In heat

Google was fine as it was before, now it does shit like this. I hate how AI is shoved down our throats. And the results on google nowadays feel so much worse and generic than a few years ago. That isn't just a feeling I have, right?
- Add obscenities to your search for the most optimized results. It drops the AI component and seems to provide the more direct results we used to get.
  
  I just get X-rated results.
  
  Add ..in my ass to your last search query.
- They’re an ad company that just happens to offer search as a way to show ads.
  Their ideal scenario is one where you search forever and never find what you were looking for.
  
  They’re walking the fine line between being shitty enough that you have to refine your search multiple times (thus allowing them to show you more ads), but not being SO shitty that you give up and never come back.
- Not just you. I feel like search modifiers like "NOT" or "OR" haven't been working for a good long while either.
  
  They stopped supporting booleans in 2013. This is the list of currently supported search modifiers.
- Really? Felt like Google jumped the shark quite awhile before this even started.
  
  It been a downhill slope that just keeps getting steeper. They're basically falling off a cliff right now, and their parachute is improving AI.
- Append ?udm=14 to your Google search results
  https://youtu.be/qGlNb2ZPZdc
  
  I'm not opening that Rick Astley link, thank you.
  
  I'd rather use anything else
- One of the reason why I advice people to switch to Ecosia or DuckDuckGo

Why do people Google questions anyway? Just search "heat cast" or "heat Angelina Jolie". It's quicker to type and you get more accurate results.
- "You can just type your search in the top bar! You don't have to go to www.google.com."
  As an IT guy, I know what to expect when I get to hell.
- Because that's the normal way in which humans communicate.
  But for Google more specifically, that sort of keyword prompts is how you searched stuff in the '00s... Nowadays the search prompt actually understands natural language, and even has features like "people also ask" that are related to this.
  All in all, do whatever works for you, it's just that asking questions isn't bad.
  
  Google is not a human so why would you communicate with it as if it were a human? unlike chatgpt it's not designed to answer questions, it's designed to search for words on webpages
- I just tested. "Angelina jolie heat" gives me tons of shit results, I have to scroll all the way down and then click on "show more results" in order to get the filmography.
  "Is angelina jolie in heat" gives me this bluesky post as the first answer and the wikipedia and IMDb filmographies as 2nd and 3rd answer.
  So, I dunno, seems like you're wrong.
  
  both queries give me poor results and searching "heat cast" reveals that she is not actually in the movie, so that's probably why you can't find anything useful
  
  That's why you just add "movie" to the search.
  
  Search engine algorithms are way better than in the 90s and early 2000s when it was naive keyword search completely unweighted by word order in the search string.
  So the tricks we learned of doing the bare minimum for the most precise search behavior no longer apply the same way. Now a search for two words will add weight to results that have the two words as a phrase, and some weight for the two words close together in the same sentence, but still look for each individual word as a result, too.
  More importantly, when a single word has multiple meanings, the search engines all use the rest of the search as an indicator of which meaning the searcher means. "Heat" is a really broad word with lots of meanings, and the rest of the search can help inform the algorithm of what the user intends.
  
  Have people just completely forgot how search engines work? If you search for two things and get shit results, it means those two things don't appear together.
- Why use many word when few work
- As a funny challenge I like to come up with simplified, stupid-sounding, 3-word search queries for complex questions, and more often than not it's good enough to get me the information I'm looking for.
- You won't get funny answers if you do it correctly.
- It works. It will also find others who posted that question.
  
  Until they worded it as "Does Angelina Jolie appear in heat?"
- "How to to describe a character in my story hiding a body after they committed a murder?"
  ⬇️
  "killed someone, how to hide body?"
  
  see? it's easy
- Why do people Google questions anyway?
  Because it gives better responses.
  Google and all the other major search engines have built in functionality to perform natural language processing on the user's query and the text in its index to perform a search more precisely aligned with the user's desired results, or to recommend related searches.
  If the functionality is there, why wouldn't we use it?
  
  that is true but the results will be the same at best, not better

Wouldn't removing your ovaries and fallopian tubes make you not "fertile" by definition?
- Yes, it contradicts itself within the next couple of sentences.
  
  As per form for these "AIs".

It also contradicts itself immediately, saying she’s fertile, then immediately saying she’s had her ovaries removed end that she’s reached menopause.

I think the trick here is to not use Google. The Wikipedia page for the movie heat is the first result on DuckDuckGo
- I use duck duck go as well. I wish it wasn't just anonymised Bing search. One of these days I'll look into an open source independent search engine.
  
  Searxng maybe?
  
  Qwant
  
  try Gibiru.com ?
- You can also search Wikipedia directly.
  
