Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.comp.software.firefox > #14312 > unrolled thread
| Started by | micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-07-26 14:21 -0400 |
| Last post | 2025-07-26 20:50 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 37 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.software.firefox
OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-07-26 14:21 -0400
Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. Schugo <schugo@schugo.de> - 2025-07-26 20:28 +0200
Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-07-26 14:43 -0400
Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-07-26 19:52 +0100
Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-07-26 15:19 -0400
Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. "Alan K." <alan@invalid.com> - 2025-07-26 17:24 -0400
Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> - 2025-07-26 23:51 +0200
Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-07-27 00:05 -0400
Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> - 2025-07-26 23:50 +0200
Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. Sam Pichai <Sam.Pichai@gmail.com> - 2025-07-26 20:14 +0000
Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. Schugo <schugo@schugo.de> - 2025-07-26 22:45 +0200
Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2025-07-26 20:47 +0000
Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. Schugo <schugo@schugo.de> - 2025-07-26 22:55 +0200
Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2025-07-26 16:18 -0500
Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-07-26 19:42 +0100
Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-07-26 15:18 -0400
Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-07-26 20:26 +0100
Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-11-14 23:14 -0500
Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-07-26 22:25 +0200
Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2025-07-26 20:45 +0000
Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-07-26 23:55 +0200
Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. Nobody <jock@soccer.com> - 2025-07-26 15:51 -0700
Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2025-07-26 22:58 +0000
Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2025-07-26 22:53 +0000
Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> - 2025-07-26 22:58 +0000
Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-07-27 00:36 -0400
Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2025-07-27 07:02 +0000
Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-07-27 11:52 -0400
Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2025-07-27 16:20 +0000
Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-07-28 22:06 -0400
Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> - 2025-07-29 04:22 +0200
Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-07-27 14:40 +0200
Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-07-26 23:54 +0200
Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. Nobody <jock@soccer.com> - 2025-07-26 15:46 -0700
Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-07-27 08:41 +0100
Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-07-27 11:55 -0400
Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> - 2025-07-26 20:50 +0200
Page 1 of 2 [1] 2 Next page →
| From | micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-26 14:21 -0400 |
| Subject | OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. |
| Message-ID | <u86a8k5hf3lg2sqltcrdv4fe347pkhof3l@4ax.com> |
This is about Google search more than about Firefox, but I don't know what other active ng would be more appropriate than this one, And I would think you are all interested, even concerned about stuff like this. Someone on Nextdoor got a text supposedly from the local gas and electric company, BGE, wanting to do maintenance inside her house. The number to call was 855-470-8800. I googled that number and the first hit I got was https://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/bge-reminds-customers-to-stay-vigilant-avoid-energy-related-scams Yet that number does not appear in the article. Why was it listed in the search results? Does google also search the HTML source code in deciding what meets the search criteria???? At any rate, it's not in the source code either. This is not the first time I've gotten a hit that does not seem to be a hit. Can someone shed light on how this happens? BTW, it is a legitimate phone number for them. Other posters confirmed it and other hits from the same search, including WBAL, do include the phone number. Did google look at the valid hits and then just include this one because it was also from BGE? If so whey didn't it include all of the 1000's of articles that must mention BGE. It does have a hit on https://www.bge.com/my-account/customer-support/contact-us/contact-information which also doesn't include the search phone number, but gives other numbers. Someone posted here once that Google search was not sophisticated, but it seems to have figured out that the number was a BGE number and people were afraid it was involved in scams so it should return an article with alternate/better phone numbers and an article on scams. Is that what has happened?
