From the BBC
Shouldn’t their be an internet version of Driver’s Ed that you are required to take before going online?
Bolding mine.
Umm, no. Then it’d be so much harder for me to be the best googler on my block.
My high school Latin teacher once said to an inquiring student, “There are no stupid questions. But if there were, that would be one.”
[cracker]
It’s okay to never know the answer but ask why.
[/cracker]
I think it’s better to ask a question you could’ve figured out yourself with a bit of work than to harden a bigoted opinion in your mind without investigating the matter.
And if no one asked stupid questions, we would lose so many opportunities for mockery.
Thank you very much.
Whatever. This shows nothing significant what so ever. How do you know that the percentages just aren’t the same people going from a basic search to an advanced search?
Think about it. If I want to find Fords website, I would just go to Google and type ‘ford’. Chances are good that I will find Fords main website. What’s the point of using an advanced search for a basic inquires in which I’m guaranteed to get what I want with just one word, within seconds? I guess it really depends on what I’m looking for, but if it’s something I’m sure I’ll get, I’ll use one word. If I’m having trouble, I can use other Google tactics that include Boolean and advanced searching, quotes and all that…
Like ParentalAdvisory I consider myself to be a pretty sophisitcated googler, but I imagine that most of my searches are one or two words. Why? Because Google is damn good at returning what you want.
Yep, that’s right. I hardly ever look past the first page. If I don’t find it there, that’s when I refine my search criteria.
The article doesn’t seem to distinguish between uninformed users and the power of today’s search engines.
Results 1 - 10 of about 5,660,000,000 for “the”. (0.15 seconds)
That BBC article obviously misses the point. How many search terms does one have to use to find porn? That’s like 90% of searches right there.
What KIND of porn?
I don’t mind plowing through the pages. I’ll go twenty deep sometimes. And I’ve found very interesting and informative sites that way.
Yeah, if you want goat porn, for instance, and you just type “porn,” it’s likely that the goat porn isn’t going to be very high on the list.
On the other hand, knowing the internet, if you just type “goats”, then goat porn will probably be in the first 10 results…
I go as deep as the PDF files start becoming the norm. Tnen I know that it is time to use some different search terms.
The real problems with Google are that it is a popularity contest and that you can almost always find SOMETHING. Google does not distinguish between peer-reviewed journal articles (I assume there are some on the web) and theories spewed by idiots. But, one can almost always find something, so many college students do not have any inclination to look up stuff in a database through their college library. also, if they find an article that way, they might have to look up the actual journal, not just print the electronic full text version. Also, Google often returns so many results that if people can find something which is good enough on the first page, they are no longer interested in looking further. It may be true that many people need to learn how to perform Boolean searches and other techniques. But I’m not sure that teaching people to use Google more effectively is the solution to our* information problems.
- “Our” in this context refers either to the average person or to an information professional (which I will someday be, hopefully). It does not refer to the SDMB, although the sentiment is probably true there as well.
Just point everyone to www.soople.com and they will be search wizards.
Hmmm…so when I am searching for ‘tits’ I should improve my search results by typing in a second or third word? Interesting.
I’ll google “human tits” next time. That oughta cut back on the monkey porn sites that pop up.
Philster, you “search moron”, you have to google “36DD tits”. What? Were you raised by wolves? 
Mercifully, this turns out not to be the case:
It’s a wonderful day when “goat tits 36DD” can be considered a refined search.
Of course not. If he’d been raised by wolves, he’d be searching for “six tits”.