# Why doesn't Google allow Boolean searches? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 30, 2010, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-google-allow-boolean-searches/548625 "2010-07-30T22:30:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2010, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-google-allow-boolean-searches/548625/1 "2010-07-30T22:30:54Z")
It would save a lot of time. Or is it there and I never discovered how to do it? ---
**Author:** ![Disheavel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@Disheavel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Disheavel)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2010, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-google-allow-boolean-searches/548625/2 "2010-07-30T22:38:03Z")
[Here are the instructions](http://www.google.com/support/websearch/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=136861) It is easy to do once you have their system. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2010, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-google-allow-boolean-searches/548625/3 "2010-07-31T03:32:00Z")
That still doesn’t allow for full Boolean searches, which would require grouping (typically indicated with parentheses). For instance, if I want pages that all contain A, and then also contain either B or C, then I could do A & B | C (or since Google assumes the and by default, A B | C ). But suppose I want pages that contain both A and B, and I also want pages that contain C even if they don’t have those. In a true Boolean search, I could say (A & B) | C, but I can’t do that with Google. ---
**Author:** ![fubbleskag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@fubbleskag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fubbleskag)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2010, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-google-allow-boolean-searches/548625/4 "2010-07-31T03:48:54Z")
“a b” or c ---
**Author:** ![sundog66](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee7513/32.png) [@sundog66](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sundog66)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2010, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-google-allow-boolean-searches/548625/5 "2010-07-31T04:15:04Z")
> [@fubbleskag](#): > > “a b” or c That’s still not right…“a b” will be interpreted as “search for pages containing the string ‘a b’”, and NOT as “search for pages containing ‘a’ and ‘b’”. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2010, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-google-allow-boolean-searches/548625/6 "2010-07-31T04:23:39Z")
Thank you all very much. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2010, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-google-allow-boolean-searches/548625/7 "2010-07-31T04:36:39Z")
When I want to do complex Boolean searches, I just use altavista instead. ---
**Author:** ![chappachula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/d2c977/32.png) [@chappachula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chappachula)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2010, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-google-allow-boolean-searches/548625/8 "2010-07-31T07:00:27Z")
[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:7, topic:548625”] When I want to do complex Boolean searches, I just use altavista instead. [/QUOTE] wow–is altavista still around? I used it a lot in the 1990’s, especially because of its wild card options. You could search for “diab\*” and it would find references to diabetes, and also diabetic, etc. I heard a couple years ago that their spiders weren’t being updated (or some such techie talk) is altavista today a good alternative to google? ---
**Author:** ![Markxxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@Markxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Markxxx)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2010, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-google-allow-boolean-searches/548625/9 "2010-07-31T07:42:05Z")
AltaVista is owned by Yahoo and uses Yahoo’s search engine for results and repackages it. So the results would be the same as using Yahoo, but the order will be altered a bit ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2010, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-google-allow-boolean-searches/548625/10 "2010-07-31T07:54:44Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > That still doesn’t allow for full Boolean searches, which would require grouping (typically indicated with parentheses). For instance, if I want pages that all contain A, and then also contain either B or C, then I could do A & B | C (or since Google assumes the and by default, A B | C ). But suppose I want pages that contain both A and B, and I also want pages that contain C even if they don’t have those. In a true Boolean search, I could say (A & B) | C, but I can’t do that with Google. “c OR a b” doesn’t work? ---
**Author:** ![SeaCanary](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@SeaCanary](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SeaCanary)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2010, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-google-allow-boolean-searches/548625/11 "2010-07-31T13:54:39Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > That still doesn’t allow for full Boolean searches, which would require grouping (typically indicated with parentheses). For instance, if I want pages that all contain A, and then also contain either B or C, then I could do A & B | C (or since Google assumes the and by default, A B | C ). But suppose I want pages that contain both A and B, and I also want pages that contain C even if they don’t have those. In a true Boolean search, I could say (A & B) | C, but I can’t do that with Google. I’d think the Google search string would be: ```auto (A B) OR C ``` Google treats the space between “A B” as “_and_” (in your terms, “&”). To my knowledge the ampersand isn’t in the Google syntax. The “OR” operator does exactly what you’d expect. The parenthesis tells Google you want to set the priority of A _and_ B higher than B OR C. Clear? ---
**Author:** ![Balthisar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/balthisar/32/2825_2.png) [@Balthisar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balthisar)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2010, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-google-allow-boolean-searches/548625/12 "2010-07-31T14:43:33Z")
I tried (diabetes alcohol) | “cute puppies” but didn’t get any hits for the latter. ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2010, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-google-allow-boolean-searches/548625/13 "2010-07-31T14:48:25Z")