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Schugo <schugo@schugo.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-26 20:28 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. |
| Message-ID | <10636o0$2hcdh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14312 |
On 26.07.2025 20:21, micky wrote: > This is about Google search more than about Firefox, but I don't know > what other active ng would be more appropriate than this one, And I > would think you are all interested, even concerned about stuff like > this. > > Someone on Nextdoor got a text supposedly from the local gas and > electric company, BGE, wanting to do maintenance inside her house. The > number to call was 855-470-8800. I googled that number and the first > hit I got was > https://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/bge-reminds-customers-to-stay-vigilant-avoid-energy-related-scams > Yet that number does not appear in the article. Why was it listed in > the search results? Google is now in 2025 a piece of shit. It's 100% serving their advertisers pages. Plus shitty AI summaries optimized for advertisers. Except the search is something very special programming related. I searched "Waesserhaegl" a 90s metal band and the first 3 pages showed me "Wasserhahn" (Water tap) compainies that sell "Wasserhans"... it's a complete fuckup, nothing like 20-25 years ago. ciao
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-26 14:43 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. |
| Message-ID | <b18a8k15cp2ik9crcf18eogimg2t76ap6a@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #14314 |
In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sat, 26 Jul 2025 20:28:08 +0200, Schugo <schugo@schugo.de> wrote: >On 26.07.2025 20:21, micky wrote: >> This is about Google search more than about Firefox, but I don't know >> what other active ng would be more appropriate than this one, And I >> would think you are all interested, even concerned about stuff like >> this. >> >> Someone on Nextdoor got a text supposedly from the local gas and >> electric company, BGE, wanting to do maintenance inside her house. The >> number to call was 855-470-8800. I googled that number and the first >> hit I got was >> https://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/bge-reminds-customers-to-stay-vigilant-avoid-energy-related-scams >> Yet that number does not appear in the article. Why was it listed in >> the search results? > >Google is now in 2025 a piece of shit. >It's 100% serving their advertisers pages. >Plus shitty AI summaries optimized for advertisers. >Except the search is something very special programming >related. >I searched "Waesserhaegl" a 90s metal band and the first >3 pages showed me "Wasserhahn" (Water tap) compainies that >sell "Wasserhans"... You know there is an easy remedy for that. Include -watertap in your search terms, or maybe -water . Or add band . Or metal band . In other circumstances, people would like it that they don't have to spell words exactly right. I too dislike the so-called AI, which takes up space so that I have to scroll down to get to what I want to see. Although google AI uses an # sign to point to the actual webpage from where they reached their "concludsions". Chat GPT doesn't do that. (I only checked twice out of curiosity. I don't use it.) And I believe the individual page summearies wwhich I've used from the beginning use a rudmentary AI. And in the thread I just started at 2PM ET today, it looks like they've used some sort of AI to include an article about scams that doesn't even include my only search term, a phone number. > >it's a complete fuckup, nothing like 20-25 years ago. > >ciao
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-26 19:52 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. |
| Message-ID | <mekmf4F88upU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #14318 |
micky wrote: > I too dislike the so-called AI, which takes up space so that I have to > scroll down to get to what I want to see. append the following to your search URL &udm=14
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-26 15:19 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. |
| Message-ID | <ogaa8kl7tkaq9m97f2iilt0e0uj4104vbn@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #14321 |
In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sat, 26 Jul 2025 19:52:18 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote: >micky wrote: > >> I too dislike the so-called AI, which takes up space so that I have to >> scroll down to get to what I want to see. > >append the following to your search URL >&udm=14 Thanks. I hope someone will write an add-on to automate this. I woudln't know where to start.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alan K." <alan@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-26 17:24 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. |
| Message-ID | <1063h30$1hq0r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14323 |
On 7/26/25 3:19 PM, micky wrote:
> In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sat, 26 Jul 2025 19:52:18 +0100, Andy
> Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>
>> micky wrote:
>>
>>> I too dislike the so-called AI, which takes up space so that I have to
>>> scroll down to get to what I want to see.
>>
>> append the following to your search URL
>> &udm=14
>
> Thanks. I hope someone will write an add-on to automate this. I
> woudln't know where to start.
And what does udm do?
