Google To Stop Giving Answers To Silly Questions (theguardian.com) 90
Google will stop giving snappy answers to stupid questions, the company has announced, as it seeks to improve its search engine's "featured snippets" service. From a report: That means users should see fewer answers to questions such as "When did Snoopy assassinate Abraham Lincoln?", to which the service would once merrily respond with "1865" -- the right date, but very much the wrong assassin. "This clearly isn't the most helpful way to display this result," said the company's head of search, Pandu Nayak, in a blogpost announcing the changes. "We've trained our systems to get better at detecting these sorts of false premises, which are not very common, but there are cases where it's not helpful to show a featured snippet. We've reduced the triggering of featured snippets in these cases by 40% with this update."
Snippets, which sometimes show up as a featured response to direct questions asked of Google Search, have long been a cornerstone of the company's AI strategy. The same technology powers its smart speakers and voice assistants, and lets the search engine satisfy search queries without visitors clicking away to other websites. But the snippets, which are automatically generated from the contents of websites, have also been a thorn in Google's side for just as long. [...] In an effort to address the root cause of such mistakes, Google is also rolling out new warnings for times when a search term has hit a "data void" -- a question where a good answer might simply not exist.
Snippets, which sometimes show up as a featured response to direct questions asked of Google Search, have long been a cornerstone of the company's AI strategy. The same technology powers its smart speakers and voice assistants, and lets the search engine satisfy search queries without visitors clicking away to other websites. But the snippets, which are automatically generated from the contents of websites, have also been a thorn in Google's side for just as long. [...] In an effort to address the root cause of such mistakes, Google is also rolling out new warnings for times when a search term has hit a "data void" -- a question where a good answer might simply not exist.
Why? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably to avoid confusion from people who either genuinely asked a question wrong, or are researching misinformation. If it's not clear the answer is a general answer vs. a specific response to that specific question, it could be annoying. I've run into this myself in more minor ways when googling things like "latest version of " and the featured snippet in big font at the top with a link is actually an older version. If they improve stuff like that, it'd be great.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there any way to filter that stupid feature? I found a snippet for uBlock Origin that blocks the equally worthless “people also searched for” bullshit in the middle of my results.
Re: (Score:2)
Sarcasm, and Hyperbole and a lot of general humor really hasn't done well on the internet.
No matter how stupid, or off the wall an answer from a source is. There will be a bunch of people who believe it, and take action on it. When people take action on something the believe in, things can get very bad very quickly.
For some people just the spark of the idea is enough for them to put in the head the connecting pieces of some grand conspiracy, which they feel compelled to protect the world from.
Re: (Score:2)
Very true. I was put in Facebook jail for an obviously over-the-top sarcastic comment. The algorithms and moderators have no sarcasm-detectors.
Re: (Score:2)
Very true. I was put in Facebook jail for an obviously over-the-top sarcastic comment. The algorithms and moderators have no sarcasm-detectors.
Or maybe it wasn't sarcasm and you are just a jerk who cant filter what you think is sarcasm.
Re: (Score:3)
These snippets are harmful (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Boomers who don't know anything about how the internet works should not be giving advice.
Re: (Score:3)
It is highly unlikely that this teacher is a Boomer, as they are at a minimum 58 years old, though it is possible.
You really should use the correct word, and that would be a Luddite, it doesn't matter what generation they are from, they are technologically illiterate.
On a side note though, the Boomers invented all this computer technology, so assuming they are computer illiterates is a pretty big stretch.
Re: (Score:3)
I am far too young to be a Boomer, but...ok child.
Re:These snippets are harmful (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:These snippets are harmful (Score:5, Informative)
Comparisons have found that Wikipedia has fewer errors than other encyclopedias, and the reason is ... anyone can edit it. So they fix the errors.
No encyclopedia should be cited because encyclopedias are not primary sources. The primary sources are listed at the bottom of each Wikipedia article.
Re: (Score:3)
Wikipedia is a great place to use to start your research and find sources, but it is explicitly NOT a source.
Like an encyclopedia, which is also not a source in a science-y context.
I agree that wikipedia isn't a source, but that doesn't keep it from being an encyclopedia. That it has to come up with some kind of consensus to publish is not much different from Encyclopedia Britannica, but that process is public and much faster.
