5 ms·

By default, we (I work for Google Search). do tend to look for all the words indicated. It's just that sometimes, what seems to be the most relevant documents w

By default, we (I work for Google Search). do tend to look for all the words indicated. It's just that sometimes, what seems to be the most relevant documents won't have all the exact words. If you want results exclusively to contain words, that's what the quotes command is for.

fleddr 4y ago
"what seems to be the most relevant documents won't have all the exact words" In which case it isn't relevant. I typed those words for a reason, any result not containing all three is not relevant by definition.
- rzwitserloot 4y ago
  I can accept google search doing some trickery where it goes: Okay, I found nothing, or the few things I found seemed irrelevant, however, if I replace one of your words with something similar, or e.g. I take this one word you wrote and stick a space in between (not arbitrarily, also based on 'I observe that this one word is usually typed as two words in all the pages I scanned) - then I do get results. In other words, not a blanket 'the results for this query suck, but if I just stick my fingers in my ears and completely ignore one your words I get much nicer results so why don't I show you those?' - but a more intelligent presumption. With, of course, the option to force the search to show specifically what you exactly searched for with no such helpful alternatives applied.
  - normac2 4y ago
    I think what you described is what they already have with the "including results for [similar wording]" version of the results page. They also have a link to see the exact results. However, as of right now they only offer it for actual typos/spelling mistakes (like your example with the missing space) as opposed to semantically similar wordings.
- jrmg 4y ago
  I definitely appreciate synonyms (which I may not otherwise consider, or at best have to think of one by one) and plurals being included by default.
Jaygles 4y ago
> It's just that sometimes, what seems to be the most relevant documents won't have all the exact words As a user I would prefer to be the judge of what is relevant. If the results aren't what I'm looking for, then I'll modify the query until they are. Having the search engine make these opaque decisions on what it thinks I meant to search makes it feel like playing a game of Peggle, where I have no idea if what I'm going for will be what I get.
- mattarm 4y ago
  > As a user I would prefer to be the judge of what is relevant. If the results aren't what I'm looking for, then I'll modify the query until they are. Funny you should mention that workflow, because Google highly values reducing the number of times users have to do that kind of iteration. If they can work out what you actually mean and give you that first time, they count it as a win and stick with that approach. > Having the search engine make these opaque decisions on what it thinks I meant to search makes it feel like playing a game of Peggle, where I have no idea if what I'm going for will be what I get. I think on average this kind of "semantic search" works out for the better, for most people, most of the time. I tend to like precise results too, but I often appreciate Google applying its "magic," so I'm not sure Google running in a "all magic suppressed" mode by default would be better. E.g. I recently searched for help with an issue I'm having with my refrigerator. I searched for "Samsung BLAHBLAHBLAH drawer freezing" where BLAHBLAHBLAH was my fridge's model number. The search results included stuff for other similar Samsung refrigerators, which are all very similar, so the results were quite relevant to my problem.
  - ryanianian 4y ago
    > The search results included stuff for other similar Samsung refrigerators, which are all very similar, so the results were quite relevant to my problem. Yes, but sometimes it's explicitly NOT relevant. Different models differ. What's infuriating is that searching for "Samsung MODELFOO drawer" IN QUOTES doesn't even return the right thing. The spam bots win this race nearly every time. TFA gives several reasons but doesn't address the core issue that searching for something in quotes often only shows unrelated garbage that just happened to be SEOd to hell. To beat this "new solution", a page needs just to include a bunch of pixel images with all the samsung models in the alt text.
dangerface 4y ago
> It's just that sometimes, what seems to be the most relevant documents won't have all the exact words. It may seem relevant to google but it's not to its users this is why people are upset. If the result was relevant no one would care that it didn't have the keyword, please listen to your users.
thrwyoilarticle 4y ago
Goodhart's law in action. If the most relevant doc doesn't include all terms but there are docs that do, the 'relevant' metric is wrong. I understand eliding articles and pronouns but when I'm searching for an exact string or you just completely ignore whole subjects and objects - what?
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  When you’re searching for an exact string you should use quotes…
  - thrwyoilarticle 4y ago
    I shouldn't have to
    - colinmhayes 4y ago
      Google has a billion users. Most of them don’t want the same things you want.

