I don't think this inference is justified. It's also not nice.
My guess psykovsky just thinks that this is too lame of a trick to be called a hack, being a part of documented Google Search functionality, which explains his comment equally well while not suggesting he doesn't know what the word means.
Maybe people should read the user manual before actually using the tool.
This isn't a trick, it's just using google the way it was programmed to be used. Those are documented features of the google search engine, they are no "hacks".
Did you read the user manual for Google? Even if, the fact is, most people don't.
This is a trick insofar as most of the people don't know it. There are no obvious links to any kind of Google Search manual, and those features are not clearly advertised anywhere, so they can be treated like tricks of "those in the know".
There are many meanings to word hack, and while some uses are more stretched than others, this one isn't that bad. Want to pick on something really meaningless? Try "growth hacking".
BTW. Creative uses of those features are actually called "google dorks" and are collected in a database[0].
Right. Or wrong. Why do I even bother answering...
You remind me of my 12 year old son. He also fetches the most ridiculous notions from who knows where to justify some of the silly things he does and says.
Edit: you can't explicitly search for them using Amazon's own search engine, but here's a Google hack that will turn them up:
https://www.google.com/?q=site%3awww.amazon.com%20-forum%20%...
(courtesy Hazzit at ebooks.stackexchange.com)