3 ms·
I think most of your points are wrong. Quoted strings always work for me (symbols are still stripped -- Google is a natural language search engine, not a code s
by zeven7 11y ago
I think most of your points are wrong. Quoted strings always work for me (symbols are still stripped -- Google is a natural language search engine, not a code search engine), and there is a "not" operator, if I understand what you mean by that. From the article you linked:
When you use a dash before a word or site,
it excludes sites with that info from your
results. This is useful for words with multiple
meanings, like Jaguar the car brand and jaguar
the animal.
Examples: jaguar speed -car or pandas -site:wikipedia.org
- rsync 11y ago"Quoted strings always work for me (symbols are still stripped..." That is the definition of not working. The point of the quotes is to allow searching for literal strings. You have elucidated the entire problem. Unless, of course, you're just searching for movie star names, in which case the rubbery nature of the search results really doesn't matter. It appears that -negative searching does work, which is amazing - that's nice to know. But it immediately reminds me of a terrible, glaring problem: searching for command line switches. You cannot effectively search for things like: rsync --ignore-existing ... since they are interpreted as -negative keywords, even if you quote them.
- 05 11y agosure you can - just use "rsync ignore-existing" . Might be slightly inconvenient, but people who use command line switches should generally be able to figure this stuff out?
- m4x 11y agoUse quotes and search for rsync "--ignore-existing" or "rsync --ignore-existing". They are two different searches but both work fine and return useful results. You can also remove the double dash and search for rsync ignore-existing I appreciate the point of the posted article, but for the most part I don't actually have any trouble using Google as a programmer. You just need to format your searches correctly.
- vonklaus 11y ago> I think most of your points are wrong. I believe s/he makes a good case. Google provides no concept of time. Best case conception of time seems to be either provided by the site directly, e.g. "article date" or something to this effect, or t0 = when google first learned about the page. Top anser for: "nodejs" + "2016" mongo api returns top hit: 2015, 2nd hit 2014. and that I can't give it context myself: Qouted strings can't possibly work. There is almost certainly an algorithm in the background to provide confidence that they could work before being run. Even with the best case optimization, how could they check every page in index for: "does google respect qoutes?", I mean even if it finds pages with "google", "respect", "quotes" then runs query on all of them, how could it be fast enough for a human. In above case, it is possible, however smaller phrases with common words can't ever be respected. > Google is a natural language search engine Eeryone has a google search profile. Allowing someone to calibrate theirs would provide them best results. Outline down thread, I explain why it would be nearly impossible for google to do this better than you. Your appraisal of the not or "-" operator falls into the same problems in terms of time. I can't define my percentage of crawl index that is authoritative, have to have the applied "-" operator applied to a larger base than google and this may not be possible in limited time. One idea I had is that google could actually take longer, and update itself on the rolling basis. So immediate best guess would come up, and then it would continue running in bg and rerank if you waited another 3 seconds for better results.
- hyperpape 11y agoYou can restrict results to the past day, week, month, year or custom range, using the search tools that appear underneath the search box.