Ask HN: Why is Gmail so incompetent at basic search?

45 sn9 35 7/21/2025, 10:12:41 PM
I'm South Asian and my personal email reflects that, so I get spam from India despite never having lived there.

I tried searching for one specific character to mass delete spam, "₹" (quoted in the literal query), and the search returned a few matches and then the rest were extremely obviously not remotely matches.

Why has a search company compromised a flagship product's ability to search?

Has anyone developed a workaround so that they can actually search their inbox and act on the results? Should I download Thunderbird or something?

Comments (35)

pwg · 9h ago
> Why has a search company

Google was a search company, many years ago.

Today's Google is an advertising company that just happens to have a legacy search division.

waldopat · 7h ago
This. As an interview question for my product managers, I often ask what Google search's product is. The ones who say ads move to the next round.
voussoir · 6h ago
If Google's customers are the advertisers, maybe the correct answer is "attention".
waldopat · 6h ago
Totally valid response :-) And I think that's another great angle as well that you can bring to a conundrum like Gmail or Google Search, like Time to Value or Engagement, etc.

As an extension, what we're seeing with OpenAi et al. is that they are capturing that attention and taking search with them. And so (as I referred to a couple comments down) OpenAI and the others are in the Google pre-2006 moment where the products are highly successfully engaging and grabbing our attention, but they haven't quite found the business model that prints money in the way Google Ads do.

So we'll see. What do you think?

Squeeeez · 7h ago
Are you aware what you are saying about yourself by writing such a sentence?
ComplexSystems · 7h ago
This has got to be one of the most loaded question I have ever seen on here. Could you perhaps be clearer with what you want to ask? It sounds like you are insinuating that the guy is a bad person in some vague, nondescript way.
waldopat · 6h ago
Agreed. And I added an update to give a more thoughtful response. I've been on the receiving side of trick questions, so I do understand. How you ask the question, which I didn't phrase here, is important. Google Search or Gmail are great case study style questions. Here's an oldie but a goodie about it from 2006:

https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=33707

Zopieux · 7h ago
Trick questions like those have a terrible signal to noise ratio, you'd hope people with recruiting decision power would have gotten the memo by now.
waldopat · 7h ago
Yup, but my earlier comment was a bit flippant, so here’s a more in-depth response.

It was an answer to the OP’s question about why Gmail search feels broken, and a nod to the previous comment pointing out Google’s core business is selling ads. In that context, Gmail isn’t optimized for superior search. It’s part of a data funnel that enables keyword targeting, ad placement, and behavioral profiling.

For me, there’s a deeper product lesson here, but also a signal about how someone thinks. Whether a candidate answers “ads” or “search” or “email” isn’t what really matters. It’s the why behind the answer that matters most.

At the end of the day, business models directly shape product decisions. That tension is something every product manager has to navigate because they sit between the business and technical sides of a company. Being able to see and articulate that tradeoff, especially when user needs diverge from monetization incentives, is key to both building effectively and being a successful product manager.

More often the business model, like subscriptions, is more tightly connected to the product. User has X problem that product Y solves and the company receives Z dollars in exchange for access. However, there are many examples where the pricing or monetization strategy is not so clearly connected to the feature set, of which google search is a great example.

For the record, I don't ask this question to junior PMs.

bigbuppo · 1h ago
You are doing your job well, and for that I salute you.

However, you highlight the real problem with ad-supported tech. It creates perverse incentives that makes the world an objectively worse place for most just to sell another ad. It justifies actions and data collection that would be illegal if it were anything other than a large corporation peforming that activity. At some point in history the words, "just trying to make my quarterly numbers", will be looked at with the same level of horror and shame as a similar phrase was over 75 years ago.

sn9 · 9h ago
How does compromising the ability to search your inbox increase ad revenue?
n4r9 · 8h ago
Probably made other tweaks that gave marginal gains in ad revenue whilst neither caring nor measuring about the effect on search results.
tom_ · 7h ago
Presumably ad revenue has gone up even as search result quality has gone down, proving that the ability to search your inbox is actually unimportant.
handfuloflight · 7h ago
Computation costs probably not worth it for the incremental user satisfaction.
sn9 · 6h ago
I'm assuming whatever they're currently doing involves machine learning so uses more compute than the simple correct solution that a CS freshman could code up.
malfist · 8h ago
Is probably less about making as revenue and more about not investing in it
anonzzzies · 7h ago
gmail search was never good though.
rkhassen9 · 1h ago
Typically will use Gmail in the browser for sending and recieving emails…but for searching my Gmail, it’s Outlook, ironically, which works the best.

Don’t trust Outlook for other functions in Gmail reliably though. Or Calendar. Examples are things like double emails being sent and calendar updates being missed.

