It's the same with Google searches. It used to be when I put something into quotes they would search exactly for that. Now they are often adding other results that don't even have that phrase. Seems they ae trying to tell me that although I searched for something they know that I really wanted something else.
I am starting to feel all these ML tools are mainly used for dis-empowering and manipulating people instead of empowering them.
The Web used to be a place where you "go to stuff." The going to stuff required knowledge and, well, effort. That limited the web.
Now the Web is a place where stuff "comes to you." Sort of like commercials "came to you" on broadcast TV every 12 or whatever minutes.
The marketing people and the Googlers would say, "That's a great achievement, because now we can predict what you're most likely to enjoy [ or buy ] and make it easier."
The cynics say, whoa, this erodes trust and privacy, and perhaps even the human psyche which becomes this vessel filled in by data provided by ML-using corporations.
I'm with the cynics.
There are some issues with relevance ranking for price where junk rises to the top when you sort by price (https://medium.com/@dtunkelang/why-is-it-so-hard-to-sort-by-...) and Amazon may just be cutting off lower relevancy items when you sort by price as a heuristic.
I would not mind if the filtering was optional; but it is not, so this is one more reason to avoid Amazon.
It's a fiddle.
Consider: maybe you know the keyword that should be in the document you want to find... but the author of the document you want to find, didn't use that keyword. Instead, they used a synonym for it, because they were unaware of the idiomatic keyword to use.
Example: medical journals. Eventually, everyone agrees on what the term for something is. But the very first few papers on that thing, might not call it that, because they were inventing it.
Do you want to fail to find those first (and most important) few papers on the subject? Or do you want Google to do the text-parsing equivalent of "snap to grid", ensuring that documents that say the right thing the "wrong" way still show up?
As far as I can tell, as far as the output goes, correcting your language and correcting the document's language are basically indistinguishable. Google could just be thinking of what it's doing as the latter, and yet it ends up having the same effect as the former.
I see it a lot Google searching for electronics terms, where combining common and unusual term sometimes causes unusual term to be ignored. The quotes used to help, but they no longer do.
As for your last point, metadata is all about addressing these issues. The context has to remain canonical, otherwise God knows what sort of legal issues would arise.
Examples: Pinterest/ Quora subscription gate