Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design Subject: Re: OT: Search tricks? Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 13:42:15 +0100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 32 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 14:42:17 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9a28b74b71023a3b45042cc9862f78c5"; logging-data="472643"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/HK25oPyxBh8IxZiMsDDDXzIayVMFUlGWbvCETxzoC1A==" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:Tb4/rxtGQC5dWXnhVnHD6KM/UBs= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-GB Bytes: 2400 On 21/08/2024 20:57, Don Y wrote: > Is there some secret handshake to coerce *etail* sites to pay closer > attention > to your search criteria?  It seems like they produce results that match ANY > of your terms instead of ALL.  So, you scroll through page after page of > "no, not that".  Likely because they hope you will "settle" for > something else > they are offering -- instead of abandoning the site in favor of another > vendor. Some are better than others. I prefer those with filters that let you choose maker, price range and whatever parameters really matter. > > My current strategy is to specify only and exactly what I know to be > a faithful description of the item (e.g., by reading it off the package!) > and, look through the results until I encounter the first item that > doesn't match all of my search terms -- figuring anything after this is > just wishful thinking on their part. Some sites own search facilities are so dire (BBC for instance) that the only way to find stuff is to go into google and use +BBC together with +keywords (this may work for some badly indexed etail sites too). Amazon seems to have got worse in this respect. Abe books better... > > Has anyone else found a better scheme?  Quoting arguments?  etc. In quotes preceded by + or - to include or exclude terms works on some. -- Martin Brown