If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Off-topic Google-related rant.
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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Off-topic Google-related rant.
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Off-topic Google-related rant.
On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 21:16:50 -0600, Lostgallifreyan
put finger to keyboard and composed: c "1d array to 2d array" -convert* About 1,780 results (0.06 seconds) c assign "1d array to 2d array" -convert* About 501,000,000 results (0.07 seconds) I see this sort of thing a lot. I agree that it is nonsensical and frustrating. You might like to use the "+" prefix to compel Google to include a particular search term. c assign "1d array to 2d array" -convert* About 583,000,000 results +c assign "1d array to 2d array" -convert* No results found for +c assign "1d array to 2d array" -convert* +c assign "1d array to 2d array" No results found for +c assign "1d array to 2d array" - Franc Zabkar -- Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Off-topic Google-related rant.
Franc Zabkar wrote in
news You might like to use the "+" prefix to compel Google to include a particular search term. c assign "1d array to 2d array" -convert* About 583,000,000 results +c assign "1d array to 2d array" -convert* No results found for +c assign "1d array to 2d array" -convert* +c assign "1d array to 2d array" No results found for +c assign "1d array to 2d array" - Franc Zabkar Weird. very. First off, I was emailing to Rudolph Loew about thios, and he didn't beleive me. I think not, anyway. The + operator quit workign for me recently. I started looking around during a fit of annoyance to see whether there were reports of Google changes or borkages. Apparently (as well as nuking Google Code Search), they revoked the + operator, about November last year, and there are forum posts all over the web about this. Rudolph Loew's in Germany, I think, and he says it works for him. It seems it may be as geographically dependant as some of their other policies, but hell knows why. The official replacement for the + operator is to use "C" instead of +C, which I do try, but with oiss-poor results to be honest. Inconsistencies are so rife that it's hard to search at all now. Take 'struct'. On its own, it comes up with a simple return that includes Wikipedia. Not bad, we might think. But if we want some elaboration, some worked examples, it gets a lot harder. I can specify C or "C" (not so important for 'struct' as it is for usage of API calls, but the problems still occur), but then I get C# and C++ which aren't helpful for a newcomer determined to use ANSI C! With API calls there are so many languages that I end up having to use absurd strings of negation like this one: -python -ruby -tcl -lua -net -mfc -visual -vb* -perl -c# -C++ -wx* While this can reduce the noise from un-useful code snippets and discussions, and even whole forums, it breaks Google to the point where a huge number of garbage pages from conent mills and worse pollute the results. Very often an EXACT substring search might solve this, by allowing fragments of C syntax required for context to be included. The SNR could be extremely high if they allowed this, but of course, they never did, and likely never will, given that they chose to nuke code search! |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Off-topic Google-related rant.
Franc Zabkar wrote in
news c assign "1d array to 2d array" -convert* About 583,000,000 results +c assign "1d array to 2d array" -convert* No results found for +c assign "1d array to 2d array" -convert* +c assign "1d array to 2d array" No results found for +c assign "1d array to 2d array" Actually, that's broken anyway! Using that specific quoted string alone gets 14000+ results, some of the first-page ones specifically mentioning C! But when I tried the string, and +C, I got no results even without the other terms to restrict them. There is a lot of talk on the web about assigning 1D arrays to 2D arrays in C, largely because you can't, you have to use a struct and pointer iteration to get a neat method to emulate it, or build the means into higher level languages. Either that or nest for-loops ad nauseam... So the moment that C is explicitly requested with +C, there is something wrong if ZERO results are returned. Plus operator or no plus operator, that's just plain borked. Incidentally, the + operator WAS NOT ignored when I just tried it to see what you showed me. I'm not imagining that it was ignored recently though. Google this: google plus operator Page after page confirming that it was revoked. Maybe they revoked the revoke, or borked the revoke, or revoked the bork... It makes my head spin. Sometimes I wonder if Google should just start over and let us have substrings and RegEx so we have a fighting chance of getting what we need. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Off-topic Google-related rant.
