• ArbiterXero@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    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.

    • Pulptastic
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

    • 0xD@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      Stop the insanity, there is no need to drive into conspiracies.