  Yup, using the bang !w anywhere within the search
  
  PSA for Firefox/fork users, click the button to the left of the search bar after clicking blank space in the search bar, you'll get a list of choices besides just your primary selection. You can add more:
- DDG also has a quick answer AI
  
  Its does, but its less annoying and actually has an off switch

Is it considered normal to type out a normal question format when using search engines?
If I were looking for an answer instead of making a funny meme, I'd search "heat movie cast Angelina Jolie" if I didn't feel like putting any effort in.
Then again, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. I've seen someone use their phone to search google "what is 87÷167?" instead of doing "87/167" or like... Opening the calculator....
People do things in different, sometimes weird ways.
- It depends on the person in my experience.
  For instance, I'll often use a question format, but usually because I'm looking for similar results from a forum, in which I'd expect to find a post with a similar question as the title. This sometimes produces better results than just plain old keywords.
  Other times though, I'm just throwing keywords out and adding "" to select the ones I require be included.
  But I do know some people who only ever ask in question format no matter the actual query. (e.g. "What is 2+2" instead of just typing "2+2" and getting the calculator dialogue, like you said in your post too.)
- Yeah, the way that i would do it is to look up the Wikipedia page for the movie Heat and go to the cast section.
  This is how i always look for information and it can actually be to my detriment. Like that time i went to Reddit to ask them what that movie was where time is a currency, and somebody pointed out that i could have just googled "time is money movie" and it would have immediately shown me In Time (2011).
  Also, when i want something from an app or website i will consult the alphabetical list or look for a link to click, instead of just using the search bar.
  I don't know, somehow it never entered my brain that search bars are smart and can figure out what you meant if you use natural language. Even though they've been programmed that way since before i was born
- I sometimes ask questions, and sometimes I'm forced to because the original answer somehow misinterpreted my query. I also do searches like you mentioned, but I don't exclusively do one of the other.
- This is like the difference between normal and right. Like I know a ton of people normally search for answers by putting full questions in. With the advent of LLMs and AI being thrown into everything asking full questions starts to make more sense.
  For actual good results using a search engine, for sure what you said is better.

NGL, I learned some things.

How can she be fertile if her ovaries are removed?
- Because you're not getting an answer to a question, you're getting characters selected to appear like they statistically belong together given the context.
  
  A sentence saying she had her ovaries removed and that she is fertile don't statistically belong together, so you're not even getting that.
- And the text even ends with a mention of her being in early menopause...

A statistical model predicted that "in heat" with no upper-case H nor quotes, was more likely to refer to the biological condition. Don't get me wrong: I think these things are dumb, but that was a fully predictable result. ('...the movie "Heat"' would probably get you there).
- As a comparison I ran the same all lower case query in bing and got the answer about the movie because asking about a movie is statistically more likely than asking if a human is in heat. Google'a ai is worse than fucking bing, while google's old serach algorith consistently had the right answers.
  Google made itself worse by replacing a working system with ai.
  
  Kagi quick answers for comparison gets this tweet, but now it thinks that heat is not the movie kind lol
  The AI ouroboros in action
  
  It might be the way Bing is tokenizing and/or how far back it's looking to connect things when compared to Google.
- google strips capitalization from searches
  
  Slut
- It's not just any human though, it's an actor, so movie related words should statistically be more likely.
- While I get your point of the capital H thing, Google's AI itself decided to put "heat" in quotes all on its own...
- I tried the search myself and the non-AI results that aren't this Bluesky post are pretty useless, but at least they're useless without using two small towns' worth of electricity
  
  Non-AI results are not going to generally include sites about how something isn't true unless it is a common misconception.

We all know how AI has made things worse, but here's some context on how it's outright backwards.
Early search engines had a context problem. To use an example from "Halt and Catch Fire", if you search for "Texas Cowboy", do you mean the guys on horseback driving a herd of cows, or do you mean the football team? If you search for "Dallas Cowboys", should that bias the results towards a different answer? Early, naive search engines gave bad results for cases like that. Spat out whatever keywords happen to hit the most.
Sometimes, it was really bad. In high school, I was showing a history teacher how to use search engines, and he searched for "China golden age". All results were asian porn. I think we were using Yahoo.
AltaVista largely solved the context problem. We joke about its bad results now, but it was one of the better search engines before Google PageRank.
Now we have AI unsolving the problem.
- I was okay with keyword results. If you knew what you were dealing with in the search engine, you could usually find what you were looking for.

Heat is an excellent movie, and one of my top five. Coincidentally, I just watched it last night. For a film released in 1998, it has aged well. OOP is in the ballpark, too - a young Natalie Portman is in it, not Jolie.
- Yeah it's a movie that nails "then suddenly... all hell breaks loose."

In short: BONK
It probably thought you were Elon Musk.

You've sullied my quick answer:
The assistant figures it out though:
- Maybe that's why ai had trouble determining anything about AJ & the movie Heat, because she's wasn't even in it!

Why is the search query in the top and bottom different?
- Google correction does not reflect in the tab name; genuinely happens

Ashley Judd looks nothing like Angelina Jolie.

It's not helpful for OOP since they're on iOS, but there's a Firefox extension that works on desktop and Android that hides the AI overview in searches: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/android/addon/hide-google-ai-overviews/

Deepseek also gets this wrong.
- So she is in heat ..

I never heard of the movie and was enjoying the content you created that I thought was supposed to be funny.

ddg isn't really any better with that exact search query. all 'fashion' related items on the first page.
you get the expected top result (imdb page for the film 'heat', which you have to scroll through to determine your 'answer') by using simply: angelina jolie heat

I think Gemini is "in heat"

Relevant

Leaving aside the fact that this looks like AI slop/trash bait; who the fudge is so clueless as to think Ashley Judd, assuming that she's who they're confusing, looks anything like Angelina Jolie back then
- First, it's the internet, you can cuss. Either structure the sentence not to include it at all or just cuss for fuck's sake. Second, not everyone knows every actor/actress or is familiar, especially one that's definitely not in the limelight anymore like Ashley Judd. Hell even when she was popular she wasn't in a lot.
- How do you know that OP even saw Heat? Maybe they were just curious to see if she was in it.