# Best search engine for internet research?



## Gargh

Just wondered if someone has some experience of this? Mostly, the things I want to research aren't that complex and Google has been sufficient. Of late though, I'm getting sick of my results being overly coloured by what other people search for and filtered by what it 'thinks' I want. I have enough people trying to think for me, without these convoluted algorithms stepping in! I'm not very tech savvy but get by well enough as long as the interface is at least 1990s user-friendly, and am old enough to have used boolean operators so, hit me: What do you use and why?


----------



## popsprocket

Google.

Because it's powerful and comprehensive. If it's search algorithms are bothering you then refine your search terms.


----------



## Gargh

popsprocket said:


> Google.
> 
> Because it's powerful and comprehensive. If it's search algorithms are bothering you then refine your search terms.



I've tried refining and altering original search terms, and filtering results, but it just feels like the tool's starting to control me and not the other way round. I'm really looking for something different... if it exists?!


----------



## Elvenswordsman

You don't want anything different, unless you have access to expensive search engines which include journals and such.


----------



## ppsage

You don't say what you are searching -- recipes, ancient texts, car repair, performance personnel, or local idiom. My first search is often through my bookmarks, which I have set for my best results for many needs. How-to and DIY I often start the search in youtube or set Google to video only. Academic type stuff I often start in Wikipedia and follow links -- internal and external. Very technical stuff I log into the public library and use JStor or other of their free databases. I use google through the chrome address bar often to find places I've gone before and have the link history persistence set for something close to infinity, making Google itself a sort of bookmark store.


----------



## Greimour

To get the right answer, you must first ask the right question.

The same is true of search engines. You have to find the right 'search' to lead you to the right path. A search engine will search for the way - but it doesn't travel it for you. That road must be traveled by you. Much like how Sage does it.


Google is my answer too. Sometimes I don't find it on the first search, but I always find it through google if I am persistent in using google to find it.


----------



## escorial

the best search engine is your brain....once you read it...it's up to you to compute dude


----------



## Gargh

_Really? _There's no decent alternative to Google? _Everyone_ uses Google for generic searches? 

ppsage... most of my searches are about common international flora and fauna at the moment. I've been wanting to find something new to use for a while though. I didn't know about JStor... I've not done any significant research since uni, and it was all definitely books back then. Annoyingly, the city libraries in the next county over from me subscribe to it, but mine don't. I'll have to have a look into that.


----------



## Greimour

OK, if it's alternates you want and not opinions of 'the best'.

1. Dogpile.

Dogpile was king before google shown up and is making a comeback, so might be worth checking out.

2. ASK (AKA ASKJeeves)

Efficient and useful.

3. Duck Duck Go.

Some people say Bing is better but seriously, I hate Bing; so I would advise against Bing and prefer duck duck go. Also, Duck Duck Go is one of the only search engines that doesn't follow your activity. Or at least claims not to.

Other engines include Yahoo and Mahalo, but I don't really like any of them. The top 3 after google in my opinion are as listed above.



~Kev.

Edit:

I forgot Clusty ...

Clusty is a deep web engine that doesn't just search the web but searches other search engines too. It is especially good for finding obscure material for things like hobby interests, academic research or otherwise hard to find material. Whether obscure or government or whatever, Clusty is supposed to be designed to find the type of stuff normal search engines overlook or put to the back of the list. Unlike engines that 'guess' what you mean, or bases searches on what other people found - it tries to find the page with information you actually want.

Might be worth trying.


----------



## Gargh

Greimour said:


> OK, if it's alternates you want and not opinions of 'the best'.



I'm interested in both really. I had thought discussion of one might elicit the other!

I'll have a look at those and see if they suit me better, thanks.


----------



## ppsage

> most of my searches are about common international flora and fauna at the moment.


I do a lot of this too! I have some local to Oregon field guide type sites for main goto (book field guides are an important starting place often, they're worth acquiring.) Once I have an idea, Wikipedia to start confirming. It varies considerably depending on the specific species -- again, external links there can be profitable, and the source notes. If I'm going all out, I hit the academic databases. 





> Annoyingly, the city libraries in the next county over from me subscribe to it, but mine don't.