At our company a lot of people use Outlook to handle their Gmail functions and it’s quite problematic…but Outlook’s search is far superior.

So I think of the browser as the main interface and only use Outlook for search.

koliber · 2h ago
I find Gmail search to be OK. Compared to search functions in other tools it’s probably near the top. I’m looking at you Notion…

Curious if the poor search performance you saw is related to the non-Roman alphabet search or another factor.

sakesun · 1h ago
Finding things in Google Drive is an awful experience as well.
kingstnap · 6h ago
It's still better than YouTube's search.

I once was looking for a video I watched a few months ago with a history search. Nothing brought it up.

I found it with text match in my browser history.

Out of curiosity, I tried every combination of words in its title, including the full title verbatim, and it did not show up. It is truly astonishing how bad it is.

sn9 · 6h ago
Ugh that's a whole other rant.

If I know what channel the video I'm looking for is from, I end up going directly to the channel and searching from there.

Otherwise I've definitely resorted to using my history as well.

ethan_smith · 8h ago
Gmail's search likely tokenizes/normalizes Unicode symbols like ₹ differently than plain ASCII, so try searching for "rupee" or use mail filters with regex capabilities instead.
sn9 · 8h ago
That seemed plausible so I tried it and after more than 10 seconds, a search for "rupee" returned similarly poor results.

This is really only the latest example of nearly useless search results.

I genuinely don't understand how in terms of both latency and accuracy, Google is failing at this embarrassingly parallel problem. Fuzzy searching I'd understand, but not searches for specific strings.

In 2025!

andrewmcwatters · 6h ago
Sorry to read that you’re dealing with this. My primary email is apart of some vast international spam program where the mail servers responsible for sending me spam forge headers, falsify source record information, lie about which downstream service provider is hosting them, etc. It’s really quite interesting, but more so than that, it’s annoying.

I pondered my problem for a few days, thinking about what sort of external service I could use to surgically remove these numerous, daily, very specifically identifiable spam emails before I stumbled on a thread on StackOverflow where some people discussed using Google App Scripts to do this very thing.

I’d recommend searching the web for that sort of topic. You’ll find that there’s a way to set up an hourly script job that will wipe this spam completely off your mailbox and find some peace.

Hope this points you in the right direction. The idea of having to use yet another Google service to fix an existing separate one is such a stupid labyrinthine experience, but at least it beats having to set up a job on a VPS for this.

If you had this issue with another mailbox service provider, a VPS approach would probably be necessary, though.

bfrog · 6h ago
This is why it’s worth paying for email not at Google. It’s not expensive.

You could self host but that’s a nuisance I’m happy to pay someone for.

Search sucks even when using English. It fails to find emails I know have certain words in the subject.

The entire Google ecosystem is a hot dumpster fire of garbage that doesn’t help me at all at this point. It used to be amazing when they focused on organizing information rather than selling eyeballs. But all things turn to shit chasing profits.

moralestapia · 7h ago
Yep, it happened to Google Search first and slowly creeped to other products now. It's not even "AI", it's just incompetence.

Try this now, go to your inbox, filter emails by date, you will get back a list where your emails are sorted randomly ... no really, check it out. This is a new "feature". Their PMs should be shot.

leephillips · 8h ago
Gmail is a toy, not a real email user agent.¹ You might be happier with Mutt, which is powerful, flexible, and fast. But probably the most efficient way to accomplish what you want is to use a tool like grepmail (assuming Google provides a way to export your mail into an mbox file or something).

[1]https://lwn.net/Articles/837960/

aillbeback · 8h ago
my answer is a question: does email make a lot of money for google?
muzani · 8h ago
It seemingly does. It's part of their enterprise offering, which they can use to upsell other things like GDocs and company GDrive. GDocs is also notoriously bad with search. As bad as it is, it's still the best out there that most people are familiar with.
mtVessel · 7h ago
It likely doesn't make any money by itself. It's a loss leader to entice companies into its enterprise offerings.
muzani · 3h ago
Loss leaders are valuable too. Android is a loss leader that funnels half the world into their exorbitant Google Pay + Play Store ecosystem.
treyfitty · 9h ago
idk… I for one like the fact that Gmail sucks at search to be honest because I (naively?) believe they don’t profile everything in your inbox. For example, if I subscribe to a newsletter about “healthy lifestyle,” it won’t return that newsletter, but return string matches where “healthy” or “home” are relevant. If they profiled the emails for contextual awareness to know what I meant by “healthy living,” I’d be concerned.
rob_c · 8h ago
Because Google is crap at basic search these days.
rmunn · 5h ago
Yeah, I switched to DuckDuckGo years ago (when it came out that Google was "customizing" search results per-customer, meaning you'd not just get different advertising but different *search results* based on what ads you'd previously clicked on and/or what other things you'd searched for) and never looked back.