>I, and most other people using the Internet on a crappy mobile keyboard wouldn't.
Sounds like your problem is crappy UI enforced through attempts to minimize production cost at the expense of enabling the use of the human processing medium to effectively integrate with an electronic device.
My error rate typing on mobile skyrocketed with the loss of haptic feedback.
The real world problem was created by the removal of haptic feedback from the physical keyboard. No problem you had was solved. The only people's problem who was solved was handset manufacturers.
Don't knock ideals. Most of the world has a vested interest in convincing you they aren't possible. They most certainly are.
The current behavior shows results for hurricane katrina, with a reasonably prominent link to search hurricane karina. Given (I’m assuming) is empirical evidence that the former was the intent a huge majority of the time, what’s unreasonable about this?
Though Google PR is brings up "relevant ads" every time they're criticized for cyberstalking, they seem to care less about relevant search results. They insist on showing me pages upon pages of links that completely disregards my search queries.
In that case, have the fuzzy search be the default, and have an option to opt out of fuzzy search. The current state of Google search is always use fuzzy search - it cannot be disabled anymore. Even clicking the "No results found for X, did you mean Y" link submits a new fuzzy search query with Y.
It's a computer, that's what they're supposed to do. Precision and determinism is what makes them great.
This is like saying if you had say, a pocket calculator but hit a key at an incidental angle and the calculator then presumed you meant the next number over and gave you that answer instead. It's incorrect - that's not what computers are supposed to do.
Yes and no -- yes, theoretically the output should only be based on the input - if you input 1+3 instead of 1+2, the answer given should be 4, not 3.
Optimization exists though, and an interface and search algorithm isn't a simple calculator. Suggesting the correct term when you misspell or mistype something is precision -- it's both identifying the lack of results for your erroneous input, and suggesting the correct input to get the result you're most likely searching for.
That's literally the point of optimization. If Search was still the same as it was in the late 90's, Google wouldn't be able to do half the things it does.
Are you going to make similar gripes about autocomplete, or GPS that reroutes when you fail to make the planned/"correct" turn?
Comparing an intelligent and contextual search interface and result, with simple arithmetic, is a patently false analogy.
> That's literally the point of optimization. If Search was still the same as it was in the late 90's, Google wouldn't be able to do half the things it does.
That'd be great. The newer half of it is terrible.
> Are you going to make similar gripes about autocomplete, or GPS that reroutes when you fail to make the planned/"correct" turn?
Absolutely valid. I never use autocomplete as it is vapid and incorrect. Also I don't use gps routing because it does this.
The "smart" rotates and "smart" zooms around the screen ignoring my input isn't desired.
These systems presume the user is profoundly, unbelievably stupid and can't, for instance, understand cardinal directions.
It's why when you enter a url like "http://somesite.com.:80/" it will be like "well I think you meant https://somesite.com" and then just ignore all your very explicit protocol and port instructions and whisk you off to an https, even if it's broken and doesn't work or similarly if you explicitly select a subsection of a url that starts at the first character, it will invisibly tact on the protocol to the beginning of your selection to be helpful ... as if the user is helplessly befuddled and perplexed by the protocol syntax.
These aren't optimizations or improvements. They're diffusive and reductive interfaces that disempower the user, they're everywhere now and it's why everything sucks.
Here's what you're advocating for in the physical world - a smart flathead screwdriver that can't be used to pry or wedge anything. In fact, if you try to do that it will have special built in motors and then work against your intentions, wobbling around looking for a flathead screw and then refusing to work if it can't find any.
Presuming the user is a completely incompetent clumsy dumbfuck and ONLY working under that modality is not an improvement. This has somehow become a core design assumption in the SV and it needs to die.
> It's a computer, that's what they're supposed to do. Precision and determinism is what makes them great.
> This is like saying if you had say, a pocket calculator but hit a key at an incidental angle and the calculator then presumed you meant the next number over and gave you that answer instead. It's incorrect - that's not what computers are supposed to do.
This deserves wide consideration. (Replying because hidden upvotes can't convey that.)
Not that I disagree with your calculator example, but "what computers are supposed to do" changed radically when AlphaGo hit the scene, changed some more with ChatGPT, and will rapidly become a meaningless notion going forward.
We don't have to like it, but we do have to accept it.
disagree. These are ultimately still do what I say interfaces. You need to be specific and intentional and they respond in pretty exact alignment to what you ask it to do. They're basically unconventional programming languages.
You can ask absurd things to gpt and it will try to respond to your absurd request.
For instance, I asked it "What year in the 1900s had the most tuesdays" and it spit back a python program that tried to figure it out. On Google, to compare things, I get "1900s" crossed out and the wikipedia entry for the Ruby Tuesday restaurant chain as the first result, maybe because it's around dinner time.
The difference here is between that and the "guess what I mean based on crude demographic information and popularity" interfaces that ignore the user's clear intentions in favor of gross statistical markers like how google changes the position of images, shopping, maps, etc in the results based on the query presuming your intention based on crude vague guesses or the search systems that seem to only return 50% of what you asked for and the other 50% is simply what it thinks you want to see instead.
Those are not tools, they are broken trash. It'd be like if you had a knife that randomly turned into a spoon or a fork based on what time of day it is and what room you're using it in.
ChatGPT tried to do exactly, precisely what I said regardless of the fact that there is no answer since it's a list of years and not a single one. It's the "you told me to do X and I did exactly X" interface, the kind you get with a good tool.
Too much software is the opposite - basically as if someone walked up to a dinner machine and said they're vegan or kosher and the machine was like "American male. Eats cheeseburgers. Here's cheeseburger"
These modern systems just straight up ignore you in favor of some "big data" approach. It's trash.
Recently I slept through a silenced alarm on a Saturday because my phone decided that people don't want wakeup alarms on Saturday and Sunday without extra configuration. I had set it Friday night for the next day and it was off by default because of some grand assumption. Asinine... This stuff is everywhere.
I'd rather get "there are 10 results for bicycle clowns NYC" than a bunch of hits for clowns on motorcycles in NYC.
Google has been steadily increasing its "fuziness" to the point that it considers words like "motorcycle" and "bicycle" synonyms. It's made it more and more difficult to get the results you're looking for.
They even do it to search terms you put in quotes.
This fuzziness is slowly getting worse in my opinion. I notice it seems like Google had gotten more and more willing to assume unrelated words/concepts are sufficiently interchangeable that it can happily return both in a search query for either … and I’ll be honest here… single behaviour is the number one reason I’m on the edge of leaving google search forever… doing a takeout export of my gmail and fucking the hell off to only using iCloud for personal and Microsoft 365 for work and professional…
Google’s continued erosion of their core user facing product “search” (the real core product is advertising but that’s not the majority of people interacting with google are interacting with google for… and an argument could be made that googles only real product customers care about anymore is YouTube but the quality of that experience fluctuates wildly depending on how stupid they are being any particular day due to asinine policies and abusive relationships where they seem to desperately want to destroy the goodwill of the creators that upload content like it’s some kind of fetish and they just have to know the creators hate them otherwise the job of working at YouTube isn’t satisfying…) is indicative of a complete failure to care about the core competency of the company… and companies that fail to care about their core competency are rotting hulks doomed to die…
When i search for "Java dispose HttpClient" i would definitely rather get no results (because you can't) than results on how to dispose an HttpClient in .net, which is what i got when i did that on friday.