Getting more and more common though. My not very scholastic son lives in the metropolis so I'm him on that system. If you use it enough, annual visitor access to some of the best university libraries in the world, with large online resources, is relatively inexpensive; the ones I've looked into 50 to 150 $ US per year. This is a giant bargain, compared to subscribing to the databases as an individual, which are many times that for single ones. A person might run into some cross-border restrictions on downloading.


----------



## Greimour

Gargh said:


> I'm interested in both really. I had thought discussion of one might elicit the other!
> 
> I'll have a look at those and see if they suit me better, thanks.




Welcome.

To me, what I use and why really depended on 'purpose'. But I haven't used anything other than google for a few years now.


----------



## NerdyMJ

I usually utilize ask.com when Google doesn't cut it. It works pretty good, and if there are no answers to my question, I can always submit a new Ask myself.


----------



## InstituteMan

Gargh said:


> _Really? _There's no decent alternative to Google? _Everyone_ uses Google for generic searches?



I fear the Google machine is the best there is right now. The tiny amount of searches done on other search engines are pretty much only from Google objectors.


----------



## Greimour

InstituteMan said:


> I fear the Google machine is the best there is right now. The tiny amount of searches done on other search engines are pretty much only from Google objectors.



Well, when I was searching for "news: who is the british male who flew to US to face trial for streaming illegal movies" < various other searches included. I couldn't find the article. For the life of me I couldn't remember his name and wanted to know it for a response to another thread. So I went to Dogpile.com and using that very same search, found it at the top of the list.

So others do work. Depends on what you're searching for. Google relies too heavily on 'popular searches' and 'past searches'. It's partly why it is so great, but other times it hinders.


----------



## Morkonan

Gargh said:


> ...Of late though, I'm getting sick of my results being overly coloured by what other people search for and filtered by what it 'thinks' I want. ..



I use Google, for the most part. Sometimes I will use a meta-search engine that searches other search-engines: http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2065867/The-Best-and-Most-Popular-Meta-Search-Engines

I also don't give cookies to Google and don't "log in" to Google/Gmail/Google+ when searching. But, it will also tend to trend results based on my IP address and search habits, regardless. I hate that. I already know what I like and what I have read. I don't need Google to tell me that, since I'm searching for what I DON'T already know... dangit! Stoopid search injuns...


----------



## tabasco5

Google can be frustrating given the limited search abilities you have described, but is a fair to decent starting place.  Oftentimes when I am not getting the search results I'm looking for it is because I can't seem to come up with the right keywords.  But then, even when I juxtapose the words and really dial into what I'm searching for, there are times when I still get the same answers.  In these instances, I typically bounce from site to site searching for the desired information.  If this is unsuccessful, I search forums or, in some cases, scholarly articles available for free via Google Scholar.  If all else fails, I go to the library.

It is ironic that the larger Google gets, the narrower its results become.  But it is simply the profit motive at work.  Google is not a search engine in the true sense of the word -- it is a constantly-evolving information marketplace that is auctioned to the highest bidder.  And it makes sense if you think about it -- selling information is big, big business.  And with all the resources available for those with the money to spend (Adwords, SEO, reputation services), it is easy to mold the Google into the Google you want the public to see.


----------



## Mr. Blue

Another source I use quite consistently is actually Wikipedia. As long as you pay attention to the sources in each article, Wikipedia can really prove useful when trying to gain basic level knowledge of an area. It's also useful because it allows you to explore deeper with the links in each article. While probably not appropriate for academic references in professional work, don't let something so comprehensive fall by the wayside.


----------



## tabasco5

Mr. Blue said:


> Another source I use quite consistently is actually Wikipedia. As long as you pay attention to the sources in each article, Wikipedia can really prove useful when trying to gain basic level knowledge of an area. It's also useful because it allows you to explore deeper with the links in each article. While probably not appropriate for academic references in professional work, don't let something so comprehensive fall by the wayside.



Wikipedia is definitely not as bad as its reputation.  For many projects it is a great starting point, and a resource to quickly learn the basics of the subject.  Also, as you said, the links to articles are helpful in taking the research deeper.


----------



## InstituteMan

tabasco5 said:


> Wikipedia is definitely not as bad as its reputation.  For many projects it is a great starting point, and a resource to quickly learn the basics of the subject.  Also, as you said, the links to articles are helpful in taking the research deeper.



