
Paul Graham, the Commons, and How Google Stopped Being Google - maxprogram
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/paul-graham-the-commons-and-how-google-stopped-being-google/254917/
======
robrenaud
> It isn't that anymore, though. Searches are geospecific and social network-
> dependent. All of which is fine and useful, but that's not what made us love
> Google's search engine.

What makes you love Google is Google giving you the right answer.

If you live in the US, do a google search for dmv.

Did it pull the one from your state?

Do you really want an averaged across all searchers answer? California is
probably the state the generates the most Google searches for dmv, but the
California DMV is likely relevant iff you are in California.

This idea of one best search page for one query, independent of any other
factors based on the user or users geography is really overly romantic and
simplicistic.

On the other hand, the filter bubble stuff is a nice narrative, but it mostly
makes for an interesting story rather than real problem. Having worked on
search personalization at Google about 5 years ago, it's just hard to make
that big impact on search results with personalization. "dmv" is a nice
example where it's works brilliantly, but those ambiguous queries are pretty
rare, and hence the more bread and butter stuff is still really driving most
of the quality.

~~~
JoshTriplett
> If you live in the US, do a google search for dmv.

First of all, no, it doesn't give me the DMV for my state first.

And second, why would I do that when I can easily search for "$statename dmv"
and have that search universally do the right thing regardless of location? I
don't want hidden inputs to my search based on my location; I want everything
that determines the results encapsulated in the query.

~~~
loganfrederick
I think this debate hits at an important point; different people want
different things. Some people would find it easier to type "dmv" and have the
engine know they want "dmv open right now and closest to my location". Some
people, like you, want the search engine to handle your input without external
influences.

In the end, it might be optimal for the world to have multiple, specialized
search engines/apps to please as many wants as possible.

~~~
zmj
The reality of it is slightly more meta than that. Some people just want the
right answer. Some people want a tool that they can build a consistent mental
model of.

Hackers prefer the latter. Everyone else? That's up in the air.

~~~
nsns
As I've said before, there are searches for consumption needs, and a
completely different kind of search made for research needs. No popular search
engine today differentiates between the two, but Goggle is slowly moving
towards a search dedicated to consumption needs, which seems logical for an
advertizing company.

I might search for pizza in order to find a place to order it from. Or I might
become curious, and search for pizza to learn about its origins and history. A
personalized search would only answer the first option.

~~~
yew
Personalized searches also render it difficult to gauge how 'pizza' relates to
other data in the public (sub)conscious. Google results used to (and still do,
to a certain extent) provide a very good picture of the semantic structure of
the Internet, if you knew how to read them.

------
mladenkovacevic
I feel like there's a recent anti-Google sentiment among the hacker/techie
community which seems very unsubstantiated by solid reasoning or logic. The
argument in particular, that search quality is getting worse, is a little lost
on me because, for me or anyone I talk to at least, this is simply not true.

In fact, I find myself spending less and less time on "Google the Search
Engine" because it's gotten so damn good at giving me the right result right
away based on the simplest and vaguest keywords (I use the omnibar so I don't
even go to google.com anymore). I still remember not so long ago having to try
different phrasings of my search keywords a number of times before I would get
the result I was looking for on the main page (or in cases of extreme
frustration clicking through pages and pages of search results). This is
largely not the case anymore.

From my general interactions with people and how they use the web, anecdotal
as it may be, they simply doesn't give a shit about ads, filter bubbles and so
on. Google Search hasn't changed for them in any meaningful way except that
it's gotten a lot better at figuring out what they wanted to find (and in most
cases they are not even conscious of that improvement over time).

With regards to other other free G-services (Gmail, Docs, G+, Blogger,
YouTube), if you are consciously buying into them, it is implied that you know
you are entering into a relationship where parts of the real-estate you're
interacting with might be used to display ads and I think everyone understands
and accepts that.

I am an avid conspiracy theorist, however, and have more long-term concerns
about what happens if Google turns TRULY evil and starts to use its data to
spy on citizens on behalf of some authoritarian government. But as of right
now I feel a little foolish reacting to this concern in any significant way.

