Was there some discussion here about how to eliminate certain
sites from search results? I had the crazy idea that I want to
make a chunky applesauce that tastes somewhat like spiced
crabapples and decided to compare recipes for the latter. I am
really irritated that so many of the top slots are from cooks.com
and yummly. What ever happened to quality results? Are there
other search engines that would not have such skewed results? Thanks.

Also, I noticed that there is some site that seemed to be
epicurious but was not. I thought it looked wrong, and it turned
out to be epicurus. So if you read things really quickly on the
screen, be aware of that. At least it was nothing insidious!
--
Jean B.

Sqwertz wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 16:12:37 -0400, Jean B. wrote:
>
>> Was there some discussion here about how to eliminate certain
>> sites from search results? I had the crazy idea that I want to
>> make a chunky applesauce that tastes somewhat like spiced
>> crabapples and decided to compare recipes for the latter. I am
>> really irritated that so many of the top slots are from cooks.com
>> and yummly. What ever happened to quality results? Are there
>> other search engines that would not have such skewed results? Thanks.
>
> I mentioned this a few weeks ago. This feature briefly appeared for
> me on Google for about 24 hours, but seems to have disappeared again.
> Of course the first site I added was cooks.com. But now I'm getting
> cooks.com results again.
>
> The option appeared right next to the link to the search results ans
> was worded something "Exclude results from <domain.tld>"
>
> -sw

Well, I hope it reappears. I was amazed at how many results were
from cooks.com--and right at the top, too. It now takes a while
to get to the good stuff, so it would be really beneficial to be
able to omit those results.

--
Jean B.

On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 22:20:23 -0500, heyjoe >
wrote:

>On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 21:47:20 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:
>
>> I've been bitching about cooks.com here for close to a decade. Their
>> sole purpose is to flood Google search results with 25 hits for the
>> same lousy, anonymous, untested recipe for every search term you
>> enter.
>>
>> As soon as Google implements that "exclude site" feature, it should
>> take cooks.com rankings down quit a bit.
>>
>> IIRC, the feature only worked if you have an account or allow cookies
>> to/from Google.
>
>Since I don't allow cookies, nor JavaScript - have to exclude domains by
>how I build the search terms.
>For example -
>recipe "peach cobbler" -site:www.cooks.com
>or
>recipe "peach cobbler" -site:www.cooks.com -site:allrecipes.com
>
>Awkward, at best - but works for me.


I just looked at my blocked list. 9 sites in a month. I suppose
constructing a string and a script to add it to all my searches is
possible-- but it sure is easier to just have Google do it. That's
what they get paid the big bucks for.

[cooks.com isn't on that list- I don't know whether I filter them by
eye- haven't seen them in a search or just don't find them useless]

Jim

On Sat, 06 Aug 2011 07:38:17 -0400, Jim Elbrecht >
wrote:

> I just looked at my blocked list. 9 sites in a month.

I tried last night, but failed to understand where/how this is
possible. I just construct my searches the way Heyjoe does.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Sat, 6 Aug 2011 11:40:42 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Sat, 06 Aug 2011 07:25:00 -0400, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
>
>> Sqwertz > wrote:
>> -snip-
>>>
>>>IIRC, the feature only worked if you have an account or allow cookies
>>>to/from Google.
>>
>> If you think about that for a second [or in my case 2-3 minutes] it
>> makes sense. How else will they 'remember' what to block for who?
>
>Yep. But I don't accept cookies except for a few selected sites. The
>cookie traffic, especially from third party sites, is horrendous. I
>like to keep my traffic an my computer clean. My hard disk doesn't
>need to be thrashing at every site trying to retrieve 30-40 cookies
>per page hit.
>

I'm with you there-- just sayin' it is worth it [to me] to let Google
cookie-fy me.

My bank and a couple of vendors also enjoy the privilege.

Jim

On Sat, 06 Aug 2011 13:17:28 -0400, Jim Elbrecht >
wrote:

> I'm with you there-- just sayin' it is worth it [to me] to let Google
> cookie-fy me.

I don't accept third party cookies and only accept a website's cookies
for the session, then they are dumped. <shrug> It works for me.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

Jean B. > wrote:

> Are there
> other search engines that would not have such skewed results?

Dogpile or MetaCrawler (they use the same meta-search engine) will let
you exclude a domain from search results.

