Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

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.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: