Google fails because of overly greedy advertising on a SERP

Only one algorithmic result visible on the SERP without scrolling. Rest is all ads. So much for "...we expect that advertising funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers."

*****

22-Apr-17

*****

Google fails for not considering a dead person's date of death

Bing correctly says that the age of Steve Jobs at the time of his death was 56, while Google incorrectly says that the age of Steve Jobs is 57 [disregarding the fact that he died in October 2011]. All of this in June 2012!

Google fails - it includes two links to the same webpage in a SERP

The second and the third results point to the same Wikipedia article. Google could've and should've noticed this - it should've automatically clubbed the second and third results. Without scrolling, a user can see only 4 results in this screenshot, and because of one redundant result, 25% of the results visible without scrolling have been wasted.

Update [Nov'12]: Adding screenshot for a principally similar, but more serious, SERP pointed out by Adam Davies in the comments.

Google fails because it includes the mobile version of a page in its first SERP, thus wasting one result out of ten

Google's top 10 results are supposed to be the most relevant/useful, but by including the mobile version of the #1 result as the #2 result, Google has wasted a full 10% of its crucial first 10 results.

Google fails against Bing because of a much more cluttered SERP

For a simple query such as mobile phone, Google threw so much information at me that I just left it and went to Bing, which, pleasantly, was far cleaner. What's the use of giving more relevant results when the presentation of results is repulsive?

Google fails because of its unsolicited oversmartness

When I enter a straightforward query moil share list in Google, why does Google have to act smart and include such irrelevant words as mobile? And that too automatically, without informing me. Doesn't this smack of unwarranted overconfidence? It probably does, since the presence of the word mobile virtually corrupts the SERP.

Update (12-Mar-2012): In the screenshot below, while I'm looking specifically for InterNations, Google also shows results for international, which is not something I'm looking for. I dislike this "feature" of Google. I wish I could tell Google to search for just my exact query.

Another example, below, shows how Google fails because it assumes that when I use the word RT in a query, I mean real time. I do not! I'm looking for the Russian news outlet called RT (formerly Russia Today), but Google's over-smartness results in a failed SERP.

Update (13-Aug-2012): I searched for odf viewer. For heaven's sake, Google! Please don't substitute ODF with PDF! I know what I'm looking for!

Update (25-Oct-2012): This is probably the height. Google's 2075 AD algorithms have still not figured out that ipad is different from ipod. Wow. There's a lot of low-hanging fruit in the Web search space.

Update [13-Apr-16]: When I type rishabh singla reservation, I do not want Google to quietly assume that I meant single instead of singla, and to show me useless results using single. Since Google crawls a large part of the Web, it pretty well knows that in India, Singla is a word in itself.

Google and Ask.com fail for "dirty-looking" SERP

I was quite disappointed by the cluttered and graceless SERPs returned by Ask.com and Google for the query google pac man. So much for Universal Search, Google? In comparison, the SERPs of Bing and Yahoo Search are at least pleasing to the eye.

Google fails for not filtering potentially offensive search-suggestion

I'm really not at all offended by the topmost suggestion offered by Google, but I understand that some people can be. So I term this possibly-offensive-to-some-suggestion by Google as a failure.

Google fails on a simple brand-name query

What does one expect as the topmost result on Google, when the query is as simple as wal mart? Google places the website of Wal-Mart at the tenth spot...

All 4 search engines fail because of unasked abbreviation-substitution

Why are all of these engines returning Mountain Zone, when I'm asking for MTN Zone? I term this cocky behavior as unsolicited oversmartness. I wish there was a feature that allowed me to turn-off this abbreviation-substitution, so that I can make it clear the the engine that when I type MTN Zone, I'm clear in my mind that I'm looking for MTN Zone, and not any Mountain Zone.