If you look in the help the full list of search operators is covered there. The page is titled: help/searching.
Deleted Posts (requires 10,000 reputation) When you earn the Access to
Moderator Tools privilege, you may search your own deleted posts by
using the deleted: operator.
deleted:1 searches only your deleted posts
deleted:all searches ...
That question has ID 2038; searching for questions by ID has worked for some time. Posts 2037 and 2039 are both answers, so it doesn't automatically redirect to the question page, but any question ID should work (for example, searching for 1141 here on meta).
Quoting it returns normal results because a few weeks ago we switched to a new search engine, and ...
It does seem like search just ignores code blocks; I can't find any mention of if this is intentional, it seems like an odd decision, and the meta thread about the new search engine implies that it should work:
Quoted phrases are exact matches except for case-sensitivity, for example, you can search for code or symbols.
There is a way to search ...
In my trials, wildcards simply do not work when using title:. For a demonstration try searching for title:char*cter.
This appears to be an issue that's been known about for at least a year. I found this meta highlighting the exact same issue as yourself.
Allow wildcard in title search
You can also go directly to the API and use this page to query the site ...
I'm not sure about the correct syntax for doing searches with deleted:, but putting any string after deleted: which is not yes or no seems to work.
I don't think there is any deliberate attempt at obfuscation involved here.
I'm at this very moment not 100% sure that deleted posts stay around forever. Someone with more ...
Google it? You can use the Stack Exchange network search as well, although that's just a frontend for Google. The per-site search doesn't support looking up an image by URL
It was How to NOT become a root user? Are administrators root?, on AU
Just ask the question. If it is indeed a duplicate, it will be closed as a duplicate, and will will have one more way of finding it next time someone has the same issue.
That's the simplest way of finding it and having your question as well as the existing one will make it easier next time.
The problem is that [foo] already searches for posts tagged with foo. That's what the [ ] do. You can find your question by searching for user:me [disk-image]. Because you searched for tags [disk-image], you actually searched for the string tags in questions tagged with [disk-image].
This is explained on the search help page:
To search within specific ...
The word which is in quotes in the title: . I think there's some oddity (quite possibly a bug) where the indexer stores "which" (including the quotes) but the search query parser strips punctuation and passes which with no quotes to the backend. Wildcards don't help because they can't be combined with the title: operator.
I would edit the quotes out of the ...
I just saw that the question was marked as a duplicate and was just about to post a similar question one here.
No, in my opinion, you are not off-base in thinking that your question is significantly different enough to not be a duplicate. I understand that in many cases where the best answer to a particular question basically boils down to "use this tool" ...
If you've frequented the SE sites enough the dups serve a very useful purpose, they are the alternative paths to a singular Q + A's. Jeff Atwood wisely realized this (if you listen to the SE podcasts) and knew that it was impossible to create a rigid structure that would take a questioner to their exact answer, so rather they (Jeff & Joel) opted to ...