Most active commenters
  • mrandish(3)
  • hinkley(3)

←back to thread

788 points jsheard | 39 comments | | HN request time: 0.889s | source | bottom
1. jameslk ◴[] No.42892519[source]
If I start fucking adding swear words to all my fucking search queries, how the fuck will the stupid ass search engine know that I did not want it to use that shit as one of my keywords and give me back a whole lot of fucked up shit?
replies(9): >>42892578 #>>42893095 #>>42893107 #>>42893305 #>>42893306 #>>42893500 #>>42893701 #>>42894251 #>>42895971 #
2. hn_acc1 ◴[] No.42892578[source]
How you will you ever find out why there all these fracking snakes on this motherloving plane?
replies(1): >>42893075 #
3. ◴[] No.42893075[source]
4. pelagicAustral ◴[] No.42893095[source]
I like this version of the internet a lot better.
replies(2): >>42893115 #>>42893764 #
5. edflsafoiewq ◴[] No.42893107[source]
It's not like it doesn't freely ignore any unquoted word whenever it feels like it.
replies(4): >>42893141 #>>42893316 #>>42893453 #>>42893486 #
6. observationist ◴[] No.42893115[source]
Fuck yeah!
7. bmurphy1976 ◴[] No.42893141[source]
The quoted words search barely works these days anyway.
replies(5): >>42893236 #>>42893264 #>>42893479 #>>42893609 #>>42895319 #
8. mrandish ◴[] No.42893236{3}[source]
Amazon Search joins the chat...
9. roskelld ◴[] No.42893264{3}[source]
This bugs me so much. It happens constantly. A few days back I searched for a person's name, put it in quotes and I got results with celebrity with somewhat similar name. Zero hits on the person I searched for on the front page. I had to add specifics to the query such as job title to find them.
replies(2): >>42893344 #>>42893586 #
10. belter ◴[] No.42893305[source]
Well at least you will get great travel suggestions to Austria....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugging,_Upper_Austria

replies(1): >>42893469 #
11. godelski ◴[] No.42893306[source]
To be fair, it's not like Google respects things like quotes or "-" so who says it won't just ignore your swear words?

I'm joking, somewhat, but can we seriously start getting mad about this shit?

12. godelski ◴[] No.42893316[source]

  > It's not like it doesn't freely ignore any quoted word whenever it feels like it.
FTFY
13. userbinator ◴[] No.42893344{4}[source]
An easy way to see how a "search engine" has become "vague recommendation engine" is to take a distinctive phrase from one of its results, put it in quotes, and see if it manages to find that page again. Often, it doesn't.
replies(1): >>42893456 #
14. altairprime ◴[] No.42893453[source]
That stops if you append `&tbs=li:1`.
15. jxramos ◴[] No.42893456{5}[source]
that's an excellent verifiable test! I've been struggling to articulate the behavior too, advertisements and slanted search results have effectively gotten in-between my information retrieval and being steered to products and services. It's so hard to find what I'm looking for a times I often just give up and move onto something else.
16. dylan604 ◴[] No.42893469[source]
What about the Pho King restaurants?
replies(1): >>42893730 #
17. wahnfrieden ◴[] No.42893479{3}[source]
intext: works
18. cynicalsecurity ◴[] No.42893486[source]
Google often ignores regular words too, mockingly striking them out. This almost feels like a 1st April joke, not how a search engine is supposed to work.
replies(1): >>42893747 #
19. GiorgioG ◴[] No.42893500[source]
Don’t worry, the next model will be trained on all your fucking queries.
20. mrandish ◴[] No.42893586{4}[source]
Amazon Search is now nearly completely useless for any kind of targeted search. Heaven help you if you're looking for a product without a certain attribute most other products like it all have. There is quite literally no way to filter results against one attribute. Even if Amazon has that product, you won't be able to find it.

I eventually just scripted a separate search engine query that's site specific to Amazon. It works but not as well as it could because it doesn't have access to my purchase history or Amazon's hidden granular category taxonomy.

replies(3): >>42893784 #>>42895192 #>>42895561 #
21. nixonpjoshua ◴[] No.42893609{3}[source]
I haven't had quotations work for me in search in years now, it's really sad how boolean operators have stopped working too. I find it particularly difficult to search for "non latex" products as adding quotes on the total term no longer works and I just get products full of latex. Also I can't use boolean search to find the product because it just ignores the "-" in front of the word and gives a ton of results that match the search term latex.

Just an example where it isn't just making it harder to search for a profit motive but it's actually actively preventing (both Amazon and Google) from showing me the results or even ads for the product I actually want to buy.

