3 ms·
Regexes would be great, but I'd settle for a "raw" mode where the search engine just searches for the exact string. Example: putting the following into the Goo
by stevelosh 15y ago
Regexes would be great, but I'd settle for a "raw" mode where the search engine just searches for the exact string.
Example: putting the following into the Google search box:
"*foo" "bar->baz"
Finds any page with foo, bar and baz, even thought I tried to tell it that the asterisk and arrow were important.
https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22*foo%22+%22bar-%3Ebaz%22 https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22*foo%22+%...
- pbhjpbhj 15y agoGoogle is getting less and less usable for search for me because of something akin to what you describe. For example I was searching for Groupon info in a particular market and google returns me results that mention "group" but doesn't tell me that it's doing so. Really, really annoying to find barely any of the returned results contain or relate to the word that you're searching. I tried quoting groupon but this doesn't work you have to negate the search thusly: 'groupon -"group on"'. Why don't they give you the option to remove their guessed results (like "did you mean") or simply limit related/thematic results to those using the ~ modifier. Grrr.
- stevelosh 15y agoI'm pretty sure that for the single-word case you describe you can get around that by using plus, e.g. +groupon +chicago Unfortunately my example with special characters doesn't seem to work with that trick.
- pbhjpbhj 15y agoI used to use that for other engines but Google have shifted if this is necessary. (all figures from my local Google not .com) +groupon -"group on" = 177M pages groupon = 124M pages Huh? +groupon = 81.2M pages +groupon +chicago = 20M pages +groupon +chicago -"group on" = 36.9M pages But this gets altered (sometimes) to remove the "+" when additional terms are included. It's a mess.