3 ms·

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, wh

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.

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.