[HN Gopher] The End of the Googleverse
___________________________________________________________________
The End of the Googleverse
Author : CharlesW
Score : 53 points
Date : 2023-08-30 15:33 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theverge.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theverge.com)
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| I enjoyed this article, and I found myself nodding through the
| parts that discussed Google's history over the past couple
| decades.
|
| However, the last couple concluding paragraphs, and the
| comparison to AltaVista, I found to be _extremely_ weak. It was
| as if the author had diagnosed all these problems, and felt like
| they couldn 't just end the article but had to wrap it up with
| something they felt was a potential solution.
|
| In my opinion, _there is no potential solution_ , and that's both
| a good and bad thing. At worldwide scale, I find it hard to
| believe that any company wouldn't fall down the path Google has:
| they are pretty fundamentally a victim to Goodhart's Law [1], and
| that dynamic is inevitable.
|
| I think the bad thing about that is it does kind of make me yearn
| for some of "the good old days" when not _everything_ was just
| teeming with SEO nonsense and blogspam. For example, when looking
| for particular software solutions, I 've found it impossible to
| use Google to do "ProductA vs. ProductB" type searches anymore -
| all the top links are just some sort of affiliate link spam, the
| analysis (if there is any) flat out sucks.
|
| So the good news is that it's made me step away from the Internet
| more: e.g. for the example above, I don't even do a search: I'll
| ask for recommendations from friends and colleagues, post to a
| helpful employee alumni mailing list, etc. You know, the way we
| used to do things "in the good old days".
|
| If anything the complete disgust and enshittification I find with
| so much online content and algorithms these days has actually led
| to me being mentally healthier - I just spend less time online
| (HN being the bad habit I'm trying to break) and more time in
| "the real world".
|
| 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law
| Dudester230602 wrote:
| Whatever culture they were trying to build with their
| interviewing approach, politics engagement and staff promotions,
| that is not a culture to aim for it turns out.
| oneepic wrote:
| I suspect there is a large difference between "old Google" and
| "new Google" (maybe there is a cutoff year, like... 2012? I
| don't know.).
|
| I would love to compare people who passed the old interviews
| and worked at old G, to the new ones, and just see what kind of
| culture, personality, and technical competency each side had.
| Then you get to see how those people shaped the company and how
| public opinion changed.
| plogborp wrote:
| I think you're on the wrong track. Let the blame where it
| belongs... management. Sundar, Ruth, and Thomas are simply
| corporate ghouls working to enrich themselves. Sundar is a
| billionaire... all that money came as an employee of Google.
|
| They don't understand branding or trust, or if they do, they
| simply don't care. The reputation for cancelling products to
| the point of untrustworthiness demonstrates this.
|
| Google is a classic case of the fish rotting from the head
| down.
| avita1 wrote:
| Did Google interviews change dramatically around 2012?
| jpadkins wrote:
| no, but that is about when Larry and Sergey checked out
| (wasn't an overnight thing, took a few years).
| oneepic wrote:
| I'm guessing 2012 because I _thought_ that was the year
| they stopped doing brain teaser interviews, which were very
| controversial at the time. Googling it now, the exact year
| is fuzzy -- like, they _originally_ stopped in 2006, but
| only fully stopped around... 2011-2012? My evidence is this
| thread and its linked article: https://www.reddit.com/r/pro
| gramming/comments/1gq72n/comment...
| thedougd wrote:
| I received an offer from Google around May 2012. My
| interviews were long and numerous with interactive coding
| and whiteboard sessions. No brain teasers. Larry Page was
| still giving final yes or no on hiring.
| [deleted]
| jasfi wrote:
| I think this is premature. Google is still a huge force in tech.
| Google search, GMail, DeepMind and more are huge and aren't going
| anywhere. I have the same experience as PurpleRamen, I truely
| don't see the decrease in search quality. I think people just
| expect perfection every time. That's how high the bar is.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| Google's biggest problem is that they're a huge force. Google
| search directs an absurd amount of traffic to where-ever they
| point their search ranking. The bigger they've gotten the
| stronger the observer effect has grown.
|
| Search engine spam isn't something that's happened to Google,
| it's a consequence of their dominance in directing web traffic.
| No matter which beautiful flower you find, point a power washer
| at it and all you get is dirt and mud.
