Why did google screw around with string searches and AND?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Nikolai
I've used searches on the internet since '97. In the old days you always would use AND, OR and NOT. There's no good reason to remove it, so why did they?

Because those are words to search for. You're referring to boolean logic, lots of the simpler search engines used just that for filtering. Google is far more powerful.

Rather than whining like a stuck pig about stuff that Google has never changed on their site, figure out how to use Google or ****ing use something else.

Honestly, what the hell is wrong with you guys?

"AND" is implied on Google, it's not necessary.
"OR" works.
"NOT" is best served by the shorthand of the minus sign "-", eg -porn.

These basics are all there, plus a ton of other Google features you probably have no idea existed. As I indicated above, you can restrict to certain file types and search for ranges of numbers either (eg, $1500..$3000).

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What Ves is referring to is this.

"Paris in the Spring".

I want the quote.

Instead, google interprets this as all pages with Paris + Spring.

Not helpful, unless you can do a creative search where you have an unusual word, which will isolate the specific quote you need as one of the top hits.

Google removes usually useless query words such as "in", "the", and "and" by default.

If you want it to NOT remove the words "in" and "the" (and it will tell you explicitly if it does remove them from the query), just add a + infront, eg: "Paris +in +the Spring"

Am I the only one who actually knows how to use google? It's not hard, it's all very documented and discoverable. You guys are pissing me off.

FWIW, "Paris in the Spring" searches for the quote exactly as I'd expect it to on the first try.

Why am I not surprised that Ves, Ben Kenobi, and Nikolai are all struggling with basic internet search.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Nikolai
I've used searches on the internet since '97. In the old days you always would use AND, OR and NOT. There's no good reason to remove it, so why did they?

I've used searches on the internet since 1993, and I have no problem searching on google ...

[Nikolai]

Then again, why change something that works? It's not up to google to decide what is important for me to find.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Nikolai
Then again, why change something that works? It's not up to google to decide what is important for me to find.

THEY HAVEN'T CHANGED ANYTHING.

My God! Log out from the internet! Please.

Google doesn't decide what is important for you to find, your own limited intellectual capacity is preventing you from figuring out how to USE Google, even when I wasted time trying to teach you. That's what's stopping you find finding what's important to you, not google.

[EPW]

Originally posted by Nikolai
It's not up to google to decide what is important for me to find.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Nikolai
Then again, why change something that works? It's not up to google to decide what is important for me to find.

1. What exactly changed? Find me evidence that google ever used NOT.

2. It is up to Google to define a set of rules under which you may search. That's ... program specifications. It's up to EUII to tell you how you click on units to attack other units, right?

3. Google is written for the common man (ie, an idiot) to be able to search and find things effectively. It is ALSO written for the high-level user (ie, me) to be able to construct quite complex and exact searches. It does BOTH THINGS easily, and quite transparently. Most of these things you can discover by simply clicking on the advanced search, doing what you want, and seeing how it constructs the query...

4. If you don't like it, write your own **** search engine.

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by snoopy369


I've used searches on the internet since 1993, and I have no problem searching on google ...

Me neither. It's just irritating that they feel the need to decide that words like "in" and "the" are not relevant to my search. That's what my last post was about. I know all search engines in the old days understood OR and NOT, as well as "-" and "+", but I can't prove that google did it too. I think it did though. But then again, it's not very important. I do not like to be coined as an idiot just because Asher don't like me however. He has never, ever, anything positive to say to me. If I had agreed with him, you can be sure he'd make a remark that ridicules me nevertheless. He'd done it before when I agree with him.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Nikolai
Me neither. It's just irritating that they feel the need to decide that words like "in" and "the" are not relevant to my search.

It helps you more than you know. Those are not useful search terms. When they're used in the context of a phrase, Google uses them.

That's what my last post was about. I know all search engines in the old days understood OR and NOT, as well as "-" and "+", but I can't prove that google did it too. I think it did though. But then again, it's not very important. I do not like to be coined as an idiot just because Asher don't like me.

I assure you, you are not being coined an idiot because I don't like you. It has more to do with your inability to comprehend how to use Google after all these years that's doing that job.

[Imran Siddiqui]

How little does Nikolai know

Google decides all!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
How little does Nikolai know

Google decides all!

I just don't understand what he is *****ing about. Google drops them by default when not in a phrase, but if you add "+" infront of those words it uses them. Google isn't deciding anything for you, it's just optimizing your query.

[Nikolai]

I'd like to refer to post #17. How is that search string not a phrase? And how is it optimizing to make my search less accurate?

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Nikolai


Me neither. It's just irritating that they feel the need to decide that words like "in" and "the" are not relevant to my search. That's what my last post was about. I know all search engines in the old days understood OR and NOT, as well as "-" and "+", but I can't prove that google did it too. I think it did though. But then again, it's not very important.

Google ignores 'in' and 'the' because they would return too many pages, and increase the load on its servers. You can require them (+ operator) but there's no reason to in most cases, unless it's as part of a literal string (which works fine, no matter what Ben and Vesayan may think). It's idiot-proofing, basically, which is important.

Google does not permit NOT, because it could be a useful search term; it does permit OR, which is not typically a useful search term. It never has, as far as I remember. Not all of the search engines back in 1997 did either ... each one had its own boolean logic, which was annoying as heck when you had to remember which one used AND/OR/NOT and which used +/- and whatnot...

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Nikolai
I'd like to refer to post #17. How is that search string not a phrase? And how is it optimizing to make my search less accurate?

It is a phrase, and it does find the entire phrase ...

type in

"Paris in the Spring"

including the quotes, into google ... it will find "Paris in the Spring", not dropping anything...

[Nikolai]

"Paris spring" could mean anything, but "Paris in the spring", if used with "s, would be me looking for an exact phrase, perhaps something I've read somewhere. According to Asher however, google would like to decide for me that I am not looking for that phrase.