&gt; I think most of your points are wrong.<p>I believe s&#x2F;he makes a good case.<p>Google provides no concept of time. Best case conception of time seems to be either provided by the site directly, e.g. &quot;article date&quot; or something to this effect, or t0 = when google first learned about the page.<p>Top anser for: &quot;nodejs&quot; + &quot;2016&quot; mongo api<p>returns top hit: 2015, 2nd hit 2014.<p>and that I can&#x27;t give it context myself:<p>Qouted strings can&#x27;t possibly work. There is almost certainly an algorithm in the background to provide confidence that they could work before being run. Even with the best case optimization, how could they check every page in index for:<p>&quot;does google respect qoutes?&quot;, I mean even if it finds pages with &quot;google&quot;, &quot;respect&quot;, &quot;quotes&quot; then runs query on all of them, how could it be fast enough for a human.<p>In above case, it is possible, however smaller phrases with common words can&#x27;t ever be respected.<p>&gt; Google is a natural language search engine<p>Eeryone has a google search profile. Allowing someone to calibrate theirs would provide them best results. Outline down thread, I explain why it would be nearly impossible for google to do this better than you.<p>Your appraisal of the not or &quot;-&quot; operator falls into the same problems in terms of time. I can&#x27;t define my percentage of crawl index that is authoritative, have to have the applied &quot;-&quot; operator applied to a larger base than google and this may not be possible in limited time.<p>One idea I had is that google could actually take longer, and update itself on the rolling basis. So immediate best guess would come up, and then it would continue running in bg and rerank if you waited another 3 seconds for better results.