eh no big deal I always use quotes when I search, seems to be the way it should be since you are looking for a quoted item.

PLEASE keep the exclude (-) operator!!!!

I honestly never used the + operator in searches and thought it was referring to Gmail and using u­s­ern­am­e+o­th­erbul­lsh­iat­li­amgc­om

I am not going to be using Google anymore unless I am searching for something obvious, like the nearest pizza place.

It's like they got tired of trying to defeat the sandboxes and just figured they'd make more money off the sandbox owner's Google Ads.

That is farking lame as farking farkity fark fark.
fark

Odd The Viking: I am not going to be using Google anymore unless I am searching for something obvious, like the nearest pizza place.

It's like they got tired of trying to defeat the sandboxes and just figured they'd make more money off the sandbox owner's Google Ads.

"huh"?

Heaven forbid they should make money off of their superior search service.

I used this all the time, ever since Google decided it was smarter than I was and started dropping terms from my search. God dammit, Google. You used to be cool.

+ is a lot easier than typing "around" the words you want

As Google marginalizes its core base, it's opened the door for smaller, more nimble startups, such as DuckDuckGo

duckduckgo? *heads off to install that in the firefox search-bar for testing*

Is there anything people won't biatch about? This is one extra character to type, the second quotes character.

I could see the outrage if they removed the ability to force a word search entirely, but they're just changing the syntax.

/you'll get over it

Google+ sucks

I've always used quotes for "include this exact phrase or word" because quotes makes more sense to me than "+", especially since Google uses a sort of soft, statistical "and" operator automatically.

For anyone that thinks you need to quote every farking word for google to work, aren't you special.

I had forgotten about the + operator, and I've been using quotes any time Google thinks it knows how to spell something better than I do.

FTA:"Instead, Google needed to read minds to find what their mainstream audience was looking for, even if it meant ignoring what they actually wrote."

That's something that's pissed me off about Google for a couple of years now. They increasingly ignore what I've typed, and try to imagine what I might want instead. I'M TELLING YOU WHAT I WANT. FIND IT. If I type the word already in my query, that means I WANT EACH PAGE SHOWN TO INCLUDE THAT WORD!

/really mad

Never before in history have we had so much information at our fingertips, yet so much information illiteracy.

Thanks Google for taking away a key search concept!

/Librarian

huh. exact phrases usually work fine for me just typing them in without any modifiers.

i use "-term" much, much, much more often than I use "+" in an actual search

Also, I'm fairly certain, while Google won't admit it, a space between words is treated as an "OR" and not as "AND."

Pay databases with Boolean operators and specific information about operation order FTW! Also, proximity searches and controlled vocab for an even bigger win!

brigid_fitch: Sasquach: PLEASE keep the exclude (-) operator!!!!

OMG, This!! I'd be completely lost without that one.

Srsly.

I didn't mean to seem so very emphatic about it....it's just nice to be able to exclude the 1000 links about some crappy band with the same name of the object for which I'm seeking information.

/backs away embarrassed

Sasquach: brigid_fitch: Sasquach: PLEASE keep the exclude (-) operator!!!!

OMG, This!! I'd be completely lost without that one.

Srsly.

I didn't mean to seem so very emphatic about it....it's just nice to be able to exclude the 1000 links about some crappy band with the same name of the object for which I'm seeking information.

/backs away embarrassed

"Dear Google, does it hurt my eyes to blink 182 times in a row?"

What the fark? They're closing google code search? Stupid honkeys!

midigod: FTA:"Instead, Google needed to read minds to find what their mainstream audience was looking for, even if it meant ignoring what they actually wrote."

That's something that's pissed me off about Google for a couple of years now. They increasingly ignore what I've typed, and try to imagine what I might want instead. I'M TELLING YOU WHAT I WANT. FIND IT. If I type the word already in my query, that means I WANT EACH PAGE SHOWN TO INCLUDE THAT WORD!

/really mad

Is there anyway to get this to happen. Pisses me off also.

Google probably did it to protect their trademark rights. It has two pending trademark applications for "G+" and "Google+", the later of which should be published for opposition soon. Google is probably trying to avoid someone making the argument that it cannot have a registration with "+" because "+" is functional instead of being a source identifier.

brigid_fitch: Sasquach: brigid_fitch: Sasquach: PLEASE keep the exclude (-) operator!!!!

