7 ms·

I guess, even in the original results, the problem is not really that Google search was not understanding the meaning of the search term (which is possible with

I guess, even in the original results, the problem is not really that Google search was not understanding the meaning of the search term (which is possible with today's models). Rather, it was a bit confused about what you are really searching for here. Maybe a comparison of shirts with and without stripes? The search query was just unusual, and it is not too unreasonable to guess that the query was not meant literally. At least this is a valid possibility, that the query was not meant literally. So it is reasonable to just return some results which might be related to the query, which will also be shirts with stripes. If you argue this is bad behavior: Maybe we need a web query which really only takes the query literally. Putting the query in quotes will not quite have this effect for Google. Maybe some other syntax?

tcgv 7y ago
> the problem is not really that Google search was not understanding the meaning of the search term (...) Rather, it was a bit confused about what you are really searching for here. Maybe a comparison of shirts with and without stripes? In this very specific case I don't buy it. Sure, it probably applies for other queries, but if you approach a salesperson and ask him for "shirts without stripes" it's pretty clear what you want, and he wont bring you any piece with stripes on it.
- indecisive_user 7y ago
  Agreed, it's not that weird of a search. Other, similar queries like "shirt without buttons/collar/pocket" seem to work just fine. The only difference is that those are all physical properties of a shirt while stripes is a type of pattern.
  - zaat 7y ago
    Shirt without paisley - fails shirt without buttons - preety much fail. shirt without red button - as already expected, shirts with red buttons
    - ghayes 7y ago
      To be fair, the first and last query would also confuse me if someone asked me for that item. "Shirt without paisley" feels a bit like "cereal without elephants." You don't usually explicitly exclude an element that is relatively uncommon.
      - thw0rted 7y ago
        It's not just the way this is phrased, it's that there is no English-language formulation that works at all. Swap "shirt" for "tie", because paisley is quite common on ties. Now, try: * tie without paisley * tie not paisley * non-paisley ties * ties that aren't paisley * ties other than paisley You guessed it, in each case, at least half of the results are paisley ties. The only way to actually get what you want -- the set described by X, minus the set described by Y -- is to use the exclusion operator in the search, "ties -paisley". This is great, and makes intuitive sense to somebody with multiple computer science degrees. But not only is it hard to explain to an outsider, it's actually quite hard to get them to think in a way that accommodates this capability, that is, in terms of set theory.
      - drongoking 7y ago
        I don't agree. Paisley is a well-known pattern type and some people really dislike it. "Shirt without paisley" is not a common request but its meaning is clear (if you do an image search for paisley you get lots of fabric images, so it's not like search engines don't know it.) I'd say the same for "shirt without red buttons." In general the pattern <article of clothing> without <feature> shouldn't be that difficult for search engines---especially since many are tuned for consumers.
lonelappde 7y ago
This is way overthinking it. The search engines aren't semantically analyzing the images. They are just matching nearby text.
- wyattpeak 7y ago
  I agree the parent is overthinking it, but that's underthinking it. It's been a long time since search engines were mere text matchers.
  - liveoneggs 7y ago
    now they are product matchers
  - uniqueid 7y ago
    I’m uncomfortable with your use of “mere.” It might connote that what Google Search does now is an improvement.
    - wyattpeak 7y ago
      And that's exactly what I mean to connote, text matches make for appalling search. I have the same reservations about Google as anyone, but rewriting history is never the right move. Moving beyond text matching was what made search truly useful.
      - uniqueid 7y ago
        > Moving beyond text matching was > what made search truly useful. PageRank is what made Google more useful than its competition. They had it since the beginning, and I like it. What I don't like is to search for the band "Chrisma" and get results for "fruitcake sale!" because Google corrected my spelling to "Christmas", decided to look for related concepts, and then boost whichever result is the most mercantile.
        wyattpeak 7y ago
32gbsd 7y ago
observations; firstly one can assume that google search can do no wrong. second observation is google search is made for noobs. thirdly you broke it because you are not a noob. 4th this will not be fixed because of said non-noob status.

tcgv 7y ago

> the problem is not really that Google search was not understanding the meaning of the search term (...) Rather, it was a bit confused about what you are really searching for here. Maybe a comparison of shirts with and without stripes? In this very specific case I don't buy it. Sure, it probably applies for other queries, but if you approach a salesperson and ask him for "shirts without stripes" it's pretty clear what you want, and he wont bring you any piece with stripes on it.

indecisive_user 7y ago
Agreed, it's not that weird of a search. Other, similar queries like "shirt without buttons/collar/pocket" seem to work just fine. The only difference is that those are all physical properties of a shirt while stripes is a type of pattern.
- zaat 7y ago
  Shirt without paisley - fails shirt without buttons - preety much fail. shirt without red button - as already expected, shirts with red buttons
  - ghayes 7y ago
    To be fair, the first and last query would also confuse me if someone asked me for that item. "Shirt without paisley" feels a bit like "cereal without elephants." You don't usually explicitly exclude an element that is relatively uncommon.
    - thw0rted 7y ago
      It's not just the way this is phrased, it's that there is no English-language formulation that works at all. Swap "shirt" for "tie", because paisley is quite common on ties. Now, try: * tie without paisley * tie not paisley * non-paisley ties * ties that aren't paisley * ties other than paisley You guessed it, in each case, at least half of the results are paisley ties. The only way to actually get what you want -- the set described by X, minus the set described by Y -- is to use the exclusion operator in the search, "ties -paisley". This is great, and makes intuitive sense to somebody with multiple computer science degrees. But not only is it hard to explain to an outsider, it's actually quite hard to get them to think in a way that accommodates this capability, that is, in terms of set theory.
    - drongoking 7y ago
      I don't agree. Paisley is a well-known pattern type and some people really dislike it. "Shirt without paisley" is not a common request but its meaning is clear (if you do an image search for paisley you get lots of fabric images, so it's not like search engines don't know it.) I'd say the same for "shirt without red buttons." In general the pattern <article of clothing> without <feature> shouldn't be that difficult for search engines---especially since many are tuned for consumers.

lonelappde 7y ago

This is way overthinking it. The search engines aren't semantically analyzing the images. They are just matching nearby text.

wyattpeak 7y ago
I agree the parent is overthinking it, but that's underthinking it. It's been a long time since search engines were mere text matchers.
- liveoneggs 7y ago
  now they are product matchers
- uniqueid 7y ago
  I’m uncomfortable with your use of “mere.” It might connote that what Google Search does now is an improvement.
  - wyattpeak 7y ago
    And that's exactly what I mean to connote, text matches make for appalling search. I have the same reservations about Google as anyone, but rewriting history is never the right move. Moving beyond text matching was what made search truly useful.
    - uniqueid 7y ago
      > Moving beyond text matching was > what made search truly useful. PageRank is what made Google more useful than its competition. They had it since the beginning, and I like it. What I don't like is to search for the band "Chrisma" and get results for "fruitcake sale!" because Google corrected my spelling to "Christmas", decided to look for related concepts, and then boost whichever result is the most mercantile.
      - wyattpeak 7y ago

32gbsd 7y ago

observations; firstly one can assume that google search can do no wrong. second observation is google search is made for noobs. thirdly you broke it because you are not a noob. 4th this will not be fixed because of said non-noob status.