Wikipedia can also provide ideas for search terms to plough back into a search engine. An iterative approach usually gives better results for difficult searches, I have found.


----------



## Gargh

Thanks everyone for your responses: I have some new tracks to follow now and some new ideas to play with!




Morkonan said:


> I already know what I like and what I have read. I don't need Google to tell me that, since I'm searching for what I DON'T already know... dangit! Stoopid search injuns...



I have this recollection of hearing quite a funny poem by someone about a red dress they bought years ago stalking them on the internet... wish I could remember what/who it was. Maybe it's a good thing... these things are rarely as hilarious as the memory of them!


----------



## garza

None of the commonly available search engines are especially useful. Wikipedia is edited by people who live in trailer parks and believe the Earth is flat.

You need access to a top university library, subscriptions to professional and scientific journals, and the ability to tap the resources of international organisations such as those sponsored by the UN. If you are interested in agriculture, as I am, FAO, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN, is an ecellent source. The best research material is not going to show up on any of the search engines mentioned. Good information is not cheap. Be prepared to pay.


----------



## Sam

Dogpile isn't a search engine. It's a tabulated composite of several search engines such as Google, Bing, etcetera. It can only search for things already stored on those, and it's pretty darn useless in comparison.

The best search engine is the Dewey decimal classification in a library.


----------



## garza

But the local library is not likely to subscribe to professional journals or have on hand graduate degree theses or university research papers. Those are the sources you need to stay up to date in any field.


----------



## ppsage

> Wikipedia is edited by people who live in trailer parks and believe the Earth is flat.


An example of really poor research, as if we needed another.


----------



## Xander416

I use Bing. Results are generally most relevant to what I'm searching for compared to other engines.


----------



## garza

Wikipedia typifies the Golden Age of Dumb. 

Pick a topic in science. Something like 'white dwarf stars'. Look it up in Wikipedia. Compare the kind of articles you find there with 'Suppression of cooling by strong magnetic fields in white dwarf stars', a peer-reviewed article signed by 20 recognised and respected scientists and appearing in this week's issue of _Nature_.

The _Nature_ article is demanding for the non-expert (and costs a few bob, but that's beside the point) and requires some effort for full comprehension, effort that is amply rewarded.

Are all the contributors to Wikipedia named and are their academic _bona fides_ listed? Are the articles peer reviewed before publication? Can you trust what is written there, or do you believe all the anonymous editors who've had their hands on the articles would be recognised as authorities on the subject if they were all named?

There are too many good sources of information both on and off the Web to waste time figuring out whether what you read on Wikipedia is fact or fiction. 

As for researching Wikipedia itself, I was there before the wicki application was written, in the days when we all communicated with TI Silent 700 terminals using Hayes 300 baud modems. Some BBS were set up for open editing but we all knew one another and we knew who had knowledge in what areas. Efforts to make Wikipedia respectable have done little to stop the malicious and the ignorant from rewriting articles to suit their own beliefs or to suit the same sort of sick impulse that drives the writers of viruses.


----------



## Sam

garza said:


> But the local library is not likely to subscribe to professional journals or have on hand graduate degree theses or university research papers. Those are the sources you need to stay up to date in any field.



This is true, but not everyone has access to a university library. And, speaking as someone who does, you will still find some suspect papers and journals there as well. 

But, at any rate, any kind of library is better than the Internet.


----------



## Greimour

garza said:


> None of the commonly available search engines are especially useful. Wikipedia is edited by people who live in trailer parks and believe the Earth is flat.
> 
> You need access to a top university library, subscriptions to professional and scientific journals, and the ability to tap the resources of international organisations such as those sponsored by the UN. If you are interested in agriculture, as I am, FAO, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN, is an ecellent source. The best research material is not going to show up on any of the search engines mentioned. Good information is not cheap. Be prepared to pay.



When I was referred to 'specialized doctors' for my sleeping disorder, I was asked a million and one questions by the so called specialist. He was constantly clicking away at his computer based on my responses. He was called out of the room half way through and I peeked at his computer. The dude was looking crap up regarding sleep disorders on Wikipedia o.0



			
				Sam said:
			
		

> Dogpile isn't a search engine. It's a tabulated composite of several  search engines such as Google, Bing, etcetera. It can only search for  things already stored on those, and it's pretty darn useless in  comparison.



