I was lately frustrated with google. When I search for something, I never got correct answers to the problem but slightly different version of it. Most of the time the top page is covered with How to do it articles with a list of ten twelve rubbish steps. The way I see it these articles are not for human read. They are manufactured for the Google to read! I think now I have some answers to the problem why?
Problem: Why can't Google answer my question, instead leads to rubbish?
I never even understood that there is a problem until I started my blog. The reason, for me to start this blog was I did not find answers to my questions in the google. I saw it as an opportunity. But after writing about 120 articles, now I have an idea why I did have this problem. Google is a very efficient in answering our questions right. I would say no. It may have been, but it loses its human touch lately and that is apparent in its search results. If you would not agree, try something. Try searching for something you are interested in. How many times you get some interesting article to read about. To me the experience was not good. Sometimes I did type "Where to find interesting things to read" Because Google has become so boring lately. Are you frustrated with google too?
Good old days
Remember good old days Google. When Google was operated by bunch of enthusiastic humans and all the articles on the internet were written by experts. What did the experts had in mind when they did write articles? Their mind was thinking about the reader. They wanted to give you the experience they exactly had. And most of the time they were successful too. But no more. Nowadays articles on google or vast majority of them are written not by experts who want to put something new on the table, but some low-quality content written by not so experts who have Google as their target reader. Yes, they only have Google in their minds when they decide to write articles, It is not about the reader anymore. The 'Reader is just a money-making machine for everyone on the other side of the curtain' And 'Google' for them is just a fool.
How is Google Fooled to value rubbish articles?
You may ask, does it work that way. I would answer 'Yes my friend it pretty much does'. That is why you may feel frustrated when searching google Doesn't provide you with answers. When I write my articles, I have to do 'Search Engine Optimization' each and every time. What does I have to do? I have to find bunch of keywords people type in the Google search and stuff my article with high volume keywords. And this will destroy user experience as when I write my article I must do it. Otherwise, you will never come across this article and be able to read it (The Process of ranking articles). How unfortunate? Even, this article I may have to re-edit several times to show Google, it is good enough to be read by humans. The sad truth is whatever Googles algorithm is it cannot give proper value to an article. What it does is use some parameters from the auto generated from the article and give it a number. How can we expect AI to do a man's job? How can AI decide how relevant an article is for humans, especially when they are written for the purpose of ranking high on the AI itself. We created the AI, so do you think we cannot fool this AI ourselves. (Trust me I am all in for AI)
Articles ranked in Google are not natural.
The number of words in article are not natural, it is to rank in google higher. So, I have to stuff some stuff even if it is not relevant to you. The flow of the article is not natural, I have to break it down to subtopics with subheadings so Google can understand what the article is about. Collection of words in the article are not natural as I have to use best possible shot to rank first on a particular query on Google to attract some visitors. So, you are just some random non-valuable users. How unfortunate these bloggers and writers have become. I think it is time to rethink what we are going to achieve if we continue this.
In a way google is like a shy girl. She suspects you are wired if you do not provide a list of ten good things about yourself or atleast seven, if you want to go on a date with her. And because of these trust issues she always turn towards her ex-boyfriends who rank first with thousands of rubbish articles. And the pattern is repeated as nobody human is intervined for obvious reasons. There is too much data to handle. It is like finding nimo (film) in the great Grabage patch in the Pacific Ocean. Simply impossible. And more importantly if you were to be trusted you have to get so called "Backlinks" from these ex-boyfriends of the google. If you refuse to do that, not be friends with the gang, you will be penelised. It is like being the poor kid in the classroom. A sense of modern bullying for being innovative and fun. You will spend the rest of your life in Google Sandbox, and never come to the party.
What can you do to overcome the problem?
So, if you want to read some human articles written for humans, forget about it. Buy some books or go to a library, before that too is replaced by bunch of computers with google in it we still have time. And my advice is if you find some humanoid articles in google which provides a value to your life, just bookmark it. It is better to come back to it than doing a Random Google search on how to improve your life. Use it as a catalog so, you are interacting with humans than rubbish knowledge.
In summary Why Can't Google answer my question? instead leads to rubbish?
Writers nowadays do not have the reader in mind when they write articles. Most of them are not experts in the field or have something interesting to say, but they are just good at beating the Google algorithm to rank higher on its search results. Hence, results you see on Google are becoming less and less with human values. The problem seems to be not addressed by Google anyway.
Thank you for reading: Why Can't Google answer my question? instead leads to rubbish.
I would invite you for a discussion on mindfulness, consciousness and game of life in General in philosophical point of view.
Comments