| taylodl wrote:
| I still remember the day when I read the Slashdot article
| announcing this new incredible search engine called Google. I was
| an AltaVista user at the time, along with most IT professionals,
| and for those who don't know, it essentially had its own search
| query language. The claim was Google returned back even _better_
| results WITHOUT having to specify all those query parameters.
|
| I tried it - it was unbelievable! A simple search box, type in
| your keyword(s) you're interested in, no query syntax and -
| voila! Good, relevant results! It was simply amazing! AltaVista
| essentially died overnight.
|
| But really, Google's biggest technology was AdSense. It's how
| they make their money. It's why all their other services, save
| for gmail and google docs, have come and gone. Search has become
| less and less relevant in today's world. But there was a time
| when it seemed magical!
| dekhn wrote:
| Yep, me too- I remember reading about Google (actually a friend
| read the article and told me I'd like it because they ran on
| Linux). At the time, AltaVista would often take 30 seconds and
| then time out, or return pages of spammy results, while Google
| was super-fast and accurate.
| hotpotamus wrote:
| I think I was in a middle school computer lab (could have been
| high school) when one of the other students said, "hey, you
| should try this new search engine out, it has millions of sites
| and works really well". And it did - this comment brings me
| back.
| maximinus_thrax wrote:
| Interestingly enough, this has dropped off the frontpage. Not
| insinuating anything, I just find it weird.
| enumjorge wrote:
| Their fall from grace, at least when it comes to the tech
| community, has been quite a sight. Has any other big tech company
| seen such a change in opinion? I'm not sure Microsoft was ever
| beloved and even though Apple might have lost some of its sheen,
| there are definitely a lot of fans left.
| xnx wrote:
| Is there any reputable survey of the tech community on this
| matter? Amongst the general population, Google seems to be
| doing pretty well. #35 on this list
| https://www.axios.com/2023/05/23/corporate-brands-reputation...
| dweekly wrote:
| IBM, Xerox, Bell Labs, DEC, Sun...
| JohnFen wrote:
| > I'm not sure Microsoft was ever beloved
|
| They were very beloved, back when they were a scrappy upstart
| in the 1970s.
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| I was there, I don't remember anyone ever loving Microsoft.
| Perhaps that's because I was in the UK.
| brk wrote:
| I don't think enough people were aware of Microsoft pre-1981
| for there to have been any kind of strong opinion. From the
| point in time where Microsoft was well known, I don't recall
| any period of time where "beloved" would be even remotely
| accurate.
| ghaff wrote:
| Microsoft was pretty loved back "in the day" (80s to 90s).
| Maybe not as much as an enterprise OS company but their
| developer support was pretty awesome before most people had
| access to "everything" via the Internet.
|
| I'm not sure anyone else really qualifies as a big very
| consumer-facing tech company in the modern sense from that era
| or before though, of course, there were many once popular
| companies like MySpace that just flamed out. Yahoo! might be an
| example.
| ocschwar wrote:
| In the 90's and aughts there was very little love for
| Microsoft among IT professionals.
|
| It's a little embarrassing to think about right now when you
| realize that Microsoft has never poisoned a river or sent
| thugs with billy clubs to bust a union, and so all of us had
| bigger fish to fry. But there was never love.
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| > developer support was pretty awesome
|
| It was truly amazing. MSDN on CDs.
| orev wrote:
| Microsoft was one of the most hated companies by both IT
| people and users in the 80s - 90s. About the only thing
| people liked was the developer support (which I give them
| credit for; Visual Studio is great). Computers running their
| software needed daily reboots and quarterly re-installs.
| Every single thing they did was to force people to get
| locked-in to them. They single-handedly slowed web progress
| by close to a decade (IE11). Anti-competitive that eventually
| resulted in government prosecution.
|
| The only thing that was ever revered about them was Bill
| Gates, who was more loved by business schools as a case study
| in how to run an extremely aggressive company.
| ghaff wrote:
| Though what _didn 't_ suck in the 80s/90s from a computer
| user experience perspective?
|
| Terminals connected to minicomputers--which is what I used
| at work through most of that period? DOS-based word
| processing and spreadsheets were pretty nice by comparson.
|
| Macs? They were fine in the mid-80s although I didn't use
| them in school unless my group was using them for some
| project.
