
Google Drops Discussions Search Filter and Others - tszyn
http://www.seroundtable.com/google-search-filters-gone-17993.html
======
sentenza
The promise was that, as search engines get better, there would be no need for
bookmarking and downloading, since all the content in the world is only one
sloppy search query away.

Somehow, I seem to have ignored this stubbornly and instead bookmarked pages,
downloaded videos and copied strings (!) out of the web for years.

Not that it did me much good, I now have thousands of inconsistently sorted
bookmarks and a bunch of directories filled with assorted data.

What this article tells me (again), is that because you can't trust search
engines to behave in a predictable manner, you can't even be sure you'll be
able to find the stuff that you know is online.

~~~
jaredmcateer
You can't really trust bookmarks either. Most of my bookmarks are dead either
because the site is now gone or because some blog author decided to change
their path format and didn't bother setup 301 redirects.

~~~
Pxtl
Microsoft's help pages are the worst for this. "Oooh, confusing .NET problem
I'll google a response - Hey, a nice forum-post explaining that MS has a
document telling me how to handle this issue _click_ NOOOOOOOOOOOOO".

~~~
AznHisoka
Whenever I have a C# problem and google it, I always skip the MSFT
documentation and go straight to any possible Stackoverflow or discussion
page.

~~~
ToastyMallows
Same here, it's not even worth going on their site.

------
alextingle
This is the final nail in the coffin of DejaNews. Just another step in
Google's continuing mission to make their Search product worse & worse.

It's baffling.

~~~
giardini
This.

DejaNews was the absolute best source of technical information from the USENET
archives, with posts back to the 1980s. By 2001 Google had everything under
control:

[https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/USENET$20archives](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/USENET$20archives)

Then Google lost it.

The addition of "Google Groups" resulted in tons of SPAM and almost nothing of
use. Now, because their own baby is so ugly, Google decided to kill all their
adopted children. So much for "Don't be evil".

~~~
dclara
I like USENET too. Information should be organized in that way. It was just
too old. If we put the search engine of top of that with a nice graphical UI,
that'll be a lot more help.

This is what I'm always thinking about since 1997. Now I got the chance to put
together something for people's daily life, but not perfect. It's in early
beta now. [http://kck.st/JNqv8z](http://kck.st/JNqv8z)

------
midgetjones
You still can, just not as obviously:
[https://www.google.com/?tbm=dsc](https://www.google.com/?tbm=dsc)

~~~
ddeck
Thank you, it works. After some googling, it seems the following are supported
[1]:

    
    
      Applications : tbm=app
      Blogs*       : tbm=blg
      Books        : tbm=bks
      Discussions* : tbm=dsc
      Images       : tbm=isch
      News         : tbm=nws
      Patents      : tbm=pts
      Places*      : tbm=plcs
      Recipes*     : tbm=rcp
      Shopping*    : tbm=shop
      Video        : tbm=vid
    

* those not available via normal search page (from my location at least).

[1] [http://stenevang.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/google-search-
url-...](http://stenevang.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/google-search-url-request-
parameters/)

~~~
warnhardcode
Does anyone know what these searches do? Does a filter limit the search to
known domains, or silently add keywords that identify a site as a blog or a
video?

------
6cxs2hd6
Why would you want to search Discussions or Blogs? Everything interesting is
already on Google+. /sarcasm

You know, someday Google+ will no longer be the "strategory" priority. There
will be a new CEO. All the hands on the corporate ouija board will shift in
yet another direction.

At which point, all these moves to deprecate parts of the web, in an effort to
shore up G+? They will look even more unfortunate. So much discarded, for so
little gain.

~~~
lukeschlather
This actually looks worse than a move to shore up G+. The list of things
they've pared it down to looks suspiciously like a list of categories that
have the highest advertising revenue.

------
nemof
I also notice that depending on your search terms it now changes the order of
the menu items; I was very surprised a few day ago when I noticed that Images
wasn't the second list option on the screen.

To test this seach for "images" or "videos" on google. It will change the list
order.

This is extremely irritating as it tries to guess whether you're trying to
search for a certain type of of thing (text/images/vid/news/shopping/etc), as
it frequently guesses wrong, and then sends us searching for the right list
option because they've been shuffled round.

Designers, do not change your menu item order unless you're damned sure you're
gonna get it right. Confusing your users is never helpful.

    
    
      ** edit **
    

Ah, I see the article mentions this. Well it's still bloody annoying.

