These are features which many alternate search indexes have incorporated after Google did, but in the last few years of using Google I found that a number of them worked on-and-off. Google doesn't want their search to work perfectly. Searching once, and clicking the first result, doesn't get them as much money (page views, ad views) as scrolling multiple pages or re-working a search term. Features such as verbatim, quotes, site-specific searches aren't as reliable as they used to be.
And so I've now used Kagi for a year or more, instead. At least I know that with Kagi, I'm not the product. I pay money for it. Yes, I've heard mutterings about Kagi leadership's own problematic behaviour, but compared to Google?
The article really doesn't shed light on anything new, just old, obscure, and - as @lynxy said - increasingly unreliable, provided you were already steeped in the old lore. It's a great primer for getting more out of searches if you use them in the way most do, but it's only more, not actual control like we started out with.
What they said is is no way rebutted by reading the actual article.
There was a time (which I assumed includes now) when the quotes for verbatim strategy was completely ignored. Then the double quotes for verbatim. It's hard to trust shifting sands.
I'd like to add that reference desks themselves still exist. Even if you don't have time to head for the library, you can email a librarian and get a pretty comprehensive answer.
Hm they used to have "date:" but that stopped worked a long time ago. Good to know before: and after: exist though because I was sorely missing that feature.
Plenty of these have existed for a good bit but it's always nice to get a quick refresher on what's current.
I almost left the article when I hit the list of search operators because they are well known, but I’m glad that I finished the article and implore anyone else who had the same thought to do the same. I actually did learn a few things overall. I didn’t know about @, the method that pulls up more real person discussions (that isn’t just adding “Reddit” to your search query) or the various tools like the color picker. I do agree with the other posters that the search operators have become less effective over time though, sadly.
I loved the section with the alternative search engines, they did a fantastic job weighing the pros and cons of each and goes well beyond the ones that are common knowledge. I personally use Kagi and Brave. One thing about Brave that wasn’t mentioned but a key feature that I absolutely love: They will list websites that are defunct and utilize wayback machine to let you see the website in an archived state. So much useful information is gone and I very much appreciate the revival. Also, I’ve decided to give perplexity AI a shot solely from this article.
My final thought- If someone would have told me in the 90s that google would have been the thing that strangles the life of the internet that I loved so dearly I would have thought that they were crazy. How can we break free from this parasitic relationship?
Site search, "", and minus sign are the three I use the most. I really wish other search indexes handled the minus sign like google does.
I've tried and partially switched to other sites over the years (duckduckgo, now qwant), but when I've needed real precision, they haven't quite been there. Though, it also feels like google also isn't so much anymore.
lynxy | 23 hours ago
These are features which many alternate search indexes have incorporated after Google did, but in the last few years of using Google I found that a number of them worked on-and-off. Google doesn't want their search to work perfectly. Searching once, and clicking the first result, doesn't get them as much money (page views, ad views) as scrolling multiple pages or re-working a search term. Features such as verbatim, quotes, site-specific searches aren't as reliable as they used to be.
And so I've now used Kagi for a year or more, instead. At least I know that with Kagi, I'm not the product. I pay money for it. Yes, I've heard mutterings about Kagi leadership's own problematic behaviour, but compared to Google?
[OP] asteroid | 22 hours ago
DO read this article. I thought I knew how to perform good Google searches. I just learned how much more there was to know.
There's a whole list of alternative search tools at the end, too.
PunchTunnel | 22 hours ago
The article really doesn't shed light on anything new, just old, obscure, and - as @lynxy said - increasingly unreliable, provided you were already steeped in the old lore. It's a great primer for getting more out of searches if you use them in the way most do, but it's only more, not actual control like we started out with.
What they said is is no way rebutted by reading the actual article.
thereticent | 15 hours ago
There was a time (which I assumed includes now) when the quotes for verbatim strategy was completely ignored. Then the double quotes for verbatim. It's hard to trust shifting sands.
Gourd | 17 hours ago
I was about to recommend Kagi. It's fantastic. Feels just like Google used to, and it even has anti AI-slop features!
tanglisha | 20 hours ago
I'd like to add that reference desks themselves still exist. Even if you don't have time to head for the library, you can email a librarian and get a pretty comprehensive answer.
[OP] asteroid | 15 hours ago
When I visit my library, I make a point of going to the reference desk to tell the librarians how much I appreciate them.
I figure that nobody gets tired of hearing, "Thank you."
CptBluebear | 19 hours ago
Hm they used to have "date:" but that stopped worked a long time ago. Good to know before: and after: exist though because I was sorely missing that feature.
Plenty of these have existed for a good bit but it's always nice to get a quick refresher on what's current.
Kale | 17 hours ago
I have three separate thoughts:
I almost left the article when I hit the list of search operators because they are well known, but I’m glad that I finished the article and implore anyone else who had the same thought to do the same. I actually did learn a few things overall. I didn’t know about @, the method that pulls up more real person discussions (that isn’t just adding “Reddit” to your search query) or the various tools like the color picker. I do agree with the other posters that the search operators have become less effective over time though, sadly.
I loved the section with the alternative search engines, they did a fantastic job weighing the pros and cons of each and goes well beyond the ones that are common knowledge. I personally use Kagi and Brave. One thing about Brave that wasn’t mentioned but a key feature that I absolutely love: They will list websites that are defunct and utilize wayback machine to let you see the website in an archived state. So much useful information is gone and I very much appreciate the revival. Also, I’ve decided to give perplexity AI a shot solely from this article.
My final thought- If someone would have told me in the 90s that google would have been the thing that strangles the life of the internet that I loved so dearly I would have thought that they were crazy. How can we break free from this parasitic relationship?
Thanks for sharing.
lackofaname | 13 hours ago
Site search, "", and minus sign are the three I use the most. I really wish other search indexes handled the minus sign like google does.
I've tried and partially switched to other sites over the years (duckduckgo, now qwant), but when I've needed real precision, they haven't quite been there. Though, it also feels like google also isn't so much anymore.