Wikipedia talk:Search engine test

Guideline?

I think this article should become a guideline. everyone already uses it, so should i put up the tag? Vulcanstar6 01:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

No, not everyone uses it. Many see grave problems with the test, and there's much debate on its use. It's not really suited to being a guideline. It's just a page of information. -Rob 02:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

vandal

68.154.104.124 wrote: First of all I would like to know the purpose of this web page. It seems a little foolish that anyone can type anything that they want to see here! You know what that can lead to...don't you??? No? Ok so what are you waiting for? Go ahead.Try your hand...

Useful contributions OUTWEIGH vandalism by 50:1, so it's worth it. -- Karada 22:54, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

discussion of this, like any other page should be open. Waveguy

See wikipedia:replies to common objections

Alexa

I added Alexa - thinking in terms of a general "external utilities" page. Martin 11:33, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

After retrieving the results from Alexa, how does one analyse how that subject has performed on Alexa? --Daniel C. Boyer 14:42, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I like the Alexa part, but not in the "fails the Alexa test" way. The Google test is enough imo. BL 18:00, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Alexa is a useful utility for determining the popularity of a website, but I don't think that popularity is a criterion that we should use in deciding whether or not to have an article on something. Articles are built up from verifiable information. Therefore, the decision on whether or not to have an article on a subject should be based on the amount of verifiable information there is about that subject. If a website is popular but nobody writes about it, we probably shouldn't have an article on it, because there are no independent sources to draw on for information. Conversely, if a site is unpopular but a lot is written about it, of course we should have an article on it. I expect there must be a high correlation between the popularity of a website and the amount of verifiable information on it, but that's just a statistical generality. An Alexa ranking does not in itself tell us a thing about the amount of writing about a website in individual cases. So I don't think we should use it. The Google test will give a much better indication of the amount of verifiable information, because it is itself a search for information. So I don't think we should use the Alexa test as a substitute. (Or, in summary: I agree with BL.) -- Oliver P. 03:58, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Alexa has been retired as of May 1, 2022. So? Greenlio (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

BuddhaInside-ism

BuddhaInside keeps adding "a quick check that an individual fact, within an accepted subject, passes the criteria of requiring 1000 google hits to avoid deletion."

This is not true and should not be added to the page or people will start deleting every fact that does get 1000 hits. Angela 05:44, Sep 23, 2003 (UTC)

Did you miss the discussion at Talk:List of nicknames for George W. Bush? That is exactly what Cyan is now doing. -BuddhaInside

Having a more stringent rule on a controversial page is different from adding the rule here and trying to apply it to everything. If no-one is objecting on that page, then Cyan can do that, but I am objecting to it being applied more widely than that. Angela 05:52, Sep 23, 2003 (UTC)

If should be enforced across all pages equally, or not at all. -BuddhaInside

Not if there is a consensus (my definition, not yours) on one particular page to adhere to the rule. There are lots of rules that do not apply to all articles. Angela

---

As one who edits here without looking behind the curtain too often, perhaps someone could elucidate the origin of these tests. Who first suggested the Google test? (I'm simply trying to better understand the nature of the wiki and how these practices evolve, not questioning the practice itself.) On a related topic, why is this article on the Wikipedia rather than the meta? (I still don't fully understand the relationship, sorry!) -- A Profoundly Perplexed Paige

I can't answer the first part, but it's on Wikipedia rather than Meta because it relates directly to editing as it's sort of a tool for checking whether a page should exist. My personal understanding of it is that pages that are for editing are here whereas pages that are about editing are on Meta. Someone else could probably explain that better though. Angela 22:12, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

belatedly moved from VfD (sorry, Fridge):

• Wikipedia - relatively minor website, fails Wikipedia:Alexa test. Fridge 20:24, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • NB. Meant to be a comment about