But you shouldn't use either of them in your thesis. Unless of course your thesis is about encyclopedias or you need a reference to the general consensus on your research subject in, say, 190
Re: (Score:2)
Except that almost all the references are web links, not library ID numbers of actual books are citations from journal, etc. And half of those links no longer work. Half of the remaining links are, well, dubious. When a link works and seems useful, it's useful because that link actually has more real references to follow, but often is just a link to some online news media (that's a report of what another piece said, which sumarized another piece, etc).
However, most encyclopedias don't have good reference
Re: (Score:2)
Except that almost all the references are web links, not library ID numbers of actual books are citations from journal, etc. And half of those links no longer work. Half of the remaining links are, well, dubious. When a link works and seems useful, it's useful because that link actually has more real references to follow, but often is just a link to some online news media (that's a report of what another piece said, which sumarized another piece, etc).
However, most encyclopedias don't have good references either. Especially the simpler ones, like World Book (which I had as a kid, very interesting, useful for kids and young adults, but very much out of date and overly simplified.
Also Wikipedia has odd rules. What edits can and can't be done. The inventor cannot cite himself or even participate even if an editor gets something wrong, but cite a news clipping of the inventor talking to the local channel 7 junior reporter on the scene and that can go in. Wikipedia is also gamified. The more you know about how it works, and the more you've worked on it, the more you can do; experts can be locked out of this because they haven't made a particular Wiki page their hobby. And I'm not just talking about controversial or political or subjective pages.
"Consensus" is possibly a stretch, I suspect most pages have a single "owner" that watches for notifications about edits, may be well meaning, but definitely not a part of a committee.
Still, better than anything else out there for getting a reasonable overview of any subject.
My family had the World Book encyclopedia, along with its Science Year (or whatever it was called). Every year we'd get an addendum. All this was before Encyclopedia Brittanica was online.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing wrong with that. Wikipedia is a great place to start, and looking at the references is a great place to get more information.
The goal of research isn't just to read the Wikipedia sources and regurgitate the article in your own words, it's to form an opinion about it. The Wikipedia article gives you the overview, but it may be heavily biased. You can check the sources, and maybe they're biased too, but since you know better, you can check out many other sources, maybe see what trusted authorities mig
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, wrong.
Encyclopedias go through a myriad of validations for the information they are printing or publishing. Wikipedia can be edited by any opinionated moron, and often is. Which means at any given moment, you could refer to that "source" and find utter bullshit, and not fact.
Regardless of the idiotic reference to use Google instead, there is a valid reason many teachers do not recognize Wikipedia as a valid source of information. Even today.
Re: (Score:2)
It has been my experience in trying to make the odd submission to Wikipedia that the opinionated moron is the longtime article-camper that feels entitled to 'curate' some particular article whether they're qualified or not, reverting any changes they don't like however valid they may be.
As to your comment on sources, I've already started pricing encyclopedia sets for when my kid is old enough to need to write papers. At the moment a good set of encyclopedias is around a thousand dollars. It won't surprise
Re: (Score:2)
>anyone can edit it. So they fix the errors.
Well almost. I designed a thing. A technical thing. It has a page on Wikipedia. The page had errors. I corrected them because I am literally the only person that knows the full details of the thing because I conceived and designed it.
Then the edits got reverted with editors in the talk page complaining that I couldn't have an unbiased position on this because I was connected to it. So the errors remained.
Wikipedia explicitly prevents the most qualified people e
Re: (Score:2)
That teacher gave horrible advice. I can't imagine thinking either source is the most credible. Both are "good place to start" type sources, but nothing online should ever be used as 100% factual with no other research.
Man, sometimes I miss growing up when I did. I wanted to know something I didn't already know? There was my parent's stash of books, or a bicycle trip to the library. That was it. And if you bothered going to the library, you weren't grabbing the very first book on the shelf on any given subj
Re: (Score:2)
I would argue that the Google snippets aren't even a good place to start. I have encountered many instances where the answers they give are just wrong. It's usually related to Google's annoying habit of transparently saying "I couldn't find what you were looking for, so here's something similar that is maybe kind of related." If you search for "When was XYZ released?" and it puts a date in very large text as an authoritative answer, are you going to look down at the snippet below where it says "ABC was rel
Re: (Score:2)
"our teacher told us that Wikipedia could be edited by anyone, and that we should never use it."