<http://www.dogpile.com/>
<http://www.metacrawler.com/info.metac.test.c17/search/advancedsearch?qc=web>

Victor

On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 21:47:20 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:

> On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 21:51:15 -0400, Jean B. wrote:
>
>> Well, I hope it reappears. I was amazed at how many results were
>> from cooks.com--and right at the top, too. It now takes a while
>> to get to the good stuff, so it would be really beneficial to be
>> able to omit those results.
>
> I've been bitching about cooks.com here for close to a decade. Their
> sole purpose is to flood Google search results with 25 hits for the
> same lousy, anonymous, untested recipe for every search term you
> enter.
>
> As soon as Google implements that "exclude site" feature, it should
> take cooks.com rankings down quit a bit.
>
> IIRC, the feature only worked if you have an account or allow cookies
> to/from Google.
>
> -sw

I just tested it and it works for me. I do have a Google account and I
allow all cookies.

TFM®

Sqwertz wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 21:51:15 -0400, Jean B. wrote:
>
>> Well, I hope it reappears. I was amazed at how many results were
>> from cooks.com--and right at the top, too. It now takes a while
>> to get to the good stuff, so it would be really beneficial to be
>> able to omit those results.
>
> I've been bitching about cooks.com here for close to a decade. Their
> sole purpose is to flood Google search results with 25 hits for the
> same lousy, anonymous, untested recipe for every search term you
> enter.
>
> As soon as Google implements that "exclude site" feature, it should
> take cooks.com rankings down quit a bit.
>
> IIRC, the feature only worked if you have an account or allow cookies
> to/from Google.
>
> -sw

I do have an account. I probably allow cookies from them. (I do
control all cookies....)

--
Jean B.

heyjoe wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 21:47:20 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:
>
>> I've been bitching about cooks.com here for close to a decade. Their
>> sole purpose is to flood Google search results with 25 hits for the
>> same lousy, anonymous, untested recipe for every search term you
>> enter.
>>
>> As soon as Google implements that "exclude site" feature, it should
>> take cooks.com rankings down quit a bit.
>>
>> IIRC, the feature only worked if you have an account or allow cookies
>> to/from Google.
>
> Since I don't allow cookies, nor JavaScript - have to exclude domains by
> how I build the search terms.
> For example -
> recipe "peach cobbler" -site:www.cooks.com
> or
> recipe "peach cobbler" -site:www.cooks.com -site:allrecipes.com
>
> Awkward, at best - but works for me.
>
>
I'll try that. I had not seen those results so stacked before.

--
Jean B.

Sqwertz wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Aug 2011 07:38:17 -0400, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
>
>> [cooks.com isn't on that list- I don't know whether I filter them by
>> eye- haven't seen them in a search or just don't find them useless]
>
> I don't think there's anybody here that wouldn't agree they are
> useless (considering all the other recipe sites out there).
>
> -sw

It does seem to me that when I do click on something from
cooks.com, I end up exiting very quickly.

--
Jean B.

Sqwertz wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Aug 2011 07:25:00 -0400, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
>
>> Sqwertz > wrote:
>> -snip-
>>> IIRC, the feature only worked if you have an account or allow cookies
>>> to/from Google.
>> If you think about that for a second [or in my case 2-3 minutes] it
>> makes sense. How else will they 'remember' what to block for who?
>
> Yep. But I don't accept cookies except for a few selected sites. The
> cookie traffic, especially from third party sites, is horrendous. I
> like to keep my traffic an my computer clean. My hard disk doesn't
> need to be thrashing at every site trying to retrieve 30-40 cookies
> per page hit.
>
> -sw

I always have control over my cookies. If I absolutely have to
accept cookies from something I don't want, that usually leads me
on a weeding expedition. Before I could do this from my browser,
I has an application that allowed strict control over them.

--
Jean B.

sf wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Aug 2011 13:17:28 -0400, Jim Elbrecht >
> wrote:
>
>> I'm with you there-- just sayin' it is worth it [to me] to let Google
>> cookie-fy me.
>
> I don't accept third party cookies and only accept a website's cookies
> for the session, then they are dumped. <shrug> It works for me.
>
Yeah, that too.

--
Jean B.

Victor Sack wrote:
> Jean B. > wrote:
>
>> Are there
>> other search engines that would not have such skewed results?
>
> Dogpile or MetaCrawler (they use the same meta-search engine) will let
> you exclude a domain from search results.
>
> <http://www.dogpile.com/>
> <http://www.metacrawler.com/info.metac.test.c17/search/advancedsearch?qc=web>
>
> Victor

Oh, gee. I haven't used dogpile for many years and am not sure I
have used metacrawler. Thanks, Victor. I will see how they
perform now.

--
Jean B.

