I'm hesitant to accept this was intentional because QA process, since this change was clearly made by someone who didn't know what they were doing.
As another user pointed out, the word burgundy triggers the filter. And if you spell something incorrectly the "did you mean" results are unaffected.
I'm imagining a higher level manager with very little technical expertise (just enough to write an if statement) pushing this into prod against Google's wishes, or maybe by accident.
My point was that at Google, a single person should not be able to break things to this degree. The automation should roll it back automatically. This is, technically due to the drop in recall, a bug, unless it is overridden as a special case so it is not recognized as a bug. To break things this bad you not only should have to make the change to the code but you should also have to "sign off" on the dynamics flagged by the X% rollout test as being acceptable somehow.
So no matter what this paints Google extremely poorly -- either Google Shopping is one git commit away from going down completely, or they're placing shipping a hacky, poorly executed political statement higher on their priorities than potentially damaging the livelihood of those who are collateral damage.
As another user pointed out, the word burgundy triggers the filter. And if you spell something incorrectly the "did you mean" results are unaffected.
I'm imagining a higher level manager with very little technical expertise (just enough to write an if statement) pushing this into prod against Google's wishes, or maybe by accident.