6 ms·

I haven't followed the Google+ saga, so forgive me if this has already been answered: Does the shutdown of Google+ mean that Google Search users will get the +

by fotbr 8y ago

I haven't followed the Google+ saga, so forgive me if this has already been answered: Does the shutdown of Google+ mean that Google Search users will get the + operator back?

pas 8y ago
put the term(s) in double quotes, it does the same thing, no?
- reaperducer 8y ago
  No.
  - pasbesoin 8y ago
    I don't have the time and attention to reproduce the details now, but I want to say that the parent is not a glib answer. There are significant differences, where double quotes do not reproduce the plus operator's behavior and fall significantly short in terms of facility in controlling search results. More than one author has described this better than I can, in articles, blog posts, and comments. (If you can "find" them -- heh; but of an unexpected joke come up as I type this.)
    - pasbesoin 8y ago
      I'm not finding the pages I remember -- a bit ironic, and I checked DuckDuckGo to see whether that might change any... bias. But, here are a couple of starting points: -- "6 common misconceptions when doing advanced Google Searching" http://musingsaboutlibrarianship.blogspot.com/2015/10/6-common-misconceptions-when-doing.html http://musingsaboutlibrarianship.blogspot.com/2015/10/6-comm... (Blogger "Javascript era/template workaround): https://archive.is/7t28O https://archive.is/7t28O I wasn't aware of some of the tips described there, but still not parity. -- The + operator has been replaced. (google.com) 261 points by hammock on Oct 21, 2011 | hide | past | web | favorite | 167 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3140797 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3140797
      - pas 8y ago
        The first link says that + was just double quotes :(
        pasbesoin 8y ago
        As I recall, not quite. + was an exact match. I believe it also precluded stemming; thus the ~ operator, when you wanted stemming (stemming: Not just "wonder", but also "wondering", "wondered", "wonderful", ...). + designated "must be in result". With double quotes -- this may be part of or in kind with other changes made to by Google to search results matching -- Google insists and becomes more aggressive at including results that don't include all the specified terms. Sort of a forced default "Did you mean..." inclusion that many find has come to clutter search results to the point of being unusable. There are some other aspects, I believe, that I'm not recalling right now. My experience seems to mirror others': I know what I'm looking for. I may well even have seen it, months or even years ago -- my memory's pretty decent, in such matters. Yet I can no longer get Google to cough it up in a search result -- or, it's on page 15 or 20. Despite my focusing my search terms to try to target it. There are other factors in this degradation. But, to the best of my recollection, the loss of the + operator was a significant factor.
    - pas 8y ago
      Others said the same thing, but still no concrete examples. And the link in a sibling comment states that + is/was simply double quotes. No magic at all.
  - pas 8y ago
    Could you give an example?
- onedognight 8y ago
  “term” is require_exact_match(term) and +term was require(term), so the latter would, for example, allow spell checking, IIRC.
  - ihuman 8y ago
    So the old `+term1 +term2 +term3` is like the new `"term1" "term2" "term3"`, but with spell checking?
  - ergothus 8y ago
    It's not really "term" - at least, it can't handle multiple words. "foo bar" is actually treated like "foo" "bar", which is far less useful than it once was.
    - gniv 8y ago
