199
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by 58008@lemmy.world to c/nostupidquestions@lemmy.world

Wouldn't it cut down on search queries (and thus save resources) if I could search for "this is my phrase" rather than rawdogging it as an unbound series of words, each of which seems to be pulling up results unconnected to the other words in the phrase?

There are only 2 reasons I can think of why a website's search engine lacks this incredibly basic functionality:

  1. The site wants you to spend more time there, seeing more ads and padding out their engagement stats.
  2. They're just too stupid to know that these sorts of bare-bones search engines are close to useless, or they just don't think it's worth the effort. Apathetic incompetence, basically.

Is there a sound financial or programmatic reason for running a search engine which has all the intelligence of a turnip?

Cheers!

EDIT: I should have been a bit more specific: I'm mainly talking about search engines within websites (rather than DDG or Google). One good example is BitTorrent sites; they rarely let you define exact phrases. Most shopping websites, even the behemoth Amazon, don't seem to respect quotation marks around phrases.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] HuntressHimbo@lemm.ee 190 points 4 months ago

Because business majors decided a search engines primary job was actually to serve you ads rather than to help you search for things

[-] Valmond@lemmy.world 37 points 4 months ago

Yeah, even fucking linkedin can't make the difference between C, C++ and C#

[-] joyjoy@lemm.ee 14 points 4 months ago

So basically to find a good job, you should learn all 3.

[-] Valmond@lemmy.world 16 points 4 months ago

Java or javascript, whats the difference!

[-] Tanoh@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

Recruiters can't see the difference! (Ok, not all but a worrying high percentage)

[-] joyjoy@lemm.ee 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

learning curve and skill ceiling mostly.

[-] chip@feddit.rocks 8 points 4 months ago

It's almost funny considering how crucial that difference is in the field.

[-] hedgehog@ttrpg.network 46 points 4 months ago

It’s largely the first one, at least according to The Man Who Killed Google Search.

See also the Hackernews discussion and this follow-up article by the same author (with links to an article with Google’s response, summaries of other discussions on the topic, etc.)

[-] Enoril@jlai.lu 3 points 4 months ago

Wow, spent the last 30min to read everything. Thanks for sharing this, really interesting articles.

[-] xia@lemmy.sdf.org 30 points 4 months ago

I could FEEL when amazon removed the not and quote functions... now it's nigh-unusable.

[-] FauxPseudo@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

I hate trying to search for specific things on amazon because negative operators don't work. I'm frequently trying to find products that don't contain specific words. Like when I wanted a foam mattress cover that wasn't cooling. I need all the heat I can get when sleeping. But trying to find one that wasn't marketed as cooling? No such luck. I tried using search engines that honor negatives but no such luck. Amazon has thwarted every attempt to find what I want.

[-] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

I use the browser search to highlight the word I want to ignore on the page so I can quickly scroll through and ignore those items. It sucks that I have to do that, but at least it helps a bit.

[-] Thorry84@feddit.nl 28 points 4 months ago

Because search engines are much more complicated than you seem to think. The reason the operators worked back in the day (probably later than 1997 though), was because the search engines actually searched through the contents of the pages they indexed. They used a lot of tricks to make it work, but basically they were matching keywords directly to the index.

Modern search engines are much more complex than that, using a lot more abstraction and interesting techniques to both index and search. The amount of data being indexed has exploded since then, the number of users has exploded and the way people use the internet has changed. To keep costs down and search times low, search engines needed to change drastically. And because most people using search engines won't know how to use those features, they didn't get preserved.

I do wonder what kind of search engines you are talking about though. I assume you mean the big ones like Google and Bing (or sites using those engines) and not like a simple product search on a small webshop. Because as frustrating as using Google and Bing have gotten, they are still amazing tech and not bare-bones at all. The reasons for their failings are only partly in their control and not even really their fault. (Except for the AI thing Google tried, that was 100% their fault and just dumb).

[-] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 20 points 4 months ago

And yet searx respects operators.

[-] fishos@lemmy.world 17 points 4 months ago

Bro, this is just a load of shit. Google removed them by choice, not because of some tech need. Better search engines still use them to great effect.

You just posted a very long rambling justification for injecting ads and other shit into the results instead of giving you what you asked for.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 15 points 4 months ago

Have you read the article “the man who killed google search”? Google seems to have gone out of their way to screw it up and have roadmapped only more screwage.

