner, so it almost reads to me like “working fast while on a treadmill”). Reading the rest of your example, maybe “sprint workouts” would give better results?

(40+yr old guy here, Google had always worked for me, as many people had described it working for 20yr olds. Finding the right, specific enough set of keywords had always been my “trick”. Little did I realize I subconsciously generate embeddings like a LLM to Google search)

Re:The People Who Ruined the Internet by underwater on Thursday November 02, 2023 @12:11AM (#38108899)
"Speed work" is a class of running drills. The term is very common in running. I'll let ChatGPT explain. This was its response was given the same prompt, when I specifically asked it to give me options it's answer was more specific:

Speed work in running is a type of training that focuses on improving your running speed and anaerobic fitness. It involves various structured workouts and drills designed to increase your stride turnover and overall pace. Speed work is essential for athletes who want to enhance their performance in races or simply become faster runners.

Common forms of speed work in running include:

Interval Training: Interval workouts involve alternating between periods of high-intensity running (fast) and rest or recovery jogging. For example, you might run fast for 1 minute and then jog or walk for 1-2 minutes to recover. This process is repeated multiple times.

Fartlek Training: Fartlek, which means "speed play" in Swedish, is an unstructured form of speed work. During a fartlek run, you mix bursts of faster running with slower paces or jogging. You can do this based on how you feel or choose landmarks as your guide.

Hill Repeats: Running uphill at a high intensity is an excellent way to build strength and speed. Hill repeat workouts involve running up a hill at a fast pace and then jogging or walking back down to recover. This is repeated for a set number of repetitions.

Tempo Runs: Tempo runs are sustained efforts at a "comfortably hard" pace, typically just below your anaerobic threshold. This helps improve your lactate threshold and race pace.

Track Workouts: These are structured speed sessions done on a running track. Common track workouts include 400-meter repeats, 800-meter repeats, and 1,600-meter repeats, where you run at a fast, consistent pace and take rest intervals between each repetition.

Strides: Strides are short, fast runs of about 100 meters that help improve running form and leg turnover. They are typically done at the end of an easy run.

It's essential to incorporate speed work into your training regimen gradually to avoid overuse injuries and adapt to the increased intensity. Make sure to warm up properly and cool down after each speed workout. Consult with a coach or experienced runner to create a personalized training plan that suits your goals and fitness level. Additionally, listen to your body and allow for sufficient recovery between speed sessions to prevent overtraining.

Re:The People Who Ruined the Internet by pclmulqdq on Thursday November 02, 2023 @12:31AM (#38109015)
If you search "speed work running drills" on Google, you get relevant results. It kind of sounds like you are cherry picking the "bad prompts" you sent to Google and comparing them to good prompts sent to GPT-4.
Re:The People Who Ruined the Internet by lolinder on Thursday November 02, 2023 @01:50AM (#38109447)
They specifically said that they used the same prompt. If I feed the exact string "speed work running" into ChatGPT 3.5 I get back essentially the same results that OP includes.
Re:The People Who Ruined the Internet by pclmulqdq on Thursday November 02, 2023 @10:01AM (#38113622)
Bad prompts for google can have exactly the same words as good prompts for ChatGPT. The original commenter probably uses both of them at least 10 times a day, so it's not unreasonable to assume that they will run into those examples.
Re:The People Who Ruined the Internet by lolinder on Thursday November 02, 2023 @11:00AM (#38114425)
I would typically assume that a three word prompt like that is better for Google than it is for ChatGPT. Google is supposed to be good at keyword search, and ChatGPT is designed for longer prompts.
Re:The People Who Ruined the Internet by pclmulqdq on Thursday November 02, 2023 @11:53AM (#38115304)
That means that your prior assumptions about Google are wrong. Google does a substantial amount of "semantic understanding" before doing a search. It is no longer a keyword matching tool - that stopped being the case a long time ago.

Also, ChatGPT is usually really bad with long prompts when I use it, and is often kind of close when I give it a short prompt. I assume part of this effect is psychological though, where you expect the short prompt to have worse results.

Re:The People Who Ruined the Internet by RandExt on Thursday November 02, 2023 @01:18PM (#38116891)
Mid-30s here, everyone in the shop at work uses me for Google because I still know how to use it effectively. Speaking with lots of people in person and via chats/forums has gradually made me come to realize how refined my search abilities are, relatively speaking. I think it's a combination of factors, like you mentioned "finding the right, specific enough set of keywords" is intuitive for us, but a lot of people just type in questions like it's Ask Jeeves from decades ago. Another major factor is one of grammar and vocabulary, because Google will fuzz your search string. In my experience, its "thesaurus" will rarely add more technical or specific words, so including them in your search will often give you actual technical data from a given field. Of course, this only helps if you have the proper lexicon to begin with, which was my main use case for Reddit before it went to shit. Hobbyist or technical subreddits were great for drilling down and winnowing out the specific name of something I was trying to find more information about. Now it's just more SEO LLM-generated nonsense trying to sell me crap I don't need. The other "secret sauce" I use when Googling is search operators, but we actually learned about those in elementary school (before Google existed!).
Re:The People Who Ruined the Internet by atorodius on Thursday November 02, 2023 @01:51AM (#38109451)
FWIW, my human brain did not understand your first query, in the second you conflate voice search with Google, and re the last, if I try it, it shows me a dropdown to select what I meant…

(Generally just confused by how ppl always claim it’s trash or it got worse but there never is a solid benchmark)

Re:The People Who Ruined the Internet by onion2k on Thursday November 02, 2023 @02:25AM (#38109655)
if they could filter out SEO garbage

I think the problem with Google is that 'garbage' is highly subjective, and what you think is awful is actually highly engaging for a lot of users. Google has massive amounts of data about what results users click on, how much time they spend on a website, how much scrolling they do, etc. To technical people we see that as SEO 'trapping' people to push engagement rankings up, but the reality is that it's just engagement. People could leave a site of they wanted to, but they don't. They scroll through those 20 paragraphs of recipe back story. That data means Google are finding accurate results.

If anything this shows that Google's results personalization isn't taking your engagement into account. A problem that will get worse as more people block analytics.

Re:The People Who Ruined the Internet by danmaz74 on Thursday November 02, 2023 @03:11AM (#38109953)
The problem with "SEO garbage" is that SEO is highly adaptive - whatever change Google does, SEO will almost immediately find a way to adapt and stay relevant. There is just too much money to be made for those involved.
Re:The People Who Ruined the Internet by candiodari on Thursday November 02, 2023 @03:20AM (#38110004)
No the problem is that Google did what they really, really promised never to do: to optimize for financial gain, keep people on the Google site, clicking on ads instead of telling them what they want to know. Like one of those 10-episode Netflix documentaries.
Re:The People Who Ruined the Internet by themoonisachees on Thursday November 02, 2023 @05:42AM (#38111071)
Precisely. The main problem with google is that it's extremely hard to align yourself with the goals of humans with human needs, so they have to look at proxy metrics to rank sites before anyone actually hits them. Their current proxy metric appears to be that there is a lot of human-sounding text on the page, and so people optimizing for that are going to put a lot of text on the page, factual accuracy be damned. In the naughts, their metric used to be that many sites linked to yours, and so people optimized that by creating webrings.
Re:The People Who Ruined the Internet by throwaway447 on Thursday November 02, 2023 @05:31AM (#38110974)
- I searched Google for "how much caffeine is in coffee". It gave me a calculator that said, "40 mg" ... It turns out the calculator was normalizing the caffeine content to caffeine per 100mg of coffee."

Man, you have strong coffee. :-(

Re:The People Who Ruined the Internet by genewitch on Thursday November 02, 2023 @11:47PM (#38124258)
you can't copyright a recipe itself, so in order to copyright the content on a website with recipes, you have to do that "My mother used to make this on dreary winter days, and we'd sit by the fire ..."

Now, i was told this, repeatedly, over and over. It's probably false, but if it is false, cite the decision that precedented this.