I've just been rick rolled by google =/



  • Google for C++ astyle.

    Mistype it as C++ astly.

    Google happily corrects that to "astley" and gives me search results for Rick Astley's "Never gonna give you up", essentially rick rolling me.

    When did google's search become so useless anyway?



  • Probably about the time a lot of people who can't type correctly or don't check their search terms before submitting started submitting Google searches.



  • @garrywong said:

    When did google's search become so useless anyway?
    According to a search for "Google search results suck" . . . about 2008.



  • lol

    Russian Roulette is safer than Google Search these days. We need a search engine for techies, because Google is hand-holding search for dummies now.





  • @garrywong said:

    Google for C++ astyle.

    Mistype it as C++ astly.

    Wired typo. Are oyu dyslicksex?



  • @mott555 said:

    We need a search engine for techies, because Google is hand-holding search for dummies now.

    QFT. Particularly since they've started stripping out special characters. Say I wanted to know what << does in $language without knowing what it's called? Too fucking bad.



  • @El_Heffe said:

    @garrywong said:

    When did google's search become so useless anyway?
    According to a search for "Google search results suck" . . . about 2008.


    And you trust Google to tell you that?



  • Indeed, lately Google has gotten really bad at ignoring what you actually asked for, and instead giving you what it thinks you meant (which is nowhere near what you really meant). Also it's clogged full of spam sites, that just copy the content from mailing lists or forums and bury it under ads. I thought they put a lot of work into preventing that sort of thing.



    Watch, soon they'll shut down the search engine because it's "not profitable".



  • @lolwtf said:

    Indeed, lately Google has gotten really bad at ignoring what you actually asked for, and instead giving you what it thinks you meant (which is nowhere near what you really meant).
    This has been going on for quite some time now. Google's search results have become increasingly worse and it's by design. @lolwtf said:
    Watch, soon they'll shut down the search engine because it's "not profitable".
    Just the opposite. It seems a little counter-intuitive at first but shitty search results are actually more profitable because it increases the chances that a person will click on an ad ("sponsored link") in order to find what they are looking for.  Why give people links they can click on for free when you can drive them to links that generate revenue.


  • SockDev

    @El_Heffe said:

    Google's search results have become increasingly worse [i]for the 1% of users that know what they're doing[/i] and it's [i]because of the 99% who go 'herp derp' and expect to get meaningful results[/i].

    FTFY



  • @El_Heffe said:

    @lolwtf said:
    Indeed, lately Google has gotten really bad at ignoring what you actually asked for, and instead giving you what it thinks you meant (which is nowhere near what you really meant).
    This has been going on for quite some time now. Google's search results have become increasingly worse
    'Herpaderpaderp', said the mouthbreathers, as the syntax no longer worked as it had prior to a decade of improvements. I hardly think you can blame Google for your refusal to learn how to use their search functionality.


    The results haven't got worse, they've got better. It's your search skills that have got worse.



  • @TDWTF123 said:

    The results haven't got worse, they've got better. It's your search skills that have got worse.
    Thank you Larry Page.




  • @lolwtf said:

    Indeed, lately Google has gotten really bad at ignoring what you actually asked for, and instead giving you what it thinks you meant (which is nowhere near what you really meant).

    Except, he didn't ask for what he wanted. What the hell did he expect or want to get back when you put ASTLY instead of ASTYLE?

    He's complaining that google fixed his error for him, but did so in the wrong way.... so apparently he EXPECTED them to read his mind and fix his stupidity.

    As for me, I'll happily continue spelling my words correctly and getting back the results I expected.




    tl;dr - user puts wrong search, user gets wrong results.



  • @El_Heffe said:

    @TDWTF123 said:

    The results haven't got worse, they've got better. It's your search skills that have got worse.
    Thank you Larry Page.


    I'm moving up in the world of misplaced sarcasm. Last time it was Steve Ballmer.


    Clearly, you have to be a Google founder to realise that the complaints in this thread are all nonsense... No, wait, you don't because they're pretty obviously idiotic. The OP complained that google, amazingly enough, returned astley related results on searching for 'astly'. (BTW, try that for yourself. Clearly something of an exaggeration on the OP's part.) MiketheLiar claimed Google can't do something it happily does, simply because he doesn't know the relevant syntax. And so-on.


    It's not Google that's retarded, here.



  • @TDWTF123 said:

    @El_Heffe said:
    @TDWTF123 said:
    The results haven't got worse, they've got better. It's your search skills that have got worse.
    Thank you Larry Page.


    I'm moving up in the world of misplaced sarcasm. Last time it was Steve Ballmer.


    Clearly, you have to be a Google founder to realise that the complaints in this thread are all nonsense... No, wait, you don't because they're pretty obviously idiotic. The OP complained that google, amazingly enough, returned astley related results on searching for 'astly'. (BTW, try that for yourself. Clearly something of an exaggeration on the OP's part.) MiketheLiar claimed Google can't do something it happily does, simply because he doesn't know the relevant syntax. And so-on.


    It's not Google that's retarded, here.

    You're confusing two different issues. First, in the case of the OP, he mis-typed something. He wasn't complaining that Google couldn't read his mind and magically give him the correct search results. He was simply commenting on the somewhat humorous results of Google trying to guess what he meant. Hence the title of the post "I was Rick-Rolled by Google".

    Second, it is already well documented all over the interwebs that no matter how carefully you try to craft your search query, Google returns thousands of meanginless and irrelevant resutls.

     


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @darkmattar said:

    @lolwtf said:
    Indeed, lately Google has gotten really bad at ignoring what you actually asked for, and instead giving you what it thinks you meant (which is nowhere near what you really meant).

    Except, he didn't ask for what he wanted. What the hell did he expect or want to get back when you put ASTLY instead of ASTYLE?

    He's complaining that google fixed his error for him, but did so in the wrong way.... so apparently he EXPECTED them to read his mind and fix his stupidity.

    As for me, I'll happily continue spelling my words correctly and getting back the results I expected.




    tl;dr - user puts wrong search, user gets wrong results.

    I will frequently try to call up an article I've read before by typing the most unique phrase or coined word I can remember from it. This falls flat on its face as Google will "helpfully" change it to something more common.

    Usually I'm deliberately trying to narrow the scope of my search in order to find something specific, and I don't enjoy Google actively hampering this effort by broadening the search with synonyms and other spellings.



  • @El_Heffe said:

    First, in the case of the OP, he mis-typed something. He wasn't complaining that Google couldn't read his mind and magically give him the correct search results.

    @garrywong said:
    When did google's search become so useless anyway?

    Yup, I see what's wrong. You have the brains of a particularly dim louse.
    @El_Heffe said:

    Second, it is already well documented all over the interwebs that if your search query is wrong, Google almost always returns thousands of meanginless and irrelevant resutls.
    FTFY. Google's doing pretty well at turning GIGO into GIGOnlyAlmostAlwaysO, but they can't prevent stupidity.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    Usually I'm deliberately trying to narrow the scope of my search in order to find something specific, and I don't enjoy Google actively hampering this effort by broadening the search with synonyms and other spellings.

    You can tell it not to do that and you can also install a search provider that does that for you.

    I wish it were that easy to persuade it never to redirect a search to https.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    I will frequently try to call up an article I've read before by typing the most unique phrase or coined word I can remember from it. This falls flat on its face as Google will "helpfully" change it to something more common.

    Usually I'm deliberately trying to narrow the scope of my search in order to find something specific, and I don't enjoy Google actively hampering this effort by broadening the search with synonyms and other spellings.

    Just wondering, do you have your Google history turned off, or spread between multiple computers and not linked in any way, or something of that nature? Normally Google adjusts your results significantly based on your history (that it knows about); stuff you've read before will affect whether it 'corrects' your search, as well as how high that page ranks.

    This actually serves quite well as an example of how correct search technique has changed. Instead of narrowing down your search, these days you're often better off throwing the widest net you can and relying on Google's knowledge of your browsing habits to put what you're looking for near the top - at least if you've given it plenty of history to work with.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    I will frequently try to call up an article I've read before by typing the most unique phrase or coined word I can remember from it. This falls flat on its face as Google will "helpfully" change it to something more common.

    Usually I'm deliberately trying to narrow the scope of my search in order to find something specific, and I don't enjoy Google actively hampering this effort by broadening the search with synonyms and other spellings.

    They give you a link to undo their "helpful" changes and search for literally what you asked.
    Yeah, I'm not a fan that the default search isn't my verbatim text, with the link being to their helpful changes, but it doesn't make the engine unusable.

    The vast majority of the time it doesn't try to correct you if you didn't misspell anything. Try typing random real words into the search, it is obscenely hard to get it to correct your query if you didn't f*ck it up yourself.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @darkmattar said:

    @joe.edwards said:

    I will frequently try to call up an article I've read before by typing the most unique phrase or coined word I can remember from it. This falls flat on its face as Google will "helpfully" change it to something more common.

    Usually I'm deliberately trying to narrow the scope of my search in order to find something specific, and I don't enjoy Google actively hampering this effort by broadening the search with synonyms and other spellings.

