Search Engines

User avatar
Nick Vittum
4StarLounger
Posts: 475
Joined: 21 Feb 2020, 21:27
Location: Vermont (USA)

Search Engines

Post by Nick Vittum »

Have other folks noticed the gradual degradation of search engines? It used to be easy to find relevant results if you used the right search terms. It used to be easy to set parameters:
     A +sign next to a search term meant "only results that include this word."
     A -sign meant "No results that include this word" (Especially useful if you were trying to filter out results from some site that was very aggressive about its search engine presence).
     Quote marks around a phrase meant "look for this exact phrase," and a quoted phrase preceded by a +sign meant "must include this exact phrase"

Using these simple filters, it was very easy to set very precise parameters, and get very relevant results. Degradation began with Google's promotion of those sites that gave them financial backing, and then effectiveness plummeted when they started adopting Facebook-like algorithms that always push "trending" results at the expense of relevance. It began with Google, but I almost never use Google anymore, and as nearly as I can tell, it is this way with all search engines now.

I know: partly this is a sort of nostalgic rant—because I've been having a very hard time recently getting good results with my searches—but it's also a question: Have any of you found ways around these changes, that allow you to still get precise search results?
—Nick

I’m only an egg (but hard-boiled)

User avatar
HansV
Administrator
Posts: 78241
Joined: 16 Jan 2010, 00:14
Status: Microsoft MVP
Location: Wageningen, The Netherlands

Re: Search Engines

Post by HansV »

Best wishes,
Hans

User avatar
Nick Vittum
4StarLounger
Posts: 475
Joined: 21 Feb 2020, 21:27
Location: Vermont (USA)

Re: Search Engines

Post by Nick Vittum »

HansV wrote:
04 May 2020, 20:50
Refine web searches
hmmm. . . some of these don't work anymore. "site:" does. But in particular, the minus sign and the quote marks don't work. At least not consistently. At least not with DuckDuckGo, which is what I've been using these days. Perhaps I should go back and try google again—but seeing this trend was one of the reasons I stopped using google in the first place.
—Nick

I’m only an egg (but hard-boiled)

User avatar
HansV
Administrator
Posts: 78241
Joined: 16 Jan 2010, 00:14
Status: Microsoft MVP
Location: Wageningen, The Netherlands

Re: Search Engines

Post by HansV »

For DuckDuckGo:

DuckDuckGo Search Syntax
Best wishes,
Hans

User avatar
Nick Vittum
4StarLounger
Posts: 475
Joined: 21 Feb 2020, 21:27
Location: Vermont (USA)

Re: Search Engines

Post by Nick Vittum »

Capture.JPG
:ranton:
This seems to encapsulate the trend I'm talking about. Once upon a time these parameters were absolute. If you used -dogs, you got no dogs, period. The search engine didn't try to do your thinking for you and decide, "well, maybe we'll give you just a few dogs." And quote marks are next to useless now. If a search result with the exact phrase is near the top anyway, using the quote marks might push it upward. But no way will it filter out results that don't have that phrase. It's a classic violation of the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" principle.
:rantoff:

But. Done griping. :thewave:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
—Nick

I’m only an egg (but hard-boiled)