I take your point, but don’t you think you’re overstating things a bit? The internet is still incredibly useful and so is Google search (granted, it takes more effort and sophistication to avoid the spam).
back
2 comments
I don't think I'm overstating things. Yes, the internet is useful, but consider how the ability to accurately search is the real key to the whole of it. As the original post points out, this hits us in day-to-day matters just as much as in trying to find/discover useful research on a particular topic. The simple fact is this: not only must nearly every link you click be viewed with suspicion, so must every search result you're given by Google, and pretty much every other engine. What is most useful is a presentation of naked results (with functional boolean operators, exclusions that work, a lack of "suggested" terms, etc.), but that doesn't shape and cause more interactions, direct people to the "proper" sites, or improve the bottom line. I remember the internet when it was usable for much more than consumption; it is only marginally so today.
When you say "most useful", I have to ask, most useful to whom?
Agreed — Google search is most useful to Google. I'd prefer it be most useful for the actual user of the service, but that makes me crazy, I guess.
You seem be saying there's a single "actual user", and that user happens to be identical to yourself.
In practice any product with more than a few users is going to have to separate out the different needs, situations, and personalities of the users. Personas and market segmentation are two of many ways to slice up the user base.
Some products can use that slicing to only address small niches and just say "to hell with everybody else". Indie games, for example, often address very specific audiences. Ditto a lot of books. Academic books especially might be written for an audience in the thousands or even hundreds.
But products like Google are going for extremely large audiences. Inevitably, needs will conflict. They can try to sort that out in product, and I think they've done a surprisingly good job of guessing what people actually want based on them typing a few words into a box. But when there's a conflict, it's no shock to me they're going to favor the vast majority of their audience over the relatively small niche of persnickety software developers like myself.
What if I told you that it is, but you’re not the target user? When you’re serving billions of users, there are going to be niche groups not worth catering to. I would bet most people are quite happy with the results.
Just like most people are happy with their experience at Apple Stores whereas I feel like they’re pandering and annoying because I know exactly what I’m looking for or what the problem is and they’re still asking me basic questions unintentionally wasting my time. I’m not the target demographic they’re catering to. It’s fine, I just deal with it.
I don't think its overstated. The web is broken and search especially so. Now days I look for curated list to find interesting webpages and topics.
Google ruined itself years ago, or maybe "we" ruined it.
The original commenter said: "Search has been coopted, making the prime thing (past general connectivity) that made the internet so useful now all but worthless."
I agree that Google search has been coopted. It now requires a keener awareness of what is and isn't being artificially promoted. Is it annoying? Yes. Is it something that unsophisticated users fall prey to (by design)? Also sadly yes. But 'all but worthless'? That's a huge overstatement.