It's especially a problem with programming because a lot of words that are "wrong" are actually acronyms or strange library names.
It's especially a problem with programming because a lot of words that are "wrong" are actually acronyms or strange library names.
[within reason] Every workshop on the planet has a hammer in it. This is because hammers are very simple, they never break, they never behave unexpectedly, they're highly useful, and they do exactly what they're supposed to do as perfectly as anybody can imagine. Hammers are the perfect tools; something that should have been idolized in Brave New World.
Google was a hammer for a long time. It wasn't even a question that google would be the default search engine for everybody who knew anything about anything. Google did search really well, behaved exactly as advertised, rarely broke.
It was perfect. It was a hammer.
It feels like google (overall, I don't just mean search) is losing their grasp on this.
Stuff like charts API. Maybe it's just me, but the new version of this is annoying. It's some javascripty nonsense that feels complicated. It's a laser-guided, nuclear-powered gryoscopically stabilized, diamond-tipped screwdriver that can also make coffee and fold your laundry. You could build a submarine with it.
But it's also got an instruction manual that is a foot thick.
The old api was just: <img src='https://charts.google.com/?cht=pie&chd=foo,bar,etc>;
or something similar.
And now I can't +term, they took away the links to "cached" versions of the pages, things autocomplete (incorrectly), it assumes I meant something that I didn't, it wants to integrate into a social network, etc. etc.
Google...you're starting to feel a little microsofty. Are you okay?
I understand how Google indexes the web. Let me control my own queries. Give us geeks the ability to enable/disable freshness, even if it means appending &fresh=0 to the URL
Here is Matt Cutts' explanation of the date options:
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/useful-google-feature-better-d...
The cached links are still there. They just got moved to the preview page. I assume not enough people used them for the amount of clutter they created in the SERPs.
Or the PHBs are taking over.
There's a fine line between being helpful and taking control from the user. Google used to be safely on the helpful side of the line. Now more and more SERPs are wasting my time by making me refine my search with qualifiers to ensure I actually get what I want.
Because that might be helpful.
true? scheme
Redirects to a search for "true scheme". +true? scheme
Gives exactly the same results, but tells me that the '+' operator has been deprecated and that I should use quotes. Okay. "true?" scheme
Give the same results, i.e. a search for "true scheme". +"true?" scheme
Just for good measure, but gives the exact same results too.Not that it's an easy problem. How are the spiders and indexers supposed to distinguish "true?" as a programming lexeme versus just an interrogative sentence that ends with "true"?
Sometimes we forget that Google and the other search engines aren't a byte-for-byte search across the entire web. The pages are all tokenized and indexed, with most punctuation dropped since that is indeed the more common usage case. You don't want a search for a word to miss out on pages where the word was glued to quotes or a comma or something.
E.g. search for [barack obam] (typo intentional). Then when it autocorrects, click the "I meant what I typed" link. Now look at your history: it doesn't mark that in any way.
Search: carmack +zfail gpl
Date: 2011-11-02
Result: Bad autocorrect; Plus operator broke
"""
Showing results for carmack fail gpl
Search instead for carmack zfail gpl
"""
Because the plus operator is broken my final search ended up being `carmack "z-fail" OR "zfail" gpl` because different sources included or excluded the dash. Note that I think it's good that quotes are still exact and they shouldn't do the synonym search, but this is something the plus operator would have worked on, if I remember correctly.every page in the top 10 organic results were coming from pages that were either added or updated within 2011 except for the youtube results. those 2 videos were added in 2009.
i also noticed that your youtube videoes were higher in the results than articles from gizmodo, arstechnica, engadget, Time magazine and whole slew of other articles that were released 2 days ago.
just asking...
The 4th & 5th results are about car "tires"
http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=e...
I can't imagine Google devs are happy with this. Cmon Google, let us geeks in on the internal search that your devs use. Host it at geek.google.com or whatever. Probably won't happen since geeks don't click on ads much, and Google is cutting down on dev friendly side projects like code.google.com these days.