Auto-restart Xorg on crash





  • I'll confirm that one; similar results. I know Google tends to assume what you're looking for, and presents results, based on past behaviour/searches if you're logged in, but I'm getting similar results. And I've had little reason to search for fruit related computer problems.



  • Google assume all its users are idiots who don't know what they really want. Hence the results that are so far fetched from what you're actually looking for. I love the way it picks and chooses letters out of words and also replace some with synonyms (and at times antonyms). I once searched something with the term "no" in it, and it returned a bunch of results with the word "yes" highlighted. Oh, and its recent "similar results" thing at the bottom. Nothing could be more irrelevant than crossing out and changing random words. I still haven't figured out how to turn it off.

    What Google should have is an option to treat all searches literally and not try to "fix" anything unless there is a blatant spelling mistake.



  • @GMMan said:

    Google assume all its users are idiots who don't know what they really want.
    No, they really don't.@GMMan said:
    What Google should have is an option to treat all searches literally and not try to "fix" anything unless there is a blatant spelling mistake.
    You appear to be unaware of the functionality they provide to do exactly this (apart from the blatant bit.) Your gripe appears to revolve around the fact that they don't do this by default.



  • The more "clever" Google tries to be about looking for synonyms or splitting up words, the worse search results get. Sure, I can quote everything, but that's a bit of a pain, especially when the results I'm getting are so laughably bad. Seriously, 2013 Google gives me far, far shittier results than 2007 Google. Fuck, this is almost Altavista levels of bad.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @GMMan said:

    I still haven't figured out how to turn it off.

    Google Verbatim



  • @joe.edwards said:

    @GMMan said:
    I still haven't figured out how to turn it off.

    Google Verbatim
    I'm fairly certain that the horse you've tried to take to the birdbath won't actually drink from it.



  • @PJH said:

    @joe.edwards said:
    @GMMan said:
    I still haven't figured out how to turn it off.

    Google Verbatim
    I'm fairly certain that the horse you've tried to take to the birdbath won't actually drink from it.

    This horse, however, will gladly slake its thirst.

    Thank you for the link.





  • @joe.edwards said:

    @GMMan said:
    I still haven't figured out how to turn it off.
    Google Verbatim

    Hmm, interesting.

    Anyway, yeah, I'm finding I have to enclose some words in quotes in about a quarter of my Google searches. It's getting annoying.



  • @PJH said:

    @joe.edwards said:
    @GMMan said:
    I still haven't figured out how to turn it off.

    Google Verbatim
    I'm fairly certain that the horse you've tried to take to the birdbath won't actually drink from it.

    It's a setting buried in some GUI rat's nest. Is there not a way to do this by typing something special into the search textbox, e.g. quotes? (Or would that resemble programming too much? I realize there are only 5,980,000 programmers in the world, and we wouldn't want to cater to just 5,980,000 people.)



  • @bridget99 said:

    @PJH said:
    @joe.edwards said:
    @GMMan said:
    I still haven't figured out how to turn it off.

    Google Verbatim
    I'm fairly certain that the horse you've tried to take to the birdbath won't actually drink from it.

    It's a setting buried in some GUI rat's nest. Is there not a way to do this by typing something special into the search textbox, e.g. quotes? (Or would that resemble programming too much? I realize there are only 5,980,000 programmers in the world, and we wouldn't want to cater to just 5,980,000 people.)

    I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or genuinely stupid, so I'll just sit here and type this response.



  • @Ben L. said:

    I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or genuinely stupid, so I'll just sit here and type this response.

    The beauty of bridget's posts is that it doesn't really matter. In fact, I've developed a theory that bridget's posts exhibit sarcasm-stupidity duality, unifying the observations of those who think he is sarcastic with the observations of those who think he is merely stupid.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    The beauty of bridget's posts is that it doesn't really matter. In fact, I've developed a theory that bridget's posts exhibit sarcasm-stupidity duality, unifying the observations of those who think he is sarcastic with the observations of those who think he is merely stupid.
     

    Some people, when confronted with a bridget99 post, think "I know, I'll write a scathing reply!"

    Now they have to deal with two bridgets.



  • @bridget99 said:

    Is there not a way to do this by typing something special into the search textbox, e.g. quotes?
    Which shows that you've neither (1) bothered looking (2) tried.



    In other news, I note that the first result for [auto-restart Xorg on crash] has changed...



