If you want to search for a specific string, force it by putting quotes around it, e.g. "376718578383"
However, I just tried a search for "anagram +python" and got 67 results vs 139,000 without the plus-sign. Does that mean they quietly restored the operator?
I always use it to filter out commercial or store results when a query triggers some over-zealous SEO and throws up pages of junk. A quick "-buy" or "-store" usually cleans the results up.
Google results are getting worse and worse IMO and there don't appear to be any tools left in the available query language to rectify it.
I honestly suspect Google is A/B testing search results somehow.
They're optimising for normal people who don't formulate query strings in Google, but they ask questions or just search.
Apparently the double-quote still works. Well, that's good.
But it seems inevitable that as google targets what most people mean, they will target less what niche people mean (us). They could do both, with explicit operators etc, but would double their indices, and not worth it (for them). :( At least it creates opportunity for the google-usurper.
Then there's "file:" and a file extension name to find searches of that filetype. (example: "AP biology file:ppt" returns all ap biology related powerpoints.
Next there's "site:" and a website. (Example: "site:reddit.com fedoras" searches for fedoras on reddit, a very common thing. Useful if a site's search engine sucks.)
I often simply ignore site search boxes in favor of using the "site:" operator.
[1]https://www.google.com/cse/
[2]http://www.google.com/enterprise/search/products/gsa.html
Searching for a few random queries with either "file:pdf" or "filetype:pdf" shows that both return pdfs, but the results that I get are different. Not sure what to make of that or which is better.
[1] http://www.googleguide.com/using_advanced_operators.html
"filetype:pdf" seems to be the only command which reliably returns just .pdfs.
I'm in the UK, your mileage may vary.
Who said, "To hair is human?" exact: Who said, "To hair is human?"
Thanks for pointing that out.
"heir" is a much closer match for "hair" in terms of Levenshtein distance[1] (which indicates a typing error) and soundex[2] (misheard). But clearly "to err is human" should be offered as a possibility too.
@nimble: what about when you intentionally search for a misspelling?
Usually you can click "search for {what I actually typed}" but it's still annoying. I liked it when +'s and double-quotes consistently did the same thing every time.
Maybe there is a setting that does this still? I've tried playing with a few settings but have had mixed results / consistency...