> Speaking from experience, it's very difficult to define what "better" means when you don't have exemplars of what queries are likely and what the results shou

> Speaking from experience, it's very difficult to define what "better" means when you don't have exemplars of what queries are likely and what the results should be. Better is a search engine that takes your queries more literal. This is what everybody means when they say Google used to be better. The query keywords and no second guessing. When you insist on Google using verbatim mode or something, you often don't get results. Which is bullshit because I remember 10 years ago, queries like these had me plowing through the results, so much that you actually had to refine the query -- you can't do that in Google any more, at least it's not refining, it's more like re-wording and re-rolling the dice. But it all feels very random and you don't get a feel for what's out there. I mean sure there is a place for a search engine like this, if it works well. And in its own way, Google works well. I sometimes do want my query to be loosely interpreted like I'm an idiot, and I head straight for the Google. Ever since I saw the "that guy wot gone painted them melty clocks"-meme, for certain types of queries I have indeed found that if I formulate my question like I got brain damage, I get superior results. Because that is the kind of audience Google wants you to be. But sometimes you don't feel like the lowest common denominator and you don't want to be treated as such. And there should be a place for that, too.