What search engines really have exact match?

Comments

• LapGoat@pawb.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  seo ruined search engines

  source

  • scarabic@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I work on the app for a company that has been all-web for a long time. Recently we realized that the company’s whole top navigation menu is garbage stuffed in there to help crawler bots reach every part of the site. It makes no sense to a human being and is total overload. It is very refreshing to work on apps where we design for humans not bots.

    source

    • JustZ@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Elaborate please? What sort of stuff was in the top menu?

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • Ziglin@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    It’s almost like that was it’s goal…

    source
• j4k3@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I hate them all. A good searx instance that stays active honestly gets me better matches in general.

  I’ve tested with an open source offline 70b LLM recently. Like I was searching for some very specific industrial adhesive products by application, and where I had no idea what existed. When I searched DDG, I got echo chamber ads for consumer grade crap. The AI gave me several brands and products. Some were not real or were close but not quite right. Searching for these on DDG was curious. It paused for a couple seconds longer than usual before each result was given. It felt like, “please wait while we expand your environment…achievement unlocked.” Suddenly it knows all about this stuff and generates thousands of results. So yeah, you’re not alone in feeling like search engines are total garbage now. This AI may not be 100% reliable but it is better than the SEO idiot.

  source

  • laylawashere44@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Yep, I’ve used LLM to find historical primary sources for research essays. It of course made up some stuff and gave a few irrelevant sources, but it did find me sources I didn’t know about.

    source
• EarlTurlet@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Kagi’s verbatim search does this. You will actually get no results if nothing matches. It doesn’t change your search and give you something you didn’t ask for.

  source
• WhoRoger@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Sorry I can’t help, I’m just facepalming at all the people who are saying it works with quotation marks and minus signs. Bollocks works.

  Anyway, maybe SearX? At least when I try to search for something, it never finds anything rather than try guessing what I meant, so maybe it’s more strict in principle.

  source

  • Vlyn@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I’m just facepalming at all the people who are saying it works with quotation marks and minus signs. Bollocks works.

    Go to Google right now and search exactly for: “SearX222” with the quotation marks. You won’t get any result. Even though SearX and SearX2 find a lot of them.

    Sometimes Google offers to search for a similar term (thinking you made a typo), but if you wrap that term in quotation marks then that’s what you get.

    There are more tricks to it, but I’m facepalming at your reply.

    source

    • Kolanaki@yiffit.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      A lot of the times google will automatically remove your search terms with their “did you mean…” thing, and not even give you the option to say “no, that’s not what I mean.”

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • Hyggyldy@sffa.community ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      It’s honestly pretty inconsistent. I’ve definitely had it completely disregard my quotes without giving me a choice.

      source
    • WhoRoger@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Ah so it works on one query. Amazing.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • Crazypartypony@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      That wasn’t the problem, though.

      source
    • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      they actively DC’d Exact Match and pivoted to keyword match September 6 2018.

      source
• Jordan117@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Does Google’s “verbatim” filter not do this for you?

  source

  • _cnt0@lemmy.villa-straylight.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I remember this working really well on google. Recently (several months?) it didn’t as I would expect. Fictional example: when searching for “asdf123” google would show results just containing ‘asdf’. One particular thing I noticed was that google seems to omit underscores from verbatim strings. So for example when searching for “asdf_qwertz” it would show results that contained asdf and qwertz without the underscore.

    source

    • Vlyn@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      That’s just not true. Search for “SearchX222”, you get zero results. Even though both SearchX and SearchX2 exist.

      Google has been decent as a search, the problem nowadays are bait sites with fake articles and thousands of keywords on them to trick the system. The results suck, but it’s not Google’s fault.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • T156@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Hasn’t properly for several years, in my experience. If there aren’t enough results for it, it will just generalise the search, sometimes without telling you that there were none matching those specific terms. It used to.

    source
  • Amputret@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    It has literally never worked.

    source

    • agent_flounder@lemmy.one ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      It used to work for me regularly but that was at least a few years ago.

      source
• Godnroc@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I feel like all of them support things like exact matches and negative matches.

  Here is a help page for Duck Duck Go: duckduckgo.com/duckduckgo-help-pages/…/syntax/

  source

  • WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I always use DDG but neither they support exact match nor exlusions with the dash. They only have a slight effect, but they don’t actually work.

    source
  • CorrodedCranium@leminal.space ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Good cheat sheet. The “-” command really comes in handy when you search term could potentially contain a different, more popular, search term. Like if you were looking for the cartoon CatDog for example and the addition of the words TV show weren’t getting you results for whatever reason.

    source
• Norgur@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Google and most other search engines will Resort to a less strict approach when there are no or very few results for your term specified.

  source

  • BrerChicken@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    This thread has me all kinds of confused. If you want the search to look for only exact matches, you have to put the phrase into quotations. This is really basic knowledge, but I don’t see anyone actually discussing that. If you don’t use quotations, then you’ll get lots of different variations of the keywords, instead of the exact match. That works for lots of different search engines, and even searching through documents sometimes, depending on the program/app.

    source

    • Norgur@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Well, yes and no. Most search engines will start to ignore the quotations when there are few or no search results.

      source
• Izzy@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Do you have an example where this doesn’t work on Google? I think if the top results don’t contain both keywords then it doesn’t exist in its index.

  source

  • bpalmerau@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I search Google for “Music behind the scenes”. Because the first word is music(?) Google gives me four songs with some of the keywords, but not in phrase order. Then it gives me seven YouTube videos, then one website that actually contains the phrase, and in fact refers to the videos I’m looking for.

    But what it absolutely refused to give me, no matter how hard I tried, was this: youtu.be/7r01e_SZ5ic?si=GdOpoP8dBp372yjg

    I presume this is because the videos aren’t monetised? Anyway precision score 11/30, and as for recall, even if I click on ‘videos’ the five of them that have the exact phrase in the title don’t appear at all.

    source

    • Vlyn@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Your problem is that “Music behind the scenes” returns hundreds of results of movie and game soundtracks. Because this is a super common phrase. It doesn’t just look at video titles, but descriptions too.

      I instantly find your video, first result, with: “music behind the scenes humour” site:YouTube.com

      Obviously if I leave "humour " out it will rather show me all the behind the scenes videos with millions of views. Instead of a random video with less than 1000.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• FaizalR@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  @CoderSupreme click on “Search “word” instead”

  source
• TheLobotomist@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Just use “word” and the keyword will become mandatory

  source