Something I really hate about Google...

[gamul312]

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+put+multiple+wads+into+one&oq=how+to+put+multiple+wads+into+one&aqs=chrome.0.57j5j0l2j62l2.6425&sugexp=chrome,mod=13&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Happens to me all the time. getting old. I searched for what I searched for! That's why I typed WAD...

[(empty)]

Er, I just copy-pasted what you typed into Google myself, and it worked fine.

It has the "how to put multiple dvds into one" search as an option, but it still listed the results for what you were searching for.

[gamul312]

No it first gives the results for the auto-corrected version

[GreyGhost]

(empty) said:

It has the "how to put multiple dvds into one" search as an option,

Not for me, it showed results for "dvds" and offered the original search phrase as an option. eBay occasionally does likewise.

[Platinum Shell]

Use DuckDuckGo instead.

Edit: LOL, sorry. Thought I copied the intended link!

[gamul312]

GreyGhost said:

Not for me, it showed results for "dvds" and offered the original search phrase as an option. eBay occasionally does likewise.

Right, that's my point. I searched for wads, not DVDs. That's not even a similar spelling or a synonym.

[Nomad]

Pretty sure Google "remembers" your searching habits so it probably gave you the "dvd" one first because of previous searches.

[gamul312]

Platinum Shell said:

Use DuckDuckGo instead.

You're right, that works better, thanks

[Jodwin]

Nomad said:

Pretty sure Google "remembers" your searching habits so it probably gave you the "dvd" one first because of previous searches.

Also depends on your regional settings. I get US-based results on my desktop and Finland-based results on my laptop.

[printz]

Platinum Shell said:

Use DuckDuckGo instead.

Edit: LOL, sorry. Thought I copied the intended link!

Nah, Google is more cool. Things like the result in the thread OP are a tradeoff for getting flexible results that don't strictly go with what you write.

[Platinum Shell]

printz said:

Nah, Google is more cool. Things like the result in the thread OP are a tradeoff for getting flexible results that don't strictly go with what you write.

I see what you're getting at, but at times I can't be arsed to filter through the crud "recommended" results, I just use the reliable Duck.

[gamul312]

printz said:

Nah, Google is more cool. Things like the result in the thread OP are a tradeoff for getting flexible results that don't strictly go with what you write.

no it completely changed the search to a different noun, a whole different subject. It's like if I searched for cats and then got microprocessors. I mean it's just too off. It's dumb.

Also like every search it claims it has 19 million results for me when of course it's probably less than 500.

[Memfis]

Yeah, Google likes to lie about the number of found pages:
test search - look at the number of results, then go to page 9 and looks at the number of results again. Whoops? Also why I am on the page 7 if I clicked "page 9"?

[flubbernugget]

I think it has to do with the way Google omits results. When I redid the search with the omitted results included it took me to page 9 properly.

[gamul312]

flubbernugget said:

I think it has to do with the way Google omits results. When I redid the search with the omitted results included it took me to page 9 properly.

yeah but page 9 wouldn't be anywhere near the claimed 19 million. not that I need 19 million pages (even non-duplicates) of such a search, or any search, just saying, as Memfis said (glad to see someone agree/know what I mean).

Tired of thinking about it, need to spend less time on computers..

[gamul312]

Memfis said:

Yeah, Google likes to lie about the number of found pages:
test search - look at the number of results, then go to page 9 and looks at the number of results again. Whoops? Also why I am on the page 7 if I clicked "page 9"?

It's a deliberate cutoff to save energy/money on their part, as "google", with omitted results included, gives precisely 1000 (or ten pages when set to 100 per page):

https://www.google.ru/search?q=google&num=100&hl=ru&newwindow=1&tbo=d&ei=o3jOUOe0IcqGyAGr7IHACA&start=900&sa=N&filter=0&biw=1210&bih=898

but they probably mean "we got 13 billion results on our computers, we'll give you what's useful." To a research scientist I guess they know what's important, to a journalist as well, since they know that wad means DVD, but yeah

[188DarkRevived]

Just download the WinTex utility from Doomworld and you wouldn't need to complain about this search glitch anymore because it would no longer be relevant. ;)

[Quasar]

Search engines are said to be subject to the "Zero" effect (the semi-sentient AI given total control of all human knowledge in the movie "Rollerball"). Use of an incomplete and faulty model of the world is complicated by inundation with an unlimited amount of data, most of which is garbage or noise, diluting any of the programmers' efforts to distill semantic meaning from raw information. This leads to an inability to query the AI (or in this case, search engine) and get an effective answer. Either it returns things that have nothing to do with what you wanted, or it "thinks" it knows better what you mean or want than you do.

