We're improving search results when you use quotes

Please now also improve search results without quotes. When I query a b c (without quotes) I want results exclusively containing all 3 words, not just one or two of them. There&#x27;s a reason I typed it.<p>Next, remove content thieves like Pinterest entirely from the index.<p>Next, invest in recency + relevancy over just page reputation. A huge amount of high value recent content is written but it keeps losing against much worse old content which only ranks because it&#x27;s old. As the typical example: the 15 year old Stackoverflow jQuery answer.<p>Invest in location awareness. Including location in your query gives laughable results.<p>Find a way to down rank sites gaming particular categories with shady tactics.

This is fascinating. Not because of the content of this article, but because it&#x27;s the first glimpse behind the Google Search curtain that I&#x27;ve ever seen in an official Google post. You rarely see details about search explained. Or maybe I&#x27;m just ignorant.<p>Even that bit about &quot;don&#x27;t&quot; being turned into &quot;don t&quot; was interesting. Again, not because I was amazed in any way. More so because Search has been so mysterious for many years.

See also some context for Google search operators including ones that have been removed: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;ahrefs.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;google-advanced-search-operators&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;ahrefs.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;google-advanced-search-operators&#x2F;</a> and changed: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.googleguide.com&#x2F;quote_operator.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.googleguide.com&#x2F;quote_operator.html</a> (IIRC this was due to Google+ and was an internally unpopular change, but my memory may be faulty).

I&#x27;m glad to hear that they are working on fixing this, but I would be keen to understand why quote searches have been so much worse over the last ~2 years.

&gt; &quot;Punctuation is sometimes seen as spaces. Our systems see some punctuation as spaces, which impacts quoted searches. For example, a search for [“don’t doesn’t”] tells our systems to find content that contains all these letters in this order: &quot;don t doesn t&quot;<p>Others have pointed this bit out, but I&#x27;d like to ask specifically: How do you search for special characters?<p>I recently came across some R code that used %||% and you cannot search for this. As in, you cannot search the internet for this at all.<p>Google, DuckDuckGo, Bing, Yahoo, all of them will ignore special characters. Even Github search will strip out the special characters leaving you to search for nothing.

&gt; Years ago, many people used operators because search engines sometimes needed additional guidance. Things have advanced since then, so operators are often no longer necessary.<p>In my experience, things have degraded since then, so operators are increasingly necessary.

Remember when we could use &quot;+&quot; to tell Google it must include a term and &quot;-&quot; to define what the search result must not include? This was helpful to filter out advertisements and other useless nonsense while making sure to get what we want.

Okay, except the quote operator doesn&#x27;t work as described and hasn&#x27;t worked that way in at least 10 years. &quot;Did you mean x?&quot; No, asshole, I put what I meant in quotes.

Now, if only they could solve the problem where the text they index does not match the text my browser displays.<p>I&#x27;ve seen a few searches recently (on DDG) where the indexed text is apparently hidden behind an authentication wall.<p>Google&#x27;s cached page feature used to fix those sorts of shenanigans.

&gt; Years ago, many people used operators because search engines sometimes needed additional guidance. Things have advanced since then, so operators are often no longer necessary.<p>Except it&#x27;s been regressing to where operators are often <i>more</i> necessary again

For some reason, this bit of the movie Whiplash came to mind:<p>Terence Fletcher: Really? Adjusting the seat, really? That&#x27;s been your problem the whole fucking time, the seat height? So now you have it, right? Go!<p>[Ryan starts playing]<p>Terence Fletcher: Bullshit! Fuck you!

&quot;Punctuation is sometimes seen as spaces. Our systems see some punctuation as spaces, which impacts quoted searches. For example, a search for [“don’t doesn’t”] tells our systems to find content that contains all these letters in this order:<p>don t doesn t&quot;<p>This is one of the most annoying things tbh, when you specifically need to include special characters it just gives you garbage

