Comment by Archelaos | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Archelaos | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Okay, you convinced me that it should (inter-subjectivly) count not as a real false positive as I first thought.

Nevertheless, when I try to analyze what is going on here, I would rather use the word "context" instead of "subjectivity", since I think (or at least hope) that my surprise to find this brand on place #2 in my Google results for "philosophy" is shared by quite a lot of people who lack the context to give it meaning, because this brand is unknown to them. I have the excuse that it is a North American brand irrelevant in my German context. Interestingly, when I search for "philosophy" on amazon.com (without refining the search), I get almost exclusively beauty products and related items as a result, but when I search for "philosophy" on amazon.de it is only books. Google nevertheless has the beauty brand as #2 in Germany. Can we agree that Amazon is better at considering the context of the search for "philosophy" than Google?

As an aside: Your "amazon" example reminds me when I was searching for "Davidson" expecting to find information about Donald Davidson, but received a lot of results about Harley-Davidson. (But since I was aware of the importance of this brand, it was understandable to me.)

We can agree on that, yes =)

I was thinking about this and when you look at the top keyword searches on Google, it's dominated by people searching brands each year, so I think Google is just naturally optimised for this. I think any Search Engine designed for the masses would probably have to behave like this too. https://www.siegemedia.com/seo/most-popular-keywords

I agree, I think the early web was used more for general information rather than specific brand information (and was more useful for people like myself). I'm not sure what is needed to get more results such as university papers or personal web-sites as I think that people use the internet differently now and that the link structure reflects that.

It's interesting that Google isn't used to search for people anymore (I couldn't see any people in the recent top 100 keyword search data).

Some observations:

Most of the "brands" in the top 100, especially at the beginning, are rather Internet services. These search terms seem to have been entered not with the intention to "search" in the sense to find some new information, but as a substitute for a bookmark to the respectice service. Who searches for #1 "youtube" does not want information about youtube, but wants to use the youtube Web-site as a portal to find videos there.

I would also guess that most of these searches haven't been initiated through the Google Web-site, but directly from the browser's adress/search bar or a smartphone app. They exhibit a specific usage pattern, but do not show what the people, that entered them, were really searching for, if they were searching at all. What are those people who search for "youtube" doing next: either search again on youtube or log into their youtube account and browse their youtube bookmarks.

The early Internet did not have so many different service people used at a daily basis, and those that existed were more diverse (think of the many differen online email providers in those days) so that the search terms spread out more. Also browsers had no direct integration with a search engine. The incentive was higher to use bookmarks for your favourite service, since otherwise you had to use a boomark to a search engine anyway.

Perhaps it would be more approbriate to compare the use of the early Google not with the current Google, but the current Google Scholar?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com