Jean B. wrote:

> I do have an account. I probably allow cookies from them. (I do control
> all cookies....)

Are you aware of the "hidden" Flash cookies?

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/...s-think-again/

Bob

Bob Terwilliger wrote:
> Jean B. wrote:
>
>> I do have an account. I probably allow cookies from them. (I do control
>> all cookies....)
>
> Are you aware of the "hidden" Flash cookies?
>
> http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/...s-think-again/
>
> Bob
>
>
>
Hmmmm. Looks like I need to see whether Flash got installed. I
deliberately did NOT install it for a long time.

--
Jean B.

On Sat, 6 Aug 2011 19:43:19 -0700, Bob Terwilliger wrote:

> Jean B. wrote:
>
>> I do have an account. I probably allow cookies from them. (I do control
>> all cookies....)
>
> Are you aware of the "hidden" Flash cookies?
>
> http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/...s-think-again/
>
> Bob

i do use the CCleaner (formerly, CrapCleaner) mentioned in the article
every day:

<http://www.piriform.com/ccleaner>

your pal,
blake

Jean B. wrote:
> Was there some discussion here about how to eliminate certain
> sites from search results?

You can include selected domains. OT example:

"boost converter" site:national.com OR site:maxim-ic.com


Or you can include only selected domains.

"boost converter" -site:wikipedia.org -site:ladyada.net


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> Jean B. wrote:
> > Was there some discussion here about how to eliminate certain
> > sites from search results?
>
> You can include selected domains. OT example:
>
> "boost converter" site:national.com OR site:maxim-ic.com
>
>
> Or you can include only selected domains.
>
> "boost converter" -site:wikipedia.org -site:ladyada.net

The second example should say, "exclude".


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

On 8/6/2011 1:52 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
> What ****es me off is that you quotes never work as intended. It
> still wants to translate what's inside quotes. if I put something in
> quotes, that EXACTLY what I want to search for. Don't mess it up. if
> I search for "steve shoes" I get "steve's shoes" and "steves shoes".

That's why Internet search tools are inferior and you have to get used
to what they do. Google tends to change their algorithm whenever they
want to. To get the results you incorrectly got, you should have to
input "steve* shoes" but it seems to be doing it for you. With google,
I've never really noticed the poor precision results that you've written
about, but I usually do broad searches with google to start research
with some of the results.

--
Cheryl
Come carpe diem baby - Metallica

On 8/6/2011 4:01 AM, sf wrote:

> On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 16:31:31 -0400, Jim >
> wrote:
>
>> If you go to a site you want to kill- you hit the back button, and
>> down below the hit, where it used to have a link to cached pages,
>
> I don't understand that. Back button, okay... what hit? What link to
> cached pages??? Which browser are you talking about?

He is using two different contexts with the word "hit" in his paragraph.
The first mention of "hit" means "press". The second occurrence of
the word "hit" above means one of the search results in the list.
Search results are often referred to as "hits".


--
Cheryl
Come carpe diem baby - Metallica

On 8/6/2011 1:32 AM, Sqwertz wrote:

> There's also a couple ways to add that to all your searches by setting
> a certain Google home page, but I forgot exactly how.

iGoogle

--
Cheryl
Come carpe diem baby - Metallica

Cheryl wrote:
> On 8/6/2011 1:52 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
>> What ****es me off is that you quotes never work as intended. It
>> still wants to translate what's inside quotes. if I put something in
>> quotes, that EXACTLY what I want to search for. Don't mess it up. if
>> I search for "steve shoes" I get "steve's shoes" and "steves shoes".
>
> That's why Internet search tools are inferior and you have to get used
> to what they do. Google tends to change their algorithm whenever they
> want to. To get the results you incorrectly got, you should have to
> input "steve* shoes" but it seems to be doing it for you. With google,
> I've never really noticed the poor precision results that you've written
> about, but I usually do broad searches with google to start research
> with some of the results.
>
Oh, I notice them. They are annoying too. Typing in something
obscure doesn't mean I REALLY want some other thing, and google
should switch to that other thing. It was better when they gave
you what you asked for and also asked whether that was what you meant.

--
Jean B.

"sf" > wrote in message
...

> You don't think that the browser second guessing you is creepy and
> annoying? I turned that feature off of my Google searches. I type
> fast, but Google changes what I type and I read what I wrote as I hit
> enter.... HEY! That's *not* what I typed! Damn. Cursor back in the
> searchbox and try it again.

How do you turn that off if you don't mind my asking?

