Someone slept though their humor class.
Try this -> :)
As a go player, I had the same problem when google has created the go language.
Try with baduk :)
This is a problem with Google, not with the names.
That doesn't really seem likely, since it's also a problem with every single other automated search engine in the world.
Names are important; names are famously hard[1].
When I was young, I was a member of a band named Fuck You Asshole. Was that a problem with conversation, not with the band name?
[1]: https://twitter.com/codinghorror/status/506010907021828096
It's a problem of recognising context. Current technology is not very good at this. What would be nice to have is automatic disambiguation - taking fdej's example, when searching for "Taylor shift", a search engine could ask "Did you mean Taylor Swift, or do you want to shift polynomials?".
Other possible examples: "bat" (flying animals or sports equipment?), "rock" (stones, music, or maybe both? :P), "minute" (60 seconds, report, or something extremely small?). In all of these cases, the software can't tell the meanings apart very well yet. That's a problem with the software.
Re:Taylor – Swift on bare metal
by JoeAltmaier on Tuesday September 06, 2016 @12:01PM
(#12436948)
duckduckgo does exactly that - it lists all the possible interpretations across the top of the results page, plus a list of likely matches (based on statistics I suppose). Try searching for 'polish' which could mean making shoes shiny, or central European people.
No deliberate puns required. As a computer algebraist, it bothers me that "Taylor shift" is un-Googleable.
Why stop? Maybe it is google that should implement something like ':technology' area searches.
There's also Tailor:
Lack of humour considered harmful.maybe un-Googleable but social-mediable as the pun increases visibility when the sharing and voting mechanism is involved.
Please stop!
[1]: https://github.com/izqui/Taylor