[-] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 10 points 4 months ago

Here's the thing though. You absolutely could still use operators reasonably well even if the results are fuzzier.

You just use them to control how you leverage the algorithm. AND feeds the algorithm the two sides and filters to results that appear on both. OR joins the two result sets. "Filetype" filters the result set for results that are the relevant file type. Etc.

If they're not that common they're not going to have meaningful costs, especially when most power users don't use them for most of their searches.

[-] Thorry84@feddit.nl 2 points 4 months ago

Most search engines have filters for stuff like filetype, limiting the search to a specific site and filters for time and location (when applicable).

Like I said, search engines are way more complicated than one might think. Doing the kinds of things you mention would be hard and only very few people would need something like that. There are tools out there that do meta searching for analysis though, so you can use search results as data in your analysis. Most of those are highly specialized and often paid, but when you need them it's worth the price.

Remember companies like Google invest millions (if not billions) into their search engine and have huge teams working on them. Anytime someone says: "Why don't they just..." the answer is probably very long and complicated.

[-] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 11 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

No, it isn't even a little hard. It's super simple pre-parsing of the input that can trivially be done client side before the query even touches their server. Advanced users who use those tools are perfectly capable of taking the extra step to indicate to the engine that they're doing a real search, and the worst case is still far less intensive per search than any of the LLM nonsense they added to every search and is almost never useful in any way.

They choose not to. It's exactly that simple.

[-] RedStrider@lemmy.world 20 points 4 months ago

I'm convinced there's an AI in Google search now that reinterprets what you put. It never seems to give me what I search, only what it thinks I mean.

[-] AndrewZabar@lemmy.world 17 points 4 months ago

I said so-fucking-long to Google long ago and switched to DuckDuckGo. If I ever get really nowhere and think maybe googs might have a result for me, then on the Duck you just use a !g before your terms and it facilitates the search thru Google but without their ads.

Their focus shifted long ago from being the best to just figuring out new ways to get more out of users, no matter how deceitful and manipulative they need to be.

[-] rem26_art@fedia.io 16 points 4 months ago

I know at least duckduckgo says on their syntax page that they're aware that operator usage isn't perfect on their site. Seems to come from the fact that they pull results from multiple sources

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 26 points 4 months ago

DDG, because they’re so heavily reliant on bing, has gone to absolute shit recently. I’m just about to quit them. Every link in the top ten goes to some M$N / microsoft-adjacent garbage.

[-] Bluefruit@lemmy.world 16 points 4 months ago

Oh so its not just me who thinks its gotten worse then. I was starting to go a little crazy man. It seems like its slowly gottwn worse over time. I wonder if its due to the amount of ai content messing up seo ratings or something

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

Not just you, no. Microsoft has just gone nuts with their overreach and DDG appears to be collateral damage. After ? A long time of being fine for 90% of what I needed.

[-] konalt@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

Duckduckgo is awful at searching for specific memes I need. Sometimes I only remember the text and a rough description of the image, but DDG seems only to consider images with Impact TOP TEXT BOTTOM TEXT captions to be memes. I switch to Google and I find the one I want instantly. If there was a way to have the image results of Google with the web results of DDG my life would be complete

[-] Tixanou@lemm.ee 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

If there was a way to have the image results of Google with the web results of DDG my life would be complete

You might want to look into 4get and SearXNG

[-] Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz 5 points 4 months ago

Yeah, after some years of DDG getting worse I finally dropped them. I switched to Brave and it's surprisingly decent for an independent search engine. If you search for something that they don't have good results for they'll ask you if you want to get anonymous results from google as well, which means I don't usually have to switch search engines for harder results.

They do seem to have a much lower number of image results though.

[-] pyre@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] pyre@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

every day it looks more and more clear that we're gonna have no choice but pay for kagi if we want to find anything worth a fuck on the internet

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

That’s the conclusion I keep coming to as well, and its kind of sad.

[-] Flightbird386@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

I use -msn , which seems to help somewhat

[-] subtext@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

I believe they’ve said that explicit operators are much more expensive to serve than a regular search, so that’s probably why they don’t respect them. Especially a - operator.

[-] BenLeMan@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago

Guys, please. The solution to Google reinterpreting your search queries has been around for years, and it is called VERBATIM SEARCH. (Search options: All results -> Verbatim). Voila, welcome back to 1997.

