I am not having a problem. And I was just trying to help with itsMe’s thread.
However, what I can add is that there seem to be two issues.
One, the search algorithm breaks up a string and searches for its parts. So, instead of looking for only
bread.com, the algorithm appears to include results related to “bread” and “com”.
Two, visually, the snippets emphasize this error with highlights like “… to come play! …” from
.com has clearly been misinterpreted as “come”.
I mention the visual aspect because the individual parts of a query can be emphasized even when the entire query is present.
thewindowsupdate.com shows this snippet:
Learn how to enable the Microsoft Loop ... Source:https://learn.microsoft.com/en-
There we can see
learn.microsoft.com in the snippet.
But, we also see “Learn how to enable the Microsoft” which emphasizes the parts of my query.
Another example is
Microsoft Learn Blog – Microsoft Tech Community ... Introducing our New Learning Portal for
Partners – Microsoft …
Here, only the parts of my query are shown in the snippet.
But, if we navigate to the web page, we can see
learn.microsoft.com appear in print. So, the snippet crowded out my search term with examples of individual words that matched earlier in the body.
Personally, I think there are two additional issues.
Three, I don’t have a way to group search terms as an atomic unit. So going from
"bread.com" makes no difference. And Mojeek still breaks up what I’ve typed and searches for those terms individually.
Four, because Mojeek searches lexically, the user might omit a mandatory search operator. Mojeek has several buckets like URL, title, anchor, and text. So, maybe I searched for
bread.com and that appears in an anchor but the snippet can’t show anything visually. So, I’d want to do something like
exactintext:bread.com to tell Mojeek that a) I want to see
bread.com mentioned in writing, and b) I want only that full string.
I’m guessing that, today, Mojeek can’t recognize longer strings like
"learn.microsoft.com" So, I’m not sure what the most efficient way would be to add that feature.
@Josh To answer your question, I was likely using:
But I’ve seen similar results in an incognito window with no preferences set.