3 ms·

> The minute the 2013 presidential inauguration started, it was as if the 2009 inauguration had never even happened — at least as far as Google was concerned. S

> The minute the 2013 presidential inauguration started, it was as if the 2009 inauguration had never even happened — at least as far as Google was concerned. Searching for 2009-vintage photos of the first family, of the performers, and even of the President himself became much, much harder on January 21st, as did finding contemporaneous news accounts of the first election. The information was still out there, but it had been pushed well below the surface. Finding it was more like excavating than searching. "obama family", from January 2008 through December 2012, including images: http://www.google.com/search?q=obama+family&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2008%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F31%2F2012 http://www.google.com/search?q=obama+family&tbs=cdr%3A1%... One would have hoped the author would have at least mentioned this feature.

StavrosK 14y ago
Or "obama family daterange:2008-2012"
tveita 14y ago
Really this is how it should work. It's a fairly safe default assumption that people are searching for recent information if the query matches a current news story. As an example of the opposite: In the days right after the earthquake and tsunami that struck Japan in 2011, I happened to search for "japan tsunami", without quotes, in both Google and Bing. The first page in Google was full of relevant news stories, with an extra link at the top to Google's own crisis assistance page. The first page in Bing was full of stories about 10 or 20 year old incidents. As I recall it, there was nothing whatsoever about the 2011 event. It was almost disconcerting. As an aside: why would the submitter use a readability.com link? That seems a bit rude to the original page, even though the article was tripe.