Perhaps you should try some spelling variations:
"coder coding coding efficiency losses" » "coder coding feeding efficiency losses" (Expand search), "coder coding cutting efficiency losses" (Expand search), "coder coding spending efficiency losses" (Expand search), "coder coding coding efficiency loss" (Expand search), "coder coding coding efficiency based" (Expand search), "coder coding coding efficiency class" (Expand search), "coder coding decoding efficiency losses" (Expand search), "coder coding using efficiency losses" (Expand search), "coder coding canine efficiency losses" (Expand search), "modern coding coding efficiency losses" (Expand search), "color coding coding efficiency losses" (Expand search), "odor coding coding efficiency losses" (Expand search)
"in python python python programming" » "in pythons python python programming" (Expand search), "in piton python python programming" (Expand search), "in pitons python python programming" (Expand search), "_ python python python programming" (Expand search)

You may be able to get more results by adjusting your search query.

• The words AND, OR and NOT may confuse the search; try adding quotes: "((\"coder coding coding efficiency losses\") OR (\"in python python python programming\"))~".
• Removing quotes may allow a broader search: (( coder coding coding efficiency losses ) OR ( in python python python programming ))~.
• Adding a wildcard symbol may retrieve word variants: (("coder coding coding efficiency losses") OR ("in python python python programming"))*.