Google and Youtube search are heavily censored, for example if you open Youtube and type &quot;JRE alex&quot; then Alex Jones will be the last suggestion despite his episode having the most views, if you type &quot;JRE Robert&quot; then Youtube will suggest Robert Downey Jr and other guests whose name starts with Robert, but it won&#x27;t show Robert Malone, and if you write &quot;JRE Robert Malon&quot; it still won&#x27;t suggest it.<p>Now those episodes have been controversial, and I only bring them up because it&#x27;s the example that came to my head (before someone misses the whole point and starts looking at the finger), and Google Search also censors them, now while I still use google mainly to access Stackoverflow and Reddit threads, I see no point in using it if I&#x27;m searching for anything I want a neutral conversation about that I can examine and make my own conclusion.<p>All in all the internet seems to be getting smaller and smaller, I don&#x27;t use any social media apart from HN and Reddit, and I only use Reddit because I seem to still be addicted to it since it&#x27;s probably one of the most censored of all of them.<p>10 years ago as a 20 year old I benefited greatly from how the internet was, here is an example: I grew up on the idea that there was nothing wrong with porn, and there isn&#x27;t per se, and no one ever spoke about addiction like behavior when it came to watching it, then one day I discover a controversial post on Reddit and dove down the rabbit hole and lo and behold I had the same problems as this community of people trying to quit watching it, and I benefited from their experiences and knowledge, same about discovering communities against social media like Facebook, which pushed me to research the subject and deleting my account, etc. but now it seems like any controversial community is quickly banned or pushed aside in its own unfindable bubble and that to me is a great loss.<p>I want to see people have an opposite opinion than mine, and I want to be able to get into heated non censored discussions in comment sections and get suggestions about articles, studies and content to challenge my views.

Note here - they aren&#x27;t changing what results are returned when you search with quotes, they are just highlighting what you searched with quotes in bold in the snippet displays in the search results page.

@dannysullivan (Google’s public liaison of Search [1]; he is commenting in this thread)<p>- What is the best way to ping you and how do I format my search bugs&#x2F;features in a way that makes it easy for them to be processed by Google?<p>- Already pointed out and documented replication issues in another comment in this thread [2].<p>_____<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;user?id=dannysullivan" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;user?id=dannysullivan</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=32354078" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=32354078</a>

There was a moment in time where quotes and negeation hyphens were completely ignored. I have no idea why they ever thought that was a good idea.

I&#x27;m amused at how an equally valid headline would be<p>&quot;Search results will continue to suck for those who aren&#x27;t tech-savvy enough to use quotes&quot;

Google search is generally so much worse than it used to be. They are improving search with quotes... great thanks please also make it really just contain exact phrases (at least for me I often get none exact results even with quotes). Location is terribly annoying if I&#x27;m in France and go to Google.de maybe I do want German results, not google thinking just because I have an IP from a certain place I want results from that place (do Google employees not travel?). I now seem to often enough get results which might not contain any of the search results I&#x27;m looking for, I guess because somehow a ML algorithm thought they might be relevant (hint, usually they are not). And then there are all these content regurgitators which for some topics just guarantees completely irrelevant results.<p>I admit not all of this is Googles fault, but somehow everybody largely optimising (and exploiting) for the Google algorithm, makes it worse for them. Alternative engines seem to fare better, and I guess less Google dominance is a good thing.

I wish that google would enable quote search functionality for youtube too. That is, if I put quotes around a youtube search, then it will only return results containing that in the title or description, and <i>not show related videos</i> or anything like that.

Ultimately one thing people misunderstand is what it means philosophically to search.<p>Suppose I have some great content &quot;bt its writen lik dis&quot;. One could argue saying searching for content with the query &#x27;like this&#x27; should yield the previous statement. Others would disagree.<p>That&#x27;s basically the crux of the problem. The more exactness you&#x27;re demanding the fewer results you will receive. The fewer results that are available reduce the perceived utility of the search engine, Google in this case.<p>Case in point: I&#x27;ve been searching for some &quot;FoundationDB&quot; related stuff. If you use HN&#x27;s algolia for &quot;Foundation DB&quot; (no quotes) it will show you queries where FoundationDB is a single word.<p>Is this good or bad?<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;hn.algolia.com&#x2F;?dateRange=all&amp;page=0&amp;prefix=true&amp;query=foundation%20db&amp;sort=byPopularity&amp;type=story" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;hn.algolia.com&#x2F;?dateRange=all&amp;page=0&amp;prefix=true&amp;que...</a>

Now they just have to solve the problem of the first results page being 100% e-commerce sites.