|
| Unix workstations were getting pretty nice by the mid-90s
| but those weren't something for a home user.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| Amiga is famous for being loved by it's users in the 80s.
| I think Apple II users and Commodore 64 users kind of
| loved them too.
|
| But expectations were much lower then, computers were
| expected to be a thing for a 'hobbyist' to tinker with,
| and those who did generally did it because they loved it.
|
| (I still don't think what were then called "PCs" running
| MS-DOS or (beginning in 1985) Windows were as beloved as
| Amiga or Commodore 64 though, Microsoft-OS PCs were for
| "business", and nobody really loved them).
|
| (Macintosh was first sold in 1984, so mid-80s was the
| first Macintosh).
| medler wrote:
| This is shocking for me to hear because it is the exact
| opposite of my experience/memory. I recall Microsoft briefly
| being the cool place for geniuses to work before it quickly
| became the big bad evil monopolist. Maybe this perception was
| exacerbated by my hanging out in more open-source-friendly
| corners of the internet.
|
| I know they've changed their tune on open source but it's
| really hard for me to break from my 20+-year perception that
| they are the evil company that makes awful software.
| pessimizer wrote:
| They forgot to mention Google Code. It was a nice place for a
| while, made Google seem like a really nice company.
| teslashill wrote:
| [dead]
| PurpleRamen wrote:
| [..]There is a growing chorus of complaints that Google is not as
| accurate, as competent, as dedicated to search as it once
| was.[..]
|
| This is always a strange claim for me, because it does not even
| remotely match my experience. And now we have the rise of Chat-
| AIs, and people who claim it's so much better than google, which
| also does not even remotely match my experience. And now I ask
| myself: am I just too stupid to see it? Or are the people too
| stupid to not see it? Do I search just too different things from
| what others search that I can't see it?
|
| And then I also remember the claim that the youth is insanely
| uneducated about technology and the modern world, even worse than
| old people, and I wonder whether this is the reason for those
| claims. Do those claims all come from young people, who live in a
| very different world and are just very clueless about those
| things?
|
| So at the end, does Google end, because it's not cool with the
| youth anymore? Not hipster enough and getting lost in the
| difference between the culture of the generations?
| cityofdelusion wrote:
| Depends on what you Google. If you search for mundane stuff
| like recipes, how-to guides, or product suggestions then you
| just get SEO spam. Google is still fairly good for very
| technical stuff, but anything of monetary value has been
| captured by professional advertisers and their affiliate link
| filled content farms.
| gtowey wrote:
| Basically, the more popular a topic is, the more its search
| results are infested with SEO spam.
|
| Even in technical realms this holds true. One of the huge
| disappointments of learning JavaScript/typescript recently is
| how terrible and spammy searching for anything on it is.
| Coming from the golang world where I'm used to search results
| being highly relevant with few advertising spam blogs among
| them.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > If you search for mundane stuff like recipes, how-to
| guides, or product suggestions then you just get SEO spam.
|
| I look for recipes a lot. While what I find matches the "SEO-
| shaped recipe blog page" template mentioned in TFA,
| nevertheless the results still have the recipe(s) I'm looking
| for.
|
| When I need to fix/build/repair stuff, searching just youtube
| almost always gets me what I need or want.
| crazygringo wrote:
| The other thing I don't understand is the idea that Search is
| somehow becoming _less_ accurate over time.
|
| Google tracks analytics on the quality of its search results,
| simply by observing which results users click on, how long it
| takes them, or whether they don't click on anything at all.
|
| The idea that Search is somehow worsening doesn't make any
| sense.
|
| What _has_ maybe happened is that Search has improved for the
| population as whole, but gotten worse for certain subsets of
| users -- but still a net gain overall. Or alternatively, that
| the web itself has changed -- that Search is doing better than
| ever, but some users just don 't like what the web offers in
| response. (E.g. nobody writes straight-up recipes without tons
| of intro anymore -- but that's also so they have tons of space
| to insert ads, it's not about SEO. It's nothing to do with
| Google.)
| ROTMetro wrote:
| Yes, and Amazon has improved the shopping experience as they
| have gained these insights as well. As someone who went away
| from the world for 5 years so wasn't in the pot as it slowly
| started to boil, Google and Amazon are both significantly
| worse and less user friendly than they used to be.
