Comment Re:Repulsive (Score 1) 66
Logical thought and reason are all I need. I'm sure some psychologist has done a similar study I just can't be arsed to find it for a jackass like yourself.
Logical thought and reason are all I need. I'm sure some psychologist has done a similar study I just can't be arsed to find it for a jackass like yourself.
Err... what would be less harmful than inconveniencing a mouse for six minutes?
Let me hold you up by an appendage for 6 minutes and see how well you fare.
The point is that you can do the experiment without having mice involved at all. Subject someone to something they find funny or enjoy to make them happy, test how long they will do an unpleasant/menial task after the fact. Repeat the test with making them angry/upset/depressed/whatever and compare... just as valid as the mouse test but without electro-stimulation or hanging them upsidedown.
I know this kind of thing needs to be done. Still I find it repulsive from an emotional point of view.
Does it? Does it really?
I get research needing to test on animals but a test like this is not necessary. You can prove the same results using less harmful methods.
Sounds like you've got personalization turned off. If Google doesn't know what country is relevant, how is it supposed to surface the right country for you? If you've been using VPN servers in different countries, that might also screw things up.
It tries to interpret it based on IP address all the time (as is evidence by various VPN stories)
Which is why Google's separation between the different meanings of the word can be so helpful. Give it enough context to know the meaning that you are using and it will usually do a much better job of finding what you're looking for.
But I can't replicate it adding or removing words from a phrase as long as I put the phrase in quotes. It always seems to search for the exact phrase, though sometimes with punctuation in between.
Maybe I'm getting the short end of the stick in some A/B testing.
I've had searches where it does both adding words (fictional example: drops words becomes drops some words) and others where it excludes words (does the "missing: drops"). Usually it's on searches with words that have multiple meanings where the meaning I am searching for is the less common of them, stuff dealing with subject matter that is academic, etc.
Are you looking for an unlocked phone? Search for that instead. And yes, you're going to get carriers in most any search for purchasing cell phones because carriers sell a lot of cell phones.
That'd be somewhat understandable, except for the fact that only 2 of the 10 were in the right country.
AFAICT, they blithely ignore all the things that *used* to make it possible to actually give Google value - the Google-fu expressions, including most importantly +term and -term.
Umm, the + operator was deprecated in 2011. I don't exactly know what effect it has had since then. (It seems to do something, but it's highly unpredictable.)
Exactly the point, the "Google-fu" was the ability to use the operators (prior to being removed/depreciated) to get the results you needed. They're slowly stripping them out replacing them with guess work based on what is most likely wanted. The problem with "most likely" is that it must have some sort of popularity. The real hidden gems of the internet are simply lost and your ability to sift through the rest is compromised by what others have wanted.
FUCK IT! I'll do it live and test it in production!
I want my fucking comment link back. Share? Who wants to share Dice shill stories.
Submitted by Nerval's Lobster? Check
Shilling for Dice? Check
I love that everyone hates the cross-promotional crap they try to do.
I did a search the other day for LG G3 retailers... I tried dozens of variations, verbatim on, quotes, etc. I was given options in the US, UK, some Canadian cellphone carriers. In the end I had to go to Shopbot.ca to get Canadian companies selling the phone.
Use "Ask Jeeves" syntax: "where can i buy lg g3?" at google.
The first result came up as BestBuy. The second was an article literally entitled "Where can I buy LG's new superphone?" The third was a link to LG's website with a nice "Where to Buy" link.
I put in that exact search, which good god that's a lot to type, and the results I get are LG which lists where to buy from cell service providers (not retailers), BestBuy US, BestBuy Canada (closer) but again they are cell service sellers, Costco which is WirelessWave cell service sellers, an actual cell service provider, 5 reasons to buy via Forbes, CNET where to buy in America, the UK launch, Amazon.COM (not
Compare that to Shopbot where I type in "lg g3" and get what I wanted/searched for: Amazon.ca, DirectCanada, NCIX, Newegg.ca, etc. I also get multiple versions of the phone, pricing, and so on. Granted Shopbot is very specialized but until Google can interpret "where to buy" or that I am doing a shopping search vs a review search, etc then it needs to back off and let me tell it what to search for and stop guessing at it.
lol - it was out there, shopbot had indexed dozens of them. Google was doing exactly what you assumed, that I'd want to buy it from a cell service provider (retailers sell it for as little as $320 vs $699 for cell companies). As I stated, I tried dozens of searches not the phrase "lg g3 retailers". Google did find me the phone on amazon.com and amazon & ebay.co.uk but couldn't find it on amazon.ca despite knowing I'm Canadian. Shopbot, it was the first result because they didn't try to guess what I was looking for, they just searched what I put in.
+ was removed entirely and - is periodically ignored now.
See my post below about LG G3 retailers.
I did a search the other day for LG G3 retailers... I tried dozens of variations, verbatim on, quotes, etc. I was given options in the US, UK, some Canadian cellphone carriers. In the end I had to go to Shopbot.ca to get Canadian companies selling the phone.
"Engineering without management is art." -- Jeff Johnson
