Do you want to know what Prabhakar Raghavan’s old job was? What Prabhakar Raghavan, the new head of Google Search, the guy that has run Google Search into the ground, the guy who is currently destroying search, did before his job at Google?
He was the head of search for Yahoo from 2005 through 2012 […]
Christ on a stick, the fucking lore I’m learning today. I had never heard the name Prabhakar Raghavan before, but it seems like this dude has been the man behind the curtain in my life for a while. I used to use Yahoo before Google in the early 2000s before it became shit, and then I used Google until it became shit. I hope he doesn’t end up applying at DuckDuckGo next season.
I’ve been wondering whether “a functional web search” is something that will increasingly become impossible as the death of the web progresses.
It’s crazy, he co-authored the randomized algorithms textbook for a class I had in grad school. That and the information retrieval book he wrote are probably the two biggest components of his engineer cosplay, even to this day.
Prabhakar’s mask falls off and it’s Vlad from Kagi
and then he trips and falls over and we find out Vlad’s just 3 small Peters Thiel in an overcoat
Peters Thiel or Peter Thiels?
It would be nice if Julian made carrot cake. They just make apple pie.
Ok Julian. I definately prefer you over Mr. stick btw
even the Orange Site hates this fucking guy https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40133976
Edit 2: since there’s no consensus on this I’m just going to reify that fact via the trailing-question-mark trick and call it a day.
Since killing != killed, your comment already shows that the title is misleading.
(That has a beneficial side effect btw: not having my own opinion about a story makes it easier to not moderate according to my own opinion. I still do that, or try my best to, even when I do have an opinion—but it takes more ATP.)
danny, please log the fuck off
“You see, if I don’t …[pause…massive bong hit]…get involved, right? If I don’t get involved …[pause…walks to table, grabs a keg, slams it in one go]… then I by default can’t be subjected to the problem! [does line of coke off side of now-empty keg] And this way, I can always be perfectly neutral! [coke kicks in] This is how I manage to make HN be so central to everything!”
“Tell my wife I said…hello.”
–dang’s last words, probably
* “hello?”
also his name is dang? now
my new gimmick for the occasions I have to post on the orange site is seeing how many question marks I can add to my thread titles and comments before I get shadowbanned
what if … whitespace … and predicate logic…? we could call it
?🥹👉👈
trailing-question-marks: the consensus bypassing trick anarchists don’t want you to know?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40139636
will no one think of the poor baby exec who makes 8 figures? how could they be so mean to him??
stole your comment, so there
Nice. I got some restriction for being too sarcastic about Elon and his sycophants, did dang get you yet? It blocks me from posting for a while if I do several at once. I just quit using the site shortly after that.
they don’t actually want people commenting, apparently, so there’s a throttle
For everyone? That’s idiotic. It’s killed all my desire to engage, because I’ll want to respond to someone, hit the wall, and just leave for several days. Eventually the several days seems to have become forever. I thought that was the point after dang specifically told me to “be respectful.” If it’s for everyone that’s completely idiotic.
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. The site is not about having good conversations, but getting youths to risk doing a startup in order to fill Paul’s pockets.
I’d rather people dogpile executives instead of entertainers and athletes like they do today
The amount of tone-policing in the comments is sickening though.
So your average HN thread, then.
What a weird hit piece.
if only it was about anything of any importance in the world
It’s a narrative whose connection with reality is hard to discern. One could instead say enshittification is an emergent and often unstoppable force, carried out by whoever happens to be in place at the time. The Zitron piece is more like the “great man theory” in reverse. It evokes a shining counterfactual picture where without the evil villain Raghavan messing things up, Google Search would be wonderful (let’s ignore Google’s perennial other failures, privacy invasions, etc). If only that one specific electron had gone through the other slit, everything would be different! Reality is rarely like that. All roads tend to lead to the same place.
in vacuum, you could say that if not him, there would be some other manager doing the same, pushed to the top by the same forces. but in this case, we have a dude who destroyed yahoo search for “growth”/short term profit, then when that company basically fell apart in large part due to his motherfuckery, he jumped ship, moved to google, failed up however many times he had to, and did exactly the same thing. you would know that if you read the article
somehow it didn’t happen before him. why so? it’s a mystery that will keep me up for weeks, maybe decades
am I missing something or are we talking about the specific policy decision to make the site suck more for clicks? I’m sympathetic to the argument that there are lots of other contributing reasons for google getting worse and that they aren’t really addressed in the article, but the causal link between this one guy and engagement hacking couldn’t be more clear.
I’m also sympathetic to the argument that the real issue is systemic (we all live in capitalism), but again, the topic is the specific policy decision to make the site suck more for clicks. sighing about inevitability in response to a very informative article about that decision isn’t a method of critique, it’s a method of dismissal, and it comes across as rather lazy thinking
If only there were specific people making those executive decisions that enshittify everything, we could all try to hold them at least a little bit accountable for it. We could call them “executives” or something.
Alas, corporate growth-at-all-cost policies are merely an emergent property with no one particularly responsible for them at all. It’s not like there’s something as damning as, say, an email thread outlining exactly who made all those shitty decisions.
where without the evil villain Raghavan messing things up,
ah yes, a detailed reading of the post does indeed reveal a narrative element best described as being on par with a story one would tell a child! certainly it has no bearing on the commonly-observed issue seen in many industries of late. oh no, massive rent extraction and industry-wide innovationless gatekeeping is merely an emergent property and is not driven by the choices of any particular individuals, no sir-ee!
I swear, some people will fucking break their backs to lick the boot
he growth hacked it
It’s a narrative whose connection with reality is hard to discern
If only there were email communications that all but prove the allegations.
One could instead say enshittification is an emergent and often unstoppable force, carried out by whoever happens to be in place at the time.
Yeah sure, and you can keep pissing into the ocean while you’re at it while real people try to fix the problems they perceive.
All roads tend to lead to the same place.
Hopefully that’s a place where no one has to read bizarrely dismissive drive-by comments made by people who have No Fucking Clue about what they’re talking about and lack any kind of intellectual spine.
If only there were email communications that all but prove the allegations.
The allegations are presumably true but that is almost irrelevant. The question is what the world would be like in the opposite situation. The lessons of history suggest it would be pretty much the same world as the one that we got. A big enough pile of money in one place will never be left standing. For the article’s narrative to mean anything, it has to argue otherwise, and it makes no attempt at that.
Ben Gomes is the counterfactual. I get the feeling you didn’t actually read anything.
You have a lot of growing up to do.
you might be a fucking idiot
I know what you mean. Naming names is good imo but I was rather irked by the way the piece seemingly allows for a good, virtuous google under the leadership of benevolent engineers. It’s not how capitalism works, it’s certainly not how public companies work.
What particularly confused me is I don’t recall google search being good in the years leading up to 2019? I assume it was somewhat better probably, but it was well on its way to utter shite.
It was certainly better, maybe even functional. It has been getting progressively worse up to where we are now. LLM blogspam has made it useless.
imagine if your posts here meant anything
I like to think that there exists a small god whose portfolio consists of punishing people who use the word “narrative” as a bludgeon. He strongly resembles late 2000’s-era Terry Pratchett and is a dab hand with the classic hand-tossed lighting bolt.
This is what speaking truth to power is supposed to be. EZ tearing the facade of modern tech is a service to everyone, including people inside the tech industry.
The only gripe I have with this article is that I’m not convinced why the metric of “we want people to query more on Google” should be concerning to me. That just sounds like “we want more people to use our product more”, which is a completely reasonable metric for any business, no? In the Better Offline podcast he even says “this sounds paranoid of me but no, Google officially said this” and I’m like… ye, sure? Why would that be scary? If the metric was “userads per minute” or something then ye, that’d be Facebook level fuckery, but…
because (a) it’s trivially growth-hacked by making it suck (b) they did in fact growth-hack it by making it suck, and presumably this was obvious to many involved.
I guess, but any usage metric can be similarly growth-hacked in my mind. I guess what I’m missing is: is there a more reasonable metric to drive your business, even assuming you’re not a malicious exec and actually care about your service?
Unique calls to the site. If someone has to keep rewording queries, you aren’t giving good results. If someone clicks on the first or second result, you’re doing well. These are just off the top of my head.
Well there are two ways to look at improving software (in this case), either we should improve the effectiveness of the tool to do its primary function. Or we should make it sticky so people get forced to use it no matter what to increase our profits.
In video games it would be if an AAA manager suddenly goes ‘we should become more like mobile/facebook games’.
And as we have seen what happened to google, (isn’t it 20/20) we know what he meant with that. The context is important here.
It has certainly worked, more and more times I notice that I need to add additional words to my searched because it keeps finding stuff I don’t care about, and god forbid if you pick a search term that their internal system can map into a sellable product. (A while back I was searching for something and it kept deciding that one of the words was also related to a drink (even if I didn’t search for that term specifically) so all my results were commercial drink related stuff. You know the thing where google turns a part of the search result bold to show you that was why you got the result).
The only gripe I have with this article is that I’m not convinced why the metric of “we want people to query more on Google” should be concerning to me. That just sounds like “we want more people to use our product more”, which is a completely reasonable metric for any business, no?
It’s a search engine, so if it’s taking you more queries than previously to find what you’re looking for, that means the quality of the search results has decreased.
Instead of the search team being able to focus on quality as they had been, they were more or less pushed to sabotage the quality of search in order to increase ad revenue.
That’s my understanding, anyway.
I read it more as “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?”
“we want people to query more on Google” should be concerning to me
one reading of it could be “we want people to spend more time on our web properties” with the implied “(and less on anyone else’s)”. and it does, at least in what was observed on google’s actions, bear out over the past few years
(and then also the bit that david said)
I’m sorry David, I think you meant to title this:
“Ed Zitron documents Prabhakar Raghavan? The actual guy who turned Google Search into complete shit?”
