I mean, "AI Mode" is the default result when you Google something, so of course they're seeing high usage. Driving an increase in total queries is probably because instead of just Googling something and getting the right results like it was 10~ years ago, now you have to interrogate a chatbot or try multiple queries. I would think higher total queries is more an indicator that your search function isn't effective.
> Driving an increase in total queries is probably because instead of just Googling something and getting the right results like it was 10~ years ago, now you have to interrogate a chatbot or try multiple queries. I would think higher total queries is more an indicator that your search function isn't effective.
I wonder how much the search results thing is related to language and locality. I have a hunch but I haven't really dug into it.
I live in the US, I speak English, and my browser is normally chrome.
The number of times I've gone to the 2nd page in Google search results you can probably count on one hand in the last 15yr or so.
I use the standard Google search things when I want specifics... Using quotes, site:news.ycombinator.com to search a site, or add a "-" to remove results from that site. I use a "+" when needed. Nothing fancy.
When people say they can't find things in Google search, I'm genuinely baffled. I have a strong suspicion that it has something to do with the combination of browser, locality, and language. Why? Could be tons of reasons for that, some probably anti-competitive on the browser side.
I have tried to use ecosia, start page, duckduckgo, etc. Was never happy with those results and always ended up back at Google search.
I just want to know what's different, you know? I look up some pretty obscure stuff sometimes.
Note: I do normally have my Google account logged in in the browser when doing search, however I have search personalization and history turned off, so that should not be influencing the quality of my search results compared to whatever "baseline" is.
It started when Google made a hard push to improve search for everyday people. They essentially nerfed "expert google skills" to bolster "noob google skills".
Regular people are/were really bad at using google, so google moved towards showing what it thinks you want rather than what you want. They paved over the skill gap between people who understood keywords and word order, and people who just typed in a quasi legible sentence to find something. In doing so though, they killed a lot of skill that people had developed with google for years.
Basically they made the game worse for pros so it could be better for amateurs. I have never heard a non-tech person complain about google getting worse over the years, and they seem to overwhelmingly use AI overviews now too.
How do you get the inclusion/exclusion to work? My last few attempts to use “-x” really didn’t exclude what I expected, and almost all the results had “x”. I have seen massive changes since 2005.
> they seem to overwhelmingly use AI overviews now too.
Hard agree. The only thing I've ever witnessed another person do on Google (this is only an incredibly slight exaggeration) is:
1. Type a 'query' - either a brand/website name or some kind of stream of thought like "dishwasher error 03F" (without quotes)
2. Click or look at the very top thing in the results.
This used to mean 80% of the time they'd click the top ad, 20% the top organic result. Then they started putting non-clickable "answers" in that top spot, which would always be accepted as 'the right answer'. When those appeared, approximately no one would ever click any 'blue links.' These started out pretty reliable because they were just direct extracts from sites like IMDB: "Brad Pitt is 44 years old" etc.
Now it's like 60% of the time an ad, 40% of the time their bargain-basement-model "AI Overview" slop. Either way, approximately all users always just use whatever is on top and ignore everything else.
>"a hard push to improve search for everyday people"
Citation needed. A hard push to change their search offering, sure. To improve it? Well, if by improve you mean 'require more interaction and viewing of more adverts on average before leaving' ...
Again, if you have been on HN since 2009, you are likely on the far fringe of Google's user demographics, which at this point is pretty much "The average human being on Earth".
I would bet all of my money that you never once did a Google search (pre-LLM mania, but maybe even after) that looked like
"What kind of clothing is best for when you are going hiking around the lake, so my feet don't get so cold?"
Sadly, this is how most humans have used a search engine for decades now.
Fwiw, I do/did plain language searches for the last couple of years, following Google's lead - I think the more natural language searches have only really been in the last 5 years.
I often use terse searches too, mostly when I forget to write it out longhand to satisfy Google - but either way it's getting less wheat with my vat of chaff in the SERPs and several times recently I've had to re-phrase to get anything useful.
Two of the three (housing and education) don't seem to be caused by that.
Neither restrictive zoning, nor the administrative bloat in academia that caused tuition to skyrocket, were lobbied into existence by people like Bezos and Musk. They are result of tireless lobbying of relatively unimportant people seeking their own little rent.
> nor the administrative bloat in academia that caused tuition to skyrocket
While, let's be clear, administrative bloat in academia is a very real issue, pointing to that as the true root issue is far more nebulous. Student loans being made non-dischargeable by bankruptcy meant that universities could afford to raise tuitions because lenders would be happy/ier to fund those loans because they will get their pound of flesh, even if it takes decades longer than designed.
Aren't most of the housing issues in this country NIMBYism and zoning? NIMBYism lead by vocal, wealthy property owners? Zoning controlled by governments lead and captured by wealthy and corporate interests?
Many of the NIMBY property owners are not nearly wealthy enough to be affected by most wealth tax proposals (e.g., the "few tens of millions" suggested in the article).
Many NIMBYs are basically ordinary middle-class people who are old enough that they were able to buy the house they live in decades ago before the price of properties in their area got bid up; so most of their wealth is locked up in the same house they are currently living in.
Taxing the extremely wealthy basically does nothing to decrease the property values of this class of people en masse, and decreasing their property values en masse is precisely what it would mean to make housing more affordable for more people.
I don't live in the US, but NIMBYism is rampant here as well and all the practical instances I have witnessed were initiated and carried by dyspeptic pensioners with sincere hatred towards any change.
"But CHILDREN will SCREAM here!" shouted one such lady at me when I dared express my opposition against her petition, which demanded a stop to a "megalomaniac" plan to build approximately fifteen apartments half a kilometer away.
"You were a child once, too," I said.
"Sure, but I was A GOOD BEHAVED ONE, NOT LIKE TODAY'S BRATS!" at that time, she was positively screaming as well.
M'kay.
The situation in the US may be different, but the few YIMBY blogs and articles I have read mostly described their efforts as an uphill battle against progressive politicians who were certain that development leads to gentrification and gentrification is bad. Given that the YIMBY movement originated in California, this may just be an aftereffect of Californian politics. But in general, it is blue cities and regions that are known for very restrictive zoning policies.
"excuse" is a funny way of wording it -- "motivation" or "explanation" might be more appropriate here. is the expectation that the US can and should be able to kill and destroy and the victims just turn the other cheek?
reply