So... basically like the entire rest of the internet, then? We'd better stop using that as well.
I've always found Wikipedia to be an excellent reference.
Re: (Score:2)
Much of the discussion when Wikipedia became popular was centered around propaganda meant to drive sales of books. Books were positioned to be more accurate because they were actively curated, rather than less accurate because errors were permanent. This lead to a false sense of validity to books li
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And know that answers you get from asking are not always worth much. Reagan taught us that African leaders were monkeys and only gay people got HIV. There was not really huge amounts of information Tom punter these facts.
When did Reagan teach that African leaders were monkeys? I'm part of Gen X and didn't get that vibe.
I remember in the 1980s when they stressed that HIV was transmitted via sex. I was taught that when we had sex, it was akin to having sex with all the previous sexual partners of that person. The more sexual partners one had, the greater the odds of picking up HIV or another STD. Yes, news reports of the time indicated a higher prevalence of HIV among gay men. OTOH, I remember stories of kids getting HIV thro
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well I am old enough to be taught in 7th grade that I shouldn't use the Encyclopedia for my research paper sources. Just like how we shouldn't use Wikipedia (which I didn't have until Grad School). However when approaching a new topic, they are a great source for you to get a general overview, and also citations to better sources, as well if you are old school, knowing what to search for in the card catalogue at the library.
However, beside perhaps a random internet post, where I just want to explain my po
Re: (Score:2)
Root Cause is key here.
The actual problem, is ignorant-as-fuck teachers who assume Google is somehow the end-all-be-all for "answers", which tends to bring into question their value in society.
If my kid is told to "use Google", then the first fucking question I have for the "teacher" is what is your fucking profession.
Google is about as trustworthy as a government. Any fucking government.
Re: (Score:1)
It's the latest variation of "if you want to know how to spell something, look it up in a dictionary" in English class. If I don't know how to spell it, how an I going to do that? What if I'm dyslexic? Say I want to spell "tsetse" as in fly. Do I look under "c"? How about "s"? I wouldn't think to look under "t". Hang on, I'll just wade through "k" and "n" looking for "mnemonic" while I'm at it. No, I haven't finished the assignment yet. Can't think why.
Also, what fucking dictionary? The classrooms I was in
Re: (Score:3)
That would have been a great opportunity for you to pull up a few random snippets and ask your kids where the information came from, really analyse the page.
E.g. "When did Snoopy end?" Nets you with the snippet "February 13, 2000". And a table of key dates. And then to the right there's three little dots to click:
"About this result
Source
Wikipedia is a multilingual free online encyclopedia written and maintained by a community of volunteers through open collaboration and a wiki-based editing system. Its edit
Re: (Score:2)
Its editors are known as Wikipedians.
Wikadors. [urbandictionary.com] Please.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to see this whole anti-Wikipedia bias go away. It's very common. Essentially, what teachers are saying is, "Don't use a source of information that is actively curated by millions of serious volunteers" and instead "Use a source of information where anybody can type anything, and nobody curates." They might as well suggest that you get your facts on facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever tried making submissions to Wikipedia?
If you're not an article-camper sitting on whatever subject you feel you're entitled to, your changes will be reverted by whomever has self-appointed to that role.
Passion is no substitute for credentials. "Serious volunteers" are passionate, but not necessarily qualified.
Re: (Score:2)
Many studies of the accuracy of Wikipedia have been done, and the answer varies depending on the subject matter. But overall, it has proven to be quite reliable, even compared to other curated Encyclopedias and reference sources. https://www.livescience.com/32... [livescience.com]
Regardless, Wikipedia is going to be better-curated than the result of Google searches on the web at large.
Re: (Score:1)
Guess I was lucky and know more about the regional name (and its etymology) given to the big flat things on mills in south eastern England than some ignoramus mass editor from California. Amongst many other edits.
Re: (Score:1)
Not sure if @RobinH will see this but I am in BC Canada and our kids teachers said the same. Let the kids know that they SHOULD use Wikipedia, but don't reference it. Go to the references and sources section and find the source of the information and reference it from there.