~~~
molf
I have stopped using Google Search entirely very recently. The main reason is
that Google too often misinterprets my search queries, and I got tired of
typing quotes around the search terms.

I should stress that like any software developer (or any power user,
probably), my queries tend to be very specific. I'm looking for particular
information (which may or may not exist) that takes more than a couple of
words to describe. It is with these queries that all too often Google simply
decides that I meant something else and replaces one or two words with what it
has decided are synonyms. Except they aren't.

Unfortunately I have not documented all these queries (I should have). But to
give some examples, it would not be the first time that Google misinterprets a
specific query about "sqlite" and only returns results related to SQL Server.
Or it decides that a "scapegoat tree" is equivalent to an "AVL tree". They
aren't synonyms. The results are actually _worse_ than irrelevant.

It's like typing a query such as "honda brake problems" and getting results
that are about "toyota brake problems". Yes, both are Japanese car
manufacturers, but they are really not equivalent.

Of course correcting typing errors and searching for synonyms is useful. But
I'd like to have control over that behaviour, and most of all: I want to
understand what the search engine does. The best interfaces are those where a
user can develop a mental model that helps them interact with it. It seems I'm
no longer able to create a mental model for how Google works.

~~~
mladenkovacevic
> "The main reason is that Google too often misinterprets my search queries,
> and I got tired of typing quotes around the search terms. I should stress
> that like any software developer (or any power user, probably), my queries
> tend to be very specific."

So who do you think should invest the extra effort into performing searches
(aka adding quotations.. or "taking them off"): the hackers with specific, but
edge-case search requirements, or the 99% of casual users who just want to
learn about "how do helycopters fly"

P.S. I tried both the sqlite and the scapegoat tree searches without the
quotes and Google seemed to "know" what I meant... but if you encountered that
problem perhaps it's an algorithm that unnecessarily "kicks in" depending on
some other circumstances of the search. I would definitely classify this as a
problem, but one that should again be easily solved with the use of quotation
marks

~~~
molf
I agree 100% with you that there is a large difference between search engine
use by hackers/power users and by casual users. But given the frequency of the
problems that I have, I definitely believe that 1) I can impossibly be the
only one that experiences this and 2) therefore there may be a lot of room for
improvement. Room for Google, or for a competitor. (I just don't expect it
will be Google, since they are the ones that made it worse.)

By the way, the scapegoat tree search query was "scapegoat tree inorder
append". Try that and observe 90% AVL tree results on the first page.

------
qeorge
It reminds me of HN itself.

I don't want to know what the "average" likes to read, or even what people
like me like to read. I want to know what smart, interesting people (not me!)
like to read.

In other words: I want curation by an expert, not the average of everyone's
inputs. Google is supposed to _know_ the right answer, not ask all my friends
what the answer is and report back.

~~~
gxs
I completely agree with you on this topic. In a similar vein, I don't want to
read the average Joe's take on why he loves the iPad 3 so much (I usually
abstain from commenting, though lately I've said what the hey) - I want to
hear what smart, more enlightened people have to say. That was the real value
of HN for me when I first got on years ago. It was hearing from people like
patio11 when the topic of SEO came up.

The thread recently where Jordan Mendelson (napster hacker) chimed regarding
Napster's back end is the quintessential example of what I'm talking about.

------
davemel37
this is really interesting. What People WANT and what they THINK they want are
two different things...How people define and Perceive SEARCH and how they use
search are two different things.

I think Google is facing a SELF-DEFEATING reality that as they serve people
with better results, they erode the perception of their brand in peoples eyes.

There is clearly an incongruity between what people "THINK" they want from a
search engine( and how they perceive Google) versus, what they "REALLY WANT"
from a search engine.

Conflicting priorities are always a struggle, but this is an especially
interesting one. One side has a DATA supported reality that can't be disputed
about what searchers want and what puts bread on the table. On the other side
is the more important, but less quantifiable reality that their BRAND is what
brings searches back to the site, not the quality of the results, but the
perception of GOOGLE and SEARCH being synonymous. This brand value is clearly
getting diluted by delivering better results, and could in the long run be
their demise.

