Google search is good because it tracks what links people click and knows when they come back to go to a different url on the page. if 99% of people visit the top result for a query, return, then hit the second one, chances are that the top result never answers what the search query asks.
People here may not like to read "Google" and "good" together, but yours is a description of how things actually work.
Of all the tracking Google does, this is by far the most justified, and least concerning to me. I'd rather log out and search anonymously, if my concern was being put in a bubble, rather than block this kind of feedback for search result quality. Then, again, I primarily use DuckDuckGo and I wonder if they do anything similar.
> Google search might have been good over a decade ago but today it's trash.
IME, its still consistently far and away better than the alternatives. Part of the difference in perception of quality may be that over time it has come to use more personal signals to zero in on relevant results, and the people that complain about how bad it is overlap considerably with those who actively seek to deny those signals to Google.
> over time it has come to use more personal signals to zero in on relevant results
I am specifically disinterested in existing within an echo chamber.
When I search for a topic, I am looking for information that is most faithful to objective reality. A detailed explanation of the limits of our current understanding, or why my understanding / model is inadequate is orders of magnitude more valuable to me than something that will affirm that I am a smart, special person. Google used to be exceptionally capable of delivering those kinds of results, even if it took some work refining search terms. Over the preceding decade, their effectiveness in this regard has significantly diminished.
good point, that seems plausible. It's an unenviable choice though: good results from incessant surveillance (and nasty link re-writing per topic), or poor results if you use it infrequently.
[I wouldn't know. I've been using DDG for so long now, I can't remember the last time I used Google search. Maybe I've forgotten how much better G is. Truth is, though, DDG does what I need of it. Rarely come away without the answer I want. So no temptation to use Google. At. All.]
I still have the habit of adding !g into my queries when the results are bad.
There have been years since the last time I remember Google actually giving me better results than DDG (except when I only want product sellers, on this case there has been around an year).
Yes, maybe if I let Google see even more of my life, they would be able to get me better results. But they have access to much more than I'm comfortable with already, and the results aren't there.
The first page of "search results" is usually filled with ads and Google scraping and special casing dozens of sites. It is almost at a point where I have to skip to the "second" page just to get to the actual search results.
Also Google broke a lot of search qualifiers for stupid reasons, like the '+' when they created Google+.
Occasionally I accidentally use Google search when I've got an automated Chrome window open, and I find it astounding how unhelpful the results are. Everything that is returns is clearly optimized for what Google thinks readers want in a webpage rather than what actually matches my query. DDG isn't perfect but I find it better respects my queries.
IC part numbers. Service manuals for various equipment (now all you get are sites which may or may not have one, but are willing to collect your $$$). Error codes (filled with pages of results for a different code).
Google search is good because it tracks what links people click and knows when they come back to go to a different url on the page. if 99% of people visit the top result for a query, return, then hit the second one, chances are that the top result never answers what the search query asks.