OT using google to check usage.

I'm writing some instructions, I put in the 3db point of a filter. My "editor" changed it to -3dB, more correct, but I always figured the minus sign is assumed. But I did the google check. Low pass filter 3dB 248k hits Low pass filter -3dB 16 Meg hits...

-3dB it is... George H.

Reply to
George Herold
Loading thread data ...

I prefer "3dB down" -- that gives the sign information in a reasonably compact form.

The important thing isn't to say the same thing as the majority of writers, but to say what is the most clear to the majority of readers. Usually you get the latter by doing the former, but I do not believe that this is always the case.

(Footnoted or parenthetical statements to the tune of "commonly written ..." are often helpful, IMHO.)

--
Tim Wescott 
Wescott Design Services 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Tim Wescott

If I search for 'Zero Compression Point' I get 3.7mil hits, on socks....

Ditto for Zero Point compression ;)

Cheers

Reply to
Martin Riddle

if you really want to be fussy it should be -3 dB.

With a space.

Mark

Reply to
makolber

Wrong. What you're getting is the number of hits for the individual words, not the phrase. Wrap your search string with double quotes like this:

"Low pass filter -3dB" 3,450 hits

"Low pass filter 3dB" 3,450 hits

"Low pass filter -3 dB" 7,270 hits

"Low pass filter 3 dB" 7.270 hits

Notice that Google ignores the - sign in the search. Searching for a minus sign is apparently a mystery: The - sign is an operator that tells Google search to exclude the text that follows. See text under "Minus Sign" section.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

Is it possible they consider it an operator ? Well maybe not because of the results but I do believe they had a way to exclude results with certain wo rds and the minus sign used to be one of them IIRC.

Who knows anymore. things used to make sense and the problem is too many pe ople got used to that.

It may have been discontinued as an operator because then if someone did wa nt to try to search for a minus sign they would have to do some "%h[number] " thing and it would be cumbersome, especially in today's world and even wo rse with the teeny boppers on their phones.

Reply to
jurb6006

Yep. It means exclude the following word. I use it quite often.

I tried to find such an "escape" sequence and failed. I also tried the HTML equivalent of a long and short dash &mdash and &#8212 got similar results. However, I didn't try every possible mutation of the dash character:

Google resurrected regex filtering support a few years ago for email: Whether they ever resurrect it for web searching is rather dubious. The big innovation introduced by Google, that made it useable by the GUM (great unwashed masses) was the elimination of the complexity of regex, and reducing search operators to the bare necessary minimum. That sure made searches easier, but at the expense of odd problems that were solved long ago in regex. I don't see Google going back to regex just to fix a few odd problems. Fortunately, there are a few addons that support regex which might work. I haven't tried any (yet):

Greatest good for the greatest number. If you're not a member of the greatest number, you lose.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

minus negates a serach term finding articles that don't contain the term.

if to you want -3dB use quotes "-3dB"

I get half a million results for

filter 3dB and half a million for

filter "-3dB"

however most of the 3dB results actually say "-3dB"

--
  \_(?)_
Reply to
Jasen Betts

Oh well, never mind then. (And thanks) I clearly have a long way to go to catch up to Randall Munroe and google searching.

George H.

Reply to
George Herold

OK I tried duckduckgo. It distinguished between the two, (-3dB and 3dB) but doesn't give me the total number of hits.

George H.

Reply to
George Herold

On that line of thought Bing gives these results.

"-3dB" 1,850,000 results "3dB" 1,840,000 results "-3 dB" 2,870,000 results "3 dB" 2,860,000 results

I'd love to see someone figure out how to search for "3 dB" only without "-3 dB" on the page.

--

Rick
Reply to
rickman

snip

not that number of results equals correctness. 1980's is far more popular than 1980s.

NT

Reply to
tabbypurr

George:-

You can use 'ngram view' to search Google books for usage.

formatting link

Looks like it was more of a close thing 45 years ago.

--sp

--
Best regards,  
Spehro Pefhany 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Spehro Pefhany

huh, interesting... well this is "just for fun" now. But "3dB point" is more popular that "-3dB point"

Hey I should just see how AoE3 does it... the bible for EE's :^) (I noticed your tag line.)

George H.

Reply to
George Herold

What about those who are agnostics?

--

Rick
Reply to
rickman

Does that mean people that worship their nose?

NT

Reply to
tabbypurr

I've got your gnosis ...

