Google Is About To Stop Answering Your Stupid Questions:
In a long blog post, Google has announced that it is about to stop answering your stupid questions. Surprisingly, the more you look into it, the more it sounds like a pretty good idea.
In the beginnings of Google and for most of its history, Google has attempted to point you in the way of the information you need, bringing the most relevant results to the top of the page for you to explore yourself. However, in recent years it has tried to make things even easier for its users, by attempting to answer the question quickly without the need for you to explore further websites.
Whether it's a "knowledge panel" (the little block on the right-hand side which tells you information about a public figure) the "featured snippets" at the top, or the "people also ask" section, Google now attempts to answer your question quickly, without the need to leave the page.
While this is incredibly useful for well-established facts, or issues where there is a lot of consensus, there are other times when having what (to layperson users) looks like a definitive answer pop up can be less ideal, especially when the algorithm gets it wrong.
One problem is, you don't search like an actual robot. Questions can be misspelled (am I pergant? Am I pegarnt?) or just nonsensical in their premise. These are, understandably, a little harder for Google to deal with. If you ask a nonsensical question that somebody else has taken the time to write about, their answer could look to the algorithm like a definitive and relevant answer.
Take, for example, the time it informed people that five US presidents were in the Ku Klux Klan.
It's not the only example. As The Outline notes, if you search nonsensical questions, Google will often provide you with an answer. "Who is king of the united states" once yielded the answer "Barack Obama", while the question "is Obama planning a coup" sent back the answer "not only could Obama be in bed with the communist Chinese, but Obama may in fact be planning a communist coup d'état at the end of his term in 2016" which is what's known as "huge if true".
Google is aware of the problem.
(Score: 2) by legont on Monday August 15 2022, @12:56AM (1 child)
While I don't like robots in general, this one was especially stupid and arrogant.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 15 2022, @04:08PM
I hope they implement an arrogant robot response: Don't Be So Stupid, you Dumb Dolphin. Get Back in your Cubicle.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Barenflimski on Monday August 15 2022, @02:19AM (2 children)
This goes right up there with removing the 'Dislike' button on YouTube.
I always thought it was fun to ask "The Google" fun, dumb questions, just to see what it returned.
Obviously these folks are thinking of other things when they are deciding to spend real money on a non-issue.
My guess is they're trying to avoid the eventual lawsuit, "But Google Said So?!?"
(Score: 2) by drussell on Monday August 15 2022, @03:36PM (1 child)
They didn't remove the dislike button, you can still press it but they don't show you how many other people pressed it too.
Only the account holder who posted the video is apparently privileged enough to know that super secret number.
(Score: 1) by aafcac on Monday August 15 2022, @07:00PM
Yes, because apparently if we don't see the dislike count on those corporate accounts, we're not going to know it's crap content. It's rather telling when those corporate news accounts are allowed to spread vaccine misinformation, but actual medical professionals spreading information that later turns out to be wrong after further research get in trouble.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by krishnoid on Monday August 15 2022, @02:43AM (4 children)
You used to be able to sort of learn stuff by mis-Googling stuff, especially when you were younger. Someone did legitimately want to know how babby is formed; how girl get pragnent. If Google won't answer our stupid questions, well, wouldn't that make it the arbiter of stupid, and therefore smarter than us?
(Score: 1) by aafcac on Monday August 15 2022, @07:04PM (1 child)
It's more telling about the fact that Google doesn't seem to think that it needs to compete for those users. I'm 'guessing it's because they think those folks don't have enough money to justify helping.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Tuesday August 16 2022, @02:35AM
I don't think being smart [dilbert.com] works the way you think it does. "A fool and his money are soon parted" ring any bells? At least those people are trying to find answers to questions. Maybe that's the problem; they're not that smart, but they're trying to learn, so they may not be the easiest of marks, but not smart enough to have a lot of disposable income.
(Score: 2) by Username on Tuesday August 16 2022, @12:04AM (1 child)
Hum. Children today are screwed. They even deliberately politicize certain searches as well. On the topic of how babby is formed, I just googled, "are homosapiens a heterosexual species?" A very simply biology question some sixth grader would google. Everything I get is philosophical or sociological and slanted towards progressive talking points. top one some .gov site that seems like they copied their answer off tumblr. Not a single biological answer about how heterosexual reproduction differs from asexual or homosexual. not a thing about gametes. Completely erased.
I'm just grateful I learned biology before everything got woke.
(Score: 2) by damnbunni on Tuesday August 16 2022, @02:34PM
The proper answer is 'that is a meaningless question'. A species can't be heterosexual. Or homosexual. Or any other sexual.
Only individuals can be heterosexual. Or homosexual. Or bisexual. Or poly. Or asexual.
'heterosexual' does not mean 'has two sexes required for reproduction'. It means 'prefers to fuck the opposite sex'.
I'll grant that there are a few species for which the concept of heterosexuality or homosexuality is meaningless - roundworms and sea goldies, for instance - but none of them are using websites.
You didn't find anything about heterosexual reproduction because there is no such thing. Nor is there 'homosexual reproduction'.
Now, had you looked up 'sexual reproduction', you'd get lots of answers. Or 'asexual reproduction'.
(Score: 4, Touché) by maxwell demon on Monday August 15 2022, @06:53AM
I didn't even know that they did answer those questions. I guess that's because I never even got the idea of actually asking questions. I used search terms, because it's a search engine.
Of course it may also be that they introduced it after I stopped using Google as my main search engine.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 5, Informative) by inertnet on Monday August 15 2022, @07:08AM (1 child)
Google's answers are too often about trying to sell stuff I'm not searching for. Like when I searched for information about a cultural event that I couldn't remember the exact name of. To all the search words I tried, I just got back ads and other items trying to sell products.
(Score: 2) by Username on Monday August 15 2022, @11:41PM
It's also annoying when you click the first reasonable link, and it redirects to the google ad page.
There should be a way to turn off the store aspect of it.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by pkrasimirov on Monday August 15 2022, @08:02AM
> Google is
aware ofthe problem.