      > "foo bar" is actually treated like "foo" "bar" No it isn't. Compare "internal engine" with "internal" "engine": https://www.google.com/search?q=%22internal+engine%22 https://www.google.com/search?q=%22internal+engine%22 https://www.google.com/search?q=%22internal%22+%22engine%22 https://www.google.com/search?q=%22internal%22+%22engine%22
      - ergothus 8y ago
        You're correct, it does not work as I describe. My description of the problem was just wrong, so thanks for pointing that out. However, it doesn't work the way it used to either. I get frustrated once or twice a year about this, and every time I fight with the many (old) tutorial examples, but eventually end here: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/websearch/6gHVUEl8y1k/discussion https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/websearch/6gH... Where we see that "foo bar" only says that "foo" will appear in the text before "bar" (but anything can be between them), and that's assuming the bug is actually fixed. That status of "we think it's fixed and users don't agree" is the last I've ever seen.
        gniv 8y ago
- hammock 8y ago
  Previous discussion on HN (2011): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3140797 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3140797 >I know from considerable experience that the plus operator had a distinct meaning from the quotes operator so this change definitely implies that Google queries will be less fine-grained no matter what quotes means now.
  - pas 8y ago
    Thanks! I remember those discussions, but I'm not aware of even one great example of how + was so amazing compared to "...". (others pointed out it allowed spellchecking, which is okay, but far from the secret dark arts)
    - hammock 8y ago
      It was a strict operator, as opposed to a fuzzy one. It's not just spellchecking per se, but a whole lot of other fuzzy logic that Google softens search terms with nowadays.
- trumped 8y ago
  Since the day Google removed the + operator, its search results changed in ways that make them less useful and i have doubts that they will be able to roll back all changes that were made to google since then...
- gmueckl 8y ago
  Yes, but this is a terrible hack. Double quotes originally meant "The phrase exactly as I typed it". When Google+ came along, they stole the plus operator and gave the double quotes a second purpose.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    I've been online since Google was a new up and coming company. There is a world of difference between the civic mindedness of Google back then and Google now. Google has gone from something genuinely idealistic, to something scary and totalitarian. If you aren't of the same "tribe" as the typical Googler, then basically, you're a subject. Granted, the amount of UI they are carrying along with them is much larger, but the attitude of Google with regards to existing users has gone from really cool to downright disdainful. If you aren't a 20-something or barely 30-something techie, they think you should just go along and acknowledge their intellectual superiority. What you want either agrees with what they want, or is misguided.
  - pas 8y ago
    for me it does the exact phrase match thing. as it always did. and the + did the same thing as far as I remember. (sibling comments point out that somehow the + allowed a bit of flexibility - but that's what google does by default, so I sort of understand that people want a better search engine, but I still don't know what + did that was so magical.)
    - gmueckl 8y ago
      + forced the presence of the following word, but multiple + operators did not force a specific relationship between the keywords. And google massages input keyeords a bit. A typo in combination with the +operator might have been corrected. With the multiple meanings of the double quotes this is not possible without being inconsistent.
pmarreck 8y ago
I didn't even have any idea it was disabled! What is it supposed to mean with regards to google plus content?

