S... Don't tell Mark. You'll ruin his day! ;-)
Pete
On Thu 13 Jan 05, 3:29 PM, Ken Bloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> After seeing the volume of responses that I have seen pop up in the
> last few hours, here's what I think google should do: They should have
> a secret option punct: that
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 01:25:49PM -0800, Mark K. Kim wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Peter Jay Salzman wrote:
>
> > On Thu 13 Jan 05, 12:42 PM, Mark K. Kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> [quotes trimmed - getting way too long!]
> > > Most dotfile has a corresponding /etc file with same syntax so...
>
After seeing the volume of responses that I have seen pop up in the
last few hours, here's what I think google should do: They should have
a secret option punct: that keeps punctuation intact when searching.
--Ken Bloom
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 11:37:20AM -0800, Ken Bloom wrote:
> Here's google's
Mark vs. the World...
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Bill Kendrick wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 01:25:49PM -0800, Mark K. Kim wrote:
> > The syntax for /etc/vimrc (or more accurately, /usr/share/vim/.../vimrc)
> > is same as that of ~/etc/.vimrc. So why would one be motivated to search
> > for .vimrc
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Peter Jay Salzman wrote:
> On Thu 13 Jan 05, 1:25 PM, Mark K. Kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
[snip for brevity]
> > The syntax for /etc/vimrc (or more accurately, /usr/share/vim/.../vimrc)
>
> Why more accurately?
Debian testing (my desktop):
$ls /etc/vimrc
ls: /etc/vimr
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 01:25:49PM -0800, Mark K. Kim wrote:
> The syntax for /etc/vimrc (or more accurately, /usr/share/vim/.../vimrc)
> is same as that of ~/etc/.vimrc. So why would one be motivated to search
> for .vimrc when one simply wants to find out the syntax of vimrc files in
> general?
On Thu 13 Jan 05, 1:25 PM, Mark K. Kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Peter Jay Salzman wrote:
>
> > On Thu 13 Jan 05, 12:42 PM, Mark K. Kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> [quotes trimmed - getting way too long!]
> > > Most dotfile has a corresponding /etc file with same syntax so.
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Peter Jay Salzman wrote:
> On Thu 13 Jan 05, 12:42 PM, Mark K. Kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
[quotes trimmed - getting way too long!]
> > Most dotfile has a corresponding /etc file with same syntax so...
>
> Yes, but I don't care about /etc/application/2.1.5/config/.dotfile.
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 03:57:58PM -0500, Peter Jay Salzman wrote:
> I think it would be hilarious if we started a thread on slashdot:
>
>What's broken on Google and how would you fix it?
>
> It would be an interesting thread to read... :)
Dude, go for it!
-bill!
("automatically ignore all
On Thu 13 Jan 05, 12:54 PM, Bill Kendrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >
> > Again, we're talking about dotfiles. Not general punctuation. So I ask:
> >
> >Would that REALLY cause their database to melt down in panic?
>
> THAT would not. But what they responded with was generic:
> "If we
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 03:46:54PM -0500, Peter Jay Salzman wrote:
> On Thu 13 Jan 05, 12:40 PM, Bill Kendrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > A bucket for ".forward", a bucket for "forward.", a bucket for
> > "forward," a bucket for "forward;", a bucket for "forward?", a bucket for
> > "forward!",
On Thu 13 Jan 05, 12:42 PM, Mark K. Kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Peter Jay Salzman wrote:
>
> > On Thu 13 Jan 05, 12:31 PM, Mark K. Kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > > Unless you've indexed a right-to-left language that has punctuation
> > > marks??
> > >
> > > Or if you've
On Thu 13 Jan 05, 12:40 PM, Bill Kendrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Would that REALLY cause their database to melt down in panic?
>
> It would if suddenly every variation of a 'word' became its own searchable
> thing. In my above example, we'd go from one 'bucket' labelled
> "pages with the
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Peter Jay Salzman wrote:
> On Thu 13 Jan 05, 12:34 PM, Mark K. Kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Rick Moen wrote:
> >
> > > Quoting Ken Bloom ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > >
> > > > Here's google's answer:
> > >
> > > It's obviously a boilerplate, canned respon
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:42:12PM -0800, Mark K. Kim wrote:
> Most dotfile has a corresponding /etc file with same syntax so... should
> Google allow dotfile searches specifically for unix users but not their
> global equivalents? I don't think a generic search engine like Google
> should be that
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Peter Jay Salzman wrote:
> On Thu 13 Jan 05, 12:31 PM, Mark K. Kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Unless you've indexed a right-to-left language that has punctuation
> > marks??
> >
> > Or if you've indexed "quoted text" with the quote character before the
> > term?
> >
> > Or
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 03:13:23PM -0500, Peter Jay Salzman wrote:
> Anyone who searches for ".vimrc" means ".vimrc". In this case, the dot is a
> literal, so ".forward" is as distinct from "forward" as "cat is distinct
> from "dog".
These (Unix dotfiles) are good special case that Google should
On Thu 13 Jan 05, 12:34 PM, Mark K. Kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Rick Moen wrote:
>
> > Quoting Ken Bloom ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> >
> > > Here's google's answer:
> >
> > It's obviously a boilerplate, canned response.
>
> Of course!
>
> But if there's an enough request for
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Ken Bloom ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > Here's google's answer:
>
> It's obviously a boilerplate, canned response.
Of course!
But if there's an enough request for a feature, they'll bring it up on
their next corporate meeting.
Everyone e-mail Google!
On Thu 13 Jan 05, 12:31 PM, Mark K. Kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Unless you've indexed a right-to-left language that has punctuation
> marks??
>
> Or if you've indexed "quoted text" with the quote character before the
> term?
>
> Or if you've indexed *strong text* with the star character befor
Unless you've indexed a right-to-left language that has punctuation
marks??
Or if you've indexed "quoted text" with the quote character before the
term?
Or if you've indexed *strong text* with the star character before the
term?
Or if you've indexed /regexp string/ or /italicized string/ with th
On Thu 13 Jan 05, 12:05 PM, Rick Moen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Quoting Ken Bloom ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > Here's google's answer:
>
> It's obviously a boilerplate, canned response.
>
> If you want to pursue the matter, you'll want to follow up with "I
> understand your need to use generic
Quoting Ken Bloom ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Here's google's answer:
It's obviously a boilerplate, canned response.
If you want to pursue the matter, you'll want to follow up with "I
understand your need to use generic, prepared texts, but the one you
replied with in this case completely missed th
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 11:40:49AM -0800, Richard S. Crawford wrote:
> I've always thought it would be really cool if we could search Google
> using regular expressions.
>
I think the problem here is how it's indexed. If it sees ".forward",
it just sticks it in the pile of pages that contain the
:Here would be my reply
,Dear Google
.Somebody capable of describing "What's broken under Unix" will be able
figure out why punctuation *before* a search term will not significantly
alter the delivery time of search results
:Hint .See this email
,Sincerely
Peter Jay Salzman
On Thu 13 Ja
Ken Bloom said:
> Here's google's answer:
[snip]
> That said, we know that many useful search terms do contain such
> characters. We've generated exceptions for terms like C++ and $10 and
> are studying ways to enable search terms like C/net. We'll keep your
> feedback in mind as we work to impr
Here's google's answer:
- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:24:13 -0800
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [#19464334] Searching for dotfiles
To: Ken Bloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi Ken,
Thank you for your note. Google currently does not recognize searc
27 matches
Mail list logo
