Oh if we're doing technology: StupidSearch boxes.
I spend a lot of time searching databases of historic records: military records, medical records, Birth/Marriage/Death records, school records.
Perfectly good search functions, with separate boxes for forename and surname, have been replaced by a single box which returns eleventy million results with only one syllable in common with the search term.
The CWGC one is a particular offender. God forbid you should be looking for a John Donaldson. You will be trawling through Donald Johnsons, Josephs, Jameses... CWGC results effectively cannot be ordered by date or unit any more, because you have to use the ordering option on alphabetising to concentrate the surname you actually want amid the 30 pages of results.
Also, I know the surname I'm searching for can be spelt White or Whyte. That's OK. I can do two separate searches: at least I'll only have 15 results to click through to check, not 500.
The London Gazette is now completely unuseable. And again, god for-blooming-bid you should be looking for a company name like Marks and Spencer: there is no way on this planet you can persuade it not to read the "and" as a logic operator and return every single page with a Spencer and a Mark.
The irony of the StupidSearch boxes is they replace separate surname/forename/place/date boxes because those are supposedly "too hard" for poor widdle researchers (how they imagine researchers too stupid to understand a surname box will understand any documents found is a mystery); but in fact the researcher has to be vastly more knowledgeable and remember each different site's tricks to wheedle the StupidSearch box into producing halfway decent results.
AND and "string" are typical tricks, but some then use * and some % for wildcards. Some always assume the search term is merely the front of a string (thanks guys, I was actually looking for three folk named Hill, Green and Johns, so 10,000 replies about hills, bowling greens and Johnsons isn't really helping. Also, these were surnames which should be in a key field for this record: I didn't sodding ask you for random occurrences somewhere in the text body).
And breathe.
Honestly, there's a reason Ancestry hasn't gone the StupidSearch route: it's a pay service with subs as short as monthly, so it lives or dies by delivering appropriate results to researchers.
If you have records with key fields, let me sodding search by them!