With Google+ gone, will + make a return as well?

OK, now re-implement the &quot;-[searchterm]&quot; filtering that used to remove all results with that searchterm, up until about a year or so ago.<p>Had a search last week where i specifically stated &quot;-[big european capital city]&quot;, and results were chock full of &quot;best [whatever] in [specified big european capital city i didn&#x27;t want]&quot;... what?!

This seems like the tiniest of tiny improvements in a tiny aspect of Google Search.<p>Am I missing something?<p>How did this become the #1 story on HN?

I&#x27;m not even mad anymore about the search quality.<p>Google search is such a shitfest right now, you have to scroll a full page in a 100% 4k screen to get to actual results, it&#x27;s absolutely disgusting.<p>I don&#x27;t care if they search is unoptimal or downright bad. The ad situation is so much worse IMO.

&gt; For instance, in Chrome, you can search from within Developer Tools to match against all rendered text, which would include the text in drop-down menus and other areas of the site.<p>I&#x27;ve never thought of doing this. This would have been helpful in so many past searches.

If an official blog post, meant for regular users, lists using the search of Chrome Dev Tools to find hidden content instead of the actual Ctrl+F search: &quot;in Chrome, you can search from within Developer Tools to match against all rendered text, which would include the text in drop-down menus and other areas of the site.&quot; it is maybe time to change the Ctrl+F search instead of recommending regular users to use developer tools.

The second Google starts to give in to the common complaints about search, its maybe over. Meaning, they have lost their edge, know it, and know they are vulnerable.

&quot;For example, a search for [“don’t doesn’t”] tells our systems to find content that contains all these letters in this order: don t doesn t&quot;<p>Well, that explains why some technical things are hard to find.<p>For example &quot;... in javascript&quot; gives unclear results but &quot;ellipsis in javascript&quot; or &quot;three dots in javascript&quot; will provide what you are looking for.

If search foo could really influence results, somebody would create onionlayer over google search to wrap it in search foo and deliver better results without adds.<p>The degradation is part of the buisness model and can not be allowed to be circumvented.

For what I understood the search results are the same, just the display of the results that is changing by highlighting the quoted terms.<p>I thought &quot;improving search results&quot; meaning that results itself were more relevant, not only the display.

I think for many of us, the ultimate Google should just be some form of &quot;grep for the Web&quot;. Defaulting to case-insensitive would be the only &quot;massaging&quot; of the query that I&#x27;d consider a good idea.

Dear Yonghao, no matter what you improve, when I see 6 ads before any actual search results everything turns to shit.

Fine. It would also be great if I could search for filetype:pdf without getting gamed results where academic publishers either create a folder hierarchy that simulates a PDF result (but you actually have to pay), or else only shows GoogleBot the actual PDF (and the rest of us have to pay).<p>Would additionally be great if Google&#x27;s autocomplete on filetype:pdf didn&#x27;t default to &quot;filetype pdf&quot; (i.e. adds a space and omits the colon, nullifying the token).

If I can&#x27;t ctrl-F and find the text I googled after I click through, using Google&#x27;s browser, then either the browser is bad or the search engine is bad.

Quality of search still has some improvements open. Searching right now with quotes for the title of this HN post:<p>&quot;We&#x27;re improving search results when you use quotes&quot;<p>The first three results are interesting:<p>1- First result is the Google announcement but not this post. The title is &quot;How we&#x27;re improving search results when you use quotes&quot; not &quot;We&#x27;re improving search results when you use quotes&quot; and the search was with quotes, but to be accepted, maybe...<p>2- Second result is this post<p>3- Third result is a quackery page made by some SEO spammers. Now what is interesting is that is <i>almost</i> a copy-paste of Google with changes like this:<p>Google announcement text:<p>&quot;...We’ve heard feedback that people doing quoted searches value seeing where the quoted material occurs on a page, rather than an overall description of the page. Our improvement is designed to help address this....&quot;<p>SEO Spammers write on page ( with enhancement misspelled):<p>&quot;...We’ve heard suggestions that folks doing quoted searches worth seeing the place the quoted materials happens on a web page, somewhat than an total description of the web page. Our enchancment is designed to assist handle this...&quot;<p>And the page becomes the third link from Google results...

