Boolean Strings Network

The Internet Sourcing Community

Hello All,

 

Here is today’s Quiz. Please post your answers as replies.

Replying only to some questions, and replying several times is allowed. Repeating someone’s correct answer is fine but will score lower, unless you add some nice explanations or examples. (So the sooner you get some answers in, the more advantage you have!) Repeating an incorrect answer will give you disadvantage. The winner will be announced next week.

The prize is either a 1 hour sourcing training with me, or two guest passes to future sourcing webinars (the winner’s choice).

Ready? 

  1. What profile information can you search for by X-raying LinkedIn on Google and cannot using LinkedIn people search (at any level of LinkedIn people search –including the advanced search on LinkedIn Recruiter)? Please give an example.
  2. What search string would create different results on Yahoo and Bing (would do something useful in the yahoo.com search box and would not on bing.com)?
  3. What % of posts on “open” groups on LinkedIn can be indexed by search engines?
  4. What can you search for, using a Google custom search engine, that you cannot using the Google search? [Bonus: is there a way to search on Bing using a Google’s CSE?]
  5. What are the differences between search results you get by X-raying Google-plus (site: site:plus.google.com <keywords>) and searching within Google-plus (on https://plus.google.com/)?
  6. If you searched on Google and it shows (about) 13,000 results found, what (if anything) can you conclude from that?
  7. How is search on Google for *@accenture.com (plus some keywords) different from searching for *\accenture.com ? You can replace “Accenture” for a company name of your liking. Please explain and give an example.
  8. How would you X-ray LinkedIn (on either Google or Bing) to find profiles of sales managers with MBA selling software, located near Chicago, who have a phone number mentioned in their profile?
  9. Is it possible that a public LinkedIn profile would show more info than a profile viewed by a LinkedIn member who is logged in?
  10. Take a look at the Google help page: http://bit.ly/rsMDVe. What special character that used to be in Google’s cheat sheet is not listed anymore and why?
  11. If you have someone’s profile on LinkedIn, what are some ways to find the person’s email address?

Views: 1173

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Irina, Do you have a copy of the old version? I was going to note this, when I want to grab a copy of the older page from a one of the web archiving sites, I couldn't actually find one with the tilde operator included.

Irina Shamaeva said:

Yes! This is the one!

Balazs Paroczay said:

Hmmm... maybe this one:~? ...as Google automatically searches for synonymes today?



Irina Shamaeva said:

Hint: find a copy of an old cheatsheet that used to be on Google. :)

Balazs Paroczay said:

  • Take a look at the Google help page: http://bit.ly/rsMDVe. What special character that used to be in Google’s cheat sheet is not listed anymore and why?

 

Parenthesis is not listed there maybe because a search string is linear? We used to use it mainly for the OR-related keywords and if Google needs to bring all of these results it does not really make sense to use () any further.

 

...not more than a simple guess, Irina!

Dave,

Sure:

http://www.google.co.jp/help/cheatsheet.html


Dave Galley said:

Irina, Do you have a copy of the old version? I was going to note this, when I want to grab a copy of the older page from a one of the web archiving sites, I couldn't actually find one with the tilde operator included.

Irina Shamaeva said:

Yes! This is the one!

Balazs Paroczay said:

Hmmm... maybe this one:~? ...as Google automatically searches for synonymes today?



Irina Shamaeva said:

Hint: find a copy of an old cheatsheet that used to be on Google. :)

Balazs Paroczay said:

  • Take a look at the Google help page: http://bit.ly/rsMDVe. What special character that used to be in Google’s cheat sheet is not listed anymore and why?

 

Parenthesis is not listed there maybe because a search string is linear? We used to use it mainly for the OR-related keywords and if Google needs to bring all of these results it does not really make sense to use () any further.

 

...not more than a simple guess, Irina!

Ah! Then the most correct answer is "everything changed" because the cheat sheet no longer exists for the US page. :) Instead all links to it redirect to the advanced help page.

Irina Shamaeva said:

Dave,

Sure:

http://www.google.co.jp/help/cheatsheet.html


Dave Galley said:

Irina, Do you have a copy of the old version? I was going to note this, when I want to grab a copy of the older page from a one of the web archiving sites, I couldn't actually find one with the tilde operator included.

Irina Shamaeva said:

Yes! This is the one!

Balazs Paroczay said:

Hmmm... maybe this one:~? ...as Google automatically searches for synonymes today?



Irina Shamaeva said:

Hint: find a copy of an old cheatsheet that used to be on Google. :)

Balazs Paroczay said:

  • Take a look at the Google help page: http://bit.ly/rsMDVe. What special character that used to be in Google’s cheat sheet is not listed anymore and why?

 

Parenthesis is not listed there maybe because a search string is linear? We used to use it mainly for the OR-related keywords and if Google needs to bring all of these results it does not really make sense to use () any further.

 

...not more than a simple guess, Irina!

Maybe...

Do you know how to answer #2 and #7? :)



Dave Galley said:

Ah! Then the most correct answer is "everything changed" because the cheat sheet no longer exists for the US page. :) Instead all links to it redirect to the advanced help page.

