[rsync]

"For Google, you should type in Google.com/ncr . The NCR means no country redirect ..."

Is there a similar trick that specifies I only want search results that contain the search terms I searched for ?

Probably too much to ask ...

[duckmysick]

Select Tools and then change from All Results to Verbatim. This should eliminate paraphrasing. Surround the query with double quotes if you don't want the words to be split on the page.

[TroisM]

I wish that Google never removed the + operator because even if double quotes does something similar, it is not the same (thanks to Google Plus that I think doesn't even exist anymore).

[melomal]

Check out Google Dorks, it provides every option to essentially search and find many, many things.

[lwansbrough]

You can put the phrase in quotes "" to identify you want that exact match, and I think you can do -phrase to remove results.

[rsync]

No and no.

You can put phrases in quotes and some of the initial results may rearrange themselves to reflect this intention that you've signaled but, overall, you'll still get many results that either contain different arrangements of those terms or don't contain them at all.

The minus sign has even hazier functionality and completely falls apart if you are searching --command-line options, etc.

It's not like this isn't a solved problem ... altavista had properly functioning (and complex) boolean operators that worked to give you very precise search results.

The reason you can't do that with google is that google doesn't want you to.

[TimTheTinker]

Google used to support all those things - quoted phrases, NOT, minus sign, etc. In fact, for a long time, unlike other search engines, using a + sign (for "must include this term") was unnecessary because every search term was interpreted that way implicitly.

Not only did google have the largest index, it also had the best search engine -- there's a reason they won on search. These days, they still have the largest index and the best crawler, but I'd argue they don't have the best query handler. At least DuckDuckGo takes what I say literally.

[toomanybeersies]

I remember 15-20 years ago when you could do complex searches with Google, and while it was great for power users, most regular users had issues with it, since searching "how do I replace a car wheel?" would search for that literal string, instead of parsing it to "how to replace a car wheel"

That said, maybe my memory is fuzzy and there was a time where Google search allowed rich queries and also did a good job at guessing users intentions.

[rusk]

About 10 years or so ago … google was ridiculously good. The web practically jumped out of the screen at you. It’s been piss poor for like the last 5 years or so though.

[DoingIsLearning]

Someone else commented here in a past thread that the biggest cliff happened when Amit Singhal left Google and the AI lead John Giannandrea replaced him.

John Giannandrea brought about more AI heavy search and forced 'natural language' queries down the throat of everyone.

It obviously makes google money and is the right tool for popular queries. But for anyone doing more 'power user' searches it is just inept and I agree with GGP duckduckgo is now a better search engine for more complex queries.

[kevin_thibedeau]

You are the product. Their goal is to generate revenue with ads and links to their paying customers on the results page. Giving you precise results works against this objective.

[xbmcuser]

no you are an edge case the rest of the world ie non tech users prefer the way google understands the queries and answers them.

[Cipater]

The word "prefers" implies that the choice was made after evaluating other options.

The word you should use is "accepts".

[sanitycheck]

The rest of the world clicks on more ads this way. I believe that's their most important metric.

[tempestn]

I believe putting + signs before terms will require them to be present on the page.

[sparky_z]

Google got rid of that syntax about a decade ago, when they were trying to make Google Plus a thing. (As I recall, they wanted to reserve it for G+ usernames, like using @ for Twitter or Instagram.) I just checked and it looks like they still haven't brought it back.

They "new" syntax is to surround the desired term with double quotes. But of course quoting was already used for searching phrases, so autosuggestions stopped working for phrase searches. Progress!

[toxik]

It's easy to see why they wouldn't reintroduce power user tools once removed. It's sucky, but all mass-market tech is like this, constantly adapting to fit some lowest common denominator. Power users just aren't that.