Why am I conditioned that anytime I see google post about something they’re doing for users, that it’s really something that benefits them behind the scenes.

DuckDuckGo&#x27;s absurd handling of quotes finally forced me back to Google. Adding quotes in DDG gives nonsense results: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;imgur.com&#x2F;a&#x2F;2SHpjPG" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;imgur.com&#x2F;a&#x2F;2SHpjPG</a>

They’re being lazy and irresponsible. Non tech savvy people don’t use delimiting quotation marks, nor should they. They are a technical feature for narrow searches.<p>Google Search has always been the dominant bridge between users and sites. Given the obvious complaints over search results, for a company of this stature to talk about explicit search performance during these times is pretty tone deaf.<p>To me it’s a clear indicator that Google Search is many years away from being their flagship product. It’s truly unfortunate to know there are thousands of people who’d like to change that by working together but simply can’t because Google put their flag up first. And it’s all because this once curious academic project has devolved into a surveil marketing machine.<p>Fuck Silicon Valley and brogrammer culture

&quot;The snippets we display for search results (meaning the text you see describing web content) will be formed around where a quoted word or phrase occurs in a web document.&quot;<p>Keyword-in-context (KWIC) is useful and well-tested, with a history going back to early scriptural concordances. The context tells the searcher that the right sense of the phrase is talked about in case the quoted phrase is ambiguous.<p>Snippet extraction has a long history, the standard paper is Turpin et al. (2007), there are regularly new improvements: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;scholar.google.com&#x2F;scholar?hl=de&amp;as_sdt=0%2C5&amp;q=snippet+generation" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;scholar.google.com&#x2F;scholar?hl=de&amp;as_sdt=0%2C5&amp;q=snip...</a>

It would be more beneficial to many people to restore &quot;The Blocked Sites Feature.&quot;

It’s interesting that they recommend opening dev tools to ”find” in the whole rendered text page once you land on it. Seems out of touch. Why not improve browser find to include looking in those helpful but not visible places too?

Quoted searches getting better is good. I mostly use them for math and programming related searches.<p>If some bright spark is sitting around with talent to spare but no idea, the perennial failure mode “search engine for hackers” is an idea whose time has come.<p>Google is sufficiently beholden to search revenue that grew too much faster than use to be a death sentence for vertical search startups anymore. And modern OSS&#x2F;cloud compute make the once technically impossible merely absurdly difficult.<p>And “search for hackers” -&gt; “search for technical stuff of all kinds” -&gt; “search for serious people” -&gt; “…” sounds kind of familiar.

Just bring back the default to be to search for what I typed. I know what I want<p>Some colleagues at work have switched off Google since C# regularly gets ignored as a parameter. It didn&#x27;t use to.<p>Just annoying having to argue with a tool every day.

None of this information will be true or working in the short future. They&#x27;ll &quot;fail fast&quot;, &quot;break things&quot;, say they&#x27;ve read your mind and give you what you really wanted.

One thing that immediately stood out to me is the mention of Developer Tools. Most laypersons don&#x27;t even know it exists. I&#x27;m wondering if it&#x27;s possible for Google to make the presentation of things like meta tags and descriptions more user-friendly? Like, a small banner or icon when your mouse is at the top of a page or even an icon in the address bar, when you click it, it shows you things like the meta and description

Funnily enough I just searched for &quot;input: dispatch&quot; and couldn&#x27;t see a single match that included the key colon character so I really hope they fix that.

This has been my huge pet peeve from a content creator&#x27;s point of view. I&#x27;m in charge of the blog at my company, and it has been frustrating to see spam articles perform better than articles I&#x27;d spend days working on just because of keyword mash (and backlinks, but that&#x27;s a different topic).<p>Hopefully, showing quoted snippets encourages &quot;fuller&quot;, real content rather than the current keyword mash that rises to the top.