by fotbr 8y ago

I haven't followed the Google+ saga, so forgive me if this has already been answered: Does the shutdown of Google+ mean that Google Search users will get the + operator back?

pas 8y ago

put the term(s) in double quotes, it does the same thing, no?

reaperducer 8y ago
No.
- pasbesoin 8y ago
  I don't have the time and attention to reproduce the details now, but I want to say that the parent is not a glib answer. There are significant differences, where double quotes do not reproduce the plus operator's behavior and fall significantly short in terms of facility in controlling search results. More than one author has described this better than I can, in articles, blog posts, and comments. (If you can "find" them -- heh; but of an unexpected joke come up as I type this.)
  - pasbesoin 8y ago
    I'm not finding the pages I remember -- a bit ironic, and I checked DuckDuckGo to see whether that might change any... bias. But, here are a couple of starting points: -- "6 common misconceptions when doing advanced Google Searching" http://musingsaboutlibrarianship.blogspot.com/2015/10/6-common-misconceptions-when-doing.html http://musingsaboutlibrarianship.blogspot.com/2015/10/6-comm... (Blogger "Javascript era/template workaround): https://archive.is/7t28O https://archive.is/7t28O I wasn't aware of some of the tips described there, but still not parity. -- The + operator has been replaced. (google.com) 261 points by hammock on Oct 21, 2011 | hide | past | web | favorite | 167 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3140797 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3140797
    - pas 8y ago
      The first link says that + was just double quotes :(
      - pasbesoin 8y ago
        As I recall, not quite. + was an exact match. I believe it also precluded stemming; thus the ~ operator, when you wanted stemming (stemming: Not just "wonder", but also "wondering", "wondered", "wonderful", ...). + designated "must be in result". With double quotes -- this may be part of or in kind with other changes made to by Google to search results matching -- Google insists and becomes more aggressive at including results that don't include all the specified terms. Sort of a forced default "Did you mean..." inclusion that many find has come to clutter search results to the point of being unusable. There are some other aspects, I believe, that I'm not recalling right now. My experience seems to mirror others': I know what I'm looking for. I may well even have seen it, months or even years ago -- my memory's pretty decent, in such matters. Yet I can no longer get Google to cough it up in a search result -- or, it's on page 15 or 20. Despite my focusing my search terms to try to target it. There are other factors in this degradation. But, to the best of my recollection, the loss of the + operator was a significant factor.
  - pas 8y ago
    Others said the same thing, but still no concrete examples. And the link in a sibling comment states that + is/was simply double quotes. No magic at all.
- pas 8y ago
  Could you give an example?
onedognight 8y ago
“term” is require_exact_match(term) and +term was require(term), so the latter would, for example, allow spell checking, IIRC.
- ihuman 8y ago
  So the old `+term1 +term2 +term3` is like the new `"term1" "term2" "term3"`, but with spell checking?
- ergothus 8y ago
  It's not really "term" - at least, it can't handle multiple words. "foo bar" is actually treated like "foo" "bar", which is far less useful than it once was.
  - gniv 8y ago
    > "foo bar" is actually treated like "foo" "bar" No it isn't. Compare "internal engine" with "internal" "engine": https://www.google.com/search?q=%22internal+engine%22 https://www.google.com/search?q=%22internal+engine%22 https://www.google.com/search?q=%22internal%22+%22engine%22 https://www.google.com/search?q=%22internal%22+%22engine%22
    - ergothus 8y ago
      You're correct, it does not work as I describe. My description of the problem was just wrong, so thanks for pointing that out. However, it doesn't work the way it used to either. I get frustrated once or twice a year about this, and every time I fight with the many (old) tutorial examples, but eventually end here: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/websearch/6gHVUEl8y1k/discussion https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/websearch/6gH... Where we see that "foo bar" only says that "foo" will appear in the text before "bar" (but anything can be between them), and that's assuming the bug is actually fixed. That status of "we think it's fixed and users don't agree" is the last I've ever seen.
      - gniv 8y ago
hammock 8y ago
Previous discussion on HN (2011): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3140797 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3140797 >I know from considerable experience that the plus operator had a distinct meaning from the quotes operator so this change definitely implies that Google queries will be less fine-grained no matter what quotes means now.
- pas 8y ago
  Thanks! I remember those discussions, but I'm not aware of even one great example of how + was so amazing compared to "...". (others pointed out it allowed spellchecking, which is okay, but far from the secret dark arts)
  - hammock 8y ago
    It was a strict operator, as opposed to a fuzzy one. It's not just spellchecking per se, but a whole lot of other fuzzy logic that Google softens search terms with nowadays.
trumped 8y ago
Since the day Google removed the + operator, its search results changed in ways that make them less useful and i have doubts that they will be able to roll back all changes that were made to google since then...
gmueckl 8y ago
Yes, but this is a terrible hack. Double quotes originally meant "The phrase exactly as I typed it". When Google+ came along, they stole the plus operator and gave the double quotes a second purpose.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  I've been online since Google was a new up and coming company. There is a world of difference between the civic mindedness of Google back then and Google now. Google has gone from something genuinely idealistic, to something scary and totalitarian. If you aren't of the same "tribe" as the typical Googler, then basically, you're a subject. Granted, the amount of UI they are carrying along with them is much larger, but the attitude of Google with regards to existing users has gone from really cool to downright disdainful. If you aren't a 20-something or barely 30-something techie, they think you should just go along and acknowledge their intellectual superiority. What you want either agrees with what they want, or is misguided.
- pas 8y ago
  for me it does the exact phrase match thing. as it always did. and the + did the same thing as far as I remember. (sibling comments point out that somehow the + allowed a bit of flexibility - but that's what google does by default, so I sort of understand that people want a better search engine, but I still don't know what + did that was so magical.)
  - gmueckl 8y ago
    + forced the presence of the following word, but multiple + operators did not force a specific relationship between the keywords. And google massages input keyeords a bit. A typo in combination with the +operator might have been corrected. With the multiple meanings of the double quotes this is not possible without being inconsistent.

pmarreck 8y ago

I didn't even have any idea it was disabled! What is it supposed to mean with regards to google plus content?