Google Search Blog

Jeez, this has been around for a decade https://search.googleblog.com/2011/11/search-using-your-terms-verbatim… Now I'm embarrassed about all of this wailing and gnashing of teeth. Excellent pointer, thank you!

If anything getting good information out of Google has become harder for us expert users because Google have tried to make it easier for everyone else. The power-user tricks like "double quote phrase searches" and exclusion though -term are treated more as gentle guidelines now, because regular users aren't expected to figure them out. There's always "verbatim" mode, though amusingly that appears to be almost entirely undocumented! I tried using Google to find the official documentation for that feature just now and couldn't do better than their 2011 blog entry introducing it: https://search.googleblog.com/2011/11/search-using-your-terms-verbatim… Maybe if I was more skilled at Google I'd be able to use it to find documentation on its own features?

even quotes don't work 100% of the time- if there is strong signal to show another result, it will be shown even if it isn't a quote-match. Previous user clicks are the top ranking signal. IIUC "verbatim mode" is supposed to do something like this. https://search.googleblog.com/2011/11/search-using-your-terms-verbatim…

If you turn on Google's verbatim search, it works correctly: - Tools -> All Results -> Verbatim I've made multiple comments before on this. Regular Google Search will literally ignore parts of your query or outright replace them with junk, Verbatim works like Google Search used to back in its heyday. They need to let me turn this on permanently it is a night Vs. day better experience. If they keep this up I'll just switch to an LLM alternative. PS - Verbatim search is NOT the same as double-quoting; it changes multiple rules[0]. [0] https://search.googleblog.com/2011/11/search-using-your-terms-verbatim…

Yeah, when I was at Google, the SERP (and caring about users) was a shrine at all levels. Here's an example of one of the weekly Search meetings AlbertCory is talking about: https://search.googleblog.com/2012/03/video-search-quality-meeting-unc… For example, my first week at Google/YouTube, I was in a New Hire meeting with our VP. Someone asked about profitability, and he responded that Larry said we didn't have to worry about revenue yet, since the main goal was user growth/happiness, and revenue could come later. Which I thought was fascinating, considering how big YouTube already was at the time (in 2013)! Though I think this changed a year later, and I find YouTube ads a poor experience compared to Instagram and TikTok -- which aren't merely "better than the rest", but stuff I actually enjoy watching.

My impression was Google had been doing it for ages. Ex. This article from 2013 where they talk about searching for [my photos of flowers] https://search.googleblog.com/2013/05/finding-your-photos-more-easily-… I'm an iOS guy, and don't have an Android device to confirm it. I've got a few photos visible on photos.google.com and they're able to detect "beard", at least. Which, to be fair, it's just a few selfies. iOS does this pretty well. I searched my phone and it was able to recognize and classify a gun as a revolver from a meme I'd saved years ago. That's not this CSAM technology, just something they've been doing for years with ML.

> For me it began with their removal of the + search operator (to boost google+ organic traffic from google). Google say they removed it because most searches that included a plus operator were using it wrong. https://search.googleblog.com/2011/11/search-using-your-terms-verbatim… > In most cases, Google’s algorithms make things better for our users - but in some rare cases, we don’t find what you were looking for. In the past, we provided users with the “+” operator to help you search for specific terms. However, we found that users typed the “+” operator in less than half a percent of all searches, and two thirds of the time, it was used incorrectly. A couple of weeks ago we removed the “+” operator, encouraging the use of the double quotes, which are more likely to be used correctly. I'd be intersted to know how often the "quotes" are used correctly.

> And even the search tricks, such as using "" don't work as before. While it doesn't have quite the same effect [1] as the double quote marks, you could select the 'Verbatim' option [2] from the search tools menu. [1] https://search.googleblog.com/2011/11/search-using-your-terms-verbatim… [2] https://i.imgur.com/I7eL41i.png

Here's a post from 2012 that talks about downgrading rank for sites that have too many ads. https://search.googleblog.com/2012/01/page-layout-algorithm-improvemen…

From Google's post about the "too many ads above the fold" update: "As we’ve mentioned previously, we’ve heard complaints from users that if...it’s difficult to find the actual content, they aren’t happy with the experience. Rather than scrolling down the page past a slew of ads, users want to see content right away"[1] So, they recognize pages that are heavy with ads at the top, which push down the actual content, aren't a good user experience. That's exactly what I get when I search Google...a bunch of ads or other self-serving stuff on top, that pushes down the content (actual organic results) that I'm looking for. [1]https://search.googleblog.com/2012/01/page-layout-algorithm-improvemen…

There's some info from a few years ago here: https://search.googleblog.com/2012/01/page-layout-algorithm-improvemen… The short of it is that Google penalizes pages if too big a percentage of the above-the-fold content is filled with ads. So if you want your pages to rank highly, you need to keep the ad real-estate reasonable. However, once someone gets to your site via a highly ranked landing page, there's nothing stopping you from getting a user to click on an internal link that takes them to a much more ad-filled page (which doesn't itself rank highly on Google).

Seems to be from 2012: https://search.googleblog.com/2012/03/graphing-on-googlecom-now-in-3d.…

Reality is much more complex than that. Google's index has been tiered for many years, see e.g. https://search.googleblog.com/2012/05/search-quality-highlights-53-cha… • New index tier. [launch codename "cantina", project codename "Indexing"] We keep our index in “tiers” where different documents are indexed at different rates depending on how relevant they are likely to be to users. This month we introduced an additional indexing tier to support continued comprehensiveness in search results.

AMP sites get preferential treatment in Google search results: https://search.googleblog.com/2016/09/search-results-are-officially-am… Specifically, they're eligible for placement in the "Top Stories" header, and they get a special "️(!) AMP" flag alongside their entry in the search results.

Seeing that Google came as close to denying it as they can with this post: https://search.googleblog.com/2016/06/google-search-autocomplete.html Troll is troll.