3 ms·
Just to be persnickety: If you do a search for "dog" (with the quotes), do you expect to find hits with only "dogs"? What about "doghouse" or "Dogbert"? "Dogg
by mcswell 4y ago
Just to be persnickety: If you do a search for "dog" (with the quotes), do you expect to find hits with only "dogs"? What about "doghouse" or "Dogbert"? "Dogged" (the past tense or past/passive participle of the verb 'dog')? If you search for "goose", do you expect to also see "geese"? (And for good measure, what should be done about languages where most nouns have case marking suffixes, like Russian, or languages with lots and lots of suffixes, like Turkish or Finnish.)
I'll agree about synonyms, if you use quotes you shouldn't see those.
- Daneel_ 4y agoHonestly? I expect "dog" and nothing else. Not dogs. Not dogged. Just dog.
- rawoke083600 4y agoAgreed ! "dog" --> exact match +dog --> stemming allowed: i.e "doghouse, doggies, dogs" That would be nice to have
- mcswell 4y agoAgreed, it could work that way (but doesn't). As a computational linguist who has worked a lot in morphology, I support this :).
- dannysullivan 4y agoThat's how it works. That's how it has worked for years, except you don't need the + symbol -- that tells us nothing. ["dog"] or anything in quotes means exact match, and that's what we do. [dog] or anything without an operator means we'll generally try to exact match but also might do stemming or synonym or other matching, if it seems helpful.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- causality0 4y agoNo, I don't expect to see those things, because those things aren't what I searched for. My problem is that i get results for those things anyway. It's especially infuriating when, to use your example, I'm looking for something that happens to be called "dog" but has nothing to do with canines and Google won't stop giving me puppies.
- mcswell 4y agoThat's the synonyms thing; I was asking about inflected forms (dogs, dogging, dogged) and compounds containing the word (doghouse).