|
| Just look at Google Assistant. It has gotten significantly
| worse the last two years. Strangely, the only time it asks me
| for feedback is when it happens to work. Shouldn't be hard
| for it to detect when it craps out I talk frustrated at it,
| but they don't seem interested in getting feedback at that
| point. Ah, but it happens to turn one light on once (versus
| the 20 something went wrong times), prompt for feedback on
| that specific one time it worked.
| owyn wrote:
| > The idea that Search is somehow worsening doesn't make any
| sense.
|
| What analytics are you thinking of that would show search is
| somehow MORE accurate? Because if it's just searches and
| click throughs and traffic and revenue...
|
| More people with internet = more people searching for stuff.
| More mobile phones = more people searching for stuff out in
| the world. Worse results = user goes back to google and does
| ANOTHER search and search revenue just doubled again. Huzzah
| bonuses and vacations to Disneyland all around this year!
|
| I think by any measure, growth and clicks and revenue are
| going to go up no matter what they do so I'm not sure exactly
| what metric you'd be tracking to see whether Google search
| results are actually qualitatively better? Short of the site
| going down entirely, there's probably nothing they can do to
| slow growth. But nowhere in that compounding money farm is
| the quality of results relevant.
| mrweasel wrote:
| > The other thing I don't understand is the idea that Search
| is somehow becoming less accurate over time.
|
| The search is probably fine, but it's relegated to the bottom
| half of the page. It could also get worse if Google isn't
| able to keep up with the SEO and scammers. Personally I feel
| like Google has lost interest in providing a good search
| experience, they still have, what, 90% of the market. There's
| zero incentive to ensure it's a good experience and they can
| keep milking the advertisers.
|
| Meanwhile the competitors have been forced to do better and
| especially Bing has. Any search engine that rely on Bing has
| become really good in the past five years. That might also be
| part of it, those of us who went to Bing, DuckDuckGo or other
| search engines for other reasons have learned to use those
| and when we then go back to Google it's worse, because we
| haven't used it for ten years.
|
| But you're probably right, the search bit is fine, it finds
| the same results as Bing, so it's down to presentation and
| Google used to be the best and now they are the worst.
| philistine wrote:
| You're hiding huge swaths of unforeseen consequences.
|
| Do you honestly think that when Google is presented with an
| improvement in search results that would reduce its revenue
| that they choose the improvement?
| blindhippo wrote:
| I'll echo this: search, in a purist sense, has definitely
| improved (just looking back to the mid 90's through to now).
|
| The "search experience" however, has degraded since the mid
| 2010s, for me at least. I'm in a constant battle to filter
| through advertising and bad content that is "optimized" for
| the algorithm to find the information I need. The constant
| need to monetize the technology more and more has certainly
| reduced it's usefulness en-masse.
|
| But I don't think chatbots or alternatives (beyond curated
| indexes) will solve this problem - as you say the web itself
| has morphed around ways to optimize one search engine's
| ranking algorithm.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > that Search is doing better than ever, but some users just
| don't like what the web offers in response.
|
| The reason that I don't think it's this is because often
| there are sites that offer _exactly_ what I 'm looking for.
| Google doesn't surface them in my results, but other engines
| do.
| browningstreet wrote:
| I was discussing this recently on a hike and I joked, "SEO
| broke the Gen Z brain".
|
| In my own personal experience, I think the younger generations
| care less about search. They just don't use it much, nor do
| they value the information & cultural pipeline in which search
| is valuable.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > And now I ask myself: am I just too stupid to see it? Or are
| the people too stupid to not see it?
|
| My hypothesis is that it depends on how you search. For me,
| Google has become unambiguously poor, and I've stopped using it
| because I get bad results.
|
| But I think that the reason for that is Google's use of AI (not
| the LLM stuff, but the stuff they started using a number of
| years ago). Google is clearly trying to interpret "what I
| really mean" from my queries instead of just taking them at
| face value, and it's awful at doing that. For me. It's
| obviously good at it for other people. It may have to do with
| me actively doing my best to prevent Google from tracking me.
| pxx wrote:
| I think people much prefer thinking they know something with a
| superficial overview (see things like the popularity of TED
| talks). Responses from LLMs are great for this: they look like
| a cohesive summary but they often end up being total bullshit.
|
| Digging through search results to find what you need is work.
