tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33211251.post8056144093196832083..comments2024-01-08T19:49:13.932+00:00Comments on Froogville: List of the Month - oblique introductionsFrooghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06738623732860210935noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33211251.post-60400620060427470712011-07-06T18:28:35.207+00:002011-07-06T18:28:35.207+00:00No, quotes around a single word don't do anyth...No, quotes around a single word don't do anything. Around a phrase they mean, "Look for only this phrase as a whole; don't consider the individual words apart from one another." If you use the quotation marks around a phrase but no +/- characters, it grants Google permission to search for alternate word forms, possible typos, and such. You can put + signs before words within the phrase to override this "smart" behavior.<br /><br />There's also a very limited wildcard-search operator, the asterisk, useful (practically speaking) only when doing phrase searches... and then only WITHIN the phrase. (You can't use it within individual words: "*run*" just finds "run," not (say) "rum-runner.") The * means "possibly some other word(s) here." The "possibly" and the "(s)" qualifier almost completely kill the utility of the wildcard, though. "running * hat" will find not only the expected results, but also all pages on which the word "running" appears ANYWHERE before the word "hat."<br /><br />All of which is probably the cue for some Google fan (or employee) to pipe up and tell us, "Oh Google abandoned THAT syntax in 2005" or whenever!JEShttp://johnesimpson.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33211251.post-59360502461901327362011-07-05T23:01:49.209+00:002011-07-05T23:01:49.209+00:00Thank you, my search engine wizard.
I found most ...Thank you, my search engine wizard.<br /><br />I found most of the results from a straightforward search were for 'homelessness'. I don't remember Google being this inventive - rather bothersomely so! - in the past. If you put something in quotes, it's supposed to search for that alone, isn't it - typos and all?Frooghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06738623732860210935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33211251.post-30426917703634890952011-07-05T15:42:11.778+00:002011-07-05T15:42:11.778+00:00Re: limelessness...
It's often useful when ch...Re: <em>limelessness</em>...<br /><br />It's often useful when checking Google for this sort of thing to know of a couple of special Google operators -- the plus and minus signs (sometimes in conjunction with quotation marks, to turn adjacent words into exact phrases).<br /><br />I just checked for <em>limelessness</em> (surely a useful concept!) in this way. <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=%2Blimelessness+-timelessness" rel="nofollow">The enhanced search</a> instructs Google: <br /><br />(a) look for <em>limelessness</em> ONLY -- do not make an "smart guesses" that I might like to see "limeless" alone, or might be interested in multiple "limelessnessES," or in the act of "limelessnessING" (even though that's sort of what I'm doing right now); and<br /><br />(b) in particular, ignore any hits on the word <em>timelessness</em>.<br /><br />Results are interesting -- mostly Google Books misfires, where they've incorrectly OCRed <em>timelessness</em>... leading to phrases like "project an air of limelessness and tradition" and (my favorite, a pop-music review) "What sets <em>The Healing Bones</em> apart from most of his back catalog is a certain limelessness of the sound."<br /><br />Interestingly, currently <a href="http://www.cougarboard.com/board/message.html?id=4746442" rel="nofollow">the top hit</a> for <em>limelessness</em> -- on a discussion board for people with Brigham Young University, dating back to August, 2009, and concerning a comparison between two lunch spots -- takes the word just exactly as you did in the "Invented Words" post of 2007. (Which post, by the way, currenty shows up at the bottom of the second page of hits.)<br /><br />I suppose I really should spend some time attending to my paying job now. (As far as I know, it's 100% lime-free today.)JEShttp://johnesimpson.com/noreply@blogger.com