[iamwil]

Of course not. That's silly. But search engines were terrible back then. I remember using the lot of them, and it was hard to find anything. Using Google for the first time was incredible in 1998/1999. It just showed you exactly what you were looking for.

[jiofih]

Did not have that experience. Altavista and friends were good enough, and for a long time google’s ability to understand natural language searches was nothing more than a gimmick. Most of my discovery came from blogrolls, link sharing and portals. Until the SEO era began and the volume of noise became unbearable...

[brudgers]

In 1995, search engines were both worse and better. They were worse because they tended to rely on word frequency, boolean search, and an inverted index. They were better for the same reason. The search engine returned results based on what was in the box. It didn't second guess the user.

Even when Google arrived, it was not clearly better (at least for me) because it was hard to drill down a search by refining the specific search terms. But it was more adaptable to the first generation SEO methods.

[vidarh]

This was my experience too. A lot of the holdouts that stuck with Altavista etc. were those of us who had learned to use them properly.

Google became better for inexperienced users very quickly, but took a long time to become clearly better for those who could compose complex queries to find exactly what we wanted...

It was an interesting example of how power users can often become blind to major shifts because they've learned to work around the problems the newcomer solves.

[spullara]

Boolean operators and the near keyword were great!

[jacquesm]

They worked fine, until the keyword spam.

[aswanson]

Infoseek was rather good. Especially with Boolean operators.