https://www.google.com/search?q=string
Judge for yourself whether context matters. I suppose the results will differ from person to person, but I feel comfortable saying that while Duckduckgo isn't a lost cause, it contains a lot of bullshit to filter through. Example:
> STRING: functional protein association networks > STRING is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure: it is one of > ELIXIR's Core Data Resources. Learn more > ...
I mean ... really ? I suppose it must be a string, but, and maybe this is just me, I'm not looking for genetic manipulation tips or databases when I search for "string".
You convert a fixed problem ('locate search terms that have a high correlation to what I am searching for') to a fuzzy problem of "how can I guess what this person is searching for, based on a sequence of search terms, where I manipulate the results, thereby gauranteeing that the search sequence is poisoned by what I presume they are searching for').
Oddly enough, the latter, is how you get high dwell on a search engine (COUGH COUGH).
as soon as I started using duckduckgo - bang, back to 1 minute searches as I just altered my search terms and actually got back, what I wanted.
So there is no "beating" a neural network. The reward for having such a search algorithm is simply the ability to put thoughts into your mind. Your mind may still reject them, and if you don't feed it enough relevant data, it will rapidly abandon you.
which is why I don't stress that "agree to disagree over similar premises". can be both a hindrance, and a benefit.
On a related note, Google seems to be doing something similar with startpage.com searches, I guess because mostly geeks use it. Or else they are somehow getting enough data through startpage.com to identify me.
Google, like Amazon, and Apple, have jumped the shark.
Facebook, is the shark. ;)
The human mind is far greater than the sum of the algorithms - when we allow it to be.
The meaning of quoting search terms (all 3 different ones). The + and - things: +term -term. The special syntaxes "site:", the use of asterisks within quoted search terms, "define:", "link:", "related:", "...", "nearby", "filetype:", ...
And then the many "soft" tips, like leaving out unimportant words and so on.
I mean it was ... euhm ... well I remember it was all kinda cool (and it still works !), but ... today it is better.
So you should realize that even something as simple as search cannot work well without "using my information". And I very much want it to do that.