Note:
Anything I put in between these lines: | example | is exactly what you type. Quotation marks are key, as it is whether you leave a space between words and punctuation marks.
This works for Google as well as most other popular search engines.
Let's say you want to find articles about vitamin C and lysine as it relates to treating/clearing blockages in the arteries.
So you search: | Vitamin C and Lysine clears arteries |
You are likely to get lots of (useless?) results about vitamin C OR lysine OR clears OR arteries. Or some combination thereof.
Instead search: | "Vitamin C" "Lysine" "clears arteries" |
This will only show results that contain all three items put in quotations.
Whatever you put inside quotations, including spelling errors, will be searched.
So what if you get a bunch of bullshit that DOES have all three of those terms, but it's an article about how it's all "fake" or "unproven" or "fringe" etc...?
There is an antidote…
Search:
| "Vitamin C" "Lysine" "clears arteries" -fake -unproven -fringe |
Leave NO space between - and the word you want to exclude.
Next:
Let's say you want to search a specific website...
Search: | "Vitamin C" "Lysine" "clears arteries" site:greatawakening.win |
You can copy/paste & search the above to illustrate my next point below.
The above example will return NO results. But why?
I wrote an exhaustive article on this exact subject on GAW; why won't we get results?
Because the exact phrase "clears arteries" does not appear once in the 371,000 words I typed.
However, the next example DOES indeed return the post I wrote:
Search: | "Vitamin C" "Lysine" clears "arteries" site:greatawakening.win |
Quotations around clears removed.
This makes any word NOT in quotations optional, but not required to render a result.
The issue above is that it's easy to make your search too exact.
When searching in this advanced way, you will have to play with these parameters including alternate spellings i.e. Lysine vs L-lysine, etc...
You can also search between specific date ranges using the Google search options.
If you're using your phone, in this case iPhone, click the left-most side of the address bar and select "Request Desktop Site."
This will show more search options on Google.
Additionally, going to google(.)com and then clicking "request desktop site" and then go to image search and then clicking the little camera icon in the search bar will allow you to easily reverse-image search.
Most of you probably already knew this, but I hope this proves a useful tool to those that didn't.
Cheers!
WWG1WGA!
Edit: While useful in many search engines, it does not work in Rumble's search. That search is hopelessly fucked, prob on purpose.
But... you can use Google to search Rumble.
| anything useful site:Rumble.com |
Credit to u/Kunkussion
"To add:
After your search, put before:2019 with an extra space after your last word."
Great Post. Due to time zone differences, I only saw this now, and its 12 hours old, so I doubt my comment will be read much, but... .
I have frequently (read: always) used these techniques when sleuthing down and exposing clickbait and disinfo 'news'.
For example, sometimes someone will post an article or alt-news report that instantly raises (my) red flags, i.e. overly sensationalist, perfect for confirmation bias, pressing all the outrage buttons, etc.
In such cases, I will take a selection of the article, a text string of anywhere between 5 and 15 words, then slap that string in quote marks "random selection from a paragraph or sentence in an article" and then run a search to find out if the article is original, or if it is being published elsewhere, and by who.
In this way, you find that many articles that originate on clickbait / disinfo websites like The People's Voice get reproduced and republished in various places on the web, disguised and the source unclear.
Simple yet effective method one can often use to identify sources of doubtful or questionable material.
I see ya u/FractalizingIron! Imagine all the teachers who catch students plagiarizing with that technique! Hahaha
Thanks for the input!