Lostgallifreyan wrote in
: .........So the moment that C is explicitly requested with +C, there is something wrong if ZERO results are returned. Plus operator or no plus operator, that's just plain borked. I say this because 'NO results' is so unlikely an outcome. Even if we assume that the plus operator is revoked, and now treated as a literal character, it's hard to beleive that in all of them thar interwebz, there isn't a single typo to match it against, even in a 'limited' subset of 14000+ pages. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Off-topic Google-related rant.
On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 03:49:05 -0600, Lostgallifreyan
put finger to keyboard and composed: Franc Zabkar wrote in news c assign "1d array to 2d array" -convert* About 583,000,000 results +c assign "1d array to 2d array" -convert* No results found for +c assign "1d array to 2d array" -convert* +c assign "1d array to 2d array" No results found for +c assign "1d array to 2d array" Actually, that's broken anyway! Using that specific quoted string alone gets 14000+ results, some of the first-page ones specifically mentioning C! But when I tried the string, and +C, I got no results even without the other terms to restrict them. I confess that I find Google's search algorithm incomprehensible also. +C About 13,100,000 results --- OK "C" About 25,270,000,000 results --- eh? -C Your search - -C - did not match any documents --- OK +C -C About 255,000 results --- eh? BTW, I, too, thought that the plus operator had been withdrawn and replaced by quotes. - Franc Zabkar -- Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Off-topic Google-related rant.
Franc Zabkar wrote in
: I confess that I find Google's search algorithm incomprehensible also. +C About 13,100,000 results --- OK "C" About 25,270,000,000 results --- eh? -C Your search - -C - did not match any documents --- OK +C -C About 255,000 results --- eh? BTW, I, too, thought that the plus operator had been withdrawn and replaced by quotes. I think search engines are maybe all failing, because they all depend on trying to filter the unfilterable. Machines can't do this. When confronted by a page of 'posts' all cut crudely out of a forum, snipped mid-word, no less, then pasted on a page with fake names, only to fool Google into ranking it high so they can get people to load them and see the ads on them, then even if Google use all kinds of fancy heuristics, they will NOT eliminate this crap, and they aren't all that interested in trying. They only do as much as to keep the masses from howling at their incompetency. I suspect it IS a failure to grasp the complexity adequately that causes them to return rediculous assessments of how many pages have appropriate matches. Giving us EXACT substring searches is the only sure way to prevent this, so we can use OUR brains to filter what they evidently cannot and will not filter. But they never give us that power, despite it being the easiest thing code can do. They never will, because we are NOT meant to be given that kind of power. We'd have had it long ago, as we do on our own machines, if they'd ever intended to help us that much. Tonight I found some quiet high SNR pages, mostly details of C and API coding. I mostly got them from links they shared, not directly from Google, once I'd got a hit mostly by luck. This was how the net use to be I think, before search engines. You either knew where stuff was, or you didn't, and web rings, links pages, kept a trail from one good place to another. If a page was ****e, no-one bothered to tell anyone where it was. I remember someone saying that search engines will never be a substitute for a good library. At the time I didn't want to beleive that, I hoped the net would be a better and faster source than any library, and I've known several good town and city centre libraries to compare with, too. For a while it WAS better, I could find more, better, and freer info on lasers and computers and pretty much anything else than I ever found before. I think that's why it's so disappointing now. The saturation has become so noisy that it's like trying to watch TV through so much static it's hard to tell if the picture is even in colour! Those who hoarded good books were wise. There are several great sites on the net, but I won't be relying on search engines to find them. From now on I'll be saving links, and maybe asking the owners if I can download a lot of pages for private storage, in case I can't reach them any other way. Places like the 'Battery University', Sound.westhost.com, and such. Places that like libraries had more answers than questions, until an enquiring mind came to them. The internet is full of questions, mostly from UNinquiring minds. Usenet is an oasis, but the web is becoming a desert. The more people fill it the emptier it ghets, somehow. I never thought I'd say this, but if there's to be a two-tier internet, bring it on. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Off-topic Google-related rant.