[andrewj]

I think Google just caters for the average user, whose spelling and grammer are often not that good.

Its behavior often annoys me too (personally I hate the links that say one thing but actually pass through google), but Google is still much better than Bing or Yahoo.

[RestlessRodent]

I know for me that once I start typing it auto google searches for it. So it searches for "Do" the instant I type it, then I have to manually click the search bar and finish what I was typing.

[(empty)]

GhostlyDeath said:

I know for me that once I start typing it auto google searches for it. So it searches for "Do" the instant I type it, then I have to manually click the search bar and finish what I was typing.

It should have a delay between loading the page and actually showing the results where you can still type.

That's how it works for me; I might have some odd settings on, though.

[GreyGhost]

gamul312 said:

Also like every search it claims it has 19 million results for me when of course it's probably less than 500.

Funnily enough, Google claimed to have 40 million results for the "wads" query - though I've no intention of spending what's left of the year trying to verify that claim.

[gamul312]

GreyGhost said:

Funnily enough, Google claimed to have 40 million results for the "wads" query - though I've no intention of spending what's left of the year trying to verify that claim.

U just go to the end and it's faster if you set it to max results per page (100) in the search settings. I don't think it's ever more than a 1000? I don't know. just think they're dumb and annoying but then so is all the companies

[Jodwin]

printz said:

Nah, Google is more cool. Things like the result in the thread OP are a tradeoff for getting flexible results that don't strictly go with what you write.

That is actually a terrible thing to do. Google makes my life more miserable every passing day thanks to that feature, as it causes my very specific programming-related searches to return garbage results. It's good when you're 50 % sure about the words you're searching for. But when you're 100 % sure that what you've written is right, then replacing those words with synonyms or other bullshit is fucking retarded.

Fuck Google.

[printz]

Jodwin said:

That is actually a terrible thing to do. Google makes my life more miserable every passing day thanks to that feature, as it causes my very specific programming-related searches to return garbage results. It's good when you're 50 % sure about the words you're searching for. But when you're 100 % sure that what you've written is right, then replacing those words with synonyms or other bullshit is fucking retarded.

Fuck Google.

I guess that then, a more specialized engine would be useful indeed. But doesn't crowd-sourcing (the users) make a search more useful? If more programmers sought those keywords, more likely for them to get relevant results. Often when I don't get what I want, I assume that the result just doesn't exist.

I wonder if it would be technically possible for Google searches to have a "don't look for similar words" option, or the behaviour is deeply ingrained in the system.

[Scypek2]

If you want no synonymes, you can put words "in" "separate" "quotation" "marks". It will still ignore punctuation though. And yeah, google consider way too much words as "similiar".

[Jodwin]

Scypek2 said:

If you want no synonymes, you can put words "in" "separate" "quotation" "marks". It will still ignore punctuation though. And yeah, google consider way too much words as "similiar".

Except that it doesn't work. Google ignores its own rules whenever it feels like it. For example, I've had multiple instances of googling for multiple words and the earlier results having only two to four words on them, regardless of whether I'm using plus signs or not. And then results with proper keywords come later on. The only thing that seems to work as intended every time is putting a whole phrase into quotes. But even then it needs to be the only search terms, otherwise it might get omitted at random.

[Clonehunter]

Platinum Shell said:

Use DuckDuckGo instead.

Edit: LOL, sorry. Thought I copied the intended link!

Alternative search engines that are better than Google? What is this sorcery?

[Mr. T]

Clonehunter said:

Alternative search engines that are better than Google? What is this sorcery?

Not better, DDG mainly culls it's results from Bing. Which should tell you something...

[TwinBeast]

I tried DuckDuckGo. Then it took me to Doomy Dooms of Doom, and showed me a picture of a Duck of Doom.