~~~
dclara
Agree. We need the consistency, at least in a certain period of time. Whenever
the search results changes, we are lost unless we choose to do the filtering.
But the group of filtering does not quite make sense for everybody.

Google tried to be more intelligent on search, but it's not the right way. Let
people keep their useful information of their own should be the right
direction. See the video here: [http://bit.ly/1hJKNux](http://bit.ly/1hJKNux)

------
mhb
Maybe this is a good spot to mention how much the updated Google Maps also
suck. Pretty though.

~~~
sixothree
I still can't figure out how to get street view without actually searching
first.

~~~
hahainternet
Click where you want it, it should appear in the upper left.

------
hysan
Any alternatives? I asked about this two days ago but got no answers:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7124132](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7124132)

Also, I know that "?tbm=dsc" works but I expect the quality of the results to
start falling (it already has for a while) since Google probably isn't going
to work to improve the filter.

~~~
lubujackson
[http://boardreader.com/](http://boardreader.com/) is a search engine of just
forums. Pretty useful.

Also this search list of Q&A sites might be useful:
[http://nuggety.com/u/nuggety/questions-and-
answers](http://nuggety.com/u/nuggety/questions-and-answers)

------
valas
Everyone is dissing Google here. Perhaps understandably so since most folks in
HN are advanced users and an advanced search feature was removed.

Google is driven by data and sorry but advanced users are a mere blip in that
data. I can bet there was a gazilion user studies that showed that your
grandma was super confused when 10 options would pop up when she pressed
'More'. The same studies showed that she was much less so confused when 4
options were presented, increasing engine usability for her.

My point here is that some folks attribute sinister motives (more search
dollars), while the actual motive is just to make the interface usable for
more people.

(Disclaimer: I work at Google, not in search though.)

~~~
ksk
I don't get your point. Is it that people should _not_ complain about Google
removing a feature they like, because you have presented a guess as to why
they removed it? (FWIW - I agree with you that it was not maliciously removed)

Personally I like it when users complain loudly about decisions that impact
them. The idea of negative publicity might deter such actions in the future
(in theory anyway).

~~~
vinkelhake
The point is in the third paragraph. A lot of comments here conclude that the
motives for doing this are sinister. One person even thinks it was removed
because it would make users spend hours reading discussions when that time
should really be spent shopping.

People should absolutely complain when a change impacts them negatively.
People should also keep in mind that with a user base the size of Google's,
every change is going to upset someone.

[http://xkcd.com/1172/](http://xkcd.com/1172/)

~~~
exodust
The old saying "every change will upset someone/can't please 'em all _chuckle
chuckle_ " is a cop-out.

I've had managers say exactly this about flawed interfaces I've been asked to
build, with marketing directives dictating crucial layout choices and
ultimately problematic usability. Warned against but overridden with "can't
please em all". Yet the complaints came rolling in big time over an extended
period due these change to the tv guide I made.

The problem with marketing depts making interface decisions is that their
priorities are with things like "aligning with the tone of the campaign" or
"blatantly copying a competitor for lack of confidence in one's own original
ideas".

We're talking about a feature that has been in Google search for many years,
then suddenly gone in the blink of an eye, without explanation.

"Sinister" actions are done quietly, you hope no-one will notice. If their
reasons are in the interests of users, they'd blog or post about it somewhere
to keep people informed about their product. They failed to mention it.

Google has already made it clear they are directing traffic to G+ to sustain
their bank balance and pursuit of making a Google spacecraft or whatever. This
latest move, plundering useful things in search, is the same bad User
Interface behaviour as forcing people to sign up to G+ to leave a rating out
of five for an app. They're forcing together two unrelated systems or services
with bad welds, or removing useful components leaving empty space.

------
tambourine_man
I keep dreaming of an open source, distributed search engine and social
network.

But I guess things will have to get much worse before they get better.

~~~
icebraining
Open source, distributed search engine: [http://yacy.net/](http://yacy.net/)

Open source, distributed social networks are a dime a dozen:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_software_and_prot...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_software_and_protocols_for_distributed_social_networking)

------
brudgers
_" Now when you search, the type of results you can select at the top of the
page will vary depending on what makes sense for your search."_

Makes sense to Google, that is. Shopping and apps make sense. A discussion
that might take an hour to read or prompt one to read further discussions
instead of shopping, liking or checking in doesn't.

It's a future where I decide to go out to eat because I can't find a recipe I
like. I climb in my self driving car and it takes me to Taco Bell. And only
Taco Bell.

------
whizzkid
Am i the only one recently having moments like "wait a second!", while using
google services?

Connecting every google service to a single one might be the best thing for
Google, BUT, not for me!

Google, you are almost merged with whole Internet thing, so stop forcing
people into using a single system!!

I like and use gmail often but don't want to be logged in while checking
youtube!

~~~
alextingle
Just use a different browser.

------
blueblob
Is there an operator similar to "define:" that you can use? I can find a link
for operators, but I do not know how up to date it is.

[http://www.googleguide.com/advanced_operators_reference.html](http://www.googleguide.com/advanced_operators_reference.html)

------
dzhiurgis
This train has derailed a while ago.

You couldn't search discussions AND verbatim.

Verbatim got broken a while ago too.

Now they explicitly state that they skipped some of your search terms
(presumably for better paid keywords).

Oh, and don't forget paying link-scheming SEO clients.

------
frigg
You can use this url* although it seems to me it's inferior to what they
offered previously. Maybe it's just my imagination.

* [https://www.google.com/webhp?tbm=dsc](https://www.google.com/webhp?tbm=dsc)

------
Piskvorrr
If this isn't ironic, I don't know what is.

~~~
viewer5
Why ironic?

~~~
Piskvorrr
Google (which started as a search engine, way back when dinosaurs roamed the
Earth) is now increasingly working on _narrowing down_ the search options
available to users.

~~~
psbp
I need more clarification on how this is ironic.

~~~
Piskvorrr
The appeal of Google, back in the days of Altavista, was in the fact that it
could search various things, giving better results. Now it's intent on giving
you fewer things to search.

~~~
watwut
That changed long ago. All the google is doing last two years is stopping
projects, removing features and replacing acceptable GUIs by less practical
ones.

~~~
acheron
To be fair, they also work pretty hard at collecting your personal
information.

------
mankypro
Duck Duck Go.

Jus' sayin'

~~~
blueblob
I am afraid I don't understand. Duck Duck Go searches google, so if you are
having a problem with a google service, how would this help?

~~~
3JPLW
No, it uses bing + a little secret sauce, as I understand it.

Edit: "Link results are API driven, though top links may come from other
sources. Link sources include: Bing, Yahoo, Yandex, Blekko, WolframAlpha, and
many others."[1]

"DuckDuckGo gets its results from over one hundred sources, including
DuckDuckBot (our own crawler), crowd-sourced sites (like Wikipedia, which are
stored in our own index), Yahoo! (through BOSS), Yandex, WolframAlpha, and
Bing. For any given search, there is usually a vertical search engine out
there that does a better job at answering it than a general search engine. Our
long-term goal is to get you information from that best source, ideally in
instant answer form."[2]

1\. [http://highscalability.com/blog/2013/1/28/duckduckgo-
archite...](http://highscalability.com/blog/2013/1/28/duckduckgo-
architecture-1-million-deep-searches-a-day-and-gr.html)

2\.
[https://duck.co/help/results/sources](https://duck.co/help/results/sources)

~~~
blueblob
Ah, my mistake, I confused it with scroogle. I tried to upvote you but I don't
think I have enough Karma.

------
merrua
I am finding google search more and more doesnt find what I am looking for.
Its frustrating.

------
dgabriel
I am very sad to see the blog option go away. I used that all the time.

------
agumonkey
Sorry to simplify, but I remember when Google enabled,

~~~
argumont
I tried to use Google to autocomplete your sentence but all I got was a link
to this discussion.

------
leterter
I want that f--- filter back, it's the best thing about Google...