--
Linux Mint 22.1, Thunderbird 128.13.0esr, Mozilla Firefox 141.0
Alan K.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-26 23:51 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. |
| Message-ID | <68854DF3.80209@backwurst.de> |
| In reply to | #14334 |
Alan K. wrote: > On 7/26/25 3:19 PM, micky wrote: >> In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sat, 26 Jul 2025 19:52:18 +0100, Andy >> Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote: >> >>> micky wrote: >>> >>>> I too dislike the so-called AI, which takes up space so that I have to >>>> scroll down to get to what I want to see. >>> >>> append the following to your search URL >>> &udm=14 >> >> Thanks. I hope someone will write an add-on to automate this. I >> woudln't know where to start. > And what does udm do? https://tedium.co/2024/05/17/google-web-search-make-default/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-27 00:05 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. |
| Message-ID | <669b8kl9i8uqfrin8uvau878fais8r0bm2@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #14334 |
In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sat, 26 Jul 2025 17:24:48 -0400, "Alan K." <alan@invalid.com> wrote: >On 7/26/25 3:19 PM, micky wrote: >> In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sat, 26 Jul 2025 19:52:18 +0100, Andy >> Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote: >> >>> micky wrote: >>> >>>> I too dislike the so-called AI, which takes up space so that I have to >>>> scroll down to get to what I want to see. >>> >>> append the following to your search URL >>> &udm=14 >> >> Thanks. I hope someone will write an add-on to automate this. I >> woudln't know where to start. >And what does udm do? Wasn't it clear from what I wrote that I didn't know such an add-on exists? You could have been helpful like Frank was, but you'd rather be sarcastic. It's so nice that the internet make anonymity so easy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-26 23:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. |
| Message-ID | <68854DA4.1020900@backwurst.de> |
| In reply to | #14323 |
micky wrote: > In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sat, 26 Jul 2025 19:52:18 +0100, Andy > Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote: > >>micky wrote: >> >>> I too dislike the so-called AI, which takes up space so that I have to >>> scroll down to get to what I want to see. >> >>append the following to your search URL >>&udm=14 > > Thanks. I hope someone will write an add-on to automate this. I > woudln't know where to start. Here you are, dumbfuck: https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/udm-14/ https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/udm14/ffcpcoipaaccggomdlgaophbocccfapl
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Pichai <Sam.Pichai@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-26 20:14 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. |
| Message-ID | <1063d8v$317pk$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #14314 |
On 26/07/2025 19:28, Schugo wrote: > Google is now in 2025 a piece of shit. Google is now in 2025 running a profitable business. If you don't like people running a business in their own ways then you are free not to go there. There are other alternatives you can try or find suitable substitutes. Good luck and happy computing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Schugo <schugo@schugo.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-26 22:45 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. |
| Message-ID | <1063eom$2ijbm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14326 |
On 26.07.2025 22:14, Sam Pichai wrote: > On 26/07/2025 19:28, Schugo wrote: >> Google is now in 2025 a piece of shit. > > Google is now in 2025 running a profitable business. If you don't like > people running a business in their own ways then you are free not to go > there. There are other alternatives you can try or find suitable > substitutes. > > Good luck and happy computing. > > > What a fucking loser attitude! caio..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-26 20:47 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. |
| Message-ID | <1063etm$2iedb$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14328 |
Schugo <schugo@schugo.de> wrote: >26.07.2025 22:14, Sam Pichai wrote: >>26/07/2025 19:28, Schugo wrote: >>>Google is now in 2025 a piece of shit. >>Google is now in 2025 running a profitable business. If you don't like >>people running a business in their own ways then you are free not to go >>there. There are other alternatives you can try or find suitable >>substitutes. >>Good luck and happy computing. >What a fucking loser attitude! >caio.. Not going along with your nonstop impotent bitching and moaning does not make him a loser but an adult. Try it some time, seamus. I'm calling for immediate retirement of this sockpuppet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Schugo <schugo@schugo.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-26 22:55 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. |
| Message-ID | <1063fd5$2imi0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14331 |
On 26.07.2025 22:47, Adam H. Kerman wrote: > Schugo <schugo@schugo.de> wrote: >>26.07.2025 22:14, Sam Pichai wrote: >>>26/07/2025 19:28, Schugo wrote: > >>>>Google is now in 2025 a piece of shit. > >>>Google is now in 2025 running a profitable business. If you don't like >>>people running a business in their own ways then you are free not to go >>>there. There are other alternatives you can try or find suitable >>>substitutes. > >>>Good luck and happy computing. > >>What a fucking loser attitude! > >>caio.. > > Not going along with your nonstop impotent bitching and moaning does not > make him a loser but an adult. Try it some time, seamus. I'm calling for > immediate retirement of this sockpuppet. > fuck off, you ppl probably voted for Trump too, didn't u?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-26 16:18 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. |
| Message-ID | <1063gnt$2dttq$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14332 |
On 7/26/2025 3:55 PM, Schugo wrote: > On 26.07.2025 22:47, Adam H. Kerman wrote: >> Schugo <schugo@schugo.de> wrote: >>> 26.07.2025 22:14, Sam Pichai wrote: >>>> 26/07/2025 19:28, Schugo wrote: >> >>>>> Google is now in 2025 a piece of shit. >> >>>> Google is now in 2025 running a profitable business. If you don't like >>>> people running a business in their own ways then you are free not to go >>>> there. There are other alternatives you can try or find suitable >>>> substitutes. >> >>>> Good luck and happy computing. >> >>> What a fucking loser attitude! >> >>> caio.. >> >> Not going along with your nonstop impotent bitching and moaning does not >> make him a loser but an adult. Try it some time, seamus. I'm calling for >> immediate retirement of this sockpuppet. >> > fuck off, you ppl probably voted for Trump too, didn't u? https://i.postimg.cc/qByNrvsV/Fuk-Trump.jpg -- Science doesn't support Darwin. Scientists do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-26 19:42 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. |
| Message-ID | <meklsfF88upU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #14312 |
micky wrote: > The number to call was 855-470-8800.> I googled that number and the first hit I got was > <https://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/bge-reminds-customers-to-stay-vigilant-avoid-energy-related-scams> > Yet that number does not appear in the article. > Why was it listed in the search results? The three individual numbers 855, 470 and 8800 *do* appear in the page, so I suppose google treats the hyphen as a delimiter. If you do a "verbatim" search under the "tools" option it no longer includes the reddit page in the results.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-26 15:18 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. |
| Message-ID | <3v8a8ktqhivv79tcr9g5n8i8dq1aba0qum@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #14317 |
In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sat, 26 Jul 2025 19:42:20 +0100, Andy
Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>micky wrote:
>
>> The number to call was 855-470-8800.> I googled that number and the first hit I got was
>> <https://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/bge-reminds-customers-to-stay-vigilant-avoid-energy-related-scams>
>> Yet that number does not appear in the article. > Why was it listed in the search results?
>The three individual numbers 855, 470 and 8800 *do* appear in the page,
Huh? I don't find any of those 3. Can you quote whole sentences?
>so I suppose google treats the hyphen as a delimiter.
>
>If you do a "verbatim" search under the "tools" option it no longer
>includes the reddit page in the results.
And I don't find Verbatim under tools either. I find Advanced but
don't find "verbatim" there either, only a suggestion to use quotes. Are
we in the same world?
I know about double quotes, and when I use them, it no longer includes
the FoxBaltimore page, or the reddit page that I had not looked at
before
.... this is interesting: Because I copied a little too much in the
first place, I pasted 855-470-8800 . with an extra period. When I
omitted the period, I got 2 more hits**, 342 instead of 340, but also a
big clue to to how Google "thinks". The so-called AI says
The phone number 855-470-8800 is associated with Baltimore Gas and
Electric (BGE)
Specifically, this number was used by BGE for customers who wanted
to learn more about or schedule appointments for the installation of
smart meters. BGE implemented a program to upgrade from analog
meters to smart meters, which transmit data wirelessly.
Potential for scams
While the number is legitimate, BGE has warned customers about u
utility impostor scams, where scammers use phone number spoofing to
make it appear they are calling from BGE or Exelon numbers.
