41–50 of 59 posts
I use https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/g-search-filt... for filtering Google. Can't live without it. It would be interesting to have a Github repo with some precompiled filters based on certain business domains. But for me at least, a couple of rules are enough to solve 99% of the problems.
I use https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/g-search-filt... for filtering Google. Can't live without it. It would be interesting to have a Github repo with some precompiled filters based on certain business domains. But for me at least, a couple of rules are enough to solve 99% of the problems.
I'm using DuckDuckGo and I just realised I should install something similar, thanks! https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ddg-hide-unwa... EDIT: You can actually achieve something similar with bookmarks, using keywords and '%s' The idea is: take a link to a search query string of a search engine, and replace the query part with '%s'. For example, take the following search query on DuckDuckGo: cute hedgehog…
Look for an extension that highlights the good results. I find that more valuable than filtering the bad results.
I use https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/g-search-filt... for filtering Google. Can't live without it. It would be interesting to have a Github repo with some precompiled filters based on certain business domains. But for me at least, a couple of rules are enough to solve 99% of the problems.
Does it fetch next result page to fill removed items?
I’ve always wanted to see a search engine thar takes the top SEO tips and penalizes sites that use them. For example searching for how to grow a garden. I never want to see howtogrowagarden.com. I’d prefer to find more genuine l, non seo juiced advice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would we do without the garbage content that is eHow and wikiHow?
I had a friend who had a whole list of dozens of banned sites configured for his google searches, which made Google way more useful. And then one day, Google decided to cut that feature out, as part of their drive to remove power user features across their products.
Similar extensions exist for firefox.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm using DuckDuckGo and I just realised I should install something similar, thanks! https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ddg-hide-unwa... EDIT: You can actually achieve something similar with bookmarks, using keywords and '%s' The idea is: take a link to a search query string of a search engine, and replace the query part with '%s'. For example, take the following search query on DuckDuckGo: cute hedgehog…
Nifty trick! Is there a limit to the number of site: filters? Look for an extension that highlights the good results. I find that more valuable than filtering the bad results.
https://twitter.com/JobvdZwan/status/950331823229472769
As for Google, the limit to a query is 32 words, apparently: https://imgur.com/a/XW1Qa
... however, it also supports inurl:, so you can easily filter out sites with manu subdomains (say, pinterest.com, pinterest.co.uk, etcetera), just by using -inurl:pinterest
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For cooperate intranets Google is not a possibility. There xapian, elasticsearch or lucene are the best, with xapian dominating the backend and the Java stuff the frontends. For the others SEO optimizations are a real problem, yes. You can only try alternatives, like searx.to, bing or asking around.
> xapian, elasticsearch or lucene are the best, with xapian dominating the backend and the Java stuff the frontends Elasticsearch uses Lucene under the hood, in my experience Lucene dominates the actual indexing and searching, although I'm not familiar with xapian. By users, I reckon SharePoint search (FQL) is probably the biggest although it is way behind Lucene in features. Google actually used to sell bright yello…
I wouldn't trust Google locally neither, and it's expensive.
SharePoint search is unfortunately used too often, yes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can instruct Google not to include sites with a given word by prefixing the excluded words with a dash. For ex: > buy hoes -sex -porn
Yes, but the rest is not solved by that. Google has really let the search game slide for a while.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Problem is that SEO is tied to appearing relevant, so to penalize SEO is to penalize relevancy. Splitting SEO from relevancy is often a matter of making better search Searching for least-relevant can be pretty random: it's easy to point at the center of a circle, but the edge of the circle is not a point
A perfect system would penalize SEO (appearing relevant) and reward actual relevance. Of course, this is easier said than done.