[CharlesColeman]

> If you think of Google as a search engine, and particularly if you have historical experience with (and expectations of) search engines, this is very frustrating. And the workarounds of clicking the "must contain" link (or surrounding all of your search terms with quotation marks) are a seemingly unnecessary inconvenience.

Google really needs to develop a "pro mode" search engine that works for this use case. I get the need for an "answers engine" for less savvy users and more casual use cases, but it's a massive company. It can afford to execute two products in its core competency (rather than umpteen messaging apps that it will kill, along with a lot of other useless and/or doomed stuff).

[cortesoft]

"Google really needs to" in the sense that it would be useful, or that it would be a good investment for them? Sure it can afford to do it, but how would it help them make more money?

[sumedh]

> Sure it can afford to do it, but how would it help them make more money? reply

It keeps the power users on the site so they wont have to look for an alternative. Power users if they find something better might influence no power users to the other site

[sitkack]

All I can think of is the courtesy of a 404. No can be a powerful, yet welcome signal. The reticence to say No causes more harm that good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2vkiLHiTcY