Yahoo tops Google in US traffic

Post by m_ram » Thu, Aug 22, 2013, 9:00 AM UTC

dmpk2k wrote: post #54

codex wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Quote" the search term. That's the replacement for +.

I'm not sure if my memory is playing tricks on my, but I've found quotes unreliable. Google will spit out "close" suggestions that have nothing to do with what I requested, despite using quotes. Google also happily returns results which do not fulfill even the "close" suggestions: e.g. I ask for three words, Google searches for those three words, and returns a bunch of pages that contain only two or one of those word…

Post by guard-of-terra » Thu, Aug 22, 2013, 9:24 AM UTC

makomk wrote: post #55

Dn_Ab wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very true, glad I'm not the only one to have noticed this. And I've got a suggestion for a search engine so intelligent - well relatively - it took google back to school and enrolled it in kindergarten. I find myself using it whenever Google gets stumped; it consistently gives better results in the sense that I feel it has a better understanding of my query. Take this example that prompted my above semi-hyperbole. Ba…

You're definitely not the only one to have noticed this. Microsoft has been trying to get the EU to force Google to continue to rank the spam highly, under the pretext that fake "shopping" and "review" sites and shitty "vertical search engines" that can't actually find anything and get all their traffic through SEO are competitors to Google and deranking them is anti-competitive.

Post by conradfr » Thu, Aug 22, 2013, 9:56 AM UTC

IanCal wrote: post #85

conradfr wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Quote" does not work these days, it still presents results you with alternatives to the "Quote".

You need to use "verbatim" mode. It's under "Search tools" and then in the dropdown starting with "All results".

Post by uniclaude » Thu, Aug 22, 2013, 10:16 AM UTC

uniclaude wrote: post #45

pasbesoin wrote: post #15

I "Google" less and less for search results, as they become increasingly crap. They are mostly best for "big name" items; also, the prominence of StackOverflow means that some computer technology queries still work pretty well. These days, I'm fortunate when I know specifically enough what I want that I can jump straight into Wikipedia and hopefully find an adequate page. Whatever you are and aren't doing about it, G…

I felt a bit like you until I added a "goodgle" search engine in my chrome, basically forcing Verbatim at each Google search (appending &tbs=li:1), and forcing English to be the base language, instead of whatever country I am finding myself in at the moment. Then, I tweaked the results by manually ignoring a couple domains, and now, Google is sort of usable again for my personal taste. Unlike you though, spam (at lea…

Post by cousin_it » Thu, Aug 22, 2013, 11:20 AM UTC

bsullivan01 wrote: post #61

pasbesoin wrote: post #15

I "Google" less and less for search results, as they become increasingly crap. They are mostly best for "big name" items; also, the prominence of StackOverflow means that some computer technology queries still work pretty well. These days, I'm fortunate when I know specifically enough what I want that I can jump straight into Wikipedia and hopefully find an adequate page. Whatever you are and aren't doing about it, G…

A conspiracy theorist looking at Google's ad clicks numbers might say that better results equal less clicks on ads. Mind you, that on commercial searches essentially all you see is ads. This works up to a point, a tipping point that is. I think Google is unusable now for commercial searches, all you see is ads and eBay, Amazon and other megacorps. Up to a few years ago, I would have never believed that Google crafted…