Search 10 engines yourself or have one search 10 engines for you. It can be useful. It done the job that google failed to do, that was my point.


I agree that libraries are great. The bigger the better for research. But it largely depends on how much information you want. If you want the entire database, then sure - a library with 100 books on the subject is awesome. But if you just want enough research to have basic understanding or make a fictional piece believable (various other limited info needs) ... then the internet is often faster. It's just a question of where you get your information and how much of it you want.

Sometimes, all the info you want is covered in a page or two. But in a library you first have to find the right book and then the right page(s). I've done both... the internet will meet my needs more often than it doesn't. I am a fan of the library but I am also a fan of speed. 

Quality and Quantity of Info vs Necessary/Needed information.


----------



## ppsage

> Pick a topic in science. Something like 'white dwarf stars'. Look it up in Wikipedia.


Perfect example! Judge for yourself. Check out the citations. Look at the discussion page.


> Efforts to make Wikipedia respectable have done little to stop the malicious and the ignorant from rewriting articles to suit their own beliefs or to suit the same sort of sick impulse that drives the writers of viruses.


Simply not true. Look at the discussion page for the ebola article. There are of course limitations to the utility of any encyclopedia, hence the need to pay attention to citations, but very often an encyclopedia is adequate and Wikipedia is by far the best encyclopedia ever compiled. Something for humans to be proud of, actually, however much it threatens the officially credentialed.


----------



## garza

There's a reason why the officially credentialed _are_ the officially credentialed. They know what they are talking about. 

I looked at the article on white dwarfs in Wikipedia. It's a decent basic introduction to the subject, _provided that_ all the citations check out and all the information proves to be correct. To establish that I would have to chase down every citation, check its credentials, and compare the information in the Wikipedia article with other sources to confirm or deny their accuracy. I'd rather rely on a peer reviewed reliable source from the beginning. 

For the best information on Ebola you need to consult _Nature Medicine_ where you will find over 200 articles, eight published since September. 

Besides Nature I subscribe to several other journals. Subscription ensures I receive the current issues and access to the publications' archives. The cost/benefit ratio is very much in my favour. Over the past 20 years I have sold several articles a month to NGOs and government agencies. When I cite one of the professional journals as the source of my information no one doubts its accuracy. And because I am known to the people who run these organisations,  they know where to find me if they have any questions relating to any article I write..

Writing has been my living from my teens. I cannot risk my reputation by relying on sources that may or may not be reliable. No writer should take that risk.


----------



## Terry D

garza said:


> None of the commonly available search engines are especially useful. Wikipedia is edited by people who live in trailer parks and believe the Earth is flat.
> 
> You need access to a top university library, subscriptions to professional and scientific journals, and the ability to tap the resources of international organisations such as those sponsored by the UN. If you are interested in agriculture, as I am, FAO, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN, is an ecellent source. The best research material is not going to show up on any of the search engines mentioned. Good information is not cheap. Be prepared to pay.



Having spent a number of years of my youth living in a trailer park (and not being the idiot you imply) your first statement is obviously offensive BS.

As for the rest; No, most writers don't need access to all that stuff. The OP sure didn't make me think he needed that level of detail. Being aware of the limitations of search engines, and being willing to 'deep dive' for the required info is more of a requirement than access.


----------



## ppsage

When there is a need for it, by all means rely on the best sources. Certainly, if a _reputation_ is a stake. Hence my original advice in a thread about research. Certainly go to the libraries. Certainly find the databases and journals. As I advised. However, this is beyond the needs and abilities of the great majority, on most topics. Outside of this sort of research, in the vast majority of ordinary cases, even those of WF writers, the choice will not be between Wikipedia and research libraries or science journals, it will be between Wikipedia and commercial television and what passes for news dissemination. It will be between Wikipedia and sensationalist internet aggregators. Unwarranted deprecation of Wikipedia as a source of encyclopedic information becomes a great disservice to the quality of general knowledge. Its articles on white dwarfs and ebola are a huge improvement over the _information _offered everyday and incessantly by such so-called journalists. No one with an interest in the general welfare of society should be disputing this, in my opinion. Especially without careful investigation. Here is a fairly well written and credentialed article taking an interesting perspective on Wikipedia as a social institution, compared to science publication. Wikipedia of course has problems and limitations, and it doesn't purport to be anything except an encyclopedia, but as far as I'm concerned, it does nothing to deserve the heinous and undifferentiated insult heaped on it, and should in fact be supported, encouraged and judiciously critiqued instead.