OMG, This!! I'd be completely lost without that one.

Srsly.

I didn't mean to seem so very emphatic about it....it's just nice to be able to exclude the 1000 links about some crappy band with the same name of the object for which I'm seeking information.

/backs away embarrassed

Actually, I wasn't being sarcastic! I'm right there with you. Some of my best Google-fu is based on starting with a too-broad search & then excluding the patterns I don't want. And, since a LOT of my current job relies on searching through online databases, I would absolutely be lost without the - operator.

It does make you look like a Google-ninja when you can find things like that...

I thought the + was already mostly implied anyhow....also always been a " ".....since the altavista days anyway...

Changing the + to "quotes" is the least annoying of the changes to their search over the last year.

I always use the Advanced Search (new window) myself... Does this affect the functioning of the various fields there at all?

/my geek-fu is weak

Clockwork Kumquat: I always use the Advanced Search (new window) myself...

+1

...or is it "1" now? I'm confused.

gochuck: Also, I'm fairly certain, while Google won't admit it, a space between words is treated as an "OR" and not as "AND."

Pre-Google search engines (Altavista, Excite, etc.) worked that way. But Google treats the space as an AND... sort of.

See, if Google decides one of your search terms is related to another word -- mom vs. mother, for example -- it will allow substitutions if you don't put quotes around the word.

So in a way, there was never a need for the + operator in the first place.

Getting rid of Google Labs made me sad.

NutWrench: I thought they were talking about the "show more results from" link on Google searches.
(i.e. google "fark cows moo"). That's been busted (for me, at least) for a couple of weeks.

third result with the + sign works fine

It seems to me as if Google has decided to try its hand at shark-jumping, and has already become an expert. For me, the worst was when they started ignoring quoted strings. When I put a string of words in quotes it means I'm searching for that EXACT PHRASE, not having it second-, third-, and fourth-guessed.

And then there are the bottom-feeder content farms and spam that keep showing up. When I start having to exclude ten different sites from my search results, something's very wrong.

Earlier this year, Google Maps satellite views started to work like crap, particularly when you started zooming in or out, or scrolling the map. I later found out that this only happens in IE or Firefox, while it works like it should in Chrome. Hmmmmmmm.

Damnitsomuch... Google in 2011 is looking all too much like Alta Vista in 1999. And no, I don't consider Bing to be an alternative.

MrEricSir: Pre-Google search engines (Altavista, Excite, etc.) worked that way. But Google treats the space as an AND... sort of.

See, if Google decides one of your search terms is related to another word -- mom vs. mother, for example -- it will allow substitutions if you don't put quotes around the word.

So in a way, there was never a need for the + operator in the first place.

More not than sort of, unfortunately. The further toward the end of your search phrase you put a word, the less weight it has. So if I'm searching for Valley of Fire Poodle Rock map, Google considers that "map" wasn't that important, and delivers pages that not only aren't maps, but also don't even have the word "map" in them.

The more they try to please everyone, the more useless their search will be.

is it really that hard to quote something? are you turdburglars that lazy that you can't use one more character? damn

interesting, word order is actually more important than even "advanced search" forced AND

by the way, I love how if I look up "valley of fire poodle rock map" and "map valley of fire poodle rock" fark comments show up in the results

You guys saying it isn't a big deal, you do realize google will ignore your quoted text if it thinks it knows what you want.

I didn't expect a lot of Fark geeks to really understand the impact this can have on power users, programmers, and true geeks.

Hacker News (new window) and Reddit (new window) geeks at least seem to have more of an understanding.

I was under the impression that +turdburglar is equivalent to "turdburglar" is equivalent to advanced search this exact wording or phrase turdburglar.

What I find interesting is that Valley of Fire Poodle Rock "map" returns the same as advanced search this exact wording or phrase map (which is equivalent to +map on the end of the string) BUT "map" Valley of Fire Poodle Rock has different results.

This isn't that surprising, I guess, but I would have thought that advanced search would have prioritized the "map" ahead of the other words.

By the way, this is not a good way to search for a map. Especially since Poodle Rock is in Bryce Canyon 225 miles from Valley of Fire.