[-] NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 4 months ago

I don't know the answer but I can tell you two things:

  1. It has often been beneficial to me when the search query wasn't taken literally, it's not always a bad thing. Many searches are ones where the user doesn't know exactly what they're looking for. Granted, that's definitely not always the case. That said, I don't remember ever catching it outright ignore stuff like quoted words/phrases.
  2. Regarding "save resources", Google introduced Instant Search in 2010 which started showing results as you type, thus creating an ungodly amount of extra load on their servers since each user search now created multiple queries. They clearly have no trouble scaling up resources.
[-] CorrodedCranium@leminal.space 10 points 4 months ago
[-] undefined@links.hackliberty.org 12 points 4 months ago

I looked over the links, and the ones listed for Google aren’t respected anymore (and haven’t been for a long time).

If you search for something specific using operators, Google will just ignore them and give you related (but irrelevant) results which is absolutely infuriating.

Instead of showing a low number of results it seems they’d rather try to be smarter than you just to show more results.

[-] corroded@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago

I'm going to break with what most people are saying and offer the suggestion that search engines are actually doing a decent job. If my mother searches Google for the phrase "Can you please show me a recipe for apple pie?," she's probably going to get a recipe for apple pie. If I search google for "c++20" "std::string" "constructors", after I skip over the ads, I'm most likely going to get a web page that shows me the the constructors for std::string in c++20.

Ad-sponsored pages and AI bullshit aside, most search engines do still give decent results.

[-] Jackcooper@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

I think OP is complaining about non Google search engines

[-] Toes@ani.social 8 points 4 months ago

The tragedy of the commons.

Enough people don't understand or care to understand, so it gets cut out for the sake of improving the users experience.

[-] db2@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

It's cheaper for them not to do it and you'll still search so they don't care.

[-] j4k3@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Not any more. I use an offline open source LLM first quite a bit now because it is better than their junk. It may only be accurate 80% of the time, but that is a far higher percentage than any present search engine.

People complain about web scrapers, but scraping is the only practical alternative for finding info and sources now that the web crawlers are worse than trash.

[-] brygphilomena@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

No. The issue is websites are trash, not the crawlers. SEO has created a weird amalgamation of content, filler, and keywords. It's why recipe sites have stories with every recipe.

Google very much is responsible for the current web design though.

[-] kevincox@lemmy.ml 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

There are a few reasons. Some of them are in the users' interest. Lots of people phrase their search like a question. "How do I turn off the wifi on my blue windows 11 laptop?"

While ignoring stopwords like "the" and "a" has been common for a while there is lots of info here that the user probably doesn't actually care about. "my" is probably not helping the search, "how" may not either. Also in this case "blue" is almost certainly irrelevant. So by allowing near matches search engines can get the most helpful articles even if they don't contain all of the words.

Secondly search engines often allow stemming and synonym matching. This isn't really ignoring words but can give the appearance of doing so. For example maybe "windows" gets stemmed to "window" and "laptop" is allowed to match with "notebook". You may get an article that is talking about a window of opportunity and writing in notebooks and it seems like these words have been ignored. This is generally helpful as often the best result won't have used the exact same words that you did in the query.

Of course then there are the more negative reasons.

  1. Someone decided that you can't buy anything if your product search returns no results. So they decided that they will show the "closest matches" even if nothing is anywhere close. This is infuriating and I have stopped using many sites because of it.
  2. If you need to make more searches or view more pages you also see more ads.
[-] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 5 points 4 months ago

And yet when I put quotes around something... It ignores that. Well Google would anyway. Decent search engines don't.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] thirteene@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

It's because websites interpret those characters differently because of how coding requires using the physical qwerty keyboard. Essentially ">" gets used as a compator operator in programming languages, which means that it's used as a tool to instructs the computer how to do things. When we need to display the symbol, we use ">" as an "escaped character" which basically means treat it as the symbol, not the instruction set. Often search engines will use a very powerful tool called a regular expression which looks like this for phone numbers: ^(\d{3})\s\d{3}-\d{4}

And each character represents something, ^ means start with. \d means digit { means 3 of whatever's in front of me }. Breaking apart the search parameters is pretty complex and it needs to happen FAST, so at a certain point the developers just throw away things that can be a security concern like special characters like &^|`"'* specially because they can be used to maliciously attack the search engine.

For other characters: https://www.w3schools.com/html/html_entities.asp

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2024
199 points (100.0% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35922 readers
924 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS