Google focuses Lens on combined image and text searching

Google's latest feature is making its Lens visual search tool mingle with text for image searches for those difficult-to-describe vague queries. That may not sound like a big deal, but what Google calls Multisearch "a feat of machine learning" could change the way people perform some of the most common searches and take a bite …

[Doctor Syntax]

Oh goody. Yet another way to interpret search to find a lot of things I didn't ask for to bury the few that match - or hide the fact that there weren't any.

[Terry 6]

Absolutely. What (Google etc) search needs is a decent category restriction. If I want to find the specifications for [widget] I need search to give me that information. not a billion adverts for items that may or may not be said widget, with maybe a few thousand more for the search terms that I tried to use to limit the search results for the item, but entirely unrelated to my search. Google has, over the years, even made this harder- since it now tends to ignore search terms that seek to restrict results to something useful.

[Neil Barnes]

Like you, I am increasingly frustrated when I search and don't get anything that even includes the search word. A simple automatic AND would be useful - I'm sure they did it back in the dim and distant past.

[zuckzuckgo]

Lately, I have had Google respond a few times with: "It looks like there aren't many great matches for your search" with no results or just a short useless list. Repeat the same search with duckduckgo and get more results with something useful in the mix.

Is Google ignoring sites that don't produce revenue?

[very angry man]

YES

[Neil Barnes]

It certainly appears that they are less than selective in their interpretation of your search terms (and DDG is similarly encumbered sometimes): search for a circuit diagram of a particular device and you will get circuit diagrams of *any* device; search for details of a particular part and your results will be polluted with generic pdf aggregators, rather than e.g. a manufacturers site.

And a bad habit of giving results based on where your machine happens to be, rather than the language in which you asked a question, can be annoying.

[Terry 6]

Is Google ignoring sites that don't produce revenue

I'd bet money on it.

[Androgynous Cupboard]

Oh Good

If you're asking Google how to prepare for a hike, can I suggest that maybe hiking isn't for you. Stick to the pavement.

[yetanotheraoc]

Re: Oh Good

"Google said MUM-powered Multisearch currently works best for shopping-related searches"

MUM says you need a selfie stick for your hike.

[Chris Evans]

google search syntax

https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/2466433?hl=en

Has info on: Refine web searches & Common search techniques

Also various scattered info @

https://support.google.com/websearch/thread/23822192?hl=en

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ydVaJJeL1EYbWtlfj9TPfBTE5IBADkQfZrQaBZxqXGs/edit

https://support.google.com/websearch/thread/23733118?msgid=23733118

https://support.google.com/vault/answer/2474474?hl=en

I'd like a full, authoritative, up to date list.

[Mike 137]

Re: google search syntax

https://support.google.com/vault/answer/2474474?hl=en is just wrong. For example, it states that the default relation between multiple terms is AND, whereas it's very obviously OR.

Furthermore, there's no mention I can see in any of these 'resources' of the use of 'similar to' interpretation (most annoying) whereby grammatical variants of search terms are included in results.

The entire algorithm seems to be based on returning as many results as possible, regardless of relevance. I guess page 1 is primarily populated by those that pay Gooooooooooooogle for the privilege.

[Terry 6]

Re: google search syntax

I guess page 1 is primarily populated by those that pay Gooooooooooooogle for the privilege.

Again, I'd put money on it. And the fact that they focus on getting as many results rather than relevant results as they can.