--sp

--
Best regards,  
Spehro Pefhany 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Spehro Pefhany

The definition of gnostic is "having knowledge". Therefore, an agnostic is someone who has no knowledge and is clueless.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

Raises hand sheepishly, that describes alot of my belief system.

But not electronics, where there is always an output, (no matter how small) and that's your knowledge, you can't be agnostic about electronics, if you want to choose some other "bible" that's your choice. :^) George H.

Reply to
George Herold

Yep. I occasionally get into political arguments. Invariably, that leads to everyone involved becoming polarized towards the available radical extremes. Trying to remain neutral, politically agnostic, or undecided (same thing) is futile.

I have an easy way of stacking the odds in my favor. I ask the leading proponent of whatever I find disagreeable if he voted in the last election. With the miserable voter turnout in the US, chances are about 67% that they did NOT vote. Once they confess that, I declare that they are not entitled to an opinion. If that doesn't reduce the odds, it certainly helps because I've noticed that many of the others involved in the agreement quickly drift off before I ask them the same question.

Not really. If it can't be measured, it doesn't exist. It's much like searching the web. If Google can't find it, it doesn't exist.

That's also a definition of the welfare state, where one expects to see productive output, from a system where only a few contribute any input. Eventually, the output disappears.

That's a rather narrow view of electronic philosophy. The problem is that there is no clear division between electronics and adjacent technologies. Those who chose to only understand the electronic parts of a puzzle are doomed to fumble over something they don't understand. These are the true agnostics or specialists, who know everything there is to know about very little. Eventually, the know everything about nothing. I've worked with some of those, who will spend 6 months designing and optimizing a one transistor oscillator, while the rest of team have to deal with everything else.

At the opposing extreme are those who want to know something about everything, whether it has anything to do with electronics, or involves adjacent technologies. I'm not sure that's any better than being a specialist, because in order to do anything, I have to some rapid reading and studying. So, I concentrate on knowing how things work, and learn the rest as required. I guess I'm half-agnostic.

My bibles have changed drastically over the years. When I was young, my parents bought me an Encyclopedia Britannica. I read sections quite often and believed everything I read. I rarely went to the library, so I never read any conflicting points of view. I was a gullible idiot.

When I went to college in the 1960's, my bibles were the various text books. That which is written in print, or cast in stone, must be the truth. All else is suspect. I was still a gullible idiot.

After some adventures, experiments, and disasters, I eventually went to work as an engineer. My bible became the various trade journals. Here was scripture from which I could steal working circuits and designs. The illusion didn't quite survive after I tried to build a few of those circuits. Well, at least the magazines had some good theory articles on which I could build my pyramid. That wasn't any better after I discovered that most were intended to sell components from the authors company. So, I just collected the magazines, organized them neatly in my home and office, and concentrated on reading about contract awards, promotions, and politics. That eventually became a problem in 1989, when we had an earthquake. The house was largely undamaged, but I was walking on about 1ft of magazines covering most of the floor for about 2 months. I was somewhat less gullible but still and idiot.

After the magazines, the new bible became the BBS, USENET, and eventually Google and the Weird Weird Web. Instead of collecting and organizing information, these electronic libraries would do the work for me. I had only to ask them a question, and the answer would be forthcoming. I disposed of my encyclopedia, books, and magazines, and enshrined a computer in their place. Surely all knowledge would soon be forthcoming. Only an idiot could believe that.

Well, the internet bible didn't quite work as expected. Instead of one answer, I received a dozen answers. For important questions, I received no answers. For trivial questions, I was buried in multiple answers. I seek the true answer, but instead get opinions. I've replaced being gullible by becoming cynical, but still an idiot.

Near the end of my search for enlightenment, I decide that it's not enough to just search and read my latest bible for the answers. I must also contribute my accumulated wisdom to the multitudes so that their search for answers might be made somewhat easier. In other words, misery loves company. So, I preceded to answer questions on Usenet, forums, mailing lists, and email. While my answers were not any better than those who really knew what they were doing, I could generally write better than the experts and therefore repackage my drivel into something that looked like pages from a bible. I have become arrogant as well as cynical, but still an idiot.

I'm not sure what comes next. I've given up my search for the one true bible of electronics and all things worth knowing. If sufficiently inspired, I might consider writing such a bible, so that those that follow in my footsteps, can properly repeat all my mistakes. If it makes me rich and famous, perhaps I can stop worrying about being an idiot.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
 Click to see the full signature
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.