O/T: Will Google Groups ever fix its search function?

The take over by Google of the Usenet archive was first seen as a
godsend. However, its horrendous search function on past and current
Usenet posts has lead many Usenet readers to wish Google would just
give up the job to someone who actually wants to do it.
Google claims they are working to improve the search function:

Google’s Abandoned Library of 700 Million Titles (UPDATED)
* By Kevin Poulsen
* October 7, 2009
* 12:34 pm
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/10/usenet/

Google Begins Fixing Usenet Archive.
* By Kevin Poulsen Email Author
* October 8, 2009
* 1:53 pm
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/10/usenet_fix/

But the length of time the search function has been this bad does not
inspire confidence they will fix it anytime soon.
Another example of why someone having an monopoly is a bad thing.



Bob Clark

Dear Robert Clark:

On May 10, 10:08*am, Robert Clark wrote:
*The take over by Google of the Usenet archive was
first seen as a godsend. However, its horrendous
search function on past and current Usenet posts
has lead many Usenet readers to wish Google
would just give up the job to someone who actually
wants to do it.

It works fine from their "Advanced Search" dialog screen.
http://groups.google.com/groups/adva...ups.google.com

It is the asymmetric search interfaces, and search performance /
behavior, that is maddening.

David A. Smith

On May 10, 1:52*pm, dlzc wrote:
Dear Robert Clark:

On May 10, 10:08*am, Robert Clark wrote:

*The take over by Google of the Usenet archive was
first seen as a godsend. However, its horrendous
search function on past and current Usenet posts
has lead many Usenet readers to wish Google
would just give up the job to someone who actually
wants to do it.

It works fine from their "Advanced Search" dialog screen.http://groups.google.com/groups/adva...rch=groups.goo...

It is the asymmetric search interfaces, and search performance /
behavior, that is maddening.

David A. Smith


I haven't found that to be so. For instance I searched using the
Advanced Search for the word "bimese" restricting the search to this
year and got no results. I however I did send a post to
sci.space.policy discussing this idea on May 4th:

Newsgroups: sci.space.policy, sci.astro, sci.physics,
sci.space.history
From: Robert Clark
Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 10:49:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: A kerosene-fueled X-33 as a single stage to orbit vehicle
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...aaf61151?hl=en


Bob Clark

Robert Clark wrote:

The take over by Google of the Usenet archive was first seen as a
godsend. However, its horrendous search function on past and current
Usenet posts has lead many Usenet readers to wish Google would just
give up the job to someone who actually wants to do it.
Google claims they are working to improve the search function:

Google’s Abandoned Library of 700 Million Titles (UPDATED)
* By Kevin Poulsen
* October 7, 2009
* 12:34 pm
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/10/usenet/

Google Begins Fixing Usenet Archive.
* By Kevin Poulsen Email Author
* October 8, 2009
* 1:53 pm
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/10/usenet_fix/

But the length of time the search function has been this bad does not
inspire confidence they will fix it anytime soon.
Another example of why someone having an monopoly is a bad thing.

Your inability to function within a rich environment - intrinsic
ignorance refractory to instruction - is screamingly obvious, broadly
cast, and once again validated.

If you are stooopid - ignorant plus ineducable; and oh my are you ever
- don't expect the rest of us to dumb down in the names of compassion
and diversity. Stupid *should* be lethal. To deny you a platform to
shout crap merely requires making such a platform available as to all.

Here is another feather to thread up your butt: Sergey Brin and Larry
Page are circumcized Members of the Tribe,

http://www.jewornotjew.com/profile.jsp?ID=315
Sergey Brin and Larry Page
http://www.momentmag.com/Exclusive/2007/2007-02/200702-BrinFeature.html
pompous Official Truth

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm

dlzc wrote:
Dear Robert Clark:

On May 10, 10:08 am, Robert Clark wrote:
The take over by Google of the Usenet archive was
first seen as a godsend. However, its horrendous
search function on past and current Usenet posts
has lead many Usenet readers to wish Google
would just give up the job to someone who actually
wants to do it.

It works fine from their "Advanced Search" dialog screen.
http://groups.google.com/groups/adva...ups.google.com

It is the asymmetric search interfaces, and search performance /
behavior, that is maddening.


Advanced dialogue screen doesn't exactly work fine. If you select search
on a specific author and date range it generates a command line syntax
that is usually invalid if you return to advanced search. eg

author:Martin author:Brown

mutates to

g:authorBrown author:Martin

and Google helpfully offers to "correct" it to

g:arthur Brown author:Martin

And under some circumstances - I think on the first search in a session
where no results are returned the date range is reset to current.

I have not seen it fail on modern posts by keyword at all.
I blame user error.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On May 11, 3:11*am, Martin Brown
wrote:
....

And under some circumstances - I think on the first search in a session
where no results are returned the date range is reset to current.

I have not seen it fail on modern posts by keyword at all.
I blame user error.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Do the search yourself:

http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...ups.google.com


Bob Clark

dlzc writes:

On May 10, 10:08*am, Robert Clark wrote:
The take over by Google of the Usenet archive was first seen as a
godsend. However, its horrendous search function on past and current
Usenet posts has lead many Usenet readers to wish Google would just
give up the job to someone who actually wants to do it.

It works fine from their "Advanced Search" dialog screen.
http://groups.google.com/groups/adva...ups.google.com

No it doesn't.

--
Aatu Koskensilta )

"Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

Robert Clark wrote:
On May 11, 3:11 am, Martin Brown
wrote:
...
And under some circumstances - I think on the first search in a session
where no results are returned the date range is reset to current.

I have not seen it fail on modern posts by keyword at all.
I blame user error.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Do the search yourself:

http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...ups.google.com

I get
http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...=b&sitesearch=

And that works OK - it seems your version generates invalid search
syntax. Shows a couple of recent posts. Looks to me like user error.
That part works OK for me in the UK

http://groups.google.co.uk/groups/se...=Search+Groups
http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...=Search+Groups

Regards,
Martin Brown

On May 11, 9:21*am, Martin Brown
wrote:
Robert Clark wrote:
On May 11, 3:11 am, Martin Brown
wrote:
...
I have not seen it fail on modern posts by keyword at all.
I blame user error.

Regards,
Martin Brown

*Do the search yourself:

http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...=bimese&btnG=S...

I get
http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...=bimese&btnG=S...

And that works OK - it seems your version generates invalid search
syntax. Shows a couple of recent posts. Looks to me like user error.
That part works OK for me in the UK

http://groups.google.co.uk/groups/se...=Search+Groups

Regards,
Martin Brown

No, I was specifically searching for *Usenet* posts. The posts you
pull up with that first link you gave are for separate forums outside
of Usenet groups. They would have been pulled up as well just by
Google's usual web search function. Note as well even on that first
link you gave, if you specify to only search Usenet groups, you get no
results.
In the second and third links you gave for the UK version, note you
left out the date restriction and it pulls up older posts. It still
leaves out the posts from this year. Even with this version, if you
restrict to this year it gets no results.
Another bug is that if you select the sort by date option it always
pulls up fewer results than the sort by relevance option. This is so
bad that in some cases you can get dozens of results on the sort by
relevance option and NO results when you select sort by date.


Bob Clark

On May 11, 9:21 am, Martin Brown
wrote:
Robert Clark wrote:
On May 11, 3:11 am, Martin Brown
wrote:
...
I have not seen it fail on modern posts by keyword at all.
I blame user error.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Do the search yourself:

http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...=bimese&btnG=S...

I get
http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...=bimese&btnG=S...

and that fails. Looks to me like programmer error, truncation of URL.
Google have a bad apple in the barrel that needs firing before he/she does
some serious damage.