3 ms·

> I asked for two fucking words, and the top result doesn't include one of them You are aware that it has always been like this? That's why the "+" operator e

> I asked for two fucking words, and the top result doesn't include one of them You are aware that it has always been like this? That's why the "+" operator even exists. Even 10 years ago or more (before Google+ stole the "+" operator), you could get back results that don't actually include your search terms and you'd have to do +gulp +admzip to force their inclusion>

horsawlarway 5y ago
You are aware they removed this, right? https://searchengineland.com/google-sunsets-search-operator-98189 https://searchengineland.com/google-sunsets-search-operator-... Try it yourself, it does JACK SHIT - they still show me what they'd prefer I have searched for. --- Edit - ok, I'm guessing you are, since on the second read I see you're joking about the google plus timing. I don't understand how that makes this better? Tooling is being stripped away in favor of showing me "popular search content" that google would prefer I see, and ads...
- cromwellian 5y ago
  I'm not saying it makes anything better, I'm saying that Google has always been able to return results that don't include the search terms, that's why the '+' force inclusion operator existed. It is not a new phenomena for Google to return results that don't contain keywords, since one of the defining features of Google vs Excite/Lycos/AltaVista et al is that it wasn't a simple TFIDF (textual frequency inverse document frequency) search, many of the older search engines used a variant of that. PageRank, even in Google 1.0, probably allowed a very low ranked TFIDF result (doesn't include most of the query) to be boosted, although I'm just speculating. I'm just saying, in the same theme of my original 'young whippersnappers' post, that a lot of things people are saying is new behavior is in fact, old behavior with a different UX.

3 ms·

> I asked for two fucking words, and the top result doesn't include one of them You are aware that it has always been like this? That's why the "+" operator e

by cromwellian 5y ago

horsawlarway 5y ago
You are aware they removed this, right? https://searchengineland.com/google-sunsets-search-operator-98189 https://searchengineland.com/google-sunsets-search-operator-... Try it yourself, it does JACK SHIT - they still show me what they'd prefer I have searched for. --- Edit - ok, I'm guessing you are, since on the second read I see you're joking about the google plus timing. I don't understand how that makes this better? Tooling is being stripped away in favor of showing me "popular search content" that google would prefer I see, and ads...
- cromwellian 5y ago
  I'm not saying it makes anything better, I'm saying that Google has always been able to return results that don't include the search terms, that's why the '+' force inclusion operator existed. It is not a new phenomena for Google to return results that don't contain keywords, since one of the defining features of Google vs Excite/Lycos/AltaVista et al is that it wasn't a simple TFIDF (textual frequency inverse document frequency) search, many of the older search engines used a variant of that. PageRank, even in Google 1.0, probably allowed a very low ranked TFIDF result (doesn't include most of the query) to be boosted, although I'm just speculating. I'm just saying, in the same theme of my original 'young whippersnappers' post, that a lot of things people are saying is new behavior is in fact, old behavior with a different UX.