Did you read the piece? This isn’t a software issue, it got worse by design to push even more ads and stop suppressing the ad-ridden fake sites too.
Comment on The Man Who Killed Google Search
Buttons@programming.dev 5 months ago
As an programmer, I want to think out loud about possible technical solutions.
I would have kept the understandable / hand-made algorithm as the core of search results. If you want to do fancy machine learning, do it on the periphery and we can include the machine output in our algorithm and weight its importance by hand. This would allow us to back out of the decision, because we could lower the weight of the machine learning output as needed.
It sounds like Google jumped strait to including the machine learning in the core algorithm though, and now with a decade of complexity in the core algorithm they are no longer able to go back without huge effort.
In general, it’s important to consider “is this a decision we can easily back out of?”.
yamanii@lemmy.world 5 months ago
slumberlust@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Amazon (and I’m sure others) refers to this as a two way door. Good rollouts minimize impact and can be undone easily.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
Exactly, and that’s something my company is aggressively moving toward, even though our userbase is nothing like Google’s. It’s just good engineering to be able to rapidly undo an unfavorable rollout.
bitwaba@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Google’s operations are absolutely built around the idea of easy rollback. Their products, and the their entire product ecosystem, are not.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
Yeah, they seem to do “easy roll-foward.” Any service is subject to replacement, given a sufficiently motivated project manager. So if there’s a problem in deployment, they just replace the whole thing.