I started using Neeva several months ago and, although this is totally anecdotal, I find the results much more accurate than what I get through Google even when using the quotes in my searches. I&#x27;ll occasionally test out the same search on both engines and see the differences.

maybe they can fix the years-old &#x27;sort by date&#x27; reddit bug. I am tired of 5-10 year old reddit posts showing up when searching by past year or month.

I&#x27;ve been using quotes in google forever ago<p>Google made quotes basically not do anything forever ago. But there were a few good years when it did what people wanted

&gt; Punctuation is sometimes seen as spaces.<p>This is so annoying for me. Is there a way to get around it, like marking a character to disable this behavior?

Weird little nit about the blog, the progress bar disappears when I scroll up and reappears when I scroll down (using FF).<p>On a more related note, I haven&#x27;t used G search in at least 5 years except on mobile, so this is kind of <i>shrug</i> announcement to me, but good on them for restoring functionality that they clearly didn&#x27;t want to support.

Great, now fix &quot;Phrase Match&quot; on Google Ads. Google is constantly pushing Broad Match, to the point where they loosen the definition of phrase match to include synonyms. If I want Broad Match, I&#x27;ll use it but please let me use Phrase Match as it&#x27;s intended. Match the phrase exactly, if not don&#x27;t show my ads.

So basically like how it used to work before.

so Google is starting to get scared because they&#x27;ve noticed people noticing their main product has become trash.

I think I finally nailed what&#x27;s wrong with Google. It&#x27;s the Tiktokisation of every ad business model. The end game for google is, whatever search keywords you input, they will answer with results based on what their algorithms think will entertain you and keep you engaged

As said in other comments this is great but I wish they would get lower some of the search stealers like Pinterest, redbubble, yelp, and LinkedIn. There also a lot of top x sites that are practically generated and thinks like user benchmark that are complete garbage.

First, I sincerely appreciate Google’s efforts to acknowledge there are issues and fix them; it’s amazing, thank you!<p>______<p>TLDR: It’s impossible to report issues when Google makes it impossible to replicate the issues. In the below text, found four errors: (1) feature mentioned in Google’s blog post is not working; (2) quoted search is not working; (3) + search operator does not work as it used to work; (4) it is impossible to replicate results. — Aware of likely hundreds of bugs like this, wish Google would listen.<p>______<p>This comment was a response to another comment, but given all the bugs I found, decided to make it a top level comment.<p>______<p>It does not, at least in one way, which was as a substitute for quotes when injected into a string where +’s replaced spaces; just confirmed this does not work, indifferent about it returning; see links below for proof.<p>My core concern is Google list ALL search operators OR operations AND publicly make SERP experiments per each that are reproducible without millions in resources AND whitelist for automated execution of these tests; if in unlikely chance Google’s looking for strong opinions how to radically improve search quality, I am willing to do it for free or paid.<p>Here’s the example searches that show + does not work in at least one way it once did as mentioned above:<p>- millions of results<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;search?q=test%2Btest%2Btest%2Btest%2Btest%2Bz" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;search?q=test%2Btest%2Btest%2Btest%2B...</a><p>- 3 results<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;search?q=%22test+test+test+test+test+z%22" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;search?q=%22test+test+test+test+test+...</a><p>* This is not the same as the +keyword syntax mentioned in thread; I will try to find an example.<p>EDIT: weird...<p>If I click this link:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;search?q=%22test+test+test+test+test+z%22" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;search?q=%22test+test+test+test+test+...</a><p>I get zero result results, but if I click:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;search?q=%22test+test+test+test+test+a%22" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;search?q=%22test+test+test+test+test+...</a><p>Then edit the a to z without making any other changes, like this:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;search?q=%22test+test+test+test+test+z%22" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;search?q=%22test+test+test+test+test+...</a><p>I get 3 search results... which clearly is a bug.<p>EDIT: Grr... I was able to reproduce it, but then Google broke it. Using method above, here’s proof it returned 3 results:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;ibb.co&#x2F;kG8sYZS" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;ibb.co&#x2F;kG8sYZS</a><p>- Note: if you look at the screen shot above, you will see a SERP that breaks the feature Google announced that in the blog post; specifically that the query is not highlighted in the SERP description. More importantly, I searched for &quot;test test test test test z&quot; but got results for &quot;text text text text text z&quot; — which means quoted search itself is broken.<p>And proof I then got a bug (zero results) using the exact same search:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;ibb.co&#x2F;6JjLX6y" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;ibb.co&#x2F;6JjLX6y</a><p>____<p>* Conclusion: To me, if you cannot share a search result and get the EXACT same search results (and possibly ability to see different ones AND annotations of why they are different) — how this not a bug; how can anyone independently test Google’s search quality?

