Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:I wondered about the quotes... (Score 5, Informative) 242

by jhoff (#40912707) Attached to: The Google-fication of Yahoo!

I work on web search at Google, and I can assure you that there is no such -req operator. All that you're doing is filtering out results that match the word "req". :-)

When you find a query where you think you need lots of quotes, you might be interested in Verbatim mode, which can be enabled in the left-hand search tools:
http://support.google.com/websearch/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1734130&topic=1221265&ctx=topic

Here's the official list of supported search operators:
http://support.google.com/websearch/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=136861

There are also some legacy operators like [inurl:foo], [intitle:foo], and [allintitle: foo bar baz]. http://www.googleguide.com/advanced_operators.html

Comment: Re:Stop trying to tell us what you think we want (Score 2) 299

by jhoff (#39405691) Attached to: Google Is Planning To Penalize Overly Optimized Sites

Quotes should be sacrosanct. I've been in a similar situation where Google "corrects" what I've got in quotes and as a result can't find anything relevant. It drove me NUTS. There's just no work-around for it For the life of me I couldn't find a way to get results for my actual search query. Thinking you know what the user wants better than the user is a Microsoft-style blunder. Apple gets away with that shit because they have a niche market that *wants* it. Google should be better than that.

If anyone wants a specific example, go to image search and try to search for "suchi". Wikipedia claims this is how you spell the name of the monkey from Captain planet (IT CAME UP, OK?). Google, however, ignores my quotes and searches for "Sushi" every time.

Also I sometimes do a web search in quotes and it will return "Showing results for Someshityoutotallydidn'ttypebutwethinkyoumayhavemeant to type. Did you mean "Shityouactaullytyped?" Search for "Shityouactaullytyped instead" and I have to click to get my results. Screw you Google. It's one thing to second-guess me and offer me the alternate search if you think I didn't mean to search for what I wanted to search for--but you should NEVER EVER show me a different search result if there were results for my actual search. I don't need my search engine assuming I'm an idiot.

I work on this sort of thing at Google. I'm sorry you've had bad experiences where we misunderstand your intent.

Words and phrases in quotes are indeed sacrosanct. In the case of image searching for "suchi," there's a simple problem -- websites that misspelled "sushi"! Look at the sushi roll from directorio.inforito.com: it's titled "suchi.jpg". This is the sort of challenge we have to work on. How do we tell the difference between "suchi" that is a spelling error and legitimate instances of "suchi," e.g., Indian radio personality "Suchitra, known affectionately as Suchi"?

Also, I hear your frustration on Google auto-correcting your query. Our statistics show that we get our users their results faster millions of times a day by "showing results for" the corrected query when our spelling system is extremely confident. Of course, the system is not 100% accurate. So it's a tradeoff. We tune the precision-recall curve aggressively in favor of precision to minimize the frustrating experiences.

Last year, responding to feedback from users, we introduced "Verbatim" mode, which disables all spelling/stemming/synonyms. You can find it under "More search tools" on the left.

If you ever have a search where we're misunderstanding your intent, and you'd like to help us improve, click the "Give us feedback" link at the bottom of the results page. My team will get it.

Comment: Re:Good (Score 2) 299

by jhoff (#39405051) Attached to: Google Is Planning To Penalize Overly Optimized Sites

I suspect Google doesn't actually want all the spam sites to vanish from their results, because they profit from them: these sites are designed to entice you to click on ads, which leads to revenue for Google. I feel that the ease with which crude spam pages can still rise to the top of the search results is some evidence for this. The old (pre-IPO) Google would of course know that this is not a good long-term stragegy. Today's Google? It wouldn't surprise me.

I work at Google on Search Quality, and we really do have a firewall between the Search Quality and Ads departments. We make changes that we believe will help our users find better results, so they'll keep coming back to Google for years to come. We don't answer to Ads.

Real Programmers don't write in PL/I. PL/I is for programmers who can't decide whether to write in COBOL or FORTRAN.

Working...