I&#x27;m the original author of the blog post; if you&#x27;ll allow me to clarify. I apologize for the misleading footnote - I believe it gives the impression that this isn&#x27;t the correct search result when it is.<p>&quot;The&quot; post that I wanted to be first place had the perfect summary in Google, discussed deluge on OS X, talked about the lack of retina for a few different apps, and explicitly mentioned a few without retina support but did not outright include deluge in that list of apps without retina support. It was the most-relevant result in that it actually discussed the topics being searched for. It was, for all intents and purposes, the correct result that should have been returned - only pedantically it did not provide a point-blank answer to whether or not deluge itself was retina-ready.<p>I agree with you 100%, the results in the first image <i>which do include all the search terms</i> are more relevant than the results in the second search. But Google, for some reason, chose to prioritize the results that did <i>not</i> have all the search terms over those that did. Now from the results in the first image, the first of the displayed results that <i>did</i> use all the search terms (i.e. did not say &quot;Missing: deluge&quot;) <i>was</i> the most-relevant of all the results that were obtained from either listing (important pedantic note: whether it actually answered my original question or not does not detract from the fact that it was the most relevant. Because the other links neither answered my original question nor were relevant to it.)<p>I think a comment by &quot;Robert&quot; from the blog post (if I may re-post it here), best summarizes my disappointment:<p><i>Imagine if I told you I have someone who might be the perfect soulmate for you, but unfortunately because the pool of candidates for “perfect soulmates” is so small, I’m also including people that are maybe compatible with you or maybe not – a kind and thoughtful act, on my behalf…. And then I proceed to introduce you to these latters while holding back the perfect match until a random time that I saw fit?</i><p>Regardless of whether or not the suggestion for potential soulmate ends up working out, the fact remains, you don&#x27;t say &quot;I have a result for your search query, but let&#x27;s look at these definitely irrelevant results first&quot;<p>If you want to over-analyze this, let&#x27;s look at the &quot;blurbs&quot; returned by Google for the search results:<p>1) Deluge&#x27;s main download page; blurb: open-source cross-platform torrent client. Site includes screenshots, FAQ, and community forums. MISSING: RETINA<p>2) Download - Deluge. Latest release &lt;url here&gt;. Release... &lt;link to ubuntu.png here&gt; Deluge.app. MISSING: RETINA<p>3) Installing&#x2F;Mac OS X: A deluge package is available which works on Mac. MISSING: RETINA<p>4) From Linux to OS X: Meet your new apps: OS X Mount Lion ships with an app similar to AppX and AppY ..... [sic] It has one notable shortcoming: no retina support .... [sic] There are plenty of great Bittorrent clients on Linux - Deluge, KTorrent, Transmission, etc.<p>Of these four results, only one specifically talks about Deluge.app and Retina. It&#x27;s the fourth result. Based off these four blurbs, which do you think is the right page to click on with the highest probability of answering my question? 1) The product main page which I know, thanks to Google, does not have the word &quot;retina&quot; anywhere, 2) the product download page, which I know, thanks to Google despite the completely useless blurb, does not contain the word &quot;retina&quot; anywhere, 3) instructions for installing on Mac, which thanks to Google, I know does not contain the word &quot;retina&quot; anywhere, or 4) a page discussing a variety of apps available on OS X, including explicitly by name, Deluge, which also talks about the retina support of one or more of the aforementioned apps?<p>I clicked on number 4. A page that talks about Deluge and other torrent clients that are available on OS X and lambasts an (unknown from the blurb) app for not having retina support would ideally be the page that would contain specific information on whether or not Deluge has retina support. It didn&#x27;t provide the direct answer I was looking for. But it was a hell of a lot more relevant than the first three results, <i>and Google knew it</i>.<p>Addendum:<p>Oh, and about deluge.app not being in quotes: that&#x27;s a lesson learned the hard way. Mac apps unfortunately do not have &quot;unique&quot; names. Pages. Numbers. Deluge. etc. People often append &quot;.app&quot; to clarify their meaning for SEO purposes, <i>and</i> I know that Google indexes &quot;foo.bar&quot; (sans quotes) as &quot;foo bar&quot; (again, sans quotes). Ironically, the only &quot;word&quot; of the original search query that could have been logically dropped is &quot;app&quot;. But odds are that a post discussing Mac apps would contain the word &quot;app&quot; or &quot;apps&quot; somewhere. It&#x27;s not fair to put &quot;deluge.app&quot; in quotes to provide a counterexample, because I knowingly and deliberately did not place it in quotes in the first place, because that&#x27;s the one term that I <i>do not</i> require to be present verbatim.<p>Also, this is just the proverbial &quot;straw that broke the camel&#x27;s back.&quot; I run into this problem many times on a daily basis. This is just the concrete example that triggered the post in question, and for which I was able to obtain screenshots of the different variations so that the situation could be properly documented.