

Google's search results are not relevant, example: PDF - gary4gar
https://plus.google.com/100409232498201806339/posts/SpXWZEEvrEY

======
wccrawford
So he wants info about 'pdf reader software' but only searches for 'pdf' and
doesn't get what he wants? Duh. Guess what happens when you search for what he
really wants?

Google's search isn't psychic. It also isn't personalized. It will give you
the best guess it can make based on your search terms. But just like almost
everything else in the world, if you don't supply enough information, you
won't get what you want.

If I want a car repair shop, I don't search for car. If I want a pet
crematorium, I don't search for pet.

~~~
joshu
(actually, it is personalized somewhat)

------
dmn001
They are relevant to him.* He is currently logged in, and his location is
visible on the left side of the image. Google uses his previous search queries
as well as information about him and his location to provide a relevant
result. He has probably searched for Java and R before. If you try searching
pdf in your own browser, it is likely there will be different results.

*I meant that it is what Google thinks is relevant to him based on the data that they have.

~~~
j79
I came here to post the same thing. However after doing a search for "PDF", I
also got the link to R. I've never searched for (or even heard of) R until
now. Instead of Java, I got IRS related results (W-4, I-9) and a link to
Advanced Bash Scripting (a subject matter I've never searched before as
well...)

~~~
janesvilleseo
I too have never searched for R or anything of that nature before. However, if
you look closely you see some microdata that is being pulled in "Cited by 148
- Related articles". this is one reason why it is so high and is the actual
basis for how PageRank works (the most cited papers/journals are those that
are deemed higher quality).

------
pornel
I think Google can be proud that a broad query with only 8 out of 10 results
relevant is a newsworthy occurrence.

------
ceslami
This is the definition of a corner case. Google is smart, but it can't read
your mind. Give it a hand, and think like a computer.

~~~
danilocampos
Two things.

Shitty queries give shitty results. Shocker! His argument is totally lame and
I'm the first to pile on with Google's mediocrity as it matures. So that's
saying something.

At the same time, "think like a computer" is a terrible standard for a piece
of consumer software. The money today exists in building elaborate do-what-I-
mean machines precisely because thinking like a computer sucks and people
don't like to do that.

Luckily, the standard isn't for just computers — it's anyone. If you told me
"PDF" I wouldn't know wtf to do either. The need for context exists until we
invent mind reading machines.

~~~
radicaldreamer
Exactly: garbage in, garbage out.

------
veyron
The most desirable results for PDF (and, by extension, most file extensions)
are

1) Information about a program that can read or write PDF files

2) Information about the PDF format

The fact that both are shown as the first two entries is desirable. And the
fact that wikipedia rounds out the top 3 is great.

------
brettp
So in response to a vague and ambiguous query, you got highly relevant results
including the one you wanted on the first page. And you're complaining about
that?

Incidentally, the R Programming Language manual contains stuff like this:

    
    
      pdf() Produces a PDF file, which can also be included into PDF files.
    

so it's quite relevant too. Admittedly, there are probably a few bogus results
here due to incoming links like "Download the PDF file here". But given how
vague your query was, and how common PDF documents are, it's remarkable that
Google did so well.

Before your next post you might like to read up on search engines, tf/idf,
pagerank, and what 'relevancy' actually means.

The only irrelevant thing here is your complaint.

------
gary4gar
Guys, I can understand on when you say query is lacks context but does my
Point is those two results are fully irrelevant to my query. its maybe its I
have held bar for search engines to high but I don't expect them to read my
mind. Because most people when searching with "PDF" keyword will look for:

* pdf reader * pdf editor * pdf converter * pdf search engine etc etc.

But Java or R programming language results, that's not what I am NOT looking
for. these two results are not even related.further, for other queries too --
I see ton of such irrelevant results stuffed into google which have to NO
relation to original search term. This wasn't always like that -- earlier I
used to get better results.

That's why I used this query to express my opinion that search result quality
has gone down in past few years & you are now more likely to find spam results
for your queries.

\--Cross posted from Google Plus

------
michaelfairley
The cause of this is probably that those documents have been linked to with
anchor test like "this PDF". Do a search for "click here" to see a similar
phenomenon.

------
ignifero
So if you want to order pizza, you ask for "Food" ?

Anyway, searching for PDF might well mean you are looking for any pdf file (to
test your shiny pdf reader maybe?) so its reasonable. I m surprised that
there's no wikipedia result for probability distribution function though.

------
ComputerGuru
I don't think this is a valid argument. By the very definition of search
engines and the web itself, tech-related stuff will be more highly-ranked than
less-techier alternatives (to a certain level, obviously).

It's a self-reinforcing cycle. My favorite example is Googling for "wine"
where the emulator comes in first place. There are many other similar examples
as well.

~~~
jesboat
It seems that Google's been fighting very hard against this recently [last 8
years], which actually makes it a lot let useful for me, and likely others
here. Of course, it's the right thing for them to do, but I'd still give quite
a lot for a "Google Classic".