~~~
modeless
This is more insightful than the article. The problem isn't optimizing for the
"community" as the article seems to think. The problem really is that what
people _think_ they want and what they _actually_ want are opposed. Facebook
faces the same problem.

I think the unfortunate endgame here is legislation that will require what
people think they want (e.g. privacy, absolute control) at the expense of some
things they actually want (e.g. frictionless social interaction, simplicity).

(To forestall some argument: Yes, I realize that privacy/social interaction
and control/simplicity are not always mutually exclusive. However, there _are_
cases where they interfere with each other, which requires compromise.)

------
disgruntledphd2
This is a really good article. Succint, reasonably well written and
interesting. That being said, one imagines that Google (despite being an
advertising company) have a huge investment in the quality of search.

However, because they are essentially a monopoly, many people try to game the
system for their benefit. This creates an arms-race, and may be one of the
root causes of this personalisation. I do agree with the main point, that this
could potentially make Google less useful for us all as a whole, and will
probably lead to their disruption, sooner or later.

------
skmurphy
Alexis Madrigal reaches a subtle and thought provoking conclusion "The
aggregation of individual data does not a commons make." This would seem to be
at odds with a lot of "Big Data" evangelism but I think he is right.

------
laconian
This article is custom tailored for the HN echo chamber. The link to PG for
this article is tenuous at best.

------
stephengoodwin
I agree Google has gone into a filter bubble, but the article very speculative
and provides no statistics or examples to make a good point.

This is a pop-science article, so I don't have high expectations.

~~~
moultano
Why do you agree then that Google has gone into a filter bubble?

~~~
stephengoodwin
Based on various other articles I've read. I would not go to an extreme and
say "this is a terrible idea," but I would assert it's worthy of serious
thought on how to ensure we are not limiting ourselves to the filter we've
built.

Nonetheless, my criticism was directed at this article for not providing at
least a few examples of the results of a filter bubble.

------
bambax
The author is prompt to admit that this is pure speculation on his part, and
so we don't know how and why Google became what it is; but I find his
explanation very convincing.

Serving personalized results to users may increase click-through rates but it
degrades the idea we form of what Google is and what it does.

~~~
vibrunazo
> Serving personalized results to users may increase click-through rates but
> it degrades the idea we form of what Google is and what it does.

If it serves me better results, then how so?

~~~
eli_gottlieb
Who says it serves you better results? If I type in "tea", am I searching for
Tealuxe in Harvard Square or am I searching for the botanical and scientific
material on a common drink or am I searching for recipes? The new
"social+local" Google biases my results towards the former.

A search engine used to be a tool for reaching out into the world and finding
something new. Now it searches through what I already know? What's the point
in that?

~~~
mayanksinghal
Search engines were never a content discovery tool for me. I use HN, Twitter,
Facebook for that. Some others use Digg, Pinterest and Reddit. When I search
on a search engine, I _am_ looking for a solution to a question that I have.

------
willvarfar
Its called "the filter bubble" <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8ofWFx525s>

------
jroseattle
With the "old" Google, a search made me feel as though I'd stepped into the
potential realm of answers to my query. The most relevant, to me, was the
stuff that mapped to my query the best -- nothing more, but nothing less.

Now, I feel like I'm living in the law of averages. I'm not interested in the
average; I want the top of the scale. I really do not want social and local
and all the other unknown contexts involved in giving me what's right "for
me". With all the contextual crap, I feel like now I get the "less".

I wish they let me have the option of turning it all off, and just going with
content-based search. Of course, they have to filter out the crap that's being
generated to game their search index, but outside of that -- give me what the
web has.

~~~
amorphid
You can get the unpersonalized version when needed. Simply log out of your
Google account. Yoi can use a different browser, too.

------
gfaremil
Discovery and personalization are not compatible with each other. So if you
use Google search as a discovery tool, then personalization hurts.

There is no alternative. Maybe DDG but results are not so good.

------
6ren
The Dr. Frankenstein in me loves the idea of an automated data-driven
business: generic algorithm + A-B testing + payment mechanism. If you could
also automate litigation... running many in parallel, a useful monster might
one day emerge. Evolution has worked well elsewhere. The real problem is an
exponential search space, and time/experiments needed to explore it.

