[jonnycomputer]

I feel like the quality of deep search is diminishing; either there is less free content on the web, or search has been optimized for something else; I just get the same results over and over, not matter what combination of search terms I used on a topic.

[Psilidae]

I agree. It's incredibly difficult to find anything that isn't a basic, low-value result when you're looking for advanced, detailed content.

Maybe I'm looking up practices on how to write efficient SQL queries. All of the results I find are just slideshare presentations and basic blog posts on how to add an index to your select statement.

It feels impossible to find depth nowadays, when everything that search engines deem relevant are the big, heavy-SEO websites with the lowest tier of query-relevant information. Sure, the results may be good for people who want just-the-basics about what they're searching, but anything more than that feels hidden away.

[putonyourshoes]

Hi, I work on Google search. I'd be interested in any specific examples of queries that you think give worse results today than in the past.

[dleslie]

"Interstate 76 custom maps"

I'm sure it's confusing to your algorithms on many levels. Is it a map of the highway that I want? Oh, there's this game, let's add that too. What about some news about the highway?

I just want some new roads to frag on... I get one result with what I'm looking for.

[sesqu]

I can't give you specific examples, but I occasionally google news stories trying to find sources, followups, or more information - only to be flooded with more copies of the exact same news story. And that only goes for stories I have a link for already; half-remembered stories are practically impossible to search for.

[fenwick67]

I think the problem is that making a worthless website (by this I mean worthless to users) is so cheap but also very lucrative for content farms. A webpage with garbage content but that has taken the right SEO measures has a good chance of getting on the first page and getting clicked, and these can be cloned ad infinitum with different content.

It's very easy now for good content to be hidden amongst clickbait.

[toomanybeersies]

c.f. Wikihow, and its endless stream of useless how-tos

[pessimizer]

SEO won. There were no economic incentives for Google to continue to fight it; they have no significant competitors. A better strategy for Google is to buy pieces of or provide services to the companies that dominate the first page.

Dollars put into the branding of being the best search aimed at the current userbase are been more effective than actually innovating on search anyway. People don't objectively rank search results between engines. They do defend their current habits, though, and solid branding material gives them something to tell themselves to counteract any (rare) arguments to switch.

[Frank2312]

What if it's actually an improvement in search results?

Everyone will search for something with a different set of words based on their experience. If most of those sets of words, all used to search for the same topic in the end, return the same results, isn't it an improvement?

Unfortunately, as you said, it doesn't help when trying to tweak the results you see to find your answer, but most people probably don't search in depth to find THE answer, but are looking for AN answer.

[feikname]

Agreed. I am getting irrelevant results WAAY more often than I used to, and it only gets worse.

[putonyourshoes]

Hi, I work on Google search. Can you share any examples of the types of search queries that used to work better for you?

[mseri]

It could also be due to the quantity of indexed data