Cheri

On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 00:11:40 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:

> Oh, I notice them. They are annoying too. Typing in something
> obscure doesn't mean I REALLY want some other thing, and google
> should switch to that other thing. It was better when they gave
> you what you asked for and also asked whether that was what you meant.

You have to turn off Google Instant. Click on the gear symbol in the
upper right hand corner and select search settings. Scroll down to
Google Instant and select "do not use". You'll have to do it for both
regular and iGoogle.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Tue, 9 Aug 2011 21:23:50 -0700, "Cheri" >
wrote:

> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > You don't think that the browser second guessing you is creepy and
> > annoying? I turned that feature off of my Google searches. I type
> > fast, but Google changes what I type and I read what I wrote as I hit
> > enter.... HEY! That's *not* what I typed! Damn. Cursor back in the
> > searchbox and try it again.
>
> How do you turn that off if you don't mind my asking?
>
On the search page, go to the gear symbol in the upper right corner,
select Search Settings, scroll down to Google Instant and select "do
not use". Remember to SAVE your settings (found at the bottom of the
page) or you'll have to do it again. Don't ask me how I know this.



--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On 8/10/2011 12:52 AM, sf wrote:

> On the search page, go to the gear symbol in the upper right corner,
> select Search Settings, scroll down to Google Instant and select "do
> not use". Remember to SAVE your settings (found at the bottom of the
> page) or you'll have to do it again. Don't ask me how I know this.
>

Yet one more reason I stopped using Firefox, it wouldn't remember
anything including that setting. Who wants to change that every
day, and google instant is just irritating to me.

nancy

On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 22:51:57 -0400, Cheryl >
wrote:

>On 8/6/2011 4:01 AM, sf wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 16:31:31 -0400, Jim >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> If you go to a site you want to kill- you hit the back button, and
>>> down below the hit, where it used to have a link to cached pages,
>>
>> I don't understand that. Back button, okay... what hit? What link to
>> cached pages??? Which browser are you talking about?
>
>He is using two different contexts with the word "hit" in his paragraph.
> The first mention of "hit" means "press". The second occurrence of
>the word "hit" above means one of the search results in the list.
>Search results are often referred to as "hits".

Thanks for pointing that out-- I was puzzled why it wasn't clear. My
writing skills are going downhill fast. I was sure Mrs. Mockler had
drilled that sort of confusion out of my writing in 10th grade. I can
see her 2 red circles around those 'hits' now.

Mea culpa. . .
Jim

On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 07:47:16 -0400, Jim Elbrecht >
wrote:

> On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 22:51:57 -0400, Cheryl >
> wrote:
>
> >On 8/6/2011 4:01 AM, sf wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 16:31:31 -0400, Jim >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> If you go to a site you want to kill- you hit the back button, and
> >>> down below the hit, where it used to have a link to cached pages,
> >>
> >> I don't understand that. Back button, okay... what hit? What link to
> >> cached pages??? Which browser are you talking about?
> >
> >He is using two different contexts with the word "hit" in his paragraph.
> > The first mention of "hit" means "press". The second occurrence of
> >the word "hit" above means one of the search results in the list.
> >Search results are often referred to as "hits".
>
> Thanks for pointing that out-- I was puzzled why it wasn't clear. My
> writing skills are going downhill fast. I was sure Mrs. Mockler had
> drilled that sort of confusion out of my writing in 10th grade. I can
> see her 2 red circles around those 'hits' now.
>


--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 07:21:23 -0400, Nancy Young <email@replyto> wrote:

> On 8/10/2011 12:52 AM, sf wrote:
>
> > On the search page, go to the gear symbol in the upper right corner,
> > select Search Settings, scroll down to Google Instant and select "do
> > not use". Remember to SAVE your settings (found at the bottom of the
> > page) or you'll have to do it again. Don't ask me how I know this.
> >
>
> Yet one more reason I stopped using Firefox, it wouldn't remember
> anything including that setting. Who wants to change that every
> day, and google instant is just irritating to me.
>
Except (as far as I know) FF doesn't have anything to do with Google's
settings. It's just a tool.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On 8/10/2011 1:48 PM, sf wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 07:21:23 -0400, Nancy Young<email@replyto> wrote:

>> Yet one more reason I stopped using Firefox, it wouldn't remember
>> anything including that setting. Who wants to change that every
>> day, and google instant is just irritating to me.
>>
> Except (as far as I know) FF doesn't have anything to do with Google's
> settings. It's just a tool.

It works fine in Outlook Express, you set it and it stays set.

Same with my other type of websites where I log in, I don't have
to do it every day like I did for the short while I used Firefox.

nancy

On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 21:43:04 -1000, dsi1
> wrote:

> Adblock Plus, No Script,

Yeah, I have those too.