The problem of giving people what they want is also the problem of markets and
democracy in general. Fortunately for us buyers/citizens, we usually
eventually realize what we really want - unfortunately for the
vendor/politician catering to what we previously thought we wanted.

There's an appeal to Jobs' approach: make what they _will_ want once they've
see it. Far superior to creating/governing by numbers.

------
toddnessa
The article points out reasons as to why many of us are leaving Google for
other search engines that protect our private data by not recording our search
information. Startpage for instance does not track your private data. You will
not have your IP address recorded or have tracking cookies put on your
computer. I know we now live in a world where it is difficult to get away from
Google altogether. It seems like they want to collect data on everybody in
various ways. However, many of us are beginning to try. My gmail account may
be the next to go.

------
chanderson0
The "personalization" of the web is not a Google-specific phenomenon. I am, at
this very moment, sitting in a session at the Adobe Digital Marketing Summit
where a marketer from Toyota is espousing personalizing site content to users.

This practice is being pushed _hard_ to all businesses here as a central theme
of growth of the internet. In the sense that this drives better business, it
certainly will be. Don't expect to go to Toyota.com and see the same
experience as your neighbor anymore.

------
nextstep
Does anyone know an easy way to prevent Google from tailoring my search
results based off my location? I don't want to use a proxy, because then the
results would just be tailored to that (false) location.

~~~
mtrimpe
I know pws=0 works for turning off personalized search.

------
stfu
What I find fascinating is that with the sheer unlimited amount of data they
have the quality of their search engine results have been stagnating for
almost 10 years and no substantial break through been seen so far.

The only somewhat "break through" could be seen in local searches - and saving
people from adding their zip code, city or street name to their search phrase
seems to be not that much impressive either.

------
PaulMcCartney
It's nice to romanticize what Google might've once been, but at the end of the
day Google is a tool that provides a service. To have a qualm regarding the
current user experience is a different story, but in terms of the delivery of
sought after content I don't think one could argue they have taken steps
anywhere but forwards.

------
yanw
At first search signals were mainly provided by the content itself and now
signals from the user are being incorporated.

There is already an established term for this and it’s not “filter bubble” or
“tailoring” the term is “relevance” and it’s the core of search.

If the author is suggesting that data about a user’s identity, history, and
location isn't usefully to providing her with the best possible results then
he should stick to writing about stuff he actually comprehends and not be the
umpteenth author resorting to use “Google” in the title to whore traffic.

------
brudgers
> _"They make changes to the user interface and collect more data, analyzing
> what they've got to see what users "liked" more."_

I find this so utterly naive that I am incredulous.

Google is a business. They don't tweek results based in favor of user
preferences.

They tweek results based on the amount of revenue they are likely to bring in.

It's not an accident that [in the US] <http://www.google.com/search?q=weather>
provides top links to commercial advertizing driven sites for one's local
weather and only portals into the main page of weather.gov rather than the
local forecast page.

Google search results aren't the best possible for the most people. They are
the worst tolerable for maximizing revenue.

[edit] do employees have to use 20% time for downvoting on HN or is it part of
their job?

~~~
bambax
Either you didn't read the article or you didn't understand it. The author
doesn't complain that Google search results aren't "the best possible for the
most people"-- _au contraire_!

He complains they're _not the same_ , that if you search from a given location
or being in a given demographic you will get different results than other
people, and that this fact erodes the trust users have in Google: how do I
know if this set of results is the absolute best on a given topic or if Google
is simply showing to me what it "thinks" I will like?

~~~
brudgers
It isn't showing you what it thinks you will like at all.

It is showing you the most amount of pertinent advertising that it thinks you
will tolerate while promoting sites containing similar advertising as high up
the page rank as it thinks you will tolerate.

All those links to your G+ friends are promoted to keep you on Google's
properties where they can make the most money when you click on an advertising
link - think of Google like a DisneyWorld's Magic Kingdom and G+ like Downtown
Disney.