----------



## InstituteMan

I am reminded of the old adage not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I am also reminded that we aspire to discuss but not debate around here.


----------



## garza

Terry D - My apologies for offending you with my trailer park statement, but consider that it was a logical AND statement, not an OR statement. Thus the belief in a flat Earth can be taken as the ruling element that implies idiocy, not the place of residence.

Should not all writers aspire to refine their craft to the highest level possible? To do so implies finding the best possible sources of information when researching for a story, whether it's a bit of flash fiction or a scholarly article that may influence Government policy.

ppsage - When compared to a source such as commercial television, certainly anything is better, including Wikipedia. But very little effort is required to reach to a higher level. Even online there are better sources that require only a little effort to find. 

InstituteMan - Perfection is never achievable, but I was taught as a child that one is obligated always to reach for that which is better.


----------



## InstituteMan

garza said:


> InstituteMan - Perfection is never achievable, but I was taught as a child that one is obligated always to reach for that which is better.



Well said, garza. 

I think that we all have to reach for our own better, to be sure. My personal preferred approach for learning about something utterly new to me is to google the ever-loving daylights out of it, then hit Wikipedia, then google some more with my knowledge enhanced by what Wikipedia told me, and then use that basic knowledge to go to the more serious professional sources if I need a higher level of confidence in my information. 

Often a quick googling is sufficient for what I am doing. For example, just today I was on a conference call with a variety of engineers in different fields (with me in yet another different field). The jargon and acronyms were flying fast and furious. I kept typing into a google search box as we went, and I kept getting a near real-time translation of what the others were saying. The context of the conversation let me know which of the google results were the correct. It was mostly just a matter of knowing what the acronyms stood for anyway so that I could relate it back to something that I do know. My reputation depends upon a basic knowledge of what was said, but not anything involving the details, just as my colleagues' reputations depend upon their part of the project instead of my part of the project. If I really absolutely positively have to know, though, there's still nothing better than an actual peer reviewed journal or source material or first hand knowledge.


----------



## garza

My searches always begin with the journals to which I have subscriptions, then move on to the resources available at the two university libraries to which I have online access - one in the US and one in the UK. My mail inbox provides much current information in newsletters from different organisations - academic, governmental, and NGO. Personal interviews are used to round out the picture.


----------



## InstituteMan

garza said:


> My searches always begin with the journals to which I have subscriptions, then move on to the resources available at the two university libraries to which I have online access - one in the US and one in the UK. My mail inbox provides much current information in newsletters from different organisations - academic, governmental, and NGO. Personal interviews are used to round out the picture.



The problem with the gold standard search, IMHO, is that sometimes the plastic standard is all you need, at least to get started. If google and wikipedia reveals that you are probably utterly crazy in hypothesizing that peppercorns are actually black holes, there's not really any need to go to the University Library. On the other hand, if you truly believe that peppercorns are black holes, I don't think there's much factual information that will dissuade you from that belief; it's a bad example, but the point is sometimes the answer can be dealt with using simple and inexpensive resources. The gold standard is still the gold standard for a reason, though, and when it counts that is what I want to use.

For original search engine issues, though, if I am researching at that level I still stick with google, then on to wikipedia. If I am not getting what I need from google I might try Bing and some of the others. I have also used Amazon to identify potential books to start with at the library.


----------



## garza

The articles and papers I continue to be paid to write* do not deal with theoretical questions such as the one you pose but rather on very concrete issues such as the value of diversification and integrated farming systems in attaining a high level of sustainable agriculture in small developing nations, the relative proven value of different approaches to IT education, what effect the reduction of European Union support for Belize' sugar industry will have on the economies of the Orange Walk and Corozal Districts, and how to counter continued demands by the Belize National Teachers' Union for higher wages in the face of declining enrollment and continued poor performance by students in language arts, maths, and science. 