Re: (Score:2)
These snippets are actively harmful, and here's why... while having a discussion with my kids about how to find information online, I said something to the effect of "Wikipedia is a decent place to start," to which they responded, "our teacher told us that Wikipedia could be edited by anyone, and that we should never use it." Flabbergasted, I asked, "what do they suggest you do?" Their answer: "Just type your question into Google." Me, stunned: "What?!?" So it turns out there's a whole new generation of people who were taught in school, if you want to know some fact just type it into Google and see what comes up. And what comes up? These snippets, as if Google is telling you the answer. Snippets are actively harmful.
Wikipedia should be treated a step lower than curated encyclopedias. Great place to start, but always look at the footnotes and references.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Teachers told me the same thing in school, could it be possible that your kids' teacher meant to use google to then find a real source to site? I know my teachers never told me to just go with whatever web page I landed on from Google (Google didn't have these in-search answers to questions yet when I was in school).
So .... (Score:2)
I'm not complaining.
Re: (Score:2)
Fingers crossed.
Re: (Score:2)
The same way as questions about Trump campaign colluding with Russia, or who Antifa is fighting, will call you a moron.
Antifa means anti-fascist, doesn't take a genius to figure that out. If you need to google what Antifa is fighting you truly are a moron and it's generally people on the right who need to run that google search. The left has knows what Antifa is since Ernst Thälmann created the movement 1932.
Who invented running? (Score:3)
My family has gotten hours of fun over this one: Who invented running? [archive.org]. I am so happy that someone archived this. The current answer is better, but no fun.
One day we might miss this hilarious period of time where computers were juuust smart enough to do silly things, but stupid enough to not realize it: the ultimate comedy straight-man.
Re: (Score:2)
The Snoopy one still works. Did Google not roll this out yet?
I just tried randomly making up some others. For example, "Who is the richest person on Mars?" responds that it's John Franklyn Mars.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Could be - I'm in Iceland.
Re: (Score:2)
I could be doing something wrong, but I don't get an answer from Google on that question, and the Archive.org link doesn't seem to work, and just gives a "we haven't archived that"
Ted Cruz is still awful (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because partisan politics has been "goodness" for all, right?
Shut the FUCK up, cheerleader.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You are aware that hating Ted Cruz goes across political lines, right? Ted Cruz is hated according to Republicans [bbc.com].
You are aware that partisan Twitter-shit-slinging is not part of ANY elected officials official job duties, right?
Bad leaders are one thing, but fucking horrific leaders who purposely target their political enemies while abusing their power and hiding their own transgressions, has fucked up this country.
Quite frankly, I don't give a shit what the hell Ted Cruz has done. I care far more about electing good leaders. On EVERY fucking "side" of two-sided politics we must maintain for some dumbshit reason. Qui
Re: (Score:2)
Me: I think Ted Cruz is awful. Not the GOP, not anyone else. Ted Cruz.
Geekmux: How dare you bring your partisan politics into his!! My sensibilities have been offended!!
Me: Hating Ted Cruz is not partisan. Plenty of GOP members hate him.
Geekmux: Let me go on a rant against Twitter and incoherently things not related to Ted Cruz.
Also Geekmux: I do not care about Ted Cruz but am triggered when some does not like him.
Also Geekmux: You should grow up according to
Re: (Score:2)
I see the cheerleader still doesn't get it. Go fucking figure. Your ignorance is exactly how we got here.
If Ted Cruz or ANY elected official is THAT bad, then Lean to Vote Better. Put down your pom poms, and you might actually get that concept. I don't give a fuck about partisan politics. I care about electing good leaders.
And your bullshit "reference" containing snippets of statements, is well over half a decade old. Might as well be ancient history at this point. The fuck has Ted Cruz done TODAY.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I will continue to validate my name by copying shitty leaders who assume partisan shit-slinging is the fix-all, while bitching about shitty leaders.
- Unknowing Fool
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Politics as a whole has become a shit-slinging clusterfuck of corruption on ALL sides and you know it. You don't fix this clusterfuck with partisan attacks. You should be far more concerned about getting rid of ALL bad leaders no matter where they are. That won't ever happen with citizens being party cheerleaders instead of thinking voters. There's a reason voting is an adult privilege.