If anyone has a good solution to this I would appreciate it, there is often a non-latex version of most all latex based products but finding them online is impossible if you don't already know the brand name!

replies(4): >>42893717 #>>42893761 #>>42895037 #>>42897150 #
22. hinkley ◴[] No.42893701[source]
Well I’m reasonably certain you don’t want advice from a search engine on the topic of fucking.

You may think you do, but I am certain you do not.

23. joshuaissac ◴[] No.42893717{4}[source]
You can put Google Search into Verbatim mode (via Search tools) to make it respect quotation marks.
replies(2): >>42893945 #>>42894528 #
24. hinkley ◴[] No.42893730{3}[source]
Don’t forget Sofa King.
25. rplnt ◴[] No.42893747{3}[source]
Google stopped being usable to search web many years ago. It can search stuff, sure, but not content on websites.
26. _kb ◴[] No.42893761{4}[source]
Try using `-Lamport` to filter the latex results.
27. hinkley ◴[] No.42893764[source]
You’ve heard of the Dark Web? Well this is the Snark Web.
28. ninkendo ◴[] No.42893784{5}[source]
Oh my god I ran into this yesterday. I wanted a very specific kind of underarmour sweat pants. It gave me every other company competing with underarmour and a bunch of things that are not sweat pants. It’s like they’re not even trying to do “search” any more, but instead just feed your search string into their ad auction system and give you the results. There’s just no way to actually get a specific thing.
replies(1): >>42894605 #
29. saint_yossarian ◴[] No.42893945{5}[source]
TIL, thanks! The corresponding query parameter seems to be "tbs=li:1", if anybody wants to make this the default.
30. HaZeust ◴[] No.42894251[source]
big r/justfuckingnews vibes here
31. bbarnett ◴[] No.42894528{5}[source]
Sadly that is broken too, I find. I think it's doing some aliasing still, and other things.
32. mrandish ◴[] No.42894605{6}[source]
I've slammed headfirst into this wall of infuriating frustration dozens of times. Just trying to find a particular kind of LED bulb that has the feature of being dimmable. Any attempt at searching for that term returns all of the bulbs which helpfully mention "Not Dimmable". And there's no way to exclude that string.

It's maddening because Amazon used to have a modern, reasonably capable search function. You could require terms. You could exclude terms. Terms could be phrases. I'm sure they still have all these capabilities, they've just decided to intentionally disable them because their A/B testing indicated that breaking their search would return a fractional percent more revenue by shoveling more unrelated results in front customers. It must work on someone but it's never worked even once on me, because I KNOW what I need and I'm only going to buy exactly that - if I can fucking find it.

I'd actually be okay to let Amazon annoy the NPCs who just clickety-click and buy whatever random shiny shit they shovel in front of them, IF they'd just add something for us technically-minded, engineering type people who are looking for one precise thing only. They can even hide it behind an arcane interface like REGEX. That'll keep the rabble out! :-)

33. rdiddly ◴[] No.42895037{4}[source]
Maybe use the name of whatever the substitute is, like nitrile butadiene?
34. rendaw ◴[] No.42895192{5}[source]
I'm not sure if this is just amazon japan or what, but amazon japan will not only show you things that you didn't search for, it will actively rewrite your search query into a query for those things to gaslight you into thinking you typed it in wrong. And if you try to change the text back it replace it again!

On top of all the other insane choices they made, like removing your search category restrictions if it thinks your query was too precise. I'm close to snapping.

35. alex1138 ◴[] No.42895319{3}[source]
It's not hard to make a search engine that respects '+'

Unless your new upstart social service is called SearchEngine+ so you remove it

(Except duckduckgo also seems to semi-ignore it. I'm baffled. I give up. I'm throwing my computer out the window, and moving to the woods)

replies(1): >>42897492 #
36. kartoffelsaft ◴[] No.42895561{5}[source]
It really feels as though Amazon's greatest fear is the idea that you might search for something and get no results. If we show you BS you explicitly said you aren't looking for then we're giving up the opportunity of tricking you into buying it anyways.

A bit ago I was searching for toothpaste that doesn't have mint in it. This is already a pain at a brick retailer, but I figured Amazon's huge product variety would help. Turns out their search is actively malicious to negative terms because otherwise I could buy just the one thing and be done with my shopping.

I should probably set up a similar homebrew search to get around this. Purchase history is far less important to me because I don't buy much from Amazon.

37. whynotmaybe ◴[] No.42895971[source]
You just reminded me of this French singer that made an album called "mp3" because he wanted to make it harder to find his album on Napster.
38. oefnak ◴[] No.42897150{4}[source]
Are you talking about the markup language or kinky clothes?
39. yegg ◴[] No.42897492{4}[source]
Hey, we had fixed a lot of syntax issues a while back, so happy to look into this if it is still messed up.