Decades ago when I first started using online search engines, placing a
"+" sign before a term returned only references containing that term.
Similarly, using a "-" sign would exclude references containing that term.

This morning I wanted to search my local library for any self help
material for adults with ADHD.

Having used the library's tools, I knew it had at least 30 relevant
circulating items. As the library wasn't yet open for the day and I was
interested in non-circulating material, I did:
>
https://html.duckduckgo.com/html?q=%2Badult%20%2B%22adhd%22%20%2B%22self%20help%22%20site%3Athelibrary.org

None of the hits included "adhd". The search engine obviously had access
to the library's catalog as the first hit was a book on teaching adults
to read :{

Is there an online search engine that actually works?
[P.S. Google didn't work either]

Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> writes:

> Decades ago when I first started using online search engines, placing
> a "+" sign before a term returned only references containing that
> term. Similarly, using a "-" sign would exclude references containing
> that term.
>
> This morning I wanted to search my local library for any self help
> material for adults with ADHD.
>
> Having used the library's tools, I knew it had at least 30 relevant
> circulating items. As the library wasn't yet open for the day and I
> was interested in non-circulating material, I did:
> >
> https://html.duckduckgo.com/html?q=%2Badult%20%2B%22adhd%22%20%2B%22self%20help%22%20site%3Athelibrary.org
>
> None of the hits included "adhd". The search engine obviously had
> access to the library's catalog as the first hit was a book on
> teaching adults to read :{
>
> Is there an online search engine that actually works?
> [P.S. Google didn't work either]

When I removed the terms except +adhd I found only three results.

I tried

https://www.qwant.com/?l=en&q=%2BADHD+site%3Athelibrary.org&t=web

and it also found only three results.

So how do you know there are 30 relevent items?

Richard Owlett wrote:

> Decades ago when I first started using online search engines, placing a
> "+" sign before a term returned only references containing that term.
> Similarly, using a "-" sign would exclude references containing that term.
>
> Is there an online search engine that actually works?
> [P.S. Google didn't work either]

plus hasn't worked on google for a looong time, though minus still does,
sometimes the verbatim option under search/tools helps, sometimes
combining words inside quotes e.g. "adult adhd" helps.

Richard Owlett wrote:
> Decades ago when I first started using online search engines, placing a
> "+" sign

>   >
> https://html.duckduckgo.com/html?q=%2Badult%20%2B%22adhd%22%20%2B%22self%20help%22%20site%3Athelibrary.org

I tried this query in the default duckduckgo search page:

adhd site:thelibrary.org

and it found three results

Note, that I didn't even use the plus sign

gerry 666uk wrote on 2/7/23 3:06 am:
> Richard Owlett wrote:
>> Decades ago when I first started using online search engines, placing
>> a "+" sign
>
>>    >
>> https://html.duckduckgo.com/html?q=%2Badult%20%2B%22adhd%22%20%2B%22self%20help%22%20site%3Athelibrary.org
>
>
> I tried this query in the default duckduckgo search page:
>
> adhd site:thelibrary.org
>
> and it found three results
>
> Note, that I didn't even use the plus sign
>
I got 15 results using that DuckDuckGo address in Google search engine.
Isn't competition wonderful?

Richard Owlett wrote:
> Decades ago when I first started using online search engines, placing a
> "+" sign before a term returned only references containing that term.
> Similarly, using a "-" sign would exclude references containing that term.
>
> This morning I wanted to search my local library for any self help
> material for adults with ADHD.
>
> Having used the library's tools, I knew it had at least 30 relevant
> circulating items. As the library wasn't yet open for the day and I was
> interested in non-circulating material, I did:
>   >
> https://html.duckduckgo.com/html?q=%2Badult%20%2B%22adhd%22%20%2B%22self%20help%22%20site%3Athelibrary.org
>
>
> None of the hits included "adhd". The search engine obviously had access
> to the library's catalog as the first hit was a book on teaching adults
> to read :{
>
> Is there an online search engine that actually works?
> [P.S. Google didn't work either]
>
>
FYI,
20 Google Search Tips to Use Google More Efficiently:

https://www.lifehack.org/articles/technology/20-tips-use-google-search-efficiently.html

On 2023-07-01, Andy Burns wrote:

> Richard Owlett wrote:
>
>> Decades ago when I first started using online search engines,
>> placing a "+" sign before a term returned only references containing
>> that term. Similarly, using a "-" sign would exclude references
>> containing that term.

I think when I first started seeing advice about "boolean operators" in
search queries it was in the form of "AND", "OR", "NOT" between
keywords. But maybe I'm misremembering, it was a long time (20--25
years?) ago. I've got no idea if it actually worked like that, or in
which search engines did it work like that.

I'd be interested in knowing which search engines currently offer the
user this kind of control over the search.

>> Is there an online search engine that actually works?
>> [P.S. Google didn't work either]
>
> plus hasn't worked on google for a looong time, though minus still
> does, sometimes the verbatim option under search/tools helps,
> sometimes combining words inside quotes e.g. "adult adhd" helps.

With Google, I think "sometimes" ends up being the key word way too
often. Adding quotes around might help, unless Google decides it's
helpful to ignore it (quite often it isn't...). Google also excels at
sometimes delivering a bunch of unrelated results instead of saying "no
results" or "no further results".

Google also has a tendency to temporarily blacklist IPs which use these
search tools. If I do a few searches for verbatim matches or limiting to
a specific host/part of a host with site:, I often end up being
redirected to their "we think you're a bot" page after a while.

--
Nuno Silva

Nuno Silva wrote:

> Google also excels at sometimes delivering a bunch of unrelated
> results instead of saying "no results" or "no further results".

Yep, if you search for gibberish like "buy jduukgy"
there's usually someone (ebay or amazon) dumb enough to pay for your
search and return results qualified with

Missing: jduukgy ‎| Must include: jduukgy

Nuno Silva wrote:
> On 2023-07-01, Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> Richard Owlett wrote:
>>
>>> Decades ago when I first started using online search engines,
>>> placing a "+" sign before a term returned only references containing
>>> that term. Similarly, using a "-" sign would exclude references
>>> containing that term.
>
> I think when I first started seeing advice about "boolean operators" in
> search queries it was in the form of "AND", "OR", "NOT" between
> keywords. But maybe I'm misremembering, it was a long time (20--25
> years?) ago. I've got no idea if it actually worked like that, or in
> which search engines did it work like that.
>
> I'd be interested in knowing which search engines currently offer the
> user this kind of control over the search.
>
>>> Is there an online search engine that actually works?
>>> [P.S. Google didn't work either]
>>
>> plus hasn't worked on google for a looong time, though minus still
>> does, sometimes the verbatim option under search/tools helps,
>> sometimes combining words inside quotes e.g. "adult adhd" helps.
>
> With Google, I think "sometimes" ends up being the key word way too
> often. Adding quotes around might help, unless Google decides it's
> helpful to ignore it (quite often it isn't...). Google also excels at
> sometimes delivering a bunch of unrelated results instead of saying "no
> results" or "no further results".
>
> Google also has a tendency to temporarily blacklist IPs which use these
> search tools. If I do a few searches for verbatim matches or limiting to
> a specific host/part of a host with site:, I often end up being
> redirected to their "we think you're a bot" page after a while.
>

Are they right? Are you a bot? Google's AI is presumably about to tell
the world that you are, and Google knows *everything*.