"Manu" <turkey...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mailman.778.1331920080.4860.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... > On 16 March 2012 03:23, ixid <nuacco...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> D is a very poor name for a language. I appreciate it's late in the day >> for this and that it has probably been discussed before (not that I could >> find such a discussion with Google which relates to my point). Although >> the >> results for D are fine when googling for things like "D tutorial", more >> obscure terms are hard to find because "d" is so commonly used as a >> variable name. Searchability is important though I understand that this >> might be seen as a trivial point, it is a major human factor. The >> language >> would be far better off with a 3 to 5 letter identifier. It will succeed >> or >> fail for other reasons but an easily searchable name would help. Dlang as >> the search term isn't good enough because it's not actually the >> language's >> name, people don't use it that much when referring to D, nor do they >> usually use D2. >> > > Do you have trouble googling for C? I find that D related results are > currently only around 4-5 down the google results list, and it'll only get > higher as it get's more popular. > C searches are fine... I am often surprised just how much influence > programmers seem to have on search results placement. >
Google search results are different for everybody. They tailor the search results they give you based on your past search (and clickthrough) history. If you're doing a lot of programmer searches, they're going to start giving you more programmer results. That's one of many reasons I used to use Scroogle, and now that Scroogle's dead (RIP), IxQuick and StartPage. See also "Filter bubble": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble