[deltron3030]

I'm wondering how you guys are searching, do you type in short word combinations like 20yrs ago or full sentences and questions? Thing is Google values search intent above anything else right now, and if you don't show clear intent they have to guess, and the selection of search results will be mixed in consequence.

Here's a up to date PDF from Google explaining search intent:

https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/guidelines.raterh...

[DoingIsLearning]

Very useful info but that reads like Apple's "you're using it wrong" press releases.

In my experience Natural Language queries return very poor results except when you are doing a largely popular search.

It is also far more verbose to write: "What is the frequency of the ultrasonic driver in phacoemulsification?"

Instead of: "Phacoemulsification+resonant"

The second query is shorter and gives me a correct answer in ddg whereas google returns irrelevant results mixed in with a long lists of patents.

[deltron3030]

Sorry but you're holding it wrong if you don't search intentful enough.

NL queries return poor results if the content creator didn't create it with searchers in mind. Most of these sites also often have a very poor UX.

There's of course a larger incentive to optimize for popular stuff, especially when there's commercial intent (or implied commercial intent by the absence of informational intent).

Bad search results can be opportunities, and many new bloggers focus on this right now which is why they often appear first in search results before the actual experts.

But it would only take experts to improve their content to outrank them because expertise and trust are also ranking factors right behind UX, and if you have both you win. Expertise alone just isn't enough.

[DoingIsLearning]

> Sorry but you're holding it wrong if you don't search intentful enough.

i.e. the users of my search engine are not helping me well enough for me to do my job.

> NL queries return poor results if the content creator didn't create it with searchers in mind.

i.e. the content creators from 30 years ago where not clairvoyant enough to consider the robot crawling needs I have, in order to do my job.

> Most of these sites also often have a very poor UX.

i.e. the content creators I am indexing just have plain text which is not helping me well enough, for me to do my job.

I wonder if there is ever an instance wherein google employees are able to look within and realize there is work to be done rather than blame external constraints. Specially when other search engines are still able to satisfy exotic/technical/archive queries, despite these external constraints.

Google had a mission to organize the world's information and make it accessible. It seems Alphabet has rewritten it to "organize the world's information"... "for popular stuff, especially when there's commercial intent".