![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
I do a lot of searches in an ordinary day. So I naturally have a lot of o[pinions about google.
This thing that google does -- where they highjack your search and replace it with something they thing you ought to be searching for instead but you're too stupid to have typed it correctly -- it bugs me no end. I've decided to complain every single time they do it, each time pointing out that I do, in fact, know what I am looking for.
I don't mind the suggestion "did you mean . . .?" it's the outright refusal to search what I asked for that pisses me off.
I've also decided not to take the aggressively misleading keyword practices of websites lying down anymore. Today I complained when a search for "vintage mothers day postcard" turned up an image of a woman crying over the body of a man whose head had been blown off. That is not a vintage mothers day postcard. ("mothers day" merited a mere "did you mean mother's day? rather than a highjack, by the way, while "googie motif" -- as in googie designs -- merited a highjack) And when the first hundred or so images for "Mexican Independence Day" returned mostly images for the fourth of July and a handful of racist jokes from the e-cards people, I sent feedback on that too. It's not that I expect a search engine to return none of those images. I just expect the first hundred images to be more accurate than that. If I say Mexican, I expect the results to be at least remotely exican. And you know? Images of the Alamo are not a good substitute. I understand why they would end up there (if the website has a narrative that includes both the Alamo and the Grito, which would be a reasonable thing to happen). But again, not all up in my first hundred instead of something to do with Sept.16 and the Grito, or May 5 and the mariachis and stuff.
This thing that google does -- where they highjack your search and replace it with something they thing you ought to be searching for instead but you're too stupid to have typed it correctly -- it bugs me no end. I've decided to complain every single time they do it, each time pointing out that I do, in fact, know what I am looking for.
I don't mind the suggestion "did you mean . . .?" it's the outright refusal to search what I asked for that pisses me off.
I've also decided not to take the aggressively misleading keyword practices of websites lying down anymore. Today I complained when a search for "vintage mothers day postcard" turned up an image of a woman crying over the body of a man whose head had been blown off. That is not a vintage mothers day postcard. ("mothers day" merited a mere "did you mean mother's day? rather than a highjack, by the way, while "googie motif" -- as in googie designs -- merited a highjack) And when the first hundred or so images for "Mexican Independence Day" returned mostly images for the fourth of July and a handful of racist jokes from the e-cards people, I sent feedback on that too. It's not that I expect a search engine to return none of those images. I just expect the first hundred images to be more accurate than that. If I say Mexican, I expect the results to be at least remotely exican. And you know? Images of the Alamo are not a good substitute. I understand why they would end up there (if the website has a narrative that includes both the Alamo and the Grito, which would be a reasonable thing to happen). But again, not all up in my first hundred instead of something to do with Sept.16 and the Grito, or May 5 and the mariachis and stuff.
no subject
Ever tried Bing? I get along with it.
no subject
I could have used a bit of censoring with that head blown off image.
no subject