g1smd
msg:4401405 | 12:32 am on Dec 26, 2011 (gmt 0) |
This stuff is beyond infuriating and happens a lot with many of the searches I do.
Come back Northern Light, all is forgiven.
|
Samizdata
msg:4401422 | 2:10 am on Dec 26, 2011 (gmt 0) |
| Come back Northern Light, all is forgiven |
|
Northern Light was my preferred search engine choice pre-Google and as far as I am concerned has no transgressions to forgive.
The company is now apparently employee-owned and provides custom search facilities for major businesses (the public search was discontinued in 2002).
I don't recall ever hunting a swagrat there, though.
...
|
rustybrick
msg:4401677 | 1:13 pm on Dec 27, 2011 (gmt 0) |
I can't replicate it, can you share a screen shot?
|
lucy24
msg:4401796 | 10:13 pm on Dec 27, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Not on these forums-- I'd have to mess about with image-hosting sites. But I tried two unrelated browsers I don't often use, made sure there were no bing cookies, and got identical results both places. That is, I didn't check item-for-item, but good ol' Jimmy Swaggart topped both lists.
Along the way, I discovered a bunch more Chrome settings I hadn't known existed. So that was useful in any case ;)
|
bingdude
msg:4401992 | 8:48 pm on Dec 28, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Ummm. if it's the number one result on G, the Facebook page for the, and I'm assumign here, "artist" that I'm seeing...it could be because of the inappropriate language the FB page is showing in its description.
Couple that with low query volume, and most typos still leading people to something they wanted (maybe they typoed but actually wanted Jimmy?) and you could have an answer on this particular phrase.
Still, interesting example.
|
Samizdata
msg:4401999 | 9:13 pm on Dec 28, 2011 (gmt 0) |
| maybe they typoed but actually wanted Jimmy? |
|
Fair to say that nobody ever went broke underestimating the public.
But a search engine that does not return results for what one actually types - assuming instead that it knows better - is not really a search engine at all.
It is simply a failure, from a user perspective.
...
|
lucy24
msg:4402028 | 11:42 pm on Dec 28, 2011 (gmt 0) |
What worries me is that there was no visible way to say-- even as a follow-up to the original response-- "No, it was not a typo*, I wanted this exact spelling."
* Or even two separate typos: abcdefg >> abcddfeg. I guess to a computer the words look more similar than they really are.
|
morgret
msg:4402217 | 5:32 pm on Dec 29, 2011 (gmt 0) |
I switched to Bing because I was fed up with Google adding in so many related searches that really weren't related. Yesterday, Bing started doing it to me too. I searched for [down syndrome posture] and got results for "position" as well as "posture". The problem is, the first two results were "position papers" or "position statements", which is not at all related.
At least Bing still lets me use the + operator to say that I really meant what I typed, but I'm sad to see this starting with Bing, too.
|
netmeg
msg:4402447 | 6:32 pm on Dec 30, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Tell me about it.
- not nutmeg
|
JAB Creations
msg:4402468 | 8:11 pm on Dec 30, 2011 (gmt 0) |
If anyone else here logs search spiders Entireweb and Yandex are running strong spiders at least here in the states and their crawl rates are sufficient enough for me to recommend them since Yahoo is no longer a search engine (just a husk for Bing now).
- John
|
lexipixel
msg:4402476 | 8:50 pm on Dec 30, 2011 (gmt 0) |
could be because of the inappropriate language the FB page is showing in its description
-bingdude |
|
So Bing is not only limiting the number of words that can be used in language, but basing their acceptable use on (seemingly, but not definitely) related webpages?
Please apply to Bing algo:
Example #1 - After propositioning the streetwalker, bing, I was in like Flyn.
Example #2 - The mobster exclaimed "butt-a-Bing" after a big score.
Example #3 - The junkie's eyes lit up and he let out a gleeful "Bing Baby!" when the smack hit his bloodstream.
... I'm sorry, no matches for Bing, perhaps you meant bong, (oops, can't use that), bang (violence or slang meaning -- can't use that either), maybe being ?
|
aakk9999
msg:4402483 | 9:45 pm on Dec 30, 2011 (gmt 0) |
On Bing you could go to Advanced search and then select "this exact phrase" and it would give you swagrat results
On Google you could use Verbatism search option
I have to say I am happy when Google corrects my spelling on occassions when I have really mispelled something, but then the change of search words come with this territory.
It would be nice if both search engines would have two buttons next to search box, one saying [SEARCH] and other [SEARCH AS EXACTLY SPELLED] without needing to go to advanced options to switch it on. Then the user can use the button as appropriate and in fact can get "alternate" results by clicking on the other button that repeats the search for the search phrase entered without the need to re-enter it, re-type it or whatever.
<added>But this would mean that there would be less chance to "guide" the visitor towards result set they want you to go to and the instant would not work either</added>
|
aleksl
msg:4403270 | 7:36 pm on Jan 3, 2012 (gmt 0) |
shouldn't double quotes around the word mean "search as exactly spelled"? I would assume it is an obvious first choice.
|
|