as for why, my WAG is that they don’t want smart-aleks figuring out their own workarounds around their proprietary page ranking system. ---
**Author:** ![SeaCanary](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@SeaCanary](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SeaCanary)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2010, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-google-allow-boolean-searches/548625/14 "2010-07-31T14:55:25Z")
> [@Balthisar](#): > > I tried (diabetes alcohol) | “cute puppies” but didn’t get any hits for the latter. I [did](http://www.myconfinedspace.com/2007/12/21/cute-puppies-in-red-wagon/). 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![panamajack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/47e85d/32.png) [@panamajack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panamajack)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2010, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-google-allow-boolean-searches/548625/15 "2010-07-31T15:14:46Z")
What I really wish they had was punctuation or an escape character (and indexing of terms with such symbols). “C++” seems to be a special case. ---
**Author:** ![SeaCanary](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@SeaCanary](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SeaCanary)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2010, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-google-allow-boolean-searches/548625/16 "2010-07-31T15:16:33Z")
> [@panamajack](#): > > What I really wish they had was punctuation or an escape character (and indexing of terms with such symbols). “C++” seems to be a special case. Maybe I can help. Can you please give me a specific example to play around with? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2010, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-google-allow-boolean-searches/548625/17 "2010-07-31T15:37:00Z")
That search seems to return mostly pages with _both_ the puppies and the diabetes. For a better test, let’s take some searches with much fewer hits. Searching for zymolosely polydactyl tongue [returns 29 hits](http://www.google.com/#q=zymolosely+polydactyl+tongue&hl=en&safe=off&prmd=df&filter=0&fp=46146d5b8eba94f), and plectrum Olorin gives [56 results](http://www.google.com/#q=plectrum+Olorin&hl=en&safe=off&filter=0&fp=161fec54d8249f83). I haven’t thoroughly checked that there’s no overlap in those sets, but assuming there isn’t, then the search (zymolosely polydactyl tongue) or (plectrum Olorin) ought to return 85 results. In fact, [it doesn’t return any](http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&q=%28zymolosely+polydactyl+tongue%29+or+%28plectrum+Olorin%29&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=%28zymolosely+polydactyl+tongue%29+or+%28plectrum+Olorin%29&gs_rfai=&fp=229c849dbb30394a). Well, OK, by the time you read this, it’ll probably return this thread, but it doesn’t return any right now. ---
**Author:** ![SeaCanary](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@SeaCanary](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SeaCanary)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2010, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-google-allow-boolean-searches/548625/18 "2010-07-31T17:00:51Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Searching for zymolosely polydactyl tongue [returns 29 hits](http://www.google.com/#q=zymolosely+polydactyl+tongue&hl=en&safe=off&prmd=df&filter=0&fp=46146d5b8eba94f), and plectrum Olorin gives [56 results](http://www.google.com/#q=plectrum+Olorin&hl=en&safe=off&filter=0&fp=161fec54d8249f83). It gets worse. (Well, for me anyway. Anytime I come up short on having the final, definitive \ True Answer \ on things of a software nature I get a little bummed. :rolleyes: Never mind.) When I use the string **(zymolosely polydactyl tongue)** I get a lower record count than zymolosely polydactyl tongue (N.B. the absence of the parenthesis.) My understanding is that the parenthesis are for grouping purposes only and shouldn’t affect the results of the search if there’s nothing outside them. OTOH that doesn’t seem to be the case with using parenthesis (or not) around plectrum Olorin How weird is that?!?! BTW according to Google using “or” as an operator requires it to be in all caps i.e., “OR”. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2010, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-google-allow-boolean-searches/548625/19 "2010-07-31T21:44:32Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Well, OK, by the time you read this, it’ll probably return this thread, but it doesn’t return any right now. Yep, it returns this thread now. ---
**Author:** ![Keeve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f07891/32.png) [@Keeve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Keeve)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2010, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-google-allow-boolean-searches/548625/20 "2010-08-01T13:22:28Z")
> [@Disheavel](#): > > [Here are the instructions](http://www.google.com/support/websearch/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=136861) It is easy to do once you have their system. According to that page, “The AND operator, by the way, is the default, so it is not needed.” My problem is that I expect additional search words to narrow the search down, but it often has the opposite effect. For example: apple superman returns “About 2,610,000 results”. I would expect all of those results to contain both the word “apple” and also the word “superman”, right? But apple superman tokyo returns “About 5,200,000 results”. Shouldn’t this be fewer? How did I end up with double the number of results? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-google-allow-boolean-searches/548625.md?page=2)