So it did search on the number, find that it was BGE, and include BGE
hits that provide altenate numbers. I have to admit, that sound like
actual artifical intelligence to me.
And then it starts in about scams, even though it's not a scam number,
it's a valid BGE number. It must have found other urls where people
thought it might be a scam, like the original poster in NextDoor did
(and some repliers thought for sure it was.) That must be why it gave
the fox post about scams, and that too seems a lot like intelligence to
me.
All this complicated checking seems loaded with potential for error.
The biggest proglem with so-called AI is that I'm not even carefully
checking and I find mistakes. I would much rather read the articles
they are going by, which at least google so-called AI points to but
chatGPT does not . There are mistakes in original articles too (which
so-called AI will repeat) but only becaise of the human condition, not
because a computer program was inadequate.
BTW, I see they've moved the hit count to the tools dropdown. Don't know
why.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-26 20:26 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. |
| Message-ID | <mekoeeF88upU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #14322 |
micky wrote: >> The three individual numbers 855, 470 and 8800do appear in the page, > Huh? I don't find any of those 3. Can you quote whole sentences? view source, select and copy every thing,paste it into notepad, then search for them ... > And I don't find Verbatim under tools either. Tools / AllResults / Verbatim
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 23:14 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. |
| Message-ID | <k1jc8k16bfvk929ouh7fecsdsj2covqmde@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #14324 |
In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sat, 26 Jul 2025 20:26:03 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote: >micky wrote: > >>> The three individual numbers 855, 470 and 8800do appear in the page, >> Huh? I don't find any of those 3. Can you quote whole sentences? > >view source, select and copy every thing,paste it into notepad, then >search for them ... Well, I used Firefox's View Source, which appears to have a search function. Maybe notepad is better at finding things? > >> And I don't find Verbatim under tools either. > >Tools / AllResults / Verbatim Sure enough! How is this different from putting the search terms in double quotes?.... So called AI says " there are subtle differences in their application and effect:"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-26 22:25 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. |
| Message-ID | <46qfllxvcq.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #14322 |
On 2025-07-26 21:18, micky wrote: > In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sat, 26 Jul 2025 19:42:20 +0100, Andy > Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote: > >> micky wrote: >> >>> The number to call was 855-470-8800.> I googled that number and the first hit I got was >>> <https://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/bge-reminds-customers-to-stay-vigilant-avoid-energy-related-scams> >>> Yet that number does not appear in the article. > Why was it listed in the search results? >> The three individual numbers 855, 470 and 8800 *do* appear in the page, > > Huh? I don't find any of those 3. Can you quote whole sentences? Why don't you google directly for "8554708800" without quotes? Or even "+18554708800". The third hit is BGE: <https://www.bge.com/smart-energy/smart-grid-smart-meter/smart-meters> +++···················· Please note: BGE is upgrading both electric and gas meters. If one of your meters is outdoors and the other meter is indoors or otherwise inaccessible, such as behind a gate, we may have upgraded your outdoor meter, but we still need access to your additional meter. You will be considered as opting out, and assessed the opt-out fees, unless we are able to upgrade both meters. If one of your meters still needs to be upgraded, please call BGE at 1-855-470-8800 to schedule an appointment. ····················++- The number is legit. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-26 20:45 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OT by some standards. Getting a google hit that is not a hit. |
| Message-ID | <1063eon$2iedb$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14327 |
Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >Why don't you google directly for "8554708800" without quotes? Or even >"+18554708800". The third hit is BGE: Toll-free numbers aren't dialable from outside United States and Canada so they wouldn't be written in international format. Also, never search with the trunk code "1" which is coincidentally the same as the country code. Either search as a 10-digit string 8554708800 or as a phrase of three words "855 470 8800". The second will take care of the variety of ways such numbers are written with and without hyphens or with and without spaces. Some people annoyingly use periods. The punctuation is ignored but the spaces are used as word separators.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 2 [1] 2 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.software.firefox
csiph-web