I&#x27;m not sure I am seeking the same wow-factor results from the service that everyone else is raving about.<p>I submitted this link [0] which was on the HN homepage a couple of days ago and the results that I got back were more either the least important bits or in some ways implying the <i>opposite</i> of the article, so either the writing was really bad or the algorithm needs some work.<p>Submitting a &quot;simpler&quot; less-ranty article [1] was even less successful, leading to paraphrases of less-important sentences as the results.<p>Then I submitted the BBC article from this morning about Philae [3] and received much, much better results. I think it works best on articles that have single sentences that clearly sum up the gist of the post as a single, hard fact and doesn&#x27;t work with anything that works towards logical conclusions or tries to build an argument. Which makes sense, because this isn&#x27;t an AI and can&#x27;t actually deduce anything.<p>0: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;neosmart.net&#x2F;blog&#x2F;2016&#x2F;on-the-growing-intentional-uselessness-of-google-search-results&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;neosmart.net&#x2F;blog&#x2F;2016&#x2F;on-the-growing-intentional-us...</a><p>1: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;neosmart.net&#x2F;blog&#x2F;2016&#x2F;when-is-the-2016-retina-macbook-pro-coming-out&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;neosmart.net&#x2F;blog&#x2F;2016&#x2F;when-is-the-2016-retina-macbo...</a><p>3: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bbc.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;science-environment-35559503" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bbc.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;science-environment-35559503</a>