Regarding &quot;improving&quot; --- just look at how you had it working in 1999, and crib from that.

Typing two quotes is harder than just typing a comma after a multi-word string.<p>And if I type in a year ... 2020 ... at least make <i>some</i> effort to limit the top results to those that contain it.

I always wonder how the search architecture is. Must be one of the most complex ones out there. It&#x27;s a challenge in everything: Data Engineering, ML&#x2F;AI, Search (duh), Algorithms, Scaling, Availability, Performance etc. etc.

I feel like Google search quality declined those past few years. But bing and those using bing results declined so much faster that I have to accept it...<p>I actually started to use RSS again this year. For the first time in a decade.

Would love to see a final count of positive v negative comments on this post.

Google is like an abusive partner: it may be gifting you something nice, but in the end we all know he&#x27;s doing it only to soften you and hurt you later. It started like a beautiful love story about knowledge and freedom, but now Google arrives drunk and hits us with a keyboard every night.

I really wish google gave you access to which search algorithm it used when you queried. I refuse to believe a general purpose algo is appropriate for all domains.

Did Google remove the ability to do boolean searches? When I recently tried to do something like (word_a OR word_b), it tried to match on &quot;(word_a&quot; which was wrong

I miss when you could jump to the cached version of a page which would have all your search terms highlighted in different colors on the page. Peak Google search.

This functionality has been totally degraded over the past few years to the point where it&#x27;s hardly useful. Hopefully this is the tide turning.

Switched to Kagi recently and haven&#x27;t looked back

Quotes used to work fine until they broke it. Hopefully this &quot;improvement&quot; is as easy as git revert.

Am I the only one who finds that quote-searching sort of kind of sometimes works in Gmail, but usually doesn&#x27;t?

Do Google Search Engineers use Google Search?

Wait does this mean there is a new player in town? Anybody knows who that is? Why else would Google improve search?

Why can&#x27;t we have options anymore? Is it that difficult to have a toggle for what the description shows?

either reverting a broken feature or listening to how search has become almost unsuable for technical work in the last few months in favour of ramming some nonsense &quot;popular&quot; article down your thoat.<p>thank you google overlords for your brief allotment of sanity

keep the ad placement the same, but make search work. Is it so hard to separate the two?

I can&#x27;t believe I was so naive as to think this was going to be Google apologizing for how it screws up most search operators by only obeying them if Google agrees with you. Most of the time it happily includes all sorts of SEO horseshit like synonyms, related words, and even companies who happen to be competitors of what I wanted exact results for. Words in quotations aren&#x27;t supposed to be <i>suggestions</i>.

This explains why Google search has been so bad recently

That will be a cool feature when they implement it.

Please solve the Pinterest spam results

Google search has jumped the shark, no?

Google search? What&#x27;s that? :)

Google is the Clippy of this day and age.<p>Why can&#x27;t we have a Google Advanced Search? Is it that hard? Is it rocket surgery? Is it forbidden by the powers that be? Would it start WW3?<p>I&#x27;ve always found it baffling that we have to play guessing games with a capricious search engine that tries to interpret what we want. There are some times when we know exactly what we&#x27;re looking for!

quote searches always seems to work fine, until recently

Too little too late. I have used G for like maybe 5 of my last 1000ish searches.<p>There ARE between alternatives now. I like Kagi the most. Worth every penny.

Okay, Google

Haking phon

TLDR Google re-discovers decades-old search feature, users seemingly never realized it disappeared.

I love where they said they&#x27;ve &quot;heard feedback&quot;. Where? Where can you possibly give feedback to Google about their products? Is this just from their family members at holiday dinners?

Lately I&#x27;ve been using books when I need information, instead of google, much better and less privacy issues. I recommend it!

Will google stop suppressing political positions they don’t like?