7 ms·
On Google, at least a few years ago and back, when you put a query "X" you were guaranteed to see X in the HTML contents of the page. Or at least I can't rememb
by jakubp 8y ago
On Google, at least a few years ago and back, when you put a query "X" you were guaranteed to see X in the HTML contents of the page. Or at least I can't remember getting a result that didn't satisfy that condition. Now it's common to not find X there.
- softwaredoug 8y agoYes you’re right on exact matches. For basic keyword searches. It’s not uncommon for search users to want inexact equivalencies, synonyms or conceptually close search results. (Search for cold, get back rhinovirus). Every user and use case has different definitions/tolerances of “this term appeared on the page” It’s a complicated topic, without simple solutions. I wrote about it here. https://opensourceconnections.com/blog/2018/12/07/synonyms-by-any-other-name-part-1/ https://opensourceconnections.com/blog/2018/12/07/synonyms-b...
- jakubp 8y agoIf users want equivalencies then they shouldn't use quotes, which are for exact match. Let's not play semantics here. Search syntax is clear - put things in quotes, get 'exact match' in return. Equivalent words are not exact match. Get smart with me, decrease usability for me. This is what is happening. We can argue whether there is place for more operators, or whether it's better on average for an average user to still be "outsmarted" by the engine, but it's clear what's going on - these aren't exact match results and the results often have zero relevance with what user is looking for precisely because the user knows the specific word WILL appear on the page they need and a page without that word WON'T be what they need. I don't know how much clearer we can be :) It used to work (or seemed to). Now it doesn't. It frustrates some people. That's it.
- softwaredoug 8y agoYes you’re right. I missed the “” in your comment and failed at reading comprehension
- Arnt 8y agoBut there's more to it anyway. I've interpreted searches. Database searches, not web pages, but my problems should apply to web search too: For example, a user who types "märz 2019" with quotes might mean that string, in German, or might on the other hand mean that particular month and use the quotes to eliminate february 2019, march 2018, etc. And people enter the exact string they remember in the hope of avoiding a sea of mismatches, but then they either mistype or don't remember quite the right wording.
- smallbigfish 8y agoThis has nothing with the quality of the search results. This belongs in the "did you mean" box at the top.
- search_in_anger 8y agoIt's extremely common to become very frustrated and angry when you cannot get an exact match for the search terms you've entered after explicitly indicating to the search engine that you want an exact match and nothing else. Don't mess with my search terms! Bring exact matches back! Only show pages that match the search terms!
- vpzom 8y agoat least Google seems to be better at that than DDG
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- mavhc 8y agoVerbatim mode as default? The amount of automatically created synonyms is getting out of hand, it decided the name of where I work is a synonym for another company in the same business that's 15 miles away
- eitland 8y agoVerbatim mode has been broken more than once, too :-/
- JohnFen 8y agoVerbatim mode does not resolve the issue.
- mehrdadn 8y agoI never figured out what verbatim does. It certainly doesn't seem to force exact matches.
- londons_explore 8y agoFrom the customers point of view, those two things are pretty similar.
- 8y ago
- hpaavola 8y agoThe texts other sites use to link to given site have affected the search results on Google for many many years. This has been abused many times by using derogatory link texts when linking to politicians web pages. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_bomb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_bomb
- java-man 8y agoIn fact, some of the recent google queries returned results that have nothing to do with the query! I had to go to - sorry - bing to find what I was looking for.
- SeanDav 8y agoI would so love access to Google database, but with Boolean search and some simple Regex / Grep type functionality. We can but dream.
- rvnx 8y agoThe closest to this is to use BigQuery over HTTPArchive, it's not the Google index but a pretty solid base though and requires no setup at all. https://github.com/HTTPArchive/legacy.httparchive.org/blob/master/docs/bigquery-gettingstarted.md https://github.com/HTTPArchive/legacy.httparchive.org/blob/m... You can search for anything in the source-code of pages, using any regex or grep you can imagine.
- londons_explore 8y agoGet a job at Google and then you can directly query the underlying data with as complex a query as you like (and don't have to use indexes etc). Obviously running your custom filter logic across every byte of data that has ever existed on the internet is compute heavy... But Google has lots of that!
- JoeSmithson 8y agoCan you provide an example of this? People always say this, but never provide the query.
- altfredd 8y agoIt's pointless to provide examples, because Google will quickly "recall" anything that is being searched by multiple different people. Unfortunately, it is no longer possible to use Google Search for searching in Internet. You are only allowed to look up viral memes and query neural networks, trained by other people's searches. Searching for rare and unique things will quickly get you banned. An interesting side-effect: using modern Google to check if name is vacant is meaningless. I used to google for names to see, if something else used them, but Google's search repeatedly returned me 0 results, even when there were multiple pages with that particular name in title, many of them years old. Searching for the same thing couple of weeks later have suddenly returned hundreds of hits. I wonder, how much it costs to actually query Google's database instead of some distant neural network approximation. Apparently, Google's own employees can't afford it anymore — some of them are using DuckDuckGo instead (they even added it to Chrome, lol)
- gipp 8y agoI... What? This is so disconnected from any experience I've ever had searching anything I don't even know how to approach it. What on Earth do viral memes have to do with anything? What does "banned" even mean in this context? There's no such thing as a ban from Google search. And if I were to hazard a guess I think you dramatically overestimate the role of neural networks in search in general.
- reaperducer 8y agoThis is so disconnected from any experience I've ever had searching anything I don't even know how to approach it. Then consider yourself lucky. The post was a little rambling, but it wasn't wrong.
- SCHiM 8y ago
- shawnz 8y agoJust guessing, but maybe there just aren't enough results featuring that exact match? Would you prefer to just see less results in such a case?
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y agoYes, because then I know I need to broaden my query slightly. Feed me a bunch of junk I didn't ask for and my first instinct is to restrict my query more.
- bshacklett 8y agoAbsolutely. I want to see what I searched for, not what some algorithm thinks might be related. A lack of results is often useful information when searching for an error, for instance. It tells me whether I've run into a common situation or something that's likely related to my specific configuration or use case.
- throwawaylolx 8y ago> Now it's common to not find X there. Do you have an example? Exact match has been working fine for me.
- hanniabu 8y agoIf you want exact then put it in quotes. Sometimes you may not know the exact language to use or proper language to ask and in those cases their current functionality is extremely useful.
- bshacklett 8y agoThe problem is, quotes don't work anymore. Even the verbatim mode doesn't restrict searches to exact matches. No matter what I've tried, Google still messes with my search results.
- utopcell 8y agoNot really true: Google bombing is almost as old as Google itself.