I see this as a typographical issue. I have also found myself wondering how to set off the exact text of a search query. What do you think about considering it code, which it is insofar as it is input to a computer program, and using Philip Greenspun's convention of setting code in lower case with the <code> tag: amazon 800 number?

-- Niels Olson (email)

Different Google servers return different numbers of documents. "the and" just returned 0 and then, 10 minutes later, probably hitting another server or an update, 288,000, then 270,00, then 227,000, 300,000, 278,000, 209,000, 305,000. And then a few more minutes later 0 (zero) again.

According to our logs, the googlebot spider did stop by as usual last night and picked up this thread. Perhaps a few of the "the and" returns are possibly newly generated by this thread.

Remember, however, that the puzzle is about the maximum difference between quote-marked and quote-unmarked results, and not that the quote-marked result is zero. And that the point of the puzzle is to highlight the importance of using exact phrase quotes in your search requests.

Regular use of exact phrase quotes will also simplify the surveillance and review of your searches by the Feds, Google, the Chinese government, stalkers, and your opponent's lawyers.

-- ET

formatting query strings

As for the typographical problem of formatting queries, Matt Cutts' blog mentions Google's in-house formatting practice: [ and ] to mark the beginning and end of queries. So in this example [the and] returns 8.2 billion results, and ["the and"] returns, er, a roll of the dice.

"In-house practice" pretty much equals "jargon", but the square-bracket notation is reasonably concise and, after the briefest explanation, entirely unambiguous -- obviating any need to ever again say "without the quotation marks", especially since Google ignores the brackets when parsing its search terms.

-- Orion Montoya (email)

Studying cardiac physiology tonight, it occured to me Google's informal use of brackets may work within computer science, but tends to conflict with all the other hard sciences (biology, chemistry, physics, medicine) because concentrations of chemical species are typically abbreviated with brackets, eg, the concentration of ionized calcium in a solution is abbreviated [Ca²⁺]. This isn't entirely trivial. Some authors of review articles have taken to reporting what search strings they looked for in which databases. Did the author search for Ca²⁺ or [Ca²⁺]? A review article on calcium channel blockers (commonly prescribed blood pressure medications) could get tricky. Meanwhile, any scientist who also happens to use a computer has probably come across the code convention.

-- Niels Olson (email)

Don't Make Me Think! ( Steve Krug)

Perhaps Google needs to add a bit more intelligence to its results. What is the likelihood that I will enter three completely unrelated search criterion in one search? It is far more likely that I have entered a bunch of words that I think best identify the pages I want to see.

Following Steve Krug's wonderful book title: "Don't Make Me Think", Google should do the thinking for me. If I "punch these up in the computer", then the computer should do the thinking. If the set of search words I enter combine to drastically reduce the result set, then that variant of the results should be presented to the user along with the full result set.

Google is already doing a similar thing with Froogle. Searches generate numerous result vectors.

Rather than forcing the user to be syntax aware, make the software flexible and intelligent.

-- Steven Chalmers (email)

Greenspun's blog has a funny: google latex and compare the search returns on the left to the ads on the right!

-- Niels Olson (email)