No. This misses the point I’m making.
I recently searched for:
adam grant doctor vaccine
Hopefully, you can recognize that I mean the person, Adam Grant, and perhaps a few keywords, doctor and vaccine.
When I search with DuckDuckGo, the results reflect the fact that I’m talking about Adam Grant.
Whereas, when I perform the same search on Mojeek, the results reflect “adam” or “doctor”. The first one hundred results don’t even place the keywords Adam and Grant together.
In this specific case, I can use the query:
"adam grant" doctor vaccine
Those keywords allow Mojeek to find relevant information.
But this doesn’t answer my original request.
There, I made the point that I cannot communicate intent or reliably group keywords together. The reason is, on the first point, Mojeek is based on lexical not semantic meaning. And, on the second point, there is no explicit grouping operator.
While in this specific case I can use double quotes to trick Mojeek into producing results relating to Grant; the same trick won’t work, for example, on:
furniture store adirondack chair
These keywords will likely be jumbled by Mojeek. And using quotes—"furniture store"—won’t give me a list of stores.
This is why I made the argument about meaning and grouping. And it is why I suggested a cascading search. Mojeek can probably find furniture stores. And it can probably find Adirondack chairs. But, without a way to group terms or communicate meaning, there is no efficient way to search for Adirondack chairs in furniture stores.
I need the ability to create a set and then limit my second search to that set.
And, in the case of the chair, it would not make sense to invest the time to create a list of stores or to retain the list in a Focus per se. In order to compete with semantic search engines, I need to be able to create the relevant set on the fly.