  • @PJH said:

    @bridget99 said:
    Is there not a way to do this by typing something special into the search textbox, e.g. quotes?
    Which shows that you've neither (1) bothered looking (2) tried.



    In other news, I note that the first result for [auto-restart Xorg on crash] has changed...

    I've been impressed for some time at how frequently that Google indexes the forums and at how high the forum's pagerank is. I remember making posts and being able to Google them 10 minutes later and having them show up in search results, which is quite astonishing, even to a salty pessimist like myself.

    The forum's unusually high pagerank has made me wonder for some time if some wag at Google hasn't put his finger on the scale. And it's not just this thread, where the title exactly matches your query, but other threads will bubble up to the top of search results when you know they aren't being linked at all and they're hardly that relevant.



  • @GMMan said:

    What Google should have is an option to treat all searches literally and not try to "fix" anything unless there is a blatant spelling mistake.
    Google doesn't actually correct spelling errors, they track what users search, and what they eventually land on, this is the data they use for suggestions; correcting spelling is just a side effect of how Google's search engine works. This Google tech talk was published 6 years ago, www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GtgSkmDnbQ and it explains how their suggestion system works, and how spelling correction is an emergent behavior; it also implies features that will become Google instant search results.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    And it's not just this thread, where the title exactly matches your query, but other threads will bubble up to the top of search results when you know they aren't being linked at all and they're hardly that relevant.
     

    One of the metrics of a pagerank is the activity of the site, and we are really really active, so Google's all "Must be a good website! Rank it up!".



  • @Ben L. said:

    I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or genuinely stupid
     

    I think it's supposed to be a target your markov chain generator should aspire to.

    Start keybashing, code-monkey. You have some tweaks to do.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    I've been impressed for some time at how frequently that Google indexes the forums and at how high the forum's pagerank is.
     

    I'm fairly grateful for it, given how crap the forum's search engine is.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Ben L. said:
    I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or genuinely stupid, so I'll just sit here and type this response.

    The beauty of bridget's posts is that it doesn't really matter. In fact, I've developed a theory that bridget's posts exhibit sarcasm-stupidity duality, unifying the observations of those who think he is sarcastic with the observations of those who think he is merely stupid.


    S/he exists in a superposition, being simultaneously completely sarcastic and completely stupid. Consider, if you will, a bridget in a box with a vial of poison and a radioactive material........



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    The more "clever" Google tries to be about looking for synonyms or splitting up words, the worse search results get. Sure, I can quote everything, but that's a bit of a pain, especially when the results I'm getting are so laughably bad. Seriously, 2013 Google gives me far, far shittier results than 2007 Google. Fuck, this is almost Altavista levels of bad.
     

    I'm glad I'm not the only person who noticed that.  Once upon a time, Google would even require all the terms you entered to be in the search results (except words like "the," "of," etc...).  This was done away with a few years ago.



  • @esoterik said:

    @GMMan said:
    What Google should have is an option to treat all searches literally and not try to "fix" anything unless there is a blatant spelling mistake.
    Google doesn't actually correct spelling errors, they track what users search, and what they eventually land on, this is the data they use for suggestions; correcting spelling is just a side effect of how Google's search engine works. This Google tech talk was published 6 years ago, www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GtgSkmDnbQ and it explains how their suggestion system works, and how spelling correction is an emergent behavior; it also implies features that will become Google instant search results.

    Which I think is an explanation for why search results have gotten so bad. Most Internet users are retards--they're just on Google so they can look for photos of Lindsay Lohan's dirty snatch. The more the Google system interacts with these "people", the more divergent the emergent behavior will become. I figure in 2 years every query will result in "Showing results for LOLcat".



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    I figure in 2 years every query will result in "Showing results for LOLcat".

    Awesome!



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Awesome!
     

    I said "awesome" in the other thread, you dick. Now we must duel using choice branches from yonder thorn bush.



  • @dhromed said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    @morbiuswilters said:
    I figure in 2 years every query will result in "Showing results for LOLcat".

    Awesome!

    I said "awesome" in the other thread, you dick. Now we must duel using choice branches from yonder thorn bush.



  • @Ben L. said:

    You bastard. You get my hopes up only to dash them.

    However, this did lead me to finding this old thread, so it was worth it.



  • @dhromed said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    Awesome!
     

    I said "awesome" in the other thread, you choice branch from yonder thorn bush. Now we must duel using dicks.

    FTFY

     


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.