Oh, whoops, I wasn’t comparing Stract, I was comparing Google. Those are the reasons I don’t use Google search, I hadn’t tried Stract yet.
After trying it, it seems cool. Not the best at broad meanings though. “Ram” returns an Indian politician as the “answer”, a site in Japanese for the first link, and then mostly results for Random Access Memory after. No reference to the Dodge Ram (thank Odin), but also no reference to male sheep.
It also feels very anti-store, which is a nice change, but might ve an artifact of the seemingly anti-SEO stance, with random results from anywhere. Maybe that’s just the European focus?
It also has issues with getting context from multiple keywords, and doesn’t prioritize say “street car” over pages that happen to contain both “street” and “car”. Excluding keywords with “-” works though, very nice. Quotes can help with phrases to, so " “street car” " finds exactly things called “street car” with the space. Both still miss streetcars though. Misspelling corrections are offered but not assumed, which is very nice.
Definitely the biggest issue is the seemingly random results. This might be good if you’re searching for an exact string that is only present in a few places, but anything common and it’s a crapshoot. It’s nearly unable to find anything to do with shamrocks, prefering to find business’ named Shamrock.
Oh, whoops, I wasn’t comparing Stract, I was comparing Google. Those are the reasons I don’t use Google search, I hadn’t tried Stract yet.
After trying it, it seems cool. Not the best at broad meanings though. “Ram” returns an Indian politician as the “answer”, a site in Japanese for the first link, and then mostly results for Random Access Memory after. No reference to the Dodge Ram (thank Odin), but also no reference to male sheep.
It also feels very anti-store, which is a nice change, but might ve an artifact of the seemingly anti-SEO stance, with random results from anywhere. Maybe that’s just the European focus?
It also has issues with getting context from multiple keywords, and doesn’t prioritize say “street car” over pages that happen to contain both “street” and “car”. Excluding keywords with “-” works though, very nice. Quotes can help with phrases to, so " “street car” " finds exactly things called “street car” with the space. Both still miss streetcars though. Misspelling corrections are offered but not assumed, which is very nice.
Definitely the biggest issue is the seemingly random results. This might be good if you’re searching for an exact string that is only present in a few places, but anything common and it’s a crapshoot. It’s nearly unable to find anything to do with shamrocks, prefering to find business’ named Shamrock.
Ah, gotcha.