No, Microsoft, how about "no"? Or "fuck off"?
Also, I've found more and more frequently I get the "there aren't any great results" response from them lately, complete with condescending "maybe search for 'cake recipes' instead" explanation box. Honestly, I'd think if you can find things that they know have few/no results, they should be trying to gain direct feedback-- why are you searching for this, and what could help improve results?
It feels like the dominant market players want to create an illusion of endless depth, and any time where you can actually reach the bottom of the barrel is an embarrassment. So you've got Google chastising you for stumping them, and Amazon giving you 98 unrelated garbage results when there are really only two widgets you actually care about in stock.
Has't worked reliably for me and a number of others for close to a decade I think (the first blog post I know of that mention it is from 2011 or 2013 I think.)
Oh, and I think it is the same thing as others mention in this discussion: infantilization and "we know better than you".
But being Google it might also be just general lack of care.
I've seen this rehashed through the years. Having worked at 4 different tech companies now, I think I can reconstruct why this happens.
UX: "Okay team, here's the opt-in dialog box."
PM: "Wait, the buttons say 'Yes' and 'No.' We don't want people to click 'No' because my perf and promo is tied to the number of people who click 'Yes.' Look, what if they want to change their minds later? Or what if they want to just think about it and then make a decision to enable my team's feature tomorrow? Are we just going to let those numbers slip by?"
UX: "Uh, well, I suppose we could add a third button, 'Maybe later.'"
PM: "THREE buttons?? Are you kidding me? That's too many. Have you even read the book Essentialism, bro? What if they accidentally click 'No' when they really want to just decide later? Or what if we change the feature enough that we can justify prompting them again with the updated version of the feature? If they clicked 'No' then they might feel that we're harassing them or something with another prompt later on."
UX: "Well, maybe we should err on the side of respecting the user's wishes. Sure, we might give up some of the engagement numbers..."
PM: "NNNGNNGGGHHPHHHTHTTTTHHHHHHHH WHAAAAAT!?!? MY BONUUUUUUS"
UX: "Okay okay okay, how about if we just make the 'No' and 'Maybe later?'"
PM: "Hmmm, that's sort of suggestive too. It might make someone who's thinking 'No' to start thinking 'Maybe later' because that's what they read. I like it. And can we make the 'Yes' sound a little less noncommittal while we're at it? Make it a little easier to click on? Maybe something chirpy and agreeable, like 'Sure!' People love being agreeable, don't they? Don't you?"