fleddr 4y ago

"what seems to be the most relevant documents won't have all the exact words" In which case it isn't relevant. I typed those words for a reason, any result not containing all three is not relevant by definition.

rzwitserloot 4y ago
I can accept google search doing some trickery where it goes: Okay, I found nothing, or the few things I found seemed irrelevant, however, if I replace one of your words with something similar, or e.g. I take this one word you wrote and stick a space in between (not arbitrarily, also based on 'I observe that this one word is usually typed as two words in all the pages I scanned) - then I do get results. In other words, not a blanket 'the results for this query suck, but if I just stick my fingers in my ears and completely ignore one your words I get much nicer results so why don't I show you those?' - but a more intelligent presumption. With, of course, the option to force the search to show specifically what you exactly searched for with no such helpful alternatives applied.
- normac2 4y ago
  I think what you described is what they already have with the "including results for [similar wording]" version of the results page. They also have a link to see the exact results. However, as of right now they only offer it for actual typos/spelling mistakes (like your example with the missing space) as opposed to semantically similar wordings.
jrmg 4y ago
I definitely appreciate synonyms (which I may not otherwise consider, or at best have to think of one by one) and plurals being included by default.

Jaygles 4y ago

> It's just that sometimes, what seems to be the most relevant documents won't have all the exact words As a user I would prefer to be the judge of what is relevant. If the results aren't what I'm looking for, then I'll modify the query until they are. Having the search engine make these opaque decisions on what it thinks I meant to search makes it feel like playing a game of Peggle, where I have no idea if what I'm going for will be what I get.

mattarm 4y ago
> As a user I would prefer to be the judge of what is relevant. If the results aren't what I'm looking for, then I'll modify the query until they are. Funny you should mention that workflow, because Google highly values reducing the number of times users have to do that kind of iteration. If they can work out what you actually mean and give you that first time, they count it as a win and stick with that approach. > Having the search engine make these opaque decisions on what it thinks I meant to search makes it feel like playing a game of Peggle, where I have no idea if what I'm going for will be what I get. I think on average this kind of "semantic search" works out for the better, for most people, most of the time. I tend to like precise results too, but I often appreciate Google applying its "magic," so I'm not sure Google running in a "all magic suppressed" mode by default would be better. E.g. I recently searched for help with an issue I'm having with my refrigerator. I searched for "Samsung BLAHBLAHBLAH drawer freezing" where BLAHBLAHBLAH was my fridge's model number. The search results included stuff for other similar Samsung refrigerators, which are all very similar, so the results were quite relevant to my problem.
- ryanianian 4y ago
  > The search results included stuff for other similar Samsung refrigerators, which are all very similar, so the results were quite relevant to my problem. Yes, but sometimes it's explicitly NOT relevant. Different models differ. What's infuriating is that searching for "Samsung MODELFOO drawer" IN QUOTES doesn't even return the right thing. The spam bots win this race nearly every time. TFA gives several reasons but doesn't address the core issue that searching for something in quotes often only shows unrelated garbage that just happened to be SEOd to hell. To beat this "new solution", a page needs just to include a bunch of pixel images with all the samsung models in the alt text.

dangerface 4y ago

> It's just that sometimes, what seems to be the most relevant documents won't have all the exact words. It may seem relevant to google but it's not to its users this is why people are upset. If the result was relevant no one would care that it didn't have the keyword, please listen to your users.

thrwyoilarticle 4y ago

Goodhart's law in action. If the most relevant doc doesn't include all terms but there are docs that do, the 'relevant' metric is wrong. I understand eliding articles and pronouns but when I'm searching for an exact string or you just completely ignore whole subjects and objects - what?

colinmhayes 4y ago
When you’re searching for an exact string you should use quotes…
- thrwyoilarticle 4y ago
  I shouldn't have to
  - colinmhayes 4y ago
    Google has a billion users. Most of them don’t want the same things you want.