While I agree that this isn't a great look, it also isn't a natural search string. Unless the trait that I am wanting to exclude is by far the most "standard" trait, using an exclude is odd. I don't search for blue ink by searching for "ink that isn't red, green or black".
However, I would argue that saying to my spouse, "yes, I need a few new button ups, anything style is ok, except vertical stripes" Is a natural way of speaking.
Aren't we always in pursuit of computers understanding natural language?
I am not convinced we are honestly. Kids these days, as I am now old enough to say, are digital natives. I wouldn’t be surprised if “Google-able” queries are more natural to these folks.
Right, most people search in inclusive terms: “I want this with that trait”. It’s unnatural, at least in English, to search for something based on what it isn’t.
Comments
While I agree that this isn't a great look, it also isn't a natural search string. Unless the trait that I am wanting to exclude is by far the most "standard" trait, using an exclude is odd. I don't search for blue ink by searching for "ink that isn't red, green or black".
However, I would argue that saying to my spouse, "yes, I need a few new button ups, anything style is ok, except vertical stripes" Is a natural way of speaking. Aren't we always in pursuit of computers understanding natural language?
I am not convinced we are honestly. Kids these days, as I am now old enough to say, are digital natives. I wouldn’t be surprised if “Google-able” queries are more natural to these folks.
Perhaps “shirt, solid pattern”
Right, most people search in inclusive terms: “I want this with that trait”. It’s unnatural, at least in English, to search for something based on what it isn’t.
and yet, when refining a query, oftentimes I need to exclude results (like striped shirts) to get what I'm really looking for
Remember when search engines supported boolean operators? Those were the days.
How about
shirt -stripes
That should work on eBay at least.