Below is a query I sent to a computer columnist for the Wall Street
Journal. He had no interest at all in this, but since this is not the
first example of this type that I've seen, it seems to me there's
something very peculiar about Google.

=========================================

There's a definite peculiarity with Boolean searches on some, tho not
all, Google searches.

Most of the time I've searched, I've found that the more restrictive
your search, the fewer the number of hits. That's as it should be. But
this is not always the case. And if I'm getting these peculiar
results, for sure other searchers, who may not have thought about this
stuff, are getting them too.

I had an example the other day. I was searching for sites that
featured *discussions* about *relationships*, so I typed "discuss
relationships" (no quote marks) into the Google search bar and the
report was that there were "about 44,500,000. The results I was shown
suggested to me that the word "students" might be in a lot of those,
and I didn't want that, so I added a "NOT students" --- a minus
sign preceeding the word students (-students).

The report I got was "about 238,000,000". That can't be right. There
should probably be fewer hits for "discuss relationships -students"
than than for "discuss relationships". There should certainly not be so
many more!

I checked the Google Sheat sheet provided by Google, and it
suggests that I constructed my search properly.

Here's the link to the Google Cheat Sheet:

http://www.google.com/intl/en//cheatsheet.html

Notice the example given: virus -computer ("virus, but not computer").
It explains how to construct a NOT search, and show s clearly that
placing a minus sign in front of a term "NOT"s it.

I've asked Google about this in the past, but understandably, no
response.

ta1xxx@verizon.net wrote:

> I had an example the other day. I was searching for sites that
> featured *discussions* about *relationships*, so I typed "discuss
> relationships" (no quote marks) into the Google search bar and the
> report was that there were "about 44,500,000. The results I was shown
> suggested to me that the word "students" might be in a lot of those,
> and I didn't want that, so I added a "NOT students" --- a minus
> sign preceeding the word students (-students).

http://www.google.com/search?q=discuss%20relationships
77,400,000 for discuss relationships
http://www.google.com/search?q=discu...ps%20-students
48,800,000 for discuss relationships -student

Maybe copy paste the actual URLs + numbers reported. Again I can't
reproduce what you see.

--
John Need with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:

--> http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-.html

John Bokma wrote:

> ta1xxx@verizon.net wrote:
>
>> I had an example the other day. I was searching for sites that
>> featured *discussions* about *relationships*, so I typed "discuss
>> relationships" (no quote marks) into the Google search bar and the
>> report was that there were "about 44,500,000. The results I was shown
>> suggested to me that the word "students" might be in a lot of those,
>> and I didn't want that, so I added a "NOT students" --- a minus
>> sign preceeding the word students (-students).
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=discuss%20relationships
> 77,400,000 for discuss relationships
> http://www.google.com/search?q=discu...ps%20-students
> 48,800,000 for discuss relationships -student
>
> Maybe copy paste the actual URLs + numbers reported. Again I can't
> reproduce what you see.
>


I get similar results to the OP
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/b.wakem/googbool.png


--
Brian Wakem
Email: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/b.wakem/myemail.png

Brian Wakem <no@email.com> wrote:

> John Bokma wrote:
>
>> ta1xxx@verizon.net wrote:
>>
>>> I had an example the other day. I was searching for sites that
>>> featured *discussions* about *relationships*, so I typed "discuss
>>> relationships" (no quote marks) into the Google search bar and the
>>> report was that there were "about 44,500,000. The results I was shown
>>> suggested to me that the word "students" might be in a lot of those,
>>> and I didn't want that, so I added a "NOT students" --- a minus
>>> sign preceeding the word students (-students).
>>
>> http://www.google.com/search?q=discuss%20relationships
>> 77,400,000 for discuss relationships
>> http://www.google.com/search?q=discu...ps%20-students
>> 48,800,000 for discuss relationships -student
>>
>> Maybe copy paste the actual URLs + numbers reported. Again I can't
>> reproduce what you see.
>
> I get similar results to the OP
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/b.wakem/googbool.png

You both didn't pay the rent? :-D.

Odd.

http://www.google.nl/search?q=discuss%20relationships
86.800.000 voor discuss relationships
http://www.google.nl/search?q=discus...ps%20-students
49.700.000 voor discuss relationships -students

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=dis...0relationships
86,900,000 for discuss relationships
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=dis...ps%20-students
49,800,000 for discuss relationships -students

--
John Need with SEO? Get started with a SEO report of your site:

--> http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-.html

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 23:52:27 +0200, John Bokma <john@castleamber.com>
wrote:

> http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=dis...0relationships
> 86,900,000 for discuss relationships
> http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=dis...ps%20-students
> 49,800,000 for discuss relationships -students

Strange.

Results 1 - 10 of about 43,600,000 for discuss relationships.
Results 1 - 10 of about 210,000,000 for discuss relationships -students.

To be sure it is not DC related I have checked for 64.233.161.99 &
64.233.161.104 dcs, results very similar (and counterintuitive).

Borek
--
http://www.chembuddy.com
http://www.ph-meter.info
http://www.terapia-kregoslupa.waw.pl

"John Bokma" <john@castleamber.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98438574D7028castleamber@130.133.1.4...
> ta1xxx@verizon.net wrote:
>
> > I had an example the other day. I was searching for
sites that
> > featured *discussions* about *relationships*, so I typed
"discuss
> > relationships" (no quote marks) into the Google search
bar and the
> > report was that there were "about 44,500,000. The
results I was shown
> > suggested to me that the word "students" might be in a
lot of those,
> > and I didn't want that, so I added a "NOT students" ---
a minus
> > sign preceeding the word students (-students).
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=discuss%20relationships
> 77,400,000 for discuss relationships
>
http://www.google.com/search?q=discu...ps%20-students
> 48,800,000 for discuss relationships -student
>
> Maybe copy paste the actual URLs + numbers reported.
Again I can't
> reproduce what you see.


I have often tried various Boolean searches and never found
them to work consistently. If Boolean were an integrated
part of Google, why have I never been able to find a simple,
clear, explanation page of the exact formats to be used
for them (and the usage of (), " " etc., etc.) I think it's
a load of crap!

BTW, I have recently tried to use the Group advanced search
page for searching for Usenet Newsgroup messages confined to
certain parameters--that really doesn't seem to work right
either. (Doesn't pick up all (or any) of my msgs in
particular NGs, and date range that I can tell!) Grrr.
....tonyC

> --
> John Need with SEO? Get started with a SEO report
of your site:
>
> -->
http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/seo-expert-.html