    They give you a link to undo their "helpful" changes and search for literally what you asked.
    Yeah, I'm not a fan that the default search isn't my verbatim text, with the link being to their helpful changes, but it doesn't make the engine unusable.

    The vast majority of the time it doesn't try to correct you if you didn't misspell anything. Try typing random real words into the search, it is obscenely hard to get it to correct your query if you didn't f*ck it up yourself.

    Yes, you're right. If I don't misspell anything it will search for only what I typed. [Without using Verbatim.]



  • @TDWTF123 said:

    'Herpaderpaderp', said the mouthbreathers, as the syntax no longer worked as it had prior to a decade of improvements. I hardly think you can blame Google for your refusal to learn how to use their search functionality.


    The results haven't got worse, they've got better. It's your search skills that have got worse.

    And I suppose it's someone else's fault that people don't like the horrid UI changes in a lot of Google apps. It's just everyone's refusal to learn how click a cryptic button with no label and click three times where it previously took one click. It's certainly not bad design by Google.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    Yes, you're right. If I don't misspell anything it will search for only what I typed. [Without using Verbatim.]

    So uh, any reason why you linked to another topic where a moron google user searched the exact wrong terms for what they really wanted to do? Google returned results for exactly what he searched. So you're once again complaining that google isn't fixing it for him, the very thing you say you don't want google to do....
    Did you by any chance bother to read the thread and see the several posts where people told him what he was actually looking for, which google was able to return results for with ease?

    Oh, my bad, you're the moron that started that topic. Carry on then. But do read this post that was in your own thread:

    @Circuitsoft said:

    It does make perfect sense. "Find" can mean either "determine" or "search". If you had searched for .Net show file in explorer or .Net select file in explorer, you would have gotten useful results.

    It's like asking for the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything. 42 may as well be the most correct answer there is, because there's no value to the question.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @darkmattar said:

    @joe.edwards said:

    Yes, you're right. If I don't misspell anything it will search for only what I typed. [Without using Verbatim.]

    So uh, any reason why you linked to another topic where a moron google user searched the exact wrong terms for what they really wanted to do? Google returned results for exactly what he searched. So you're once again complaining that google isn't fixing it for him, the very thing you say you don't want google to do....
    Did you by any chance bother to read the thread and see the several posts where people told him what he was actually looking for, which google was able to return results for with ease?

    Oh, my bad, you're the moron that started that topic. Carry on then. But do read this post that was in your own thread:

    @Circuitsoft said:

    It does make perfect sense. "Find" can mean either "determine" or "search". If you had searched for .Net show file in explorer or .Net select file in explorer, you would have gotten useful results.

    It's like asking for the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything. 42 may as well be the most correct answer there is, because there's no value to the question.

    Obvious troll is obvious. Google needs to search for what I fucking typed not what it thinks I mean. You'll see that the search terms in the screenshot were not part of my search, and the advice to add one word to my search to somehow cause Google to recontextualize its unwanted synonym-matching behavior is somewhat less than intuitive. Not to mention that every time I've seen this feature before it's been simply labelled "Find in Explorer". Not "Determine Browser".


  • @Dogsworth said:

    @TDWTF123 said:

    'Herpaderpaderp', said the mouthbreathers, as the syntax no longer worked as it had prior to a decade of improvements. I hardly think you can blame Google for your refusal to learn how to use their search functionality.


    The results haven't got worse, they've got better. It's your search skills that have got worse.

    And I suppose it's someone else's fault that people don't like the horrid UI changes in a lot of Google apps. It's just everyone's refusal to learn how click a cryptic button with no label and click three times where it previously took one click. It's certainly not bad design by Google.


    Holy shit. Signature guy just gets awesome, you know?



  • @joe.edwards said:

    Google needs to search for what I fucking typed not what it thinks I mean.

    Meh...I mistype things or miss a character or two when I copy and paste into the search box all the time. I'm sure this has saved me a ton of frustration.



  • @mikeTheLiar said:

    @mott555 said:
    We need a search engine for techies, because Google is hand-holding search for dummies now.

    QFT. Particularly since they've started stripping out special characters. Say I wanted to know what << does in $language without knowing what it's called? Too fucking bad.

    Or you could just search for $language operators.

     



  • @DaveK said:

    @mikeTheLiar said:

    @mott555 said:
    We need a search engine for techies, because Google is hand-holding search for dummies now.

    QFT. Particularly since they've started stripping out special characters. Say I wanted to know what << does in $language without knowing what it's called? Too fucking bad.

    Or you could just search for $language operators.


