<<javascript pipe syntax>>: none of the search results appeared to have anything to do with Javascript pipe syntax. (Which doesn't exist yet, but it's under discussion.) Google gives a bunch of highly-relevant results.
<<hans reichenbach relativity>>: first result is a list of books about relativity, one of which is Reichenbach's "Philosophy of space and time"; good, but there's no real information there. Second is about Reichenbach but nothing to do with relativity or even, really, philosophy of science. Third is about philosophy of science and mentions some of Reichenbach's work but not related to relativity. Fourth mentions Reichenbach's "Philosophy of space and time" as part of a list of books relevant to a seminar on "time and eternity". None of this is bad, but it's not great either. Google gives a couple of online philosophy encyclopaedia entries, then a journal article on "Hans Reichenbach's relativity of geometry", then the Wikipedia article on Reichenbach ... much more informative.
<<luna lovegood actress>>: I thought this would be an easy one. It was easy for Google, which gave me her name in large friendly letters at the top, then her IMDB entry, and a bunch of other relevant things. Literally nothing in the Marginalia results was relevant to the query.
I guess maybe popular culture is just too monetizable, so no one is going to write about it on the sites that Marginalia crawls? Let's try some slightly less popular culture.
<<wilde "a handbag">>: First result is kinda-relevant but weird: it's about a musical adaptation of The Importance of Being Earnest. It doesn't mention that famous line from the play, but one of the numbers in the musical has the words "a handbag" in the title. Second result is a review of a CD of musicals, including the same work. Third is a bunch of short reviews of theatrical items from the Buxton Festival Fringe, one of which is a three-man adaptation of TIOBE. Next four are 100% irrelevant. Next is a list of names of plays. Last one is actually relevant; it's an article about "Lady Bracknell through the decades". Google puts that one first (after, sigh, a bunch of YouTube videos which look as if they might actually be relevant).
I really like the idea of this, and many of the things it turns up look like they might be interesting, but it isn't doing very well at producing results that are actually relevant to the thing being searched for.
Yeah, this seems pretty nice. I don't think the "deep nesting" issue is quite so realistic... I very rarely have a logic tree that's easier to identify by its leaves than its root. And I'd really hate to have code where you have to scroll to the end of a bunch of pipes to figure out what they're adding up to
But I have plenty of single use "temp variables" and cutting those out could be cool.
I mean most of my searches are probably pretty easy to find, I just don't want to go to the website I'm thinking of and click through 5 pages to get there.
The pop culture one is fairly common. Me and my wife both search "who the fuck is that" in that TV show movie all the time. Or who is the author of X book?
It’s trying to surface long articles and you’re asking it for a one word answer. What did you expect? A long article consisting of “Emma Stone played Cruella” repeated 800 times?
<<javascript pipe syntax>>: none of the search results appeared to have anything to do with Javascript pipe syntax. (Which doesn't exist yet, but it's under discussion.) Google gives a bunch of highly-relevant results.
<<hans reichenbach relativity>>: first result is a list of books about relativity, one of which is Reichenbach's "Philosophy of space and time"; good, but there's no real information there. Second is about Reichenbach but nothing to do with relativity or even, really, philosophy of science. Third is about philosophy of science and mentions some of Reichenbach's work but not related to relativity. Fourth mentions Reichenbach's "Philosophy of space and time" as part of a list of books relevant to a seminar on "time and eternity". None of this is bad, but it's not great either. Google gives a couple of online philosophy encyclopaedia entries, then a journal article on "Hans Reichenbach's relativity of geometry", then the Wikipedia article on Reichenbach ... much more informative.
<<luna lovegood actress>>: I thought this would be an easy one. It was easy for Google, which gave me her name in large friendly letters at the top, then her IMDB entry, and a bunch of other relevant things. Literally nothing in the Marginalia results was relevant to the query.
I guess maybe popular culture is just too monetizable, so no one is going to write about it on the sites that Marginalia crawls? Let's try some slightly less popular culture.
<<wilde "a handbag">>: First result is kinda-relevant but weird: it's about a musical adaptation of The Importance of Being Earnest. It doesn't mention that famous line from the play, but one of the numbers in the musical has the words "a handbag" in the title. Second result is a review of a CD of musicals, including the same work. Third is a bunch of short reviews of theatrical items from the Buxton Festival Fringe, one of which is a three-man adaptation of TIOBE. Next four are 100% irrelevant. Next is a list of names of plays. Last one is actually relevant; it's an article about "Lady Bracknell through the decades". Google puts that one first (after, sigh, a bunch of YouTube videos which look as if they might actually be relevant).
I really like the idea of this, and many of the things it turns up look like they might be interesting, but it isn't doing very well at producing results that are actually relevant to the thing being searched for.