Google's Mobile Search Results Now Include Videos Of Celebrities Answering Your Questions (techcrunch.com) 63
Google is testing a new feature that will allow celebrities and other notable figures to answer users' search queries directly in the form of "selfie" videos posted in the Google Search results. From a report: The company says this program is initially being piloted on mobile with a handful of people for now, including Priyanka Chopra, Will Ferrell, Tracee Ellis Ross, Gina Rodriguez, Kenan Thompson, Allison Williams, Nick Jonas, Mark Wahlberg, James Franco, Seth MacFarlane, Jonathan Yeo and Dominique Ansel. Of course, the celebs aren't answering users' queries in real-time. Instead, Google has had them pre-record their videos in response to what it already knows are some of fans' most-asked questions typed into the Google search box.
Depends on who's delivering the answer (Score:5, Funny)
"What is fellatio?"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt if they need to ask the question, they just want to see the response.
Video search results? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Think about it from the celebrity's point of view, though... they get asked the same questions over and over every time they interact with their fans, and if they don't answer in a friendly way as if it's the first time that oh-so-fascinating question has been asked... a twitter-mob forms to harass them for it.
So they sit down on camera and answer the most common questions, once, and maybe they don't have to answer those same questions as often for the rest of their careers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>I don't give a fuck about their convenience for the same reasons I don't give a fuck about what restaurant they were seen dining at and with whom.
And that is a depressingly uncommon attitude. Celebrities and their fans generate sufficient economic activity that there's a lot of interest in ignoring your preferences.
Why? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This way you get it from the horses.... errmmm... the celebrity's mouth, not second- or third-hand.
"Ok google, what is spice-vdagent?"
"Hi, this is Seth McFarland. Thanks for asking your excellent question. Spice vee-dee agent is a demon that ... and remember to watch 'The Orville' on Fox Thursdays at 9, 8 central."
How is that not second-hand?
If I aks google a question about a celebrity, I expect an answer about the celebrity, not a celebrity video.
Re: (Score:2)
julia roberts is deeply offended by your comment.
I can only say (Score:2)
Gawd no! And btw "Priyanka Chopra" sounds like an exotic fish meal I'd order in a fancy restaurant.
Re: (Score:1)
Why would anyone want a celebrity to give an answer? Do people think that somehow math or history answers are better because some actor or musician gives it?
Idiocracy, I thought you were a joke...
I'd pay money to have Bill Murray respond to your question with "Lighten up, Francis." Because not everything is life or death. Geez, who wouldn't want will Ferrell personally answering "What's the best way to spread Christmas cheer?"
Re: (Score:3)
Geez, who wouldn't want will Ferrell personally answering "What's the best way to spread Christmas cheer?"
Me.
Google and Alexa are particularly bad at humor, and Will Ferrell is worse than either. Combine Google and Will Ferrell and you might need hospitalization after hearing the result.
Priorities aka pseudo-celebrities (Score:2)
And zero fucks were given about these "celebrities". Who the fuck are they and why are they important?
I'd rather have a _real_ conversation with a teacher or minister to understand today's real problems ... not some invented first world "problem."
Re: (Score:2)
>Who the fuck are they and why are they important?
This isn't for you. I agree that celebrity worship is silly, but that won't make it go away. Fans have wallets, that makes celebrities important. Fans make or break celebrities' careers... so this happens.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it irony to go to somebody who specializes in theology for advice on how to deal with moral or ethical dilemmas? Aren't those sorts of problems, the ones without any right answer, the problems religion tries to answer?
No. Religion tries to answer the question "How do I control this bunch of uneducated, illiterate, desperate people reaching out for help? They seem useful to me." That's why Christianity as we know it was invented, after all. In the original works, Jesus effectively says that you don't need to go to church, because anywhere people gather in his name, you'll find his spirit there. Then whoever Saul of Tarsus actually is came along and changed the whole flavor of the religion. Every place where Jesus claims a
Re: (Score:2)
you know, religion is wayyyyyy older than psychiatry, but probably functions in much the same way.
Re: (Score:3)
intentionally obtuse? talking to a god damn priest or imam or whoever about your problems isn't necessarily about theology.
Re: Priorities aka pseudo-celebrities (Score:2)
Actually, probably not. The behavior patterns we medicalize as "psychological problems" are largely by-products of industrial (and now, cybernetic) civilization. Kind of like a form of pollution.
Despite their appalling lack of smartphones and Netflix, our pre-industrial forebears were almost certainly "mentally healthier" than we are.
Re: (Score:3)
/sarcasm Because _only_ religious people have to deal with abuse, addictions, communication problems, financial problems, intimacy, sexual problems, etc.
Religion is NOT the _only_ thing ministers deal with dumbass.
But let's keep blaming an inanimate object, Religion, for all of the world's problem.
Re: (Score:2)
But let's keep blaming an inanimate object, Religion, for all of the world's problem.
Religion is not an inanimate object. It's a concept which only exists in the minds of humans. It's not something which someone gives to someone, it's something that someone does to someone.
Religion is not "stuff", it does not have mass nor take up space. It is mental and emotional abuse.
DO NOT WANT! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Of all of the problems with Google search, this is the one that would make you stop using it?
Ask Charlie Sheen: (Score:1)
Is Global Warming real?
WTF? (Score:2)
Why?? Do people really want this? I am genuinely surprised that this is a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, if it's not Max Headroom answering, then what's the point?
MoCap would be so much cooler (Score:2)
Get motion capture of their faces making a battery of sounds, along with their voice making a battery of sounds.
Couple that with enhanced text to speech logic to map the text to those sounds and you could have them answer any question.
I think it's Apple that has some ad with emoji faces mimicking you in a fancy text message.
Same concept, just with real people faces and their voices.
Re: (Score:2)
Get motion capture of their faces making a battery of sounds, along with their voice making a battery of sounds. Couple that with enhanced text to speech logic
Wasn't that the premise behind 'Max Headroom' -- the use of CGI actors replacing real humans? It was the basis for some sci-fi universe.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I don't remember if it was Max Headroom, but that was in something.
I guess in Google's case, however, someone could find a way to get the actor saying something embarrassing and record that.
RTFA (Score:4, Informative)
Yet another (Score:2)
reason to turn off javascript and only whitelist sites.
Just terrible (Score:1)
Will Farrel? (Score:2)
Oh dear... [youtube.com]
STOP BEING SUCH BASEMENT DWELLERS (Score:1)
It doesn't even autoload, it's just the top hit (obviously) when you enter that exact phrase listed. Jesus, sometimes you wanna be contrarians will freak out over the smallest shit. Is it really being analytical or contrarian if you have nothing to say???
Who the HELL want's this?!? (Score:2)
Re: Who the HELL want's this?!? (Score:1)
The gays
Jennifer Lawrence ... (Score:2)
And then something about a restraining order.
Hey Google (Score:2)
Why does it seem like celebrities are among the world's worst people?