OT: Has Google been giving you crappy results lately?

The whole reason I switched to Google years ago was that results were very relevant to what I'm searching for. That and the simple minimalist design o f the homepage.

Now to me Google is mostly useful for finding generic items (eg: Olive Gard en). Any time I'm looking for something specific with multiple search terms , more often that not the results do not have most of my search terms. Thei r algorithms have changed. They try too hard to read your mind and end up s earching for synonyms of your words and you end up getting stupid results.

I know the Internet has also changed and I know there are some ways around this (adding + signs, playing with the Search tools settings), but I feel i t's getting harder and harder to find what I want.

I hope I'm wrong!

Reply to
M. Hamed
Loading thread data ...

If you require that a keyword be used, put it in quotes.

The synonym thing is probably more useful than useless, but technical searches do tend to cause more trouble. Oh well.

Tim

-- Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk. Website:

formatting link

Now to me Google is mostly useful for finding generic items (eg: Olive Garden). Any time I'm looking for something specific with multiple search terms, more often that not the results do not have most of my search terms. Their algorithms have changed. They try too hard to read your mind and end up searching for synonyms of your words and you end up getting stupid results.

I know the Internet has also changed and I know there are some ways around this (adding + signs, playing with the Search tools settings), but I feel it's getting harder and harder to find what I want.

I hope I'm wrong!

Reply to
Tim Williams

Try duckduckgo.com. Google doesn't use all your search terms, while duckduckgo.com does. This has probably been true for two years now, but maybe you finally got fed up and noticed.

With google, it helps to put terms in quote if you don't want the search engine to parse your terms. But it still don't use all your search terms.

Google does find the most hits, but many are false positives. Duckduckgo will provide links to google and bing and in fact will call up the https version of google.

Reply to
miso

start by using the old google groups. the new one doesn't do usenet correctly.

--
?? 100% natural 

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
Reply to
Jasen Betts

place quote marks around any word(s) you don't want synonyms of.

--
?? 100% natural 

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
Reply to
Jasen Betts

relevant to what I'm searching for. That and the simple minimalist design of the homepage.

Any time I'm looking for something specific with multiple search terms, more often that not the results do not have most of my search terms. Their algorithms have changed. They try too hard to read your mind and end up searching for synonyms of your words and you end up getting stupid results.

(adding + signs, playing with the Search tools settings), but I feel it's getting harder and harder to find what I want.

Google is all about advertising and selling. In order to make that work, Google "fixes" search terms for your alleged benefit. That actually works for my benefit when I don't quite have the correct term, or when I can't spell the magic buzzword. When it turns into an ordeal, I switch to the advanced search at: or for Usenet at: which offer more options and more control. These do NOT offer hints, corrections, suggestions, and seem (not sure) to not "fix" the search terms.

One of my favorite tricks is to do an image search instead of a text search. For example, if I were looking for a "Kenwood TM-732a schematic", a text search returns a mess of possible downloads, but an image search at: returns thumbnails of the actual schematic, which I can browse to find something worth downloading.

More from Google: Scientific and technical papers to Google Scholar: Patents:

There are also alternative search engines, which might be worth trying. Try your favorite obscure search and see how well they do:

This site died in 2011, but is still useful for older search topics:

Generics:

This one is rather odd and takes some practice using, but produces generally more interesting results. I suggest you read the help before using:

Of course, there are lists of online search engines:

This one is useful for determining if you're actually using a new search engine, or simply a front end for Google or Yahoo:

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com 
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

I have tried using quotes,with ZERO difference of results...

Reply to
Robert Baer

relevant to what I'm searching for. That and the simple minimalist design of the homepage.

Their algorithms have changed. They try too hard to read your mind and end up searching for synonyms of your words and you end up getting stupid results.

I don't know if their mind-reading algorithms are at fault, or too many people are learning how to manipulate Google's page-ranking. But yes, there is a slow but steady decline in the usefulness of search results. (For a few years now.)

Searching for "xxx data sheet", for example, used to bring me to the web site of xxx's manufacturer. (Expected result) Today I'm more likely to get a few pages of resellers, alternative parts, "data sheet aggregators" and on-the-fly generated web searches including that part number and no other useful information.

--
Roberto Waltman 

[ Please reply to the group, 
  return address is invalid ]
Reply to
Roberto Waltman

relevant to what I'm searching for. That and the simple minimalist design of the homepage.

Their algorithms have changed. They try too hard to read your mind and end up searching for synonyms of your words and you end up getting stupid results.

Most of those "leaders" seem to be paid advertising :-( ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     | 
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      | 
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    | 
| Phoenix, Arizona  85048    Skype: Contacts Only  |             | 
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  | 
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     | 
              
I love to cook with wine.     Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Reply to
Jim Thompson

Agreed. The surest sign of success is pollution and abuse. And yes, the scum does float to the top.

Try searching by the manufacturers site as in: site:

formatting link
lm301

There are also Google custom search engines (filters): or just make your own:

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com 
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

Bing seems to to a better job.

Cheers

Reply to
Martin Riddle

Why? For me, Bing is an exercise in frustration. I like to see about

50 hits per page (I'm a fast reader). Bing is stuck on 13 hits per page with no option for more. I like to limit my searches to specific range of dates. Google does this very nicely, while bing offers day, week, month and nothing else. I like to use some of the more obscure Google search features, such as site:, patent:, convert, etc. Bing has none of these. Bing also doesn't search Usenet. Retch.

Try this test: It's kinda a slanted test, because it only tests if the top hits are relevent. When I ran it looking for various IC data sheets, it was a draw, where both produced everything except the manufacturers site. In my never humble opinion, a filter of some sorts is necessary.

"People Chose Bing Web Search Results Over Google Nearly 2:1 in Blind Comparison Tests - Really??"

"Bing Your Brain: Test, Then Test Again"

"Microsoft Is Throwing Money Down A Rat Hole"

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com 
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

For ICs I find it's always better to search on just the basic part number, rather than a complete one with all the letters on the end.

[...]
--

John Devereux
Reply to
John Devereux

Odd, I've found the opposite. You would assume the most general search (no suffix) would work, but it matches by whole word, so if there are more QQ12974XYZ datasheets than just QQ12974s, you're not going to find them.

Needless to say, missing the prefix is also going to ruin your search.

Most, if not all, supplier database searches go by "contains", so "3904" gets you all kinds of 2N3904, MMBT3904, etc., with their various suffixes -TR, -BU, etc. I guess there simply aren't web searches that do this?

Tim

--
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk. 
Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com
Reply to
Tim Williams

lately, I have to use the minus sign to exclude those gawd awful worthless advertising "datasheets" sites. For instance, for a search on "ferrite",

ferrite -alldatasheet -datasheetarchive -findchips -datasheets.org

(I think they are paying google for their bogus results)

Also, try using the plus sign in front of words that you want to appear on the page. That sometiems helps.

I actually went to bing the other day for a search. I hate bing and the sites that want you to make bing your default home page.

boB

Reply to
boB

Great suggestions on this thread. My point is that in the past you didn't n eed to add all those quotes, pluses, minuses, etc. Of course this is anecdo tal I haven't done any scientific experiment (that would also require me tr avelling in time), but it's been my impression lately.

Reply to
M. Hamed

very relevant to what I'm searching for. That and the simple minimalist design of the homepage.

Garden). Any time I'm looking for something specific with multiple search terms, more often that not the results do not have most of my search terms. Their algorithms have changed. They try too hard to read your mind and end up searching for synonyms of your words and you end up getting stupid results.

around this (adding + signs, playing with the Search tools settings), but I feel it's getting harder and harder to find what I want.

I so very wish you were. Yahoo exhibits the same issue differently. Over optimizing for the masses to the point of ruining it for more serious searchers.

?-(

Reply to
josephkk

ry relevant to what I'm searching for. That and the simple minimalist desig n of the homepage.

arden). Any time I'm looking for something specific with multiple search te rms, more often that not the results do not have most of my search terms. T heir algorithms have changed. They try too hard to read your mind and end u p searching for synonyms of your words and you end up getting stupid result s.

nd this (adding + signs, playing with the Search tools settings), but I fee l it's getting harder and harder to find what I want.

Thanks for the great list.

I have trouble with google supplying 'dead' websites that no longer exist!!! Once during a search I didn't find anything of value plus over 10 dead websites. Usually these dead websites promise to be the EXACT information I was searching for, so I wish they hadn't tantalized me with hope. You'd think google would make some 'bot to cull through their website listings and purge dead ones.

Reply to
Robert Macy

The dead shall rise again.

Google caches the web pages it searches. The cached pages are hidden in the "instant preview" picture that appears to the right of search results:

Or, just change the example.com site at the end of the following URL to whatever Google recovers: or:

There is also the way back machine:

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com 
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

to add all those quotes, pluses, minuses, etc. Of course this is anecdotal I haven't done any scientific experiment (that would also require me travelling in time), but it's been my impression lately.

How Google works:

Google modifies the search terms and ignores quotes and + signs on the main Google search page, but uses them on the advanced search page. For generic searching, I use the main page (mostly to correct my spelling errors and buzzword recall failures). For specific and techy searches, I use the advanced search page.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com 
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.