# Why is Google Search horrible now? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 15, 2012, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-google-search-horrible-now/628291 "2012-07-15T11:27:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2012, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-google-search-horrible-now/628291/101 "2012-07-27T23:44:35Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > What would really clear this all up for me, to reiterate, would be examples of searches for which the information is _definitely_ available through google, but for which the required search terms are somehow arcane, complicated, or nonintuitive in the way you guys have been describing–or for which there _are_ no good search terms and you must instead sift through many pages of results. Here’s a real one: On a commercial invoice, how do you handle a set of items sold as 1 item, but each component could be considered a finished good on it’s own and they each have a different HS code. The answer is there but you have to sift through the 90% that 's irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2012, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-google-search-horrible-now/628291/102 "2012-07-27T23:47:56Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > Here’s a real one: > On a commercial invoice, how do you handle a set of items sold as 1 item, but each component could be considered a finished good on it’s own and they each have a different HS code. > > The answer is there but you have to sift through the 90% that 's irrelevant. Wow! I am suprised the answer is there through google, and I can definitely see how more exact search protocols would help. This is exactly the kind of example I was looking for. I would never have figured someone would use google for a task like that. Now i understand. Are there not better tools? Do you routinely go to google for this? Or is google something you have to resort to in absence of other resources? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2012, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-google-search-horrible-now/628291/103 "2012-07-27T23:54:16Z")
Is the answer contained on page nine of [this document](http://export.gov/missouri/static/E-Commerce%20Guide_Latest_eg_us_mo_032053.pdf)? (Under the heading "multiple items shipped as a set.) ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2012, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-google-search-horrible-now/628291/104 "2012-07-28T00:26:54Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > That’s not even close to the grounds I’ve given for my reactions It is what you damn well said. I am seriously beginning to wonder if you are arguing in good faith here. > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by **Frylock** > I’m not sure it’s shaky. One of the first five links is usually sufficient for my purpose in searching, and relevance generally drops the lower down the complete list of links I go. > [@Frylock](#): > > What would really clear this all up for me, to reiterate, would be examples of searches for which the information is _definitely_ available through google, but for which the required search terms are somehow arcane, complicated, or nonintuitive in the way you guys have been describing–or for which there _are_ no good search terms and you must instead sift through many pages of results. > > It would also help me if I knew what kind of tasks you guys are talking about for which it is reliably relevant to look at many pages of results. Well it is hard to prove something is there when the problem is that we can’t find it. However, here is a question whose answer I know is to be found on the web, because I put it there, on these boards and in at least one other place that I know that Google indexes. **What Nazi scientist sought to demonstrate racial personality differences in chickens that paralleled those he believed to exist between human races?** Find that from Google, without using the clue that it is on these boards (although that probably would not help anyway). (And, if you know the answer, or something more about it, already, I am going to assume you will not cheat by using that knowledge. The guy’s name will find this, certainly, and perhaps some other associated details, but a searcher might not know those.) You _might_ find the answer a page or three into you results. On old Google you almost certainly would have. But my guess is that you wont be able to find it at all now, because after the first few results Google will start selectively ignoring some of your search terms. You will soon be getting pages that are all about Nazis, or race, or scientists, but that don’t mention chickens at all. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2012, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-google-search-horrible-now/628291/105 "2012-07-28T00:36:01Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > It would also help me if I knew what kind of tasks you guys are talking about for which it is reliably relevant to look at many pages of results. I’m not sure what you mean by “reliably relevant” here, but I’m an academic librarian and often have to find information for faculty, students, or members of the public relating to topics that I personally do not know much about. Sometimes the information they need is something that really is most easily found online, and sometimes I just need a little background info myself before I can do a proper job of searching our catalog, subscription journal article databases, etc. Depending on the nature of the question, I may have to perform multiple searches and go through many pages of results to find the exact information that is needed. Anyway, about a year ago I started regularly having problems with Google that I’d never had before. It will change proper names, include “synonyms” that are not actually synonyms in the context of my search, substitute common words for similarly spelled technical terms, or return results that only include one of my search terms. No specific examples are springing to mind right now, but I know there have been many times where my reaction to the first few results of a Google search has been “DAMMIT GOOGLE, THAT IS NOT WHAT I TYPED!” ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2012, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-google-search-horrible-now/628291/106 "2012-07-28T00:45:20Z")
That’s another good example, thanks for showing it to me. As to whether that’s “damn well” what I said–it seems like you’re taking my comment about searches that work “for my purposes” out of context. You said I was rejecting examples because I have not personally had a problem when searching. But in each case in this thread where I fail to take an example as satisfactory, I do not say anything, when giving the reason for this reaction, about whether or not I have had problems searching. Rather, the reasons I give involve: A. The fact that I don’t know that the relevant information is available at all. (This is relevant because if it’s not, then the purported bad google search isn’t bad after all.) OR, B. It turned out I wasn’t careful in describing the kind of example I was looking for. Those are the only two reasons I’ve given for doing what you called “rejecting examples.” As you can see, neither of them has to do with my own not having had trouble searching on Google. Now, _elsewhere_ in the thread, I _did_ say Google searches don’t seem to have given me problems.\* But I did not say that by way of explaining why I was rejecting examples. Thus, your claim that I _was_ saying I rejected examples because of my own non-issue with google searches is demonstrated to be false. Don’t ever accuse me of failing to argue in good faith. Unless you’re looking for some entertainment as you watch a nice young man who pretends to be all grown up about things melt down on the internet. Because if you catch me in the wrong mood, that’s what you’ll get. I’m a sensitive soul, and I take “arguing in good faith” _extremely seriously._. \*I have also, btw, explained in this thread why I think it’s possible that my impression that google never gave me trouble is illusory. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2012, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-google-search-horrible-now/628291/107 "2012-07-28T00:46:58Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > I’m not sure what you mean by “reliably relevant” here, but I’m an academic librarian and often have to find information for faculty, students, or members of the public relating to topics that I personally do not know much about. Sometimes the information they need is something that really is most easily found online, and sometimes I just need a little background info myself before I can do a proper job of searching our catalog, subscription journal article databases, etc. Depending on the nature of the question, I may have to perform multiple searches and go through many pages of results to find the exact information that is needed. That also helps, thanks. > [@](#): > > Anyway, about a year ago I started regularly having problems with Google that I’d never had before. It will change proper names, include “synonyms” that are not actually synonyms in the context of my search, substitute common words for similarly spelled technical terms, or return results that only include one of my search terms. No specific examples are springing to mind right now, but I know there have been many times where my reaction to the first few results of a Google search has been “DAMMIT GOOGLE, THAT IS NOT WHAT I TYPED!” When I’ve noticed these things happening, I always just assumed that the terms I used just don’t come up with anything, so google was stretching for something else that might be relevant. But maybe I was too charitable. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2012, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-google-search-horrible-now/628291/108 "2012-07-28T00:49:11Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > Well it is hard to prove something is there when the problem is that we can’t find it. I didn’t notice this previously. How do you distinguish between cases of internet search where the information just isn’t there, and cases where the information is there but hard to find? ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2012, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-google-search-horrible-now/628291/109 "2012-07-28T00:55:15Z")
> [@](#): > > Is the answer contained on page nine of this document? (Under the heading "multiple items shipped as a set.) Yes that is the type of answer I was looking for (there are more rules than they listed, but it ended up being that 3a was ok). > [@Frylock](#): > > Wow! > > I am suprised the answer is there through google, and I can definitely see how more exact search protocols would help. This is exactly the kind of example I was looking for. I would never have figured someone would use google for a task like that. Now i understand. > > Are there not better tools? Do you routinely go to google for this? Or is google something you have to resort to in absence of other resources? Better Tools: An expert in import/export would be the best tool, and I fired off a question in email at the same time I started googling. Email took 4 days and multiple people to get the correct answer, but my time was limited to composing an email. Google took me 45 minutes, but I got the answer right away. So it depends on the specific need and how quickly I need the answer. Sometimes there are other resources and they are costly and not guaranteed effective (computer/technical advanced items) and sometimes I’m not sure if there are other resources other than google/library. Routinely Use Google: Yes, I use google extensively at work and at home pretty much every day, some other examples: optimization routines used in specific areas of our business computer/technical problem solving for symptoms that don’t have a simple answer home project stuff, specific neural network successes/methods/strategies ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2012, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-google-search-horrible-now/628291/110 "2012-07-28T01:05:33Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > Yes that is the type of answer I was looking for (there are more rules than they listed, but it ended up being that 3a was ok). For the record, I found it by copying your question verbatim into the google search field. It was the second result. (The first result was this very thread we’re creating right now.) I am willing to stipulate that this was a freak of luck though. > [@](#): > > Better Tools: > An expert in import/export would be the best tool, and I fired off a question in email at the same time I started googling. Email took 4 days and multiple people to get the correct answer, but my time was limited to composing an email. Google took me 45 minutes, but I got the answer right away. I was thinking I would have crowd-sourced or expert-sourced this, but I see that google turns out to be a better method in terms of time. I’m starting to think I should be more persistant in my google searches–and when thinking of that prospect, I start wishing (wouldn’t you know it) that google allowed for more exact searches. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2012, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-google-search-horrible-now/628291/111 "2012-07-28T02:16:16Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > For the record, I found it by copying your question verbatim into the google search field. It was the second result. (The first result was this very thread we’re creating right now.) > > I am willing to stipulate that this was a freak of luck though. That’s pretty damn funny, I just tried it and it was third. Naturally I did not word it exactly like that when I searched. One of the things that makes it difficult is when I know there will be lots of irrelevant data, I tend to skip over the descriptions that don’t look very promising. If it looks like one of the words was taken out of context, like “multiple” applying to something else, I skip past it. So it’s possible I skipped right past that reference originally. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2012, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-google-search-horrible-now/628291/112 "2012-07-28T02:39:26Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > When I’ve noticed these things happening, I always just assumed that the terms I used just don’t come up with anything, so google was stretching for something else that might be relevant. But maybe I was too charitable. While it’s possible to come up with a combination of search terms that does not appear anywhere in any of the websites indexed by Google, it’s not something that happens very often unless either you’re playing [Googlewhack](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googlewhack) and deliberately entering weird combination of terms or you’re searching on an exact phrase in quotes. I’ve had Google pull this “here are results that do not contain the words you actually typed” stuff on me when I’m pretty darn sure the actual terms I entered must occur on the Web, like when it “corrects” a technical term to a similarly spelled but more common word. ---
**Author:** ![AaronX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/7bcc69/32.png) [@AaronX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AaronX)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2012, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-google-search-horrible-now/628291/113 "2012-07-28T02:40:12Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > However, here is a question whose answer I know is to be found on the web, because I put it there, on these boards and in at least one other place that I know that Google indexes. > **What Nazi scientist sought to demonstrate racial personality differences in chickens that paralleled those he believed to exist between human races?** > > Find that from Google, without using the clue that it is on these boards (although that probably would not help anyway). (And, if you know the answer, or something more about it, already, I am going to assume you will not cheat by using that knowledge. The guy’s name will find this, certainly, and perhaps some other associated details, but a searcher might not know those.) Challenge accepted. About my 5th search I tried: nazi scientist race in chickens Third hit was [http://www.animalsandsociety.org/assets/library/341\_s512.pdf](http://www.animalsandsociety.org/assets/library/341_s512.pdf) Searching this pdf with another program found: The conclusion was that the races of chickens paralleled those of human beings (Jaensch, 1939). But I must admit I couldn’t find anything on the russian author science fiction story. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2012, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-google-search-horrible-now/628291/114 "2012-07-28T02:41:57Z")
> [@AaronX](#): > > Challenge accepted. > About my 5th search I tried: nazi scientist race in chickens > Third hit was [http://www.animalsandsociety.org/assets/library/341\_s512.pdf](http://www.animalsandsociety.org/assets/library/341_s512.pdf) > Searching this pdf with another program found: The conclusion was that the races of chickens paralleled those of human beings (Jaensch, 1939). > > But I must admit I couldn’t find anything on the russian author science fiction story. Admittedly, “nazi scientist race in chickens” is not a very intuitive search string at all… ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2012, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-google-search-horrible-now/628291/115 "2012-07-28T03:27:29Z")
I remember when web search engines accepted regular expressions. I understand why it happens, but I hate when services or products have their power and flexibility reduced in order to “dumb it down” as they become more popular. I’ve heard stories about companies leaving off or removing features in order to reduce customer support calls. Just leave it there and label it “unsupported”. I know how to use it! :mad: ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2012, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-google-search-horrible-now/628291/116 "2012-07-28T07:37:04Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > I understand why it happens, but I hate when services or products have their power and flexibility reduced in order to “dumb it down” as they become more popular. I still don’t understand why “dumbing it down” requires to not include a feature telling to google “please search only for the words I typed and all the words I typed”. And yes, I had all the issues mentioned in my own google searches : words ignored, replaced by others, spelling of people names changed, etc… I don’t have any example in mind, except for the latter since I searched an info about someone very recently. Google proposed results with a different spelling of the name (neither being common names, by the way) . The option “try with the spelling XXXXX only” removed part of the irrelevant results, but not all of them. The first name was ignored in most results, as were the words describing the event I was interested in regarding this person. I still had (just checked again) 253 000 results instead of the minimal number I would have if google had only looked up the words I had typed (it turned out that the same event happened to someone else going by the same name, so I could have gotten a dozen results instead of the handful I expected). By the way, I found the info on yahoo search. Yahoo search _also_ decided to change the name’s spelling but at least agreed to only use the words typed after I picked the option “only this spelling” and added quotation marks. I will now try to use the other search tools mentioned in this thread (Duck duck, dogpile) and try Binge too (I had ignored it until now). ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2012, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-google-search-horrible-now/628291/117 "2012-07-28T13:59:29Z")
Perhaps I missed it, but while other search engines have been mentioned I don’t see anyone saying that any particular one is consistently better than Google or has the features and functions that Google specifically lacks. Which are the good ones for this task? And if there aren’t any better than Google… P.S. clairobscur, I don’t recommend Binge searching. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2012, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-google-search-horrible-now/628291/118 "2012-07-28T14:32:04Z")
As far as I know, Google still has the most extensive database, so you still may have to deal with it if none of the others find what you need. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2012, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-google-search-horrible-now/628291/119 "2012-07-30T12:48:26Z")
I wish you could tell Google: here are sites I don’t even want you to think about providing as results. You make your best shot at a search, and it comes up with [ask.com](http://ask.com) or [answers.com](http://answers.com), both of which give new meaning to the phase “fucking worthless” ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2012, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-google-search-horrible-now/628291/120 "2012-07-30T13:58:04Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I wish you could tell Google: here are sites I don’t even want you to think about providing as results. You make your best shot at a search, and it comes up with [ask.com](http://ask.com) or [answers.com](http://answers.com), both of which give new meaning to the phase “fucking worthless” Just put in -ask.com or -answers.com. The minus sign eliminates them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-google-search-horrible-now/628291.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-google-search-horrible-now/628291.md?page=7)