What? Google Search Isn’t Awesome? Top 10 Reasons WhyPosted on August 28th, 2012 No comments
You know you love Google’s #1 product… their impressive Google web search. If you’re like me, you use it hundreds, if not thousands of times a day.
You can use Google Search Operators, also called Google Search Modifiers, and they even offer users a whole page of Google Search Tips., including tricks like searching for recipes, using the calculator functions, and lots more.
But as good as Google’s search box is, there’s always room for improvement. Here’s a list of new and improved Google Web Search features I’d like to see. If you agree with these great feature additions I’ve suggested below, or if I forgot any, leave me a comment! I know I’d use them for sure!
Top 10 Ways Google Can Improve Search
10. Starting with something boring and annoying, how about a Tax Forms search? The one at irs.gov is alright, but let’s face it, the government could use Google’s help. The Google search 1040 site:irs.gov year:2011 type:pdf should bring up the obvious result I am after. It doesn’t. Google could help me spend even less time on the IRS website than I do already, which would be a very good thing.
9. Music Search. There’s no way to search music available in iTunes, without launching iTunes. I love music, but the search capability of iTunes and other music programs is terrible. Let me flag a song or album for later, like a wish list, and remind that I liked it. Integrate with all the streaming services like Pandora, Slacker and such. Give me Search Operators like artist:justin+bieber or label:interscope or genre:thrash+metal. (That’s three different search examples.)
8. Melodic Search. Create a musical instrument interface with which to perform song searches. As a play-by-ear pianist, I can never remember the lyrics or the names of songs, but I can play the notes! Let me play notes on an on-screen keyboard, or with my attached Midi keyboard, and find music matching the musical notes I am playing. For example, if I play C . . G C . . G C G C E G –> Google should pull up Mozart Eine Kleine Nachtmusik. This is easily implemented with widely available MIDI data.
7. Advanced Video Search. To perform an Advanced Video Search on Youtube now is an exercise in aggravation. An advanced YouTube search that worked would be really cool. Give me all the fields as operators, too, like views:1M or maru type:video views:2M..5M by:views ord:desc. This should show me maru clips between 2M and 5M views ordered by views descending. This search actually returns an incredibly random assortment of useless junk.
6. Expert Search right from the Google.com home page. Upgrade the advanced search operators, giving power users like me the utmost flexibility. For any input field on the advanced search or advanced image search, create an Advanced Search Operator for it. For example, why can’t I find cat exact:lolz type:gif w:128 h:128? I clearly am after an exact search of funny cat gif icons. I should be able to easily guess the “colon operator” for any advanced search field, and why not show me what it is when I hover over it on the advanced image search form so I don’t have to go find an obscure help doc on a different website on performing an advanced Google search.
5. Create Search Templates — Let me save and share advanced search filters and advanced images search filters and use them for later. For example, it can take a few minutes to set up a good advanced images search. Why not let me store the following for easy retrieval… for example (site:a.com OR site:b.com OR site:c.com) (type:jpeg OR type:png) (size:2mp..4mp). Clearly I am looking for jpg or png images betwen 2mp and 4mp on 3 specific websites. As a designer, if I could save those search parameters and re-use them, I could easily load it up, add a keyword, and save hours every year.
4. How about a Movie Search? Just buy IMDB.com , Blockbuster.com and RottenTomatoes.com and combine them. You know you want to. Your current Movie Showtimes Search is very embryonic. Is it too much to expect that type:movie (actor:judd+nelson AND actor:molly+ringwold) could find The Breakfast Club and 16 Candles? Results: ho-hum.
3. You can’t have a movie search without a Celebrity Search. It amazes me that I cannot set up an RSS feed for daily updates of Zoë Saldana jpegs that are at least 1280 x 1024. I clearly want wallpaper. Why not let me do celeb:zoë+saldana type:jpg size:2mp..
2. You’re obviously working on a Travel Search, otherwise you wouldn’t have bought ITA Software and Frommer’s. Are you ever going to improve Google Flight Search? I bet some readers don’t even know that exists. I hate every minute of making travel plans online, and since the internet killed the travel agent, I’m forced to do this on my own now, forevermore. Hurry up and fix it already!
1. Social Search. This is a no-brainer. I can’t search anything on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, or even Google+. The state of social search is so incredibly dismal, it’s going to require an entire blog post all on it’s own. In short, if I’m logged into all of my social networks, I should be able to search them all with ease. They all provide APIs, don’t they? Don’t you have, like, fifty zillion programmers? Surely with all the work that went into Google+ you had to think about how to make all of that content searchable. It seems like the moment I link to something or share it, the sooner I can never find it again!
Now I hinted at this in #7 above, but how cool would it be to search the web with SQL? Or at least, using some SQL-like operands? By now millions of people use SQL on a daily basis, and certainly your search algorithms could be easily adapted to understand things like by:relevance ord:desc. (ORDER BY relevance DESC) or BETWEEN 2011-12-31 AND 2012-06-30? This reminds me that you could make it a lot easier to combine mulitple boolean operators. Only one or two work at a time. Why not let me use AND, OR and Parentheses? ( this OR that ) AND (brick OR brack). So I guess you could call this a bonus eleventh way Google could improve it’s search features. Call it Nerd Search.
Okay, there now, Googlebot, fans of Google, and other casual readers. What do you think?
Leave a reply