31–40 of 168 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't really the solution we were looking for Matt. Can we replace the + operator with something else? How about¬? We don't use that very often to the point I don't even know what it's called, but it's there on the keyboard in one keypress.
Not on US keyboards, I don't think.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Matt, do you know if there are any plans to once again allow the mixing of exact match with the regular fuzzier search functionality? It's great to have exact matching back, but I often found it a useful strategy to build the search loosely, then refine with +specifics. Perhaps something like this, in exact match mode: ~run ~sprint ~hurdle nike could be the equivalent of the old: run sprint hurdle +nike
Isn't run sprint hurdle "nike" what you want?
Today's 0.5% is tomorrows 95.5%. It just takes time. It is the so-called power users who lead the way for everyone else. Doing away with a traditional boolean operator for the sake of marketing (of a copycat "social network" website no less) is not the sign of a company with a clear, intelligent vision. But time will tell who is the wiser.
Google's demographic was much more tech-savvy in the early years, but as we've struck partnerships with companies like AOL, the population of people searching on Google has become broader. I don't believe that 95.5% of users will be searching with + or double-quotes any time soon. But for the power users like people on HN, they now have an extra option that allows better slicing/dicing of search results.
On the other hand, the post tries to pretend that this had nothing to do with +username or +brand and Google+.
No, it's the users, it's their fault, not our new product naming boo boo. We'll just silently break our flagship product and hope no-one notices.
Blame the customer seems a bad strategy.
Just wish they'd man up and admit it. Even if it's really not the reason, because that's the belief on the internet. It's times like this that remind me how Google really doesn't get customer service.
Today's 0.5% is tomorrows 95.5%. It just takes time. It is the so-called power users who lead the way for everyone else. Doing away with a traditional boolean operator for the sake of marketing (of a copycat "social network" website no less) is not the sign of a company with a clear, intelligent vision. But time will tell who is the wiser.
Actually, usage of the + operator has been in steady decline for years. With Altavista you had to use + to require a word. When I started at Google, many many more queries had tons of pluses. Google's demographic was much more tech-savvy in the early years, but as we've struck partnerships with companies like AOL, the population of people searching on Google has become broader. I don't believe that 95.5% of users wil…
That's an interesting view.
I'm just a bit more optimistic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't really the solution we were looking for Matt. Can we replace the + operator with something else? How about¬? We don't use that very often to the point I don't even know what it's called, but it's there on the keyboard in one keypress.
I'll pass the feedback on. Part of the issue with + is that it turned out a lot of people were mistyping queries with + when as far as we could tell, they weren't trying to match an exact word. Getting further off the beaten path with a more rare character might help though.
It really was nice to be able to control which words were verbatim and which weren't. Quotes are perfectly logical but just a pain to retrofit onto a query you're refining.
It's hidden into the prefs when I'd liked it always on, on any device I use without having it tied to a specific account or anything.
I switched to ddg for regular and advanced queries, and use google for all the fuzzy stuff or very specific queries. It's still easier than to care about the verbatim setting.
What if you just want some words verbatim? You'd just use +word right? Oh wait.
As you are doing this, please keep in mind that when you incorrectly broaden my query, and there is no immediately obvious way to re-narrow it, it costs you much more than you gain each time you correctly broaden my query.
And, of course, the "search for what I actually fucking typed" mode is completely undiscoverable, hidden behind another click, and which can't be defaulted into. This is a good bandaid, but is still a bandaid. I have still switched away from Google to a search engine that will actually search for what I told it to, not one that thinks it can guess my meaning. (Not to mention one that doesn't wrap all the outgoing URL…