If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Good Search Engine
On 10/25/18 4:14 PM, Java Jive wrote:
[snip] try looking for ... ****Panasonic model hangs That could work. I notice that the fewer words in a search query, the greater chance that what you want doesn't get lost in so much irrelevant stuff. There's a very small chance of a successful web search for "something you screw into a light socket to get an electric outlet for a fan". Saying that in no more than 3-4 words might work. [snip] -- 60 days until the winter celebration (Tue Dec 25, 2018 12:00:00 AM for 1 day). Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "Everything has a natural explanation. The moon is not a god but a great rock and the sun a hot rock." [Anaxagorus, ca. 475 BC] |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Good Search Engine
On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 12:17:37 -0500, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 10/25/18 4:14 PM, Java Jive wrote: [snip] try looking for ... ****Panasonic model hangs That could work. I notice that the fewer words in a search query, the greater chance that what you want doesn't get lost in so much irrelevant stuff. There's a very small chance of a successful web search for "something you screw into a light socket to get an electric outlet for a fan". Saying that in no more than 3-4 words might work. [snip] Years ago, there used to be a game we'd play where people would try to find a search term that would result in exactly one hit. I wonder if that's even possible these days. -- Char Jackson |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Good Search Engine
On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 12:31:35 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote: [snip] Years ago, there used to be a game we'd play where people would try to find a search term that would result in exactly one hit. I wonder if that's even possible these days. When I followed alt.usage.english, there was one mentioned where the rule was: Take two keywords that each, by themselves, return at least 1,000 hits and when combined return exactly one hit. Considering how search engines will return results that match only some of one's specified keywords, I am not sure how that game could work out. Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Good Search Engine
"Gene Wirchenko" wrote | Take two keywords that each, by themselves, return at least 1,000 | hits and when combined return exactly one hit. | | Considering how search engines will return results that match | only some of one's specified keywords, I am not sure how that game | could work out. | ________________________________ | savory fennel | ________________________________ Did you mean "shop for fashion"? |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Good Search Engine
On 10/26/18 12:31 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
[snip] Years ago, there used to be a game we'd play where people would try to find a search term that would result in exactly one hit. I wonder if that's even possible these days. I'm not sure if I've ever seen a search return ONE hit. It wound be nice to get at least one relevant hit on the first page. I search for "theater" and get a bunch of hits. ALL in the first few pages are irrelevant. I realize I want a theater in Dallas, so I change the search to "theater dallas" and instead of the obvious, it not gives EVEN MORE irrelevant hits, including some Dallas ones that have nothing to do with theaters. Adding words is the normal way to restrict something. Why do search engines do it differently? If someone asks you about a theater in Dallas, do you think they mean theaters in Houston and restaurants in Dallas? -- 59 days until the winter celebration (Tue Dec 25, 2018 12:00:00 AM for 1 day). Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "In addition I think science has enjoyed an extraordinary success because it has such a limited and narrow realm in which to focus its efforts. Namely, the physical universe." [Ken Jenkins] |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Good Search Engine
"Mark Lloyd" wrote|
| I'm not sure if I've ever seen a search return ONE hit. It wound be nice | to get at least one relevant hit on the first page. | I see it commonly with URL searches. Someone sends me an article that's been spyware-ized and email formatted by Constant Contact. The article perhaps came from a blogger, who stole it from B.com, who stole it from A.com. By searching for part of a unique sentence I can find the original article and read it comfortably online, rather than via a poorly formatted, spyware email. I find a similar problem has been getting more common. For instance, I regularly read news at Slashdot. But they commonly post an article with a link to, say, Geek3.com. Then it turns out Geek3 just reprinted most of something they stole from Geek2.com and Geek2, in turn, stole it from Geek1.com. It's impolite at best, and risks accuracy. So I like to search and find the real author. Fortunately, it usually doesn't take many words to find a text string that will only return one link. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Good Search Engine
On Sat, 27 Oct 2018 11:40:34 -0500, Mark Lloyd
wrote: On 10/26/18 12:31 PM, Char Jackson wrote: [snip] Years ago, there used to be a game we'd play where people would try to find a search term that would result in exactly one hit. I wonder if that's even possible these days. I'm not sure if I've ever seen a search return ONE hit. It wound be nice to get at least one relevant hit on the first page. I don't think I ever saw a result like that either. I just tried a Google search that I knew could only produce a single relevant hit. It got 907,000 hits! |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Good Search Engine
In message , Mark Lloyd
