One time in particular, my partner was worried about abdominal seperation (something quite common during pregnancy), she was searching about how long it takes to heal.
The snippet answer said that it usually doesn't heal without surgery. She was really upset by this, until I pointed out that Google had sourced that answer from a private plastic surgery clinic. Our country's public health website said it usually heals within 8 weeks.
I don't think anyone was being malicious here, but using machine learning to source answers from website, and present them as fact, is surely a disaster waiting to happen? Especially when it comes to medical advice.
There's also times when the information is contextual, searching "can you drink during pregnancy" shows me the advice from the CDC, but that guidance is different in my country.
At the very least, Google turn off snippets for medical questions, or should only show answers extracted from government health bodies in the country the user is in.
1. You should not take everything you read on the Internet at face value.
2. Google takes what it finds at face value.
There's clearly room for improvement here, but come on - taking taxes into account? Showing only the current wage? Those are oddly specific requirements. Who should the taxes be calculated for? A single man? A family of four? A single parent?
Showing the historic wage as it compares to other countries is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. What Google does here is very far from being dangerously misleading.
What is the intent of a user making a search for "minimum wage uk"? If they searched for "historic minimum wage", or "compare minimum wage" - sure, that graph is appropriate.
What I'm saying is that for someone searching for the UK's rate, there is only one correct answer. This is the rate mandated by the Government for your age.
It says £8.72 for people aged over 25.
The correct rate is £8.91.
Bad answers are common in my field, but they are rarely signed with my name. It feels like being quoted by a really dumb journalist.
That's a weirdly american thing to say. In many countries, people typically measure their wages per month and have no idea how much do they earn per hour or per year.
Maybe its a bit of a parochial American thing to assume that everyone is an American being overly parochial.
People don't necessarily refer to their own wage as an hourly figure, but that's an entirely separate thing to how minimum wage is normally discussed. I'd suggest, as well, that people who don't think of their wage in hourly terms are less likely to be on or close to minimum wage.
At the very, very least, it's not a uniquely American thing.
Then there are a _lot_ of trades that have a GAV (negotiated by unions), where you'll have a wage table per month and clauses such as being entitled to a 13th salary per year among other things. The tables typically take education (including advanced training) levels, roles and experience into account.
In the UK, when you are paid monthly, that's referred to as "salary". Wages are paid weekly. Furthermore the "minimum wage" is set by the government, who express it as pounds-per-week. If you're on the minimum wage, and you are paid monthly, the minimum wage is still expressed in terms of weekly pay.
[Edit] I'm wrong - the government website apparently expresses it in hourly terms (thanks, @a_humean). But it's never expressed as monthly pay, nor in Euros.
Perhaps it's user error when the author asks google a question that isn't actually relevant to them.
If you ask what the price of break is in the UK you shouldn't expect the answer to be in US dollars either. Maybe someone hadn't really thought about currency when they asked but that doesn't make the answer wrong at all.
But, yes, I am. And in the UK the minimum wage is set at a per-hour basis.