    Okay, yes, in this one particular contrived example. Here's another contrived example: ><>. Say you didn't know the alternative name and tried searching for "><> programming tutorials." Why you would want to do that I have no idea, but still.



  • @mikeTheLiar said:

    Why you would want to do that I have no idea, but still.
    The problem with Google and its ilk is that they confuse "why would you want to do that?" and "You wouldn't want to do that".



  • @da Doctah said:

    @mikeTheLiar said:

    Why you would want to do that I have no idea, but still.
    The problem with Google and its ilk is that they confuse "why would you want to do that?" and "You wouldn't want to do that".


    Except when they confuse "I wouldn't want to do that" with "Why doesn't everybody do that?"



  • @mikeTheLiar said:

    ere's another contrived example: ><>.

    I wish I could unlearn about this. My mind feels dirty.



  • @Ronald said:

    @mikeTheLiar said:
    ere's another contrived example: ><>.

    I wish I could unlearn about this. My mind feels dirty.

    Still better than Go.


  • @mikeTheLiar said:

    @Ronald said:
    @mikeTheLiar said:
    ere's another contrived example: ><>.

    I wish I could unlearn about this. My mind feels dirty.

    Still better than Go.

    An interpreter for ><> written in Go

     





  • @El_Heffe said:

    @mikeTheLiar said:

    @Ronald said:
    @mikeTheLiar said:
    ere's another contrived example: ><>.

    I wish I could unlearn about this. My mind feels dirty.

    Still better than Go.

    An interpreter for ><> written in Go

     



  • @Ronald said:

    @mikeTheLiar said:
    ere's another contrived example: ><>.

    I wish I could unlearn about this. My mind feels dirty.

     

    You should try Funge-98. It works in one, two or three dimensions, can read and write files and it's extensible by the implementation.

     



  • @mikeTheLiar said:

    Okay, yes, in this one particular contrived example. Here's another contrived example: ><>.
    And the first line of that article shows that it's just Google that's crap at representing non-words how exactly?



    @Pikiweedia said:
    Fish



    The title of this article is incorrect because of technical limitations. The correct title is ><>.



  • @El_Heffe said:

    @mikeTheLiar said:

    @Ronald said:
    @mikeTheLiar said:
    ere's another contrived example: ><>.

    I wish I could unlearn about this. My mind feels dirty.

    Still better than Go.

    An interpreter for ><> written in Go

     

    Cons: It doesn't compile

    Pros: Not compiling is only a 1 point penalty on my CompSci 337 programming assignments

    9/10



  • @mikeTheLiar said:

    @DaveK said:

    @mikeTheLiar said:

    @mott555 said:
    We need a search engine for techies, because Google is hand-holding search for dummies now.

    QFT. Particularly since they've started stripping out special characters. Say I wanted to know what << does in $language without knowing what it's called? Too fucking bad.

    Or you could just search for $language operators.


    Okay, yes, in this one particular contrived example. Here's another contrived example: ><>. Say you didn't know the alternative name and tried searching for "><> programming tutorials." Why you would want to do that I have no idea, but still.

    I JUST WANTEᗞ A PICTURE OF A ᗞOG BUT APPARENTLY THOSE ᗞON'T EXIST



  • Your search - ᗞog - did not match any documents.

    Suggestions:

    • Make sure all words are spelled correctly.



  • @El_Heffe said:

    Your search - ᗞog - did not match any documents.

    Suggestions:

    • Make sure all words are spelled correctly.

     

     Closed - could not reproduce

    @El_Heffe said:

    @mikeTheLiar said:

    @Ronald said:
    @mikeTheLiar said:
    ere's another contrived example: ><>.

    I wish I could unlearn about this. My mind feels dirty.

    Still better than Go.

    An interpreter for ><> written in Go

     

    How in all that is holy did you actually find that?

     

     



  • @fire2k said:

    @El_Heffe said:
    An interpreter for ><> written in Go
    How in all that is holy did you actually find that?
    That definitely falls in the category of all that is unholy.

     



  • @Ben L. said:

    Not compiling is only a 1 point penalty on my CompSci 337 programming assignments
     

    ...why isn't it instant assignment failure?



  • @fire2k said:

    @El_Heffe said:

    Your search - ᗞog - did not match any documents.

    Suggestions:

    • Make sure all words are spelled correctly.

     

     Closed - could not reproduce

    @El_Heffe said:

    @mikeTheLiar said:

    @Ronald said:
    @mikeTheLiar said:
    ere's another contrived example: ><>.

    I wish I could unlearn about this. My mind feels dirty.

    Still better than Go.

    An interpreter for ><> written in Go

     

    How in all that is holy did you actually find that?

     

     

    ‹›‹

Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.