writes: On 10/25/18 10:29 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote: [snip] What I hate are the sites where the more search terms I enter, attempting to narrow the search, the more "results" I get. E.G., enter adding marriage Registry" to a search for San Bernardino added to the hits for "San", "Bernardino", those for "Marriage", and "Registry" as well. I notice the same problem. Shouldn't more words lead to a more limited search, not more irrelevant items? That's the way words normally work, "tyler zoo" applies to fewer things than "zoo". "tyler zoo gorilla" even fewer. There used to be guides from the search engines: I remember from (I think it was) Altavista, that putting a + before a word meant it had to be there for a result to be shown (and conversely for -). There was/is also the _phrase_ - most commonly quotation marks; so for your [tyler zoo] example, you'd search for ["tyler zoo"]. Unfortunately, this works nowhere near as well as it used to - and most search engines on company's sites, as opposed to google and so on, don't do phrase search _at all_, which can be infuriating. I have as my home page [not that I go there a lot, just easy to bring up by hitting the home button] https://www.google.co.uk/advanced_search?hl=en rather than just the plain Google (I'm sure there is an equivalent .com one for non-UK folk); I can _use_ it just like the normal one just by using the top box, and as often as not I do, but it's handy having the other boxes available. (It's also a plainer layout, which I like,) As Paul says, it's the optimisation organisations that have spoiled search engine usefulness for the rest of us. Google et al. have to work so hard at countering these nefarious tricks, which makes it harder for the rest of us: (a) the rules keep changing, (b) they can't produce a search instruction page (like the old AltaVista one I had) because it'd be useful to the SEOs. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Science fiction is escape into reality - Arthur C Clarke |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Good Search Engine
In message , Char Jackson
writes: [] Years ago, there used to be a game we'd play where people would try to find a search term that would result in exactly one hit. I wonder if that's even possible these days. I think it was called Googlewhacking. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Science fiction is escape into reality - Arthur C Clarke |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Good Search Engine
In message , Wolf K
writes: [] Search for "theaters in Dallas". Them li'l words are important. Really! "theaters Dallas " means "... theaters or Dallas or both". Really! Do you have a URL for a list of these little words, and what they mean? Adding words is the normal way to restrict something. Why do search engines do it differently? Because unless told otherwise, the search engine sees a list of words "A B C" as "Find A or B or C". A hit containing just one of those words is correct. Search for "A and B and C" if you want hits with all three words. But the algorithm will eventually toss up hits that have only one or two of the targets, because the algorithm designers know that sometimes a single-word hit will have enough relevant info to be useful to you. You mean literally the word "and"? And does it matter - or make any difference - whether it's in capitals or not? Do you have a URL to a (current) page explaining the grammar of such tips? [] -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Science fiction is escape into reality - Arthur C Clarke |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Good Search Engine
In message , Mr. Man-wai
Chang writes: [] From: https://cleverclicks.com.au/blog/15-...search-tricks/ "Search for pages that contain specific words – To find pages that have all the keywords you’re looking for in the copy, use allintext: before the search terms." Thanks: useful tip. Presumably it's interpreted as "all the words _somewhere_ on the page". Do you know of a way of specifying that they should be within x words of each other? (I remember encountering such searches - I think it might have been back in my UNIX/EMACS days - but I don't _think_ I've seen anything similar in the modern search engine context.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Science fiction is escape into reality - Arthur C Clarke |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Good Search Engine
On 10/28/2018 6:27 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
Thanks: useful tip. Presumably it's interpreted as "all the words _somewhere_ on the page". Do you know of a way of specifying that they should be within x words of each other? (I remember encountering such searches - I think it might have been back in my UNIX/EMACS days - but I don't _think_ I've seen anything similar in the modern search engine context.) You have to look at the advanced options of Google Search. Just google "google search advanced". Bear in mind that most users don't do those "stunts". -- @~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!! / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! /( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you! ^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3 不借貸! 不詐騙! 不*錢! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 不求神! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Google Search Operators: The Complete List (42 Advanced Operators)
The following could be your starting point: Google Search Operators: The Complete List (42 Advanced Operators) https://ahrefs.com/blog/google-advan...rch-operators/ -- @~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!! / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! /( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you! ^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3 不借貸! 不詐騙! 不*錢! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 不求神! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Good Search Engine
In message , Mr. Man-wai
Chang writes: On 10/28/2018 6:27 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: Thanks: useful tip. Presumably it's interpreted as "all the words _somewhere_ on the page". Do you know of a way of specifying that they should be within x words of each other? (I remember encountering such searches - I think it might have been back in my UNIX/EMACS days - but I don't _think_ I've seen anything similar in the modern search engine context.) You have to look at the advanced options of Google Search. Just google "google search advanced". Bear in mind that most users don't do those "stunts". In the part of my post you haven't quoted. I did say I used the advanced search page of Google. I've seen your next post (the one with a 42 in it) - thanks, just going to look at that now. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "Tolerating intolerance is not a virtue." - Barry Shein |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|