On Mar 5, 7:23*am, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Robert Macy wrote in news:dc5d7b4e-47cb-4353-a544-
:

At the top of that resulting list, is a little request to CLICK on and
do the search the way you intended.

Trust me, I am entirely familiar with those. It's actually nauseating, the
number of times they do 'did you mean' when I know exactly what I meant.

Example: -conver*

Google-bleat: "Did you mean -convert*?"

That's just pathetic. They see an expression from someone who clearly appears
to know how to use a negation operator combined with stemming well enough to
place a wildcard such that it eliminates 'convert' and also 'conversion', and
despite making these rules up THEMSELVES, they fail to see them when they
bite them from behind, and instead assume we made a TYPO or a misspelling..
It's not as if we don't make errors, but it's our call, not theirs. We CANNOT
be precise anyway, if they won't let us, and they don't.

If the banal alternative is sufficiently high in the spam rankings that they
trust too much, they won;t even ASK me, they'll just switch out my search for
their inane interpretation so I have to explicitly demand them to put it
back! Sometimes even that fails and I have to work out even more stringent
limitations to force it to comply.

That's not 'helpful'. It's moronic.

When I am trying hard to learn to code, I often find myself battling with
Google instead of with the code! That's not what search engines are for!

forgot to complain about how more and more websites come up in a
search result, but no longer exist! You'd think google could turn a
robot loose 'testing' websites and slowly removing obsolete ones from
their search results.