> and some program with a database of bad sites.

Isn't that called a Hosts file? You get a good one from Microsoft.
http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm and it can be updated. There's
even an automatic updater that is fine for people who aren't in the
habit of tweaking.

> My favorite add-on is a FTP program.

I never became comfortable with FTP; that and Torrent are out of my
range.


--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On 8/10/2011 8:03 AM, sf wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 21:43:04 -1000, dsi1
> > wrote:
>
>> Adblock Plus, No Script,
>
> Yeah, I have those too.
>
>> and some program with a database of bad sites.
>
> Isn't that called a Hosts file? You get a good one from Microsoft.
> http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm and it can be updated. There's
> even an automatic updater that is fine for people who aren't in the
> habit of tweaking.

I just use whatever is recommended by the browser. Beats me how it all
works.

>
>> My favorite add-on is a FTP program.
>
> I never became comfortable with FTP; that and Torrent are out of my
> range.

Mostly it's a favorite because I need to use one and it's convenient to
be able to access it within the browser. I use FireFTP but I could be
using anything that works.

>
>

On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 19:15:57 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:

> I'm running 3.6.19 on my Mac, and it can be very annoying. The Mac
> doesn't seem to easily tell you about memory usage, and I only have
> 512MB on my old machine. I just have to remember not to leave so many
> tabs open.

I have the same version and the same amount of RAM on this oldie too.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 14:02:41 -0400, Nancy Young <email@replyto> wrote:

> On 8/10/2011 1:48 PM, sf wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 07:21:23 -0400, Nancy Young<email@replyto> wrote:
>
> >> Yet one more reason I stopped using Firefox, it wouldn't remember
> >> anything including that setting. Who wants to change that every
> >> day, and google instant is just irritating to me.
> >>
> > Except (as far as I know) FF doesn't have anything to do with Google's
> > settings. It's just a tool.
>
> It works fine in Outlook Express, you set it and it stays set.

OE is a web browser too? I thought it was just for email and usenet.
>
> Same with my other type of websites where I log in, I don't have
> to do it every day like I did for the short while I used Firefox.
>
You have to change the settings in every instance you use of Google,
so if you have iGoogle that means you change the settings twice in
Firefox (once for iGoogle and once for not being signed in) and twice
again in IE... that's 4 different times if you are using two browsers,
Six times if you use 3 browsers.


--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:21:31 -1000, dsi1 > wrote:

> Mostly it's a favorite because I need to use one and it's convenient to
> be able to access it within the browser. I use FireFTP but I could be
> using anything that works.

I guess the reason I never learned how to use FTP was because it
wasn't necessary to do my job.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On 8/10/2011 1:21 PM, sf wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:21:31 -1000, > wrote:
>
>> Mostly it's a favorite because I need to use one and it's convenient to
>> be able to access it within the browser. I use FireFTP but I could be
>> using anything that works.
>
> I guess the reason I never learned how to use FTP was because it
> wasn't necessary to do my job.
>

Most people wouldn't need a FTP program because they don't store files
on the web. My guess is that will change in the future.

On 8/10/2011 7:47 AM, Jim Elbrecht wrote:

> Thanks for pointing that out-- I was puzzled why it wasn't clear. My
> writing skills are going downhill fast. I was sure Mrs. Mockler had
> drilled that sort of confusion out of my writing in 10th grade. I can
> see her 2 red circles around those 'hits' now.

I'm taking a college writing course now, and I'm often surprised by what
my professor corrects.

--
Cheryl
Come carpe diem baby - Metallica

On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 14:06:35 -1000, dsi1
> wrote:

>On 8/10/2011 1:21 PM, sf wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:21:31 -1000, > wrote:
>>
>>> Mostly it's a favorite because I need to use one and it's convenient to
>>> be able to access it within the browser. I use FireFTP but I could be
>>> using anything that works.
>>
>> I guess the reason I never learned how to use FTP was because it
>> wasn't necessary to do my job.
>>
>
>Most people wouldn't need a FTP program because they don't store files
>on the web. My guess is that will change in the future.

Will that happen before or after google takes over usenet?

On 8/10/2011 2:12 PM, Andy wrote:
> > wrote:
>
>> Most people wouldn't need a FTP program because they don't store files
>> on the web. My guess is that will change in the future.
>
>
> What a piece of no knowledge BS!!!
>
> Andy

I wasn't talking about you, just all the other guys that will be using
hand-held devices. Don't take it so personally!