Google Search actually works really well for me, and I think it's been getting better over time. Just this week, a colleague asked me why the following code does not work:
Even a few years ago, answering an arcane question like this, where it is not clear what keywords you need to search for, would take you hours of googling. Most people would just not bother. But in this case, it took me literally 30 s to find an answer on Stack Overflow.
Google search does tend to still do well for areas where they see there's no money to be squeezed.
There's a stark difference if you try to search for something where Google can net a big cut of the outcome. Try searching for "vegas hotels". Once upon a time, google returned a healthy mix of results that directly benefited them, and ones that didn't.
Here's the portion of the page (yellow rectangle) that now appears to be presented to actually help visitors, and not directly pay Google: https://imgur.com/a/hAFas On my PC, you have to scroll down 2 pages to see that.
I don't see how you can justify the claim that a scrollable map with hotel locations and prices isn't "presented to actually help visitors".
Of course there's some synergy between helping visitors and profit to Google, that's how business models work. And if you think that following the links to hotels.com and tripadvisor.com will get you more altruistic and unbiased information than the Google links then I'd like to sell you this fine bridge with air conditioning, great views and swimming facilities, which 93% of visitors rated as 4 stars or higher.
Actually, I think the Google-provided map of hotels is a lot more useful to me as a search user than almost everything else likely to be returned from a spammy-hellhole-producing search term like this one.
I don't know how to make such search terms useful again. Maybe by aggressively delisting anything that reeks of SEO, has ads or otherwise wants to sell something. If that filters out everything but the personal homepage of Johnny S. Hotels of Las Vegas, then so be it.
> Google Search actually works really well for me, and I think it's been getting better over years. Just this week, a colleague asked me why the following code does not work:
I feel like you've posted this comment mid-thoughtstream. How is the compiler error relevant to Google Search?
Edit: > Even a few years ago, answering an arcane question like this, where it is not clear what keywords you need to search for, would take you hours of googling. Most people would just not bother. But in this case, it took me literally 30 s to find an answer on Stack Overflow.
Makes a bit more sense now you've edited that in.
Yeah, I'd totally agree. I've noticed it can help you find films based on description ("film with adam sandler and kate beckinsale") or code syntax ("c++ io operator") using terms that aren't really at all obviously connected to what you're trying to find out.
