# Thanks, but we know how to do a Google search!

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-but-we-know-how-to-do-a-google-search/354578>\
**Category:** The BBQ Pit\
**Created:** [April 28, 2006, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-but-we-know-how-to-do-a-google-search/354578 "2006-04-28T12:46:40Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\
**Post date:** [April 29, 2006, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-but-we-know-how-to-do-a-google-search/354578/61 "2006-04-29T14:17:13Z")

</div>

> [@jsgoddess](#):
>
> (snip), but what the heck do I know?

a quick google search produced the following results: [what jsgoddess knows](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=what+jsgoddess+knows&btnG=Google+Search)

( 😉 )

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\
**Post date:** [April 29, 2006, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-but-we-know-how-to-do-a-google-search/354578/62 "2006-04-29T14:18:43Z")

</div>

Hee.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![zut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zut/32/2875_2.png) [@zut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zut)\
**Post date:** [April 29, 2006, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-but-we-know-how-to-do-a-google-search/354578/63 "2006-04-29T14:45:41Z")

</div>

> [@askeptic](#):
>
> I think good form requires that GQ answers be made on the basis of personal knowledge. When we ask here we are looking for more than superficial searchable info. This is a board made up of people and we seek their insight. Not their googlefoo.

I understand the sentiment, but I disagree. Let me give you an example of why. [This thread on the stereotypical “kung fu” riff](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=300466) is one of the most interesting threads I’ve participated in. The question was never fully answered, and (with one exception) the people posting in the thread weren’t really experts at all. However, a number of posters pooled their amateur research efforts, enough so that the question was at least partially answered. In addition, I’m pretty convinced that the _full_ answer to the original question is “no one knows.”

My point here is, if posters in that thread restricted themselves to only “personal knowledge,” the thread would have sunk like a stone, with only a handful of unsupported personal anecdotes as replies. Sometimes these “research project” threads can be awfully beneficial.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\
**Post date:** [April 29, 2006, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-but-we-know-how-to-do-a-google-search/354578/64 "2006-04-29T17:04:06Z")

</div>

> [@zut](#):
>
> I understand the sentiment, but I disagree. Let me give you an example of why. [This thread on the stereotypical “kung fu” riff](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=300466) is one of the most interesting threads I’ve participated in. The question was never fully answered, and (with one exception) the people posting in the thread weren’t really experts at all. However, a number of posters pooled their amateur research efforts, enough so that the question was at least partially answered. In addition, I’m pretty convinced that the _full_ answer to the original question is “no one knows.”
> 
> My point here is, if posters in that thread restricted themselves to only “personal knowledge,” the thread would have sunk like a stone, with only a handful of unsupported personal anecdotes as replies. Sometimes these “research project” threads can be awfully beneficial.

An excellent example of the [wisdom of crowds](http://www.randomhouse.com/features/wisdomofcrowds/) (the title of a book by James Surowiecki in which he posits that "large groups of people are smarter than an elite few, no matter how brilliant—better at solving problems, fostering innovation, coming to wise decisions, even predicting the future. "

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanks-but-we-know-how-to-do-a-google-search/354578.md?page=3)