| Having something confident make you believe an alternate truth
| is not.
|
| People who actually try to use code output from chatbots
| quickly realize it just only _looks_ like code of the right
| shape and quality. There have been many blog posts and comments
| here touting how great the code ChatGPT generated is while the
| given example response is complete nonsense once you look a
| little deeper.
| fernandotakai wrote:
| i.... 100% agree.
|
| google still is king for every single type of search i do.
| specially code related.
|
| i've tried again and again to use "Chat-AIs" and they get so
| much shit wrong while implying they are correct that i just
| gave up.
| adamweld wrote:
| It's not that Google search has necessarily gotten worse, but
| it's lagging behind the shitiffication of the web caused by SEO
| and the new features (People Also Ask QA synopses) have
| absolutely horrible accuracy.
|
| ChatGPT and other LLMs are also absolutely horrible on
| accuracy, don't get me wrong.
|
| But, here's an example of what's wrong with Google.
|
| I search something like "Can mangoes grow in Washington state?"
| and at the top of my results is the condensed "People Also Ask"
| question answer result. These attempt to read and condense a
| webpage (of questionable accuracy) into an answer for my query,
| but they are often full of shit.
|
| For example expanding "Where are mangoes grown in WA" shows an
| answer about Western Australia rather than Washington. Another
| answer tells me "yes" but when I read the actual article it
| clearly says "no, they won't survive".
| felix318 wrote:
| I find it interesting that people write Google queries in
| correct, often polite English as if there is something
| intelligent on the other side. When I try this query: "where
| mango grow washington" I seem to get decent results, but the
| human-sounding query does return garbage.
|
| Perhaps the problem with Google is that it's trying too hard
| to convince people that it's smarter than it really is. I
| treat it as a stupid, mindless computer and it works fine
| most of the time.
| Macha wrote:
| I've certainly found that google results for me are worse than
| they used to be, and that DuckDuckGo is a lot more competitive
| and the !g bang gets used less and provides less improvement to
| results than it formerly did. I've been online since the time
| when people were moving from Yahoo to Google, so I'm not a gen
| Zer with different search patterns to Google's historical
| audiences.
|
| I'm not quite sure of the reason. There's a couple of
| possibilities:
|
| 1. DDG is relying on Bing for a lot of their search data, maybe
| bing's just got better, or DDG have configured their
| integration better. I don't feel that DDG's had a significant
| improvement, it definitely feels like they've caught google on
| the way down more so.
|
| 2. Google losing the SEO war. As it gets easier to run and
| monetise blogspam sites, more of them exist, and as time goes
| on, a longer tail of topics get "served" by these sites. Unlike
| the spam of years past which tried to convince Google that
| their viagra selling site was really about top ten movie
| downloads, these sites are nominally about the topic the user
| searched for, so maybe Google is having a harder time trying to
| evaluate "quality". LLMs are being given a lot of the blame for
| this, but this is an older phenomenon than that, there were
| plenty of sites doing e.g. templated articles fed product spec
| sheet, or pay a minimum wage intern to rephrase the wikipedia
| page before that.
|
| 3. I've cut down my usage of Google services to basically just
| YouTube and YouTube Music. I also run ublock origin pretty much
| universally. Maybe my de-Googling has just been successful to
| the point that Google doesn't have a accurate profile for me
| anymore, and this has more of an impact on search than I
| expected.
| politelemon wrote:
| I've read through the post and this reads more of a memory lane
| of Google, rather than getting into the statement "Now, for the
| first time, its cultural relevance is in question."
|
| There are a few links scattered about on relatively minor topics
| , but nothing substantial showing that it's in question. Either
| that's clickbait, which I'm now starting to associate with the
| verge, or it's far too early days to tell.
|
| Like other comments here my impression is not the same as the
| post. And the slivers of reasoning given are weak at best.
| AdamH12113 wrote:
| I never know how to interpret statements like this:
|
| > More recently, there's been a shift to entertainment-based
| video feeds like TikTok -- which is now being used as a primary
| search engine by a new generation of internet users.
|
| What does it mean to use an entertainment-based video site as a
| "primary search engine"?
