‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

When did Google get so weird?

2011 points · 1123 comments · sancho-panza

  1. Hugsbox · · focus · HN ↗
    Yesterday I tried to google "can the Halifax Wanderers still make the CPL playoffs?"

    So obviously what appears right at the top is the AI summary, which told me "they've already secured their #4 position and made the playoffs". I knew this wasn't true, and I guess I could have just scrolled down a bit further and found my answer but now I was curious.

    So I said "that's not true, they're still #5, what I want to know is _could they still make the playoffs_"

    It says they've got an upcoming game against Ottawa, and if they win their chances are good. That game has already taken place, so I correct it again and finally I get a reasonable answer.

    My question is: what's the point of the AI in the search engine if it itself isn't going to use the search engine first before answering? Like, I can't wrap my head around that. The answer is on the same page as its hallucination. It could have done a cursory look around before first hallucinating something completely false, and when corrected the first time giving me outdated information. It's meant to be A SEARCH ENGINE!

    1. hienyimba · · focus · HN ↗
      Google is no longer a search engine anymore. They don’t care about being one. Why you might ask?

      First, a search engine indexes the web and makes it available to users. It’s been ages since Google did any of that. They no longer index sites or take ages to do so. Case in point, our cybersecurity startup (Webvetted.com) was launched in November 2025. Till date, only one page is indexed on the entire website. And I’ve talked to lots of other developers and it’s a common issue.

      Secondly, a search engine organizes indexed information and makes it useful for people. Google is a basic LLM nowadays. They figured out that why organize and make the information useful when they could just answer the question with Gemini anyways? So they no longer bother to do the work of a search engine and are now just a lower-ranking open-source Chinese LLM

      1. atdt · · focus · HN ↗
        Your trust score on ScamAdvisor is 26&#x2F;100 (&quot;likely unsafe&quot;); <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.scam-detector.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.scam-detector.com&#x2F; gives you a trust score of 38.6 (&quot;questionable&quot;).

        I am not implying that your start-up is a scam, nor that Google is acting on these trust scores. What I am pointing out is that to an algorithmic assessment of trustworthiness, your website looks a little sketchy: hardly anyone links to you; your domain is less than a year old; your whois info is anonymized; the text content is LLM-generated[1]; and the specific niche you&#x27;re in (people finding services) is rife with scams. If I ran my own search engine, I don&#x27;t think I&#x27;d include you.

          [1]: https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.pangram.com&#x2F;history&#x2F;65314d99-8205-4613-b9bd-a069d5717920?ucc=Yqx88GTmJnK
        1. hienyimba · · focus · HN ↗
          Your selective bias makes you sound like a Google employee.

          You selectively left out examples like Grindsoft that gives the site a 79&#x2F;100 ranking. or several LinkedIn, X or news sites that link to the site and have covered it positively.

          Nevertheless, if Google uses ScamAdvisor to rank new sites (when scamadviser itself says its gives new sites lower rankings due to low age&#x2F;history), then it might be time to pack the company up.

          1. user00005 · · focus · HN ↗
            That scam-detector site gives my personal portfolio website a 15.8&#x2F;100. It is a basic static site with no scripting, registered for years, uses https, no tracking, no cookies, etc. Literally the most simple, personable, least scam-like website I could create.
Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.