If you search for “kids clothing”, when it goes to pull ads to put above the results, it fuzzes the search phrase for synonyms. So for example if TJ Maxx has purchased ads for “kidswear”, that’s a semantic match, so they’ll show the TJ Maxx ads even though it’s not one of the exact keywords they picked.
While I’m not arguing your point, it certainly appears you’re right……
I just can’t help but feel like the original story (despite the inaccuracy) was on to something.
A few years ago when Google stopped processing quotes in the search properly, their search engine started shitting the bed HARD.
I’ve always felt that since that time they’ve been searching the wrong things. Search has gotten worse. It’s been better for finding items I want to buy, but complete dogshit for everything else. I don’t particularly buy that seo’s got a sudden unexplained boost at that time.
I don’t know, the article (despite the inaccuracies) really felt like it explained everything nicely. So the article might be wrong but…. There’s still something there Google isn’t telling us. I kinda wonder if it’s true despite the lack of evidence.
It feels like a semantic difference. The wired article said they replace your search term (OR) but this sounds like they are augmenting your search term (AND). So you get marketing crap in addition to what you actually searched for. I assume there is also a ratio and/or prioritization based on monetization, for example the suggested search term gets minimum 30% of the results including the top result.
That’s interesting… I’m curious now….
They may have misinterpreted it, but now I wanna know what it REALLY is.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37802116
If you search for “kids clothing”, when it goes to pull ads to put above the results, it fuzzes the search phrase for synonyms. So for example if TJ Maxx has purchased ads for “kidswear”, that’s a semantic match, so they’ll show the TJ Maxx ads even though it’s not one of the exact keywords they picked.
While I’m not arguing your point, it certainly appears you’re right……
I just can’t help but feel like the original story (despite the inaccuracy) was on to something.
A few years ago when Google stopped processing quotes in the search properly, their search engine started shitting the bed HARD.
I’ve always felt that since that time they’ve been searching the wrong things. Search has gotten worse. It’s been better for finding items I want to buy, but complete dogshit for everything else. I don’t particularly buy that seo’s got a sudden unexplained boost at that time.
I don’t know, the article (despite the inaccuracies) really felt like it explained everything nicely. So the article might be wrong but…. There’s still something there Google isn’t telling us. I kinda wonder if it’s true despite the lack of evidence.
Wait quotes no longer work?
It’s not that they don’t work entirely, they just started “fuzzing “ them like normal search.
They’re no longer a hard explicit.
Probably explains why sometimes i can’t seem to find what i really want
It feels like a semantic difference. The wired article said they replace your search term (OR) but this sounds like they are augmenting your search term (AND). So you get marketing crap in addition to what you actually searched for. I assume there is also a ratio and/or prioritization based on monetization, for example the suggested search term gets minimum 30% of the results including the top result.
Stop the insanity, there is no need to drive into conspiracies.
Ehhhh, only a small amount is assumed. The rest is fact. And I’m fairly upfront about it.