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.

All 4 search engines fail for a simple time-related query

 

 

I wanted to quickly see what the current EDT time was (my client's time...). It's kind-of pathetic that none of the top 4 engines returned the value of the current EDT time for the query edt time (a query which makes it kind-of obvious that I'm interested in knowing the current EDT time). Wolfram Alpha failed as well.

Google and Ask fail because of 'approximate/nearby' matching

I was reading about the DEC Alpha microprocessor, when I began to realize that it was probably an ahead-of-its-time product. The word 'revolutionary' doesn't seem like an exaggeration. I wanted to know whether others too feel/felt that this microprocessor was revolutionary. So I queried dec alpha revolutionary on the top 4 engines. Results:

1. Google: Google also includes results with the word "revolution". And this corrupts the results for this particular query. I'm not interested in the query dec alpha revolution (I believe less people will write sentences such as 'The DEC Alpha microprocessor brought about a revolution', compared to those who write 'The DEC Alpha microprocessor was revolutionary'). Alas, there's no easy way to turn-off this approximate/nearby matching, and I have to contend with some clearly irrelevant results, resulting from Google's unsolicited oversmartness
   
2. Ask: Surprisingly Google-like results, including the inclusion of revolution. Sad, again
   
3. Bing: Thumbs-up for not including approximate/nearby words; Thumbs-down for less-relevant results
   
4. Yahoo: Thumbs-up for not including approximate/nearby words; Thumbs-up again for showing the most relevant results for this query

All 4 search engines fail for a simple currency-involving query

I was on a webpage with the price of a Kodak AIO. I selected the price, right clicked it and chose the Search Google for... option. My intention was to get the current conversion for this price (written in US dollars) in Indian rupees. Google failed - it didn't consider $129.99 as a special query that merits some smarter results (in addition to the usual ten blue links).

Disappointed, I went to Wolfram Alpha. It made the mistake of choosing Singapore dollar as the default interpretation for the $ sign, but that's a smaller mistake - it did bring up many currency conversions, which would've nailed my problem, had the interpretation been correct.

The key idea here is that I, as a user, shouldn't have to conduct multiple queries, or perform adjustments to my queries, to get results for simple queries such as $129.99. It's Google's duty to detect these more-meaningful queries, and - perhaps based on my IP address or my Google Account information - show me some intelligent results related to currency. I can obviously type convert $129.99 into indian rupees into Google to get the answer, but that takes so much time and effort.

Google failed even when I tried to provide some help - $129.99 in rupees - while Wolfram Alpha once again did better, although its interpretation was incorrect again. Ask.com, Bing and Yahoo all failed as badly as Google - no point in giving their screenshots (they are all considering $129.99 as a meaningless text-string, instead of a meaningful value).