281–290 of 297 posts
I was waiting for this article for so long. Yes, it is incredible, how many people do not know how to use properly Google, they are asking questions on forums, while a simple search would give them the response
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is sadly very true. See my comment here or what a lit of others write: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26926309 Also I'd like to know what I should do to get your experience.
Likely there's some a/b testing and google has decided that you're more profitable without access to those tools
Maybe.
> google has decided that you're more profitable without access to those tools
Well for any googlers here: this among other things is why you only see a fraction of my queries compared to before: I actively avoid Google now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disagree completely. So much documentation is written poorly and will lead to confused implementations.
Sure, but poorly written documentation isn’t what I’m talking about. For every bit of poorly written documentation there’s probably already a tool with great documentation that’s been doing it better for much longer than whatever you may be working on. Returning to my MITM proxy example, there is a python tool already called `mitmproxy`. A search will tell you that but the site will tell you how to use it. A quick se…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Google used to be better, I feel. Nowadays when you add a particular word to make the search specific (otherwise it's too general), Google decides for you, there aren't many results with that keyword, so it excludes the word and gives you a list of irrelevant things. Yeah I know to put the words I want in quotes, but why doesn't it do that by default?
I've read similar comments so many times. Am I the only one who thinks Google has become way way better than it used to? Very often I get immediate answers even without needing to click on any site. It's truly magical.
Yeah, why should anyone else but Google be able to monetize a website? If you click through to anywhere else but Google, you risk diverting some ad money to someone else than Google! The horror! Naah, much better to read the Google-approved cooypasta...
Also, ~90% of those "immediate answers" are directly copied from Wikipedia anyway; if those are what your after, why not just go directly there and see the whole article in stead of just Google's snip of the intro? (Furthermore, ISTR reading somewhere that WP isn't all that enthusiastic about that "magic".)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Almost never works these days. Google now usually just quantizes your search terms into an ad or ultra popular news article written 3 minutes ago. It also ignores all your operators most of the time. I'm sorry, this makes zero sense and even if it did, is patently false. This feature works and I use it all the time.
> I'm sorry, this makes zero sense and even if it did, is patently false. This feature works and I use it all the time. Lucky you. I can confirm qyis observations: it started to ignore me sometime around 2008 and hasn't worked reliably since. We have tried to tell them since then. I know Google runs a lot of experiments all the time but this one has been morenor less consistently ignored for me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm sorry, this makes zero sense and even if it did, is patently false. This feature works and I use it all the time. Lucky you. I can confirm qyis observations: it started to ignore me sometime around 2008 and hasn't worked reliably since. We have tried to tell them since then. I know Google runs a lot of experiments all the time but this one has been morenor less consistently ignored for me.
Can you offer a concrete example?
https://www.google.com/search?hl=nn&q=%22goolge%22
Edit: this used to work before and sometimes works now in some settings. This was just the first thing that popped into my head and I don't care about jow many people misspell Google, but it is infuriating when they do it as you try to find information on a rare error message or something.
> 1. Use quotes to force an exact-match search Almost never works these days. Google now usually just quantizes your search terms into an ad or ultra popular news article written 3 minutes ago. It also ignores all your operators most of the time. Bonus: If you use something like inurl: You get blocked for a "hacking attempt". Google also has blocked Tor and VPNs since 2006 or so. In fact, they are the one big search…
Most of these statements are just patently false, right? It's the top comment on HN, but I'm pretty I've successfully used all of the features mentioned in the just month with no issue at all. I don't understand how these are getting rated so highly?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Especially excluding Pinterest results while searching for images ;)
Is there a animated gif search anywhere that excludes results that don't actually give you a damn gif when you follow the link? Giphy and friends have made it impossible to find actual gifs.
To exclude giphy and friends, you can just type:
-giphy ...
> 1. Use quotes to force an exact-match search Almost never works these days. Google now usually just quantizes your search terms into an ad or ultra popular news article written 3 minutes ago. It also ignores all your operators most of the time. Bonus: If you use something like inurl: You get blocked for a "hacking attempt". Google also has blocked Tor and VPNs since 2006 or so. In fact, they are the one big search…
Google also has verbatim search, which works a lot better than quotes, but still fails with some symbol keys.