341–350 of 552 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see that on the LHS. It would be nice if there's a link to it, something like https://www.google.com.au/search?verbatim=true that I could bookmark. Edit: or somehow set as the browser's default search engine.
add tbs=li:1 to the url: http://google.com/search?q=hacker+news&tbs=li:1
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you'd think it would at least come up in the internet archive if not anywhere else.
https://web.archive.org/robots.txt
# robots.txt web.archive.org 2013-10-02
User-agent: *
Disallow: /
User-agent: ia_archiver
Allow: /I've convinced myself that this happens in gmail / hangouts history search too. It'll very confidently tell you that here are the only six results for your search term going back to the beginning of time, but if you go and manually dig up something that you know is there from ten years ago, then all of a sudden there are seven results the next time you search for the same term. I haven't done this methodically, and I…
Startup idea: a service that will let you search your inbox. Aka google for searching. Seriously, this is egregious. You rely on your email provider to accurately search your inbox - some emails are important business, tax, and legal documents that are relevant for years, even decades. Or at least be fucking transparent about the fact that you are not really searching all emails. I know Gmail is a free service and in…
I've done essentially the opposite ... I use DuckDuckGo as my everyday search engine and only use Google when there's not an acceptable result there. Over the last couple of years, the number of times per week that I switch to Google has probably halved.
I've convinced myself that this happens in gmail / hangouts history search too. It'll very confidently tell you that here are the only six results for your search term going back to the beginning of time, but if you go and manually dig up something that you know is there from ten years ago, then all of a sudden there are seven results the next time you search for the same term. I haven't done this methodically, and I…
I've had this for Chrome history as well. There have been multiple times where I'm sure I've browsed a site with some keyword in the title and it just doesn't show up in search. I don't tend to have a clue about the time window it would be in either so I can't go looking for it, so I can't prove it.
That's why I'm back on Firefox after quantum release. I hope mozilla never, ever, ever does something like this but I remember seeing something similar on nightly once. It gave you search suggestions first, that redirected you to google, with option to disable it in settings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Years ago when I interviewed for a Software Engineer position at Google, the person I was matched to eat lunch with between the interviews was from the Search team. I asked him these exact questions. He said, the last time he checked, quoting a single word to mark it mandatory worked for him and that he definitely would know if it didn't. I didn't insist much at the time but I knew he didn't know what he was talking…
Are you saying the quote-a-single-word thing doesn't work for you?
And that's where I don't agree with the author. I've been thinking about this and to me it seems we need to try to foster a culture of forgetting. Just because we can store everything forever, doesn't mean we should. That kind of thinking is exactly where this 'track everything everyone does'-mentality comes from, governments seem so keen to apply in the name of 'terror prevention'. It also values regular stuff you do way too highly.
Let's face it: A huge portion of the web is garbage and most information on it is ephemeral. The really useful stuff, like encylopedias, will be used regularly and thus keep indexed anyway. For the rest: Just let it go. Forgetting can also be relieving, you know?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> has seemingly degraded into an approximation of a search engine that has knowledge of only very superficial information, will try to rewrite your queries and omit words (including the very word that makes all the difference...) I think the biggest irony is that the web allows for more adoption of long-tail movements than ever before, and Google has gotten significantly worse at turning these up. I assume this has s…
It doesn't help that it seems every other project out there is trying to name itself after common words in the lexicon. I dare you to try finding information on the Box library.
It seems that context-sensitive search is a curse as well as a blessing. Wikipedia at least offers you disambiguation pages; perhaps a search engine should let you pick a "domain" to prioritise search in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Startup idea: a service that will let you search your inbox. Aka google for searching. Seriously, this is egregious. You rely on your email provider to accurately search your inbox - some emails are important business, tax, and legal documents that are relevant for years, even decades. Or at least be fucking transparent about the fact that you are not really searching all emails. I know Gmail is a free service and in…
Gmail is not just a free service; g-suite costs money, and if this affects corporate email this definitely has real world implications