| canadianwriter wrote:
| People will search on Tiktok for things like "how to get game
| working on linux" or "how to fix a computer" or whatever. They
| wont bother with Google and go straight to tiktok.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Right, a sort of generational divide. Old people (like me)
| looking for how-to information go to youtube; young(er)
| people go to tiktok. Tiktok is 100% blocked from my system
| but from what i've seen leak into twitter, it's hard for me
| (an old person) to imagine how it could compete with youtube
| for how-to. But then maybe that's just growing old.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > Old people (like me) looking for how-to information go to
| youtube
|
| I'm old, but I would never search YouTube for how-to
| information. Videos are too light on solid information and
| are too hard to use as references.
|
| Tiktok is worse, though, having even less information.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| I have found youtube videos that are simply superb for
| tasks as diverse as: * replacing the
| steering rods on my Sprinter van * restoring
| factory state on an ancient Garmin watch * mixing
| adobe plaster * tying a prince of wales knot in a
| necktie
|
| and lots, lots more.
| JohnFen wrote:
| Different people are different, of course. Video doesn't
| work well for me if I'm trying to learn something new. I
| was only pushing back on the notion that there's an age
| connection to this.
| standardUser wrote:
| Reminds me of how often I add "reddit" to the end of Google
| searches because I know the base results will be useless for
| a whole range of topics without it. This is doubly true for
| any even slightly risque or illegal topics.
| smhinsey wrote:
| It's something that is more alien the longer ago it was that
| you got involved with the internet, but I've recently seen this
| firsthand myself and it works. It's not a general purpose
| search but if you put in terms related to an upcoming vacation,
| for example, you will find an endless stream of people's videos
| of any aspect of it. If your hotel has a suite you're
| considering, search the name and watch videos to see if it
| looks worth it, etc. It's basically a way of bypassing highly
| staged and curated ad photos or videos to see what real people
| recorded.
|
| It seems more like a side effect of how everyone is trying to
| become an influencer than a new permanent state of being, but
| for the time being it can be interesting
| bayofpigs wrote:
| [dead]
| dilyevsky wrote:
| Probably means people use it for "how do i X", "Y review" and
| other types of queries more which certainly rings true just bc
| of how google results for these are usually about 100% spam
| AdamH12113 wrote:
| I suppose that makes sense. Video is low-density and hard to
| search compared to text, so it never occurs to me to seek out
| video as a first option, but given the amount of SEO spam I
| can see how someone would come to the opposite conclusion.
| brk wrote:
| It means that users feel there is enough diversity of relevant
| content that they will find a result that gives them either the
| information, or the entertainment, they are seeking.
|
| Some people (probably in particular older people) see the
| internet as the sum of everything (eg: Reddit + Facebook +
| TikTok + etc). Other people, I think, have less of a concept of
| the internet as a mass data collective and see it as more
| silo'd. And within those silos they feel that certain ones will
| have results/content that is more inline with their viewpoints,
| desired results, etc. So the result is we see some of these
| social media sites like Tiktok becoming very much a micro-
| internet to these users, and they specifically DON'T want
| google-style results that reflect the internet at large (and
| they don't want to use search modifiers to say only search
| tiktok.com).
|
| In some ways we may be trending back towards the days of
| AOL/Prodigy/Compuserve/The Well, where you virtually hang out
| with "your people", and content that doesn't exist within your
| group basically doesn't exist at all.
| anthonypasq wrote:
| youve never used youtube as a search engine?
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| I kind of get it. It's very much "I need to make a word limit"
| jargon, but they are basically talking about how social media
| has become a primary news source for many of the youth. This
| generation doesn't read Reuters/AP or watch any mainstream news
| network, they get updates from their facebook wall or they see
| the news on Reddit. If they are curious about some news piece
| they will search within the website about posts made, not a
| general google taking you to professional media.
|
| I didn't know Tiktok could do this, but I guess life finds a
| way.
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| When this happen, there is always a lot of inertia at first, it
| can take years or maybe even decades, but almost every time the
| denial leads to a pernicious internal erosion and a sudden
| collapse at the end.
| chickenpotpie wrote:
| Did the verge seriously cite a single hackernews comment as a
| source?
|
| "There is a growing chorus of complaints that Google is not as
| accurate, as competent, as dedicated to search as it once was"
|
| The word "growing" is a link to hackernews
| kipchak wrote:
| I saw a funny song on YouTube about it, if that counts.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrFv1O4dbqY
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-08-30 23:01 UTC)