The few times I've tried to use Google I've gotten five million answers in 3.2 seconds, none of which had anything to do with what I needed. The journals and library fees cost a bit, but the results are worth the money spent.

*I 'retired' in 1995 when I moved to Belize, again in 2002 when I  had a stroke, and again in 2009 when I quit everything including writing a daily radio  commentary. Somehow there always seems to be someone waving dollars and saying they need something written.


----------



## Pluralized

Specificity plays a large part in the value of search results. And the value of different search engines. If you learn the various codes to use with Google (using a minus sign to omit results you don't want, using the AND function, etc.), you can really dial in the effectiveness. I'm no scholar, but have been able to satisfactorily resolve every technical conundrum I've encountered through the careful use of its excellent specificity-enhancing commands.

*Here's* a great resource for what I'm referring to. Good luck in your query-ing.


----------



## garza

Just for shiggles I decided to give it a try. I googled for 'advantages of integrated farming systems in developing countries' and got a list of some interesting articles, including one I wrote for an NGO about three years ago. Altogether better results than I expected.


----------



## tabasco5

I generally assume that when most writers refer to research they are looking for something along the lines of "Do horses eat hay?" vs. "Do short-distance thoroughbred race horses that eat a manufactured winter diet composed of genetically modified grain products have a greater tendency to develop serum tumor necrosis in later life?"  For this reason, wikipedia and similar non-academic sources prove sufficient.


----------



## pointystar

If you want pure, unadulterated, Google search results, open up incognito browser on Google chrome. Incognito makes your computer seem like it reset and won't factor past searches. I think Firefox has this feature too, private browsing or something.


----------



## Morkonan

tabasco5 said:


> I generally assume that when most writers refer to research they are looking for something along the lines of "Do horses eat hay?" vs. "Do short-distance thoroughbred race horses that eat a manufactured winter diet composed of genetically modified grain products have a greater tendency to develop serum tumor necrosis in later life?"  For this reason, wikipedia and similar non-academic sources prove sufficient.



I'm positive that some of my writing-related searches would set off "alarm bells" with any secretive government agency spying on my online habits...  I don't Google for "Do horses eat hay." I Google for scary-sounding stuff, if it was taken out of context. I wonder if certain mystery or crime writers ever get noticed by anyone.

"Hey, someone is searching for "killing babies with a sledgehammer", "aliens are controlling my brain" and "top terrorist donation sites in the world!"
"Oh, don't worry. That's just that one writer guy. Thought I had him filtered out... "


----------



## Terry D

Morkonan said:


> I'm positive that some of my writing-related searches would set off "alarm bells" with any secretive government agency spying on my online habits...  I don't Google for "Do horses eat hay." I Google for scary-sounding stuff, if it was taken out of context. I wonder if certain mystery or crime writers ever get noticed by anyone.
> 
> "Hey, someone is searching for "killing babies with a sledgehammer", "aliens are controlling my brain" and "top terrorist donation sites in the world!"
> "Oh, don't worry. That's just that one writer guy. Thought I had him filtered out... "



I thought about that while writing Chase. My searches were for things like 'dog fighting, training', 'manufacture of marijuana', 'assault weapons', and the like. No knocks at the door so far.


----------



## mrsT-rious

In the this day in age Google is very useful for all types of searches and information.


----------



## SamLeitner

*Getting the Full Story from the Web*

I understand your question but the answer is not simple. First, understand the internet exists to make money - not for your research. Furthermore, what you are permitted to view on the internet, in the United States, is heavily censored. At least three major internet companies are heavily tied to US Governments facilities - Google, Microsoft, and Adobe. If you would like to see better results on searches then block all communications with Adobe, Google-Analytics, etc. You cannot block Microsoft because they wrote a direct path to your Ethernet card skipping ANY firewall you have in place.

There is a way around this these problems for a small price. Several companies offer web proxy service where you can connect to the web through proxy sites located around the globe. Locate yourself in Germany or other European countries and you will see search results without censorship and without targeted advertising. When you use Google from somewhere else the results are vastly different and more informative. In many cases I obtained information from the web that was blocked in the US. Writing an international thriller has become very difficult with much of technical history blocked from view.


----------