Irina Shamaeva said:

Dave,

Sure:

http://www.google.co.jp/help/cheatsheet.html


Dave Galley said:

Irina, Do you have a copy of the old version? I was going to note this, when I want to grab a copy of the older page from a one of the web archiving sites, I couldn't actually find one with the tilde operator included.

Irina Shamaeva said:

Yes! This is the one!

Balazs Paroczay said:

Hmmm... maybe this one:~? ...as Google automatically searches for synonymes today?



Irina Shamaeva said:

Hint: find a copy of an old cheatsheet that used to be on Google. :)

Balazs Paroczay said:

  • Take a look at the Google help page: http://bit.ly/rsMDVe. What special character that used to be in Google’s cheat sheet is not listed anymore and why?

 

Parenthesis is not listed there maybe because a search string is linear? We used to use it mainly for the OR-related keywords and if Google needs to bring all of these results it does not really make sense to use () any further.

 

...not more than a simple guess, Irina!

Hi All,

 

I'd like to offer Heather who provided responses to most questions and a nice example of a search string in #1, and also Balasz and Gary who provided precise responses to some questions, to attend a webinar of mine. I don't think we have a winner though (yet?). 

Heather - if you have the time, it would be nice to post more detail on some of your answers; I am not sure I understand some of them since they are so brief. You may want to run some examples for #7 and review the answer.

Prem - nice thoughts on emails; I'd prefer to see a better outlined algorithm.

Jason - thanks for the helpful comment.

 

I have posted a detailed answer to #1 on my blog this morning.

 

Thanks everybody! The contest remains open.

 

Irina

Oh - Thanks Irina!  I will roll up my sleeves and work a little harder, dig a little deeper for better answers on this quiz!

Irina Shamaeva said:

Hi All,

 

I'd like to offer Heather who provided responses to most questions and a nice example of a search string in #1, and also Balasz and Gary who provided precise responses to some questions, to attend a webinar of mine. I don't think we have a winner though (yet?). 

Heather - if you have the time, it would be nice to post more detail on some of your answers; I am not sure I understand some of them since they are so brief. You may want to run some examples for #7 and review the answer.

Prem - nice thoughts on emails; I'd prefer to see a better outlined algorithm.

Jason - thanks for the helpful comment.

 

I have posted a detailed answer to #1 on my blog this morning.

 

Thanks everybody! The contest remains open.

 

Irina

Thank you, Irina, it is really nice of you!

 

I tried many ways to find an answer to #7 but have no unique one so far. Once it changes I will post here.

 

Have a great day,

Balazs

Irina Shamaeva said:

Hi All,

 

I'd like to offer Heather who provided responses to most questions and a nice example of a search string in #1, and also Balasz and Gary who provided precise responses to some questions, to attend a webinar of mine. I don't think we have a winner though (yet?). 

Heather - if you have the time, it would be nice to post more detail on some of your answers; I am not sure I understand some of them since they are so brief. You may want to run some examples for #7 and review the answer.

Prem - nice thoughts on emails; I'd prefer to see a better outlined algorithm.

Jason - thanks for the helpful comment.

 

I have posted a detailed answer to #1 on my blog this morning.

 

Thanks everybody! The contest remains open.

 

Irina

Congrates Heather, Balasz and Gary for most response's...............

 

I tried for Question #7,  Most of my results are same for both examples..

 

I tried with "*@247headhunting.com" and "*\247headhunting.com" I got the same results...

 

This is exactly right!

Kandula Santosh Kumar said:

Congrates Heather, Balasz and Gary for most response's...............

 

I tried for Question #7,  Most of my results are same for both examples..

 

I tried with "*@247headhunting.com" and "*\247headhunting.com" I got the same results...

 

When I tried with "*.*@accenture.com", after realizing the trend is first name.last name@company.com, I received more sites including email.

 

I also didn't find many differences with *@davidsongroup.com vs. *\davidsongroup.com  

 

*\davidsongroup.com results seem to reveal what I posted via our blog page.

 

Therefore, I'm thinking *@comanyname.com may result in many sites outside of the company publications, and *\comanyname.com may result with more publications.  Else they are virtually the same.

 

 

Reply to Discussion

RSS

About

Latest Activity

Profile IconChris Martel and Ivonne Mondragon are attending Irina Shamaeva's event
Thumbnail

Six-Day Sourcing Bootcamp with Irina Shamaeva - March 7-16, 2023 at virtual

March 7, 2023 at 8am to March 16, 2023 at 9pm
7 hours ago
Irina Shamaeva posted an event
Thumbnail

Six-Day Sourcing Bootcamp with Irina Shamaeva - March 7-16, 2023 at virtual

March 7, 2023 at 8am to March 16, 2023 at 9pm
16 hours ago
Albert Marshall is now a member of Boolean Strings Network
Jan 13
Profile IconNevena Jovanovic, Judy Neely and Christine Bruger are attending Irina Shamaeva's event
Thumbnail

LinkedIn Solved Two-Part Class at virtual

January 11, 2023 from 8am to 9am
Jan 10

© 2023   Created by Irina Shamaeva.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service