# New search operator "not" for tags only
**URL:** https://meta.discourse.org/t/new-search-operator-not-for-tags-only/52087
**Category:** Feature
**Tags:** search
**Created:** [27 oktober 2016 om 10:27 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/new-search-operator-not-for-tags-only/52087 "2016-10-27T10:27:15Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@jomaxro](https://meta.discourse.org/u/jomaxro)
#### Post date: [27 oktober 2016 om 10:27 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/new-search-operator-not-for-tags-only/52087/1 "2016-10-27T10:27:15Z")
Over at Stonehearth we’ve started to have the want to search for topics that _don’t_ have a certain tag on them, or that aren’t by a certain user. To the best of my understanding, this isn’t currently possible. As such, we’d like to request a negation operator for search, like Google support `-`.
---
### Author:  [@jomaxro](https://meta.discourse.org/u/jomaxro)
#### Post date: [14 november 2016 om 18:07 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/new-search-operator-not-for-tags-only/52087/2 "2016-11-14T18:07:36Z")
So this just came up naturally from another user at Stonehearth:
> **[Better search, filters](https://discourse.stonehearth.net/t/better-search-filters/26654)**
>
> Is there a way similar to google’s search to use special filters? I’m looking specific for exclusion filters, but a list of all filters (if any) would be good. A simple search here for something like frog will show a lot of posts where the user...
Seems he was trying to search for “frog”, but we have a very active user named “froggy” so he had a hard time searching for posts that had frog but weren’t mentions.
---
### Author:  [@ccstone](https://meta.discourse.org/u/ccstone)
#### Post date: [11 mei 2017 om 02:32 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/new-search-operator-not-for-tags-only/52087/3 "2017-05-11T02:32:47Z")
I’m amazed this topic didn’t get any more traction…
As the Keyboard Maestro forum gains more and more threads it’s becoming increasingly difficult to find things efficiently.
A negation operator would be helpful.
-Chris
---
### Author:  [@codinghorror](https://meta.discourse.org/u/codinghorror)
#### Post date: [11 mei 2017 om 04:37 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/new-search-operator-not-for-tags-only/52087/4 "2017-05-11T04:37:40Z")
You can use negation in Google searches with the site: operator, so try that. Visit the 404 page (type any random gobbledygook as a URL past the domain name) to get a pre filled google search form.
---
### Author:  [@sam](https://meta.discourse.org/u/sam)
#### Post date: [11 mei 2017 om 12:30 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/new-search-operator-not-for-tags-only/52087/5 "2017-05-11T12:30:31Z")
It is actually a pretty straight forward change (add support for `-test`) which would be only about 10-20 lines of code including tests (as long as its not in the advanced page with a fancy UI). Going to put a #pr-welcome on this, I don’t think it would do any harm.
---
### Author:  [@david](https://meta.discourse.org/u/david)
#### Post date: [11 mei 2017 om 14:57 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/new-search-operator-not-for-tags-only/52087/7 "2017-05-11T14:57:12Z")
Using google wont work for login-only forums, or secure categories
---
### Author:  [@codinghorror](https://meta.discourse.org/u/codinghorror)
#### Post date: [11 mei 2017 om 15:29 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/new-search-operator-not-for-tags-only/52087/8 "2017-05-11T15:29:50Z")
That does not apply to the forum in question at [https://forum.keyboardmaestro.com](https://forum.keyboardmaestro.com)
So they can easily kick off a search with negation by going to [https://forum.keyboardmaestro.com/nf](https://forum.keyboardmaestro.com/nf)
---
### Author:  [@kasiabulat](https://meta.discourse.org/u/kasiabulat)
#### Post date: [17 december 2017 om 16:16 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/new-search-operator-not-for-tags-only/52087/9 "2017-12-17T16:16:58Z")
Hi, I am quite new to the project, but I can try to add this feature.
---
### Author:  [@erlend\_sh](https://meta.discourse.org/u/erlend_sh)
#### Post date: [19 december 2017 om 11:31 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/new-search-operator-not-for-tags-only/52087/10 "2017-12-19T11:31:09Z")
That’s great @kasiabulat. Do you have a good idea of where to start with this or do you need some guidance?
---
### Author:  [@kasiabulat](https://meta.discourse.org/u/kasiabulat)
#### Post date: [21 december 2017 om 18:45 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/new-search-operator-not-for-tags-only/52087/11 "2017-12-21T18:45:12Z")
Thank you @erlend_sh for offering help! I think that the best and easiest way to do it would be to perform two searches:
- Firstly, search for the term before the not part
- Then, in results, search for the ones containing the unwanted phrase and filter them out
Is [discourse/app/assets/javascripts/discourse/widgets/search-menu.js.es6 at 87c334c06365f273f39038d91ab92488c4757041 · discourse/discourse · GitHub](https://github.com/discourse/discourse/blob/87c334c06365f273f39038d91ab92488c4757041/app/assets/javascripts/discourse/widgets/search-menu.js.es6) the correct file to make changes in?
