Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Get better at Googling

markodenic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 297 posts

Re: Get better at Googling

#171

Post by sharken »

tomduncalf wrote: post #57
tyingq wrote: post #18

The article is missing several operators that are useful. Like inurl:, intitle:, allintitle:, etc. The "AROUND" proximity search is neat as well, especially for words with dual meaning. like: bootstrap AROUND(6) cpu Finds "bootstrap" within 6 words of "cpu", which culls out most (not all) of the unwanted results about the bootstrap js library. This article seems to cover most of the ones I'm aware of: https://ahrefs.…

Wow had no idea most of these operators existed. Thanks for sharing (and to the original post too, I didn't know a couple of those e.g. before:)

Same here, thought I was a master of Googling already, but good to learn something new.

Re: Get better at Googling

#172

Post by username90 »

koheripbal wrote: post #163
spike021 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As with anything, everyone has their own style of learning. Yes, a large portion of developers just copy/paste from SO. However, many people also use the results of what they find on Google to learn concepts that the actual docs for just aren't that good.

I wish I had the time to learn everything I copy from SO/SE. Sometimes when you need to get something done and you find something that works as is, it is easier to test it and move on to something more important. We don't have infinite time.

Often it is much faster to learn things properly and get it right rather than trying to figure out why the stuff you copy pasted doesn't work together.

Re: Get better at Googling

#173

Post by eitland »

elondaits wrote: post #115
eitland wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the linked article: > “search term” > Force an exact-match search. Use this to refine results for ambiguous searches, or to exclude synonyms when searching for single words. Author claimed they tested all of the operators, but this one in particular I can confirm haven't worked reliably for me for over a decade and across a number of machines and accounts. Some times it can be traced down to things like me searc…

Try opening the “Search tools” menu in the results page and selecting “Verbatim”... I think that makes “literal” searches work, because otherwise Google uses synonyms and language analysis to attempt to match your search to results.

That too has consistently failed between 2007 and late 2020.

Now it just fails inconsistently (i.e. it sometimes works).

Re: Get better at Googling

#174

Post by orf »

tyingq wrote: post #18

The article is missing several operators that are useful. Like inurl:, intitle:, allintitle:, etc. The "AROUND" proximity search is neat as well, especially for words with dual meaning. like: bootstrap AROUND(6) cpu Finds "bootstrap" within 6 words of "cpu", which culls out most (not all) of the unwanted results about the bootstrap js library. This article seems to cover most of the ones I'm aware of: https://ahrefs.…

The first two results for "bootstrap AROUND(6) cpu" are about bootstrap though.

"bootstrap cpu" gives far higher quality results.

Re: Get better at Googling

#175

Post by dopidopHN »

net_greybeard wrote: post #92

Google is okay for research on how other people have achieved something. But generally these days I am of the opinion it just teaches you bad habits. I really wish people would just read the docs instead of just googling. I am working on a large typescript solution and almost every error in the application is due to the original developers not reading the docs and instead just googling stuff from stack overflow. Also…

I agree on the first point, allocating time to design the expected outcome is also key.

But on the second point, I find myself having to use the g! Operator of ddg to get the result I need.

Recently it was looking for a workaround I knew existed for a documented defect. ( weirdly not documented on the bug tracker of the library ... go figure )

Google gave me the result, Duck Duck go was serving me the doc or the bug tracker.

Hmm. Actually maybe Google just remembered that from my previous search.

Re: Get better at Googling

#176

Post by gitowiec »

intergalplan wrote: post #93
mmcgaha wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before google vendors supplied printed documentation.

Also, more of your software was likely to be from a vendor, not FOSS you paid $0 for. That means phone or even in-person support, in addition to a real manual, for stuff like your IDE, OS, and compiler. I dunno about everyone else, but a lot of my Googling that couldn't be replaced by a simple reference manual for the language(s) I'm using is environment bullshit . It's a result of using a giant, complex, mostly-free…

I agree with you. You are first person among commenters here that see this. Using free software is hard. There is a little of packages well documented. Plenty of packages has multiple versions not compatible with themselves. Sometimes reading documentations reveals that package API is not providing. Among worst things is minimum reproducible repository when one is working on a proprietary software based on Foss. I never could prepare such example to show reported bug because I could not share code or the bug related on such big part of code that it was impossible to me. That is why I really start to hate JavaScript environment and the business model based on opensource... If owner has no money to buy ready solutions it's gets hard after few years of development to be content of code base one is developing (that is how I feel now, and I'm looking for another job)

Re: Get better at Googling

#177

Post by klmadfejno »

submeta wrote: post #164

There are so many devs who can‘t properly Google, but there are equally many devs who can‘t get a couple of books about a subject (that alone is a skill not many devs have mastered), dive into it and take the time to understand. Either they never learned how to properly read or they don‘t have the patience, and thus look for a shortcut. It‘s okay if you are familiar with a tech to look up how this or that can be solv…

Books feel like a really inefficient way to learn how to do a skill imo.

Re: Get better at Googling

#178

Post by yepthatsreality »

t-writescode wrote: post #145
yepthatsreality wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I keep bookmarks or often document the links in my brief of the project. Or I've used the links so much I know the site path to get to a doc. You're trying to find a hole in my logic, but you're ignoring what I'm saying: Searching the web isn't an important skill, just as going to the library to research isn't an important skill. The skill is reading, research, and organizing research itself. Google just makes it…

> You're trying to find a hole in my logic, but you're ignoring what I'm saying I think you're ignoring what everyone else is saying and that is that Googling is not about Googling, it's just a tool for researching. It's not all about Googling some random blog post about how to manage cache invalidation, it's shorthand of knowing how to use search engines to get you to the right page, documentation, scholarly article…

...that’s what I’m saying.

Re: Get better at Googling

#180

Post by jalk »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #46

I used to be a pro at using Alta Vista. Google was so much better, enabling me to get much better results without the tricks that I never mastered it to the same extent.

Same here. One could argue that the “arcane” query languages are just stepping stones towards our machines really understanding what we want. But I still cringe when I catch myself writing prose in the google search box “like some noob”
Post reply on HN