Reports of 350+ police officers were in Uvalde during the horrific school shooting. The alarming part about that stati
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Senator Cruz, how long have you been shit posting to slashdot?
Re: (Score:2)
leaders who purposely target their political enemies while abusing their power and hiding their own transgressions,
This describes Ted Cruz, the man you claim to care nothing about.
Re: (Score:3)
There's nothing partisan about hating on Ted Cruz. It is one of the few things both Republicans and Democrats widely agree on.
On the other hand you saw the name of a republican and were instantly triggered to the point of tourette's. *You* brought partisan politics into the debate. Check yourself before your wreak yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the beard, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That and all his killings.
Re: (Score:2)
"Awful" is relative. In representative gov't, morons are proud of electing morons. Sloths vote for sloths, snakes for snakes, roaches for roaches, etc.
Well... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yet . . . (Score:2)
"When did Trump assassinate Abraham Lincoln?" Returns the unabashed 1865 answer, whilst using "Snoopy" links first to the relevant news story cited above. Obviously, some more fine tuning is needed. Try it yourself . . .
Re: (Score:2)
Tried it, didn't work. It did give the top result to the Wikipedia entry for the list of presidential assassination attempts though.
"When was Abraham Lincoln assassinated?" on the other hand gave the date in big bold characters.
Now if only we could get this in real life (Score:5, Funny)
Reminds me of the time John Wilkes Booth took an Uber to Walmart.
So shortly after the Parkland shooting my family was discussing it over dinner at a local pizzeria. We were talking about the event and the details of it. In the middle of the conversation we got on the subject of the Lincoln assassination. We were talking about JWB, his accomplices, how he did it, why, etc.
One of our kids asked a question about Parkland, so I answered it. My wife didnt register the shift in the topic because she was still dwelling on Booth and was deep in thought. So she asked "How did he get away?" Being back on the subject of Parkland, I of course replied "He took an Uber to Walmart. That is where police found him later."
She heard THAT loud and clear, and thoroughly confused said "John Wilkes Booth took an Uber to Walmart? WHAT!?!?!?! " We all died laughing.
Uhm, wrong change? (Score:2)
to which the service would once merrily respond with "1865" -- the right date, but very much the wrong assassin.
Well, this is CLEARLY the right answer, they wanted to know the year.. the Asker just have some other knowledge that's wrong and needs to be contradicted - it's More helpful to give the answer than to not give anything. The only problem is you shouldn't be blindly putting down an answer to a question without understanding the question.. You should restate the Question you are answering
My fav going away? (Score:1)
"Alexa, what's it like to f$ck Siri?"
Alexa now: "Sorry Dave, I cannot answer that anymore. Now run off and go play with pod bay doors..."
Google should fix the terrible grammar first. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That was Yahoo! Answers, not Google.
See Youtube videos on Luigi Board and Gregnant.
I'd prefer (Score:2)
..an answer about what I asked, not what it thinks I should have asked instead.
Amazon still giving answers to silly questions (Score:2)
I get these requests from Amazon. This example isn't so bad, usually they are about celebrities or sports stars that I've never heard of and someone wants to know stuff like how tall they are or whether they are circumcised:
Alexa Answers
Help make Alexa smarter!Answer the questions that stump Alexa to help the community, unlock achievements, and compete to become top contributor.
**Can you answer these hot questions which are still stumping Alexa?**
Question: [Hot!] How tall is tristan jary?
Question: [Hot!] Wh
Walter Krankheit (Score:2)
A few years ago, I was looking up some information about a famous journalist after I had just returned from a long trip to Germany. As I was still adjusting to using English again, I typed "Walter Krankheit" into Google. It returned the answer "Cerebrovascular disease".
It doesn't do that anymore.
More worthless search results (Score:2)
If people are searching for something "stupid", then give them stupid results. Searching for Snoopy assassinating Abraham Lincoln should probably turn up only a few results. Odds are good some idiot actually has this scenario playing out on Deviantart (or similar), or on some random blog post from 15 years ago. Return that result.
Don't tell them "1865" since that's wrong, just . . . don't give them any date at all.
Google is most useful as a web crawler. It should help me find what I'm looking for, not w