---
### Author:  [@cpradio](https://meta.discourse.org/u/cpradio)
#### Post date: [21 december 2017 om 21:06 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/new-search-operator-not-for-tags-only/52087/12 "2017-12-21T21:06:50Z")
The larger part of your changes will be in
>
---
### Author:  [@kasiabulat](https://meta.discourse.org/u/kasiabulat)
#### Post date: [3 januari 2018 om 22:04 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/new-search-operator-not-for-tags-only/52087/13 "2018-01-03T22:04:25Z")
Thank you @cpradio for help with finding the correct file.
For the beginning, I added a simple version of search operator “not” (~) for tags. Currently it has the highest precedence and I implemented it as I described above. But I am wondering if it would be better for ‘+’ or ‘,’ to have higher precedence? And should it be possible to combine all operators? What way would be the best for users to construct their queries?
Pull request: [Add search not operator by kasiabulat · Pull Request #5467 · discourse/discourse · GitHub](https://github.com/discourse/discourse/pull/5467)
---
### Author:  [@kasiabulat](https://meta.discourse.org/u/kasiabulat)
#### Post date: [15 januari 2018 om 21:38 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/new-search-operator-not-for-tags-only/52087/14 "2018-01-15T21:38:21Z")
I added some tests and comments about the performance issue to my pull request.
---
### Author:  [@tgxworld](https://meta.discourse.org/u/tgxworld)
#### Post date: [22 februari 2018 om 10:06 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/new-search-operator-not-for-tags-only/52087/15 "2018-02-22T10:06:22Z")
I’m not sure about using `~` to represent NOT since it is usually used when matching against regular expressions. In Ruby, we use `=~ /^some_regexp_pattern/` and it is similar in Postgres as well.
---
### Author:  [@gerhard](https://meta.discourse.org/u/gerhard)
#### Post date: [22 februari 2018 om 10:29 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/new-search-operator-not-for-tags-only/52087/16 "2018-02-22T10:29:51Z")
I agree that using `~` as operator probably isn’t a good idea.
@kasiabulat Why did you choose `~` instead of `-` as “not” operator?
I’d prefer `tags:eggs-lunch+sandwiches` or `tags:eggs!lunch+sandwiches` to `tags:eggs~lunch+sandwiches`
---
### Author:  [@tgxworld](https://meta.discourse.org/u/tgxworld)
#### Post date: [22 februari 2018 om 11:20 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/new-search-operator-not-for-tags-only/52087/17 "2018-02-22T11:20:11Z")
> [@gerhard](#):
>
> instead of - as “not” operator?
Ah ha this was probably not chosen because `-` are allowed in tags.
---
### Author:  [@gerhard](https://meta.discourse.org/u/gerhard)
#### Post date: [22 februari 2018 om 11:25 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/new-search-operator-not-for-tags-only/52087/18 "2018-02-22T11:25:55Z")
Using quotes would help: `tags:"boiled-eggs"-lunch+sandwiches`
---
### Author:  [@featheredtoast](https://meta.discourse.org/u/featheredtoast)
#### Post date: [22 februari 2018 om 16:46 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/new-search-operator-not-for-tags-only/52087/19 "2018-02-22T16:46:06Z")
Probably not the best idea to require quotes as a naive search on `tags:boiled-eggs` would no longer do what you’d expect. Is there any conflict with `!`? That would be my preference here.
---
### Author:  [@kasiabulat](https://meta.discourse.org/u/kasiabulat)
#### Post date: [12 maart 2018 om 07:08 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/new-search-operator-not-for-tags-only/52087/20 "2018-03-12T07:08:53Z")
Should I change it into “!”, then?
---
### Author:  [@kasiabulat](https://meta.discourse.org/u/kasiabulat)
#### Post date: [12 maart 2018 om 08:11 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/new-search-operator-not-for-tags-only/52087/21 "2018-03-12T08:11:55Z")
I added a commit with the proper change: [Add search not operator by kasiabulat · Pull Request #5467 · discourse/discourse · GitHub](https://github.com/discourse/discourse/pull/5467/commits/d01f064cf5c0a167876c1f9bd4730a3af951795d)
[Volgende pagina](https://meta.discourse.org/t/new-search-operator-not-for-tags-only/52087.md?page=2)