3 ms·
Ignoring words in your query that it doesn't like is a relatively new behavior for Google -- in the last three years or so. But yes, there's a reason why I keep
by nandhp 11y ago
Ignoring words in your query that it doesn't like is a relatively new behavior for Google -- in the last three years or so. But yes, there's a reason why I keep a search keyword for Bing.
- yolesaber 11y agoIt is one of the most annoying and user unfriendly anti-patterns I've ever come across. It is SO irritating when you are searching for, say, "Hackernews ramen" and you get thousands of results all with the little gray strikethrough text saying "ramen" doesn't appear on the page. If it's not there why bother even returning the result? I know the answer (Ad money / SEO) but it's like one of the basic tenets of information retrieval and they just said fuck it.
- neolefty 11y agoBut synonyms! I want to say that if I search for "London Ferris Wheel" and I find "London Eye" without the words "Ferris Wheel" anywhere on the page, that's fine. However, 5 minutes looking through my Google Search History, and I don't see any examples where non-verbatim results would have been useful, so hmm.
- yolesaber 11y agoIf Google highlighted that these synonyms appeared in the article, that'd be great. They don't. Thus I, the user, am forced to conclude that the relevancy of the result is pertinent to the other words i.e. the more general search I was trying to avoid by adding in the other word! It's madness I tell you.
- vgeek 11y agoThey have to grow query count (see: marketable inventory), and what better way to do so than serving useless results on your first queries, leading to additional queries?