On Mar 7, 8:41*am, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Franc Zabkar wrote : I confess that I find Google's search algorithm incomprehensible also. +C About 13,100,000 results --- OK "C" About 25,270,000,000 results --- eh? -C Your search - -C - did not match any documents --- OK +C -C About 255,000 results --- eh? BTW, I, too, thought that the plus operator had been withdrawn and replaced by quotes. I think search engines are maybe all failing, because they all depend on trying to filter the unfilterable. Machines can't do this. When confronted by a page of 'posts' all cut crudely out of a forum, snipped mid-word, no less, then pasted on a page with fake names, only to fool Google into ranking it high so they can get people to load them and see the ads on them, then even if Google use all kinds of fancy heuristics, they will NOT eliminate this crap, and they aren't all that interested in trying. They only do as much as to keep the masses from howling at their incompetency. I suspect it IS a failure to grasp the complexity adequately that causes them to return rediculous assessments of how many pages have appropriate matches. Giving us EXACT substring searches is the only sure way to prevent this, so we can use OUR brains to filter what they evidently cannot and will not filter. But they never give us that power, despite it being the easiest thing code can do. They never will, because we are NOT meant to be given that kind of power. We'd have had it long ago, as we do on our own machines, if they'd ever intended to help us that much. Tonight I found some quiet high SNR pages, mostly details of C and API coding. I mostly got them from links they shared, not directly from Google, once I'd got a hit mostly by luck. This was how the net use to be I think, before search engines. You either knew where stuff was, or you didn't, and web rings, links pages, kept a trail from one good place to another. If a page was ****e, no-one bothered to tell anyone where it was. I remember someone saying that search engines will never be a substitute for a good library. At the time I didn't want to beleive that, I hoped the net would be a better and faster source than any library, and I've known several good town and city centre libraries to compare with, too. For a while it WAS better, I could find more, better, and freer info on lasers and computers and pretty much anything else than I ever found before. I think that's why it's so disappointing now. The saturation has become so noisy that it's like trying to watch TV through so much static it's hard to tell if the picture is even in colour! Those who hoarded good books were wise. There are several great sites on the net, but I won't be relying on search engines to find them. From now on I'll be saving links, and maybe asking the owners if I can download a lot of pages for private storage, in case I can't reach them any other way. Places like the 'Battery University', Sound.westhost.com, and such. Places that like libraries had more answers than questions, until an enquiring mind came to them. The internet is full of questions, mostly from UNinquiring minds. Usenet is an oasis, but the web is becoming a desert. The more people fill it the emptier it ghets, somehow. I never thought I'd say this, but if there's to be a two-tier internet, bring it on. ARRRRGGG!!!! google just replaced my normal "Advanced Search" window with their new one. I think they're taking lessons from Microsoft. They broke what worked, and changed for no discernible reasons. Yet, I still get hits on obsolete URLs, wish google would take care of that before mucking about. 1.Their window used to fit in one screen shot, now have to scroll up and down to complete entries and then search! Two motions for one action!!! 2.Reduced number of listings per screen shot, don't see how to get more than an incredibly small number of hits on a page! I used to be able to get 100 entries on a single page, with that left I could then go down through selecting ones to view separately. Now have to scroll to new page, go back and forth between pages, etc, etc !!! 3.Entries require more typing than before, used to be able to fill in a line labeled "exact phrase" with a string of words, and you were done, now you must fill in the line with a string of words and then have to add quote marks! absolutely NO reason for that! I used to add quote marks on phrases to be included and did not mind adding quotes to phrases, but this is stupiditiy!!! |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Off-topic Google-related rant.
Robert Macy wrote:
On Mar 7, 8:41 am, Lostgallifreyan wrote: Franc Zabkar wrote : I confess that I find Google's search algorithm incomprehensible also. +C About 13,100,000 results --- OK "C" About 25,270,000,000 results --- eh? -C Your search - -C - did not match any documents --- OK +C -C About 255,000 results --- eh? BTW, I, too, thought that the plus operator had been withdrawn and replaced by quotes. I think search engines are maybe all failing, because they all depend on trying to filter the unfilterable. Machines can't do this. When confronted by a page of 'posts' all cut crudely out of a forum, snipped mid-word, no less, then pasted on a page with fake names, only to fool Google into ranking it high so they can get people to load them and see the ads on them, then even if Google use all kinds of fancy heuristics, they will NOT eliminate this crap, and they aren't all that interested in trying. They only do as much as to keep the masses from howling at their incompetency. I suspect it IS a failure to grasp the complexity adequately that causes them to return rediculous assessments of how many pages have appropriate matches. Giving us EXACT substring searches is the only sure way to prevent this, so we can use OUR brains to filter what they evidently cannot and will not filter. But they never give us that power, despite it being the easiest thing code can do. They never will, because we are NOT meant to be given that kind of power. We'd have had it long ago, as we do on our own machines, if they'd ever intended to help us that much. Tonight I found some quiet high SNR pages, mostly details of C and API coding. I mostly got them from links they shared, not directly from Google, once I'd got a hit mostly by luck. This was how the net use to be I think, before search engines. You either knew where stuff was, or you didn't, and web rings, links pages, kept a trail from one good place to another. If a page was ****e, no-one bothered to tell anyone where it was. I remember someone saying that search engines will never be a substitute for a good library. At the time I didn't want to beleive that, I hoped the net would be a better and faster source than any library, and I've known several good town and city centre libraries to compare with, too. For a while it WAS better, I could find more, better, and freer info on lasers and computers and pretty much anything else than I ever found before. I think that's why it's so disappointing now. The saturation has become so noisy that it's like trying to watch TV through so much static it's hard to tell if the picture is even in colour! Those who hoarded good books were wise. There are several great sites on the net, but I won't be relying on search engines to find them. From now on I'll be saving links, and maybe asking the owners if I can download a lot of pages for private storage, in case I can't reach them any other way. Places like the 'Battery University', Sound.westhost.com, and such. Places that like libraries had more answers than questions, until an enquiring mind came to them. The internet is full of questions, mostly from UNinquiring minds. Usenet is an oasis, but the web is becoming a desert. The more people fill it the emptier it ghets, somehow. I never thought I'd say this, but if there's to be a two-tier internet, bring it on. ARRRRGGG!!!! google just replaced my normal "Advanced Search" window with their new one. I think they're taking lessons from Microsoft. They broke what worked, and changed for no discernible reasons. Yet, I still get hits on obsolete URLs, wish google would take care of that before mucking about. 1.Their window used to fit in one screen shot, now have to scroll up and down to complete entries and then search! Two motions for one action!!! I agree, I do believe that has changed. :-) 2.Reduced number of listings per screen shot, don't see how to get more than an incredibly small number of hits on a page! I used to be able to get 100 entries on a single page, with that left I could then go down through selecting ones to view separately. Now have to scroll to new page, go back and forth between pages, etc, etc !!! I only recall getting 10 entries per page. Not 100 or anything close to that. 3.Entries require more typing than before, used to be able to fill in a line labeled "exact phrase" with a string of words, and you were done, now you must fill in the line with a string of words and then have to add quote marks! absolutely NO reason for that! I used to add quote marks on phrases to be included and did not mind adding quotes to phrases, but this is stupiditiy!!! Actually, I don't think you HAVE to type in the quotes, as long as you use the exact phrase box. Test it for yourself. I did, and it seemed to work fine without the quotes. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
On topic, --- but Off topic;; winrar | jack | General | 13 | May 24th 09 10:22 AM |
On topic, --- but Off topic;; winrar | jack | General | 0 | May 23rd 09 01:18 PM |
Sorry about my earlier rant | Dan | General | 5 | September 9th 06 12:19 AM |
NOTHING MSN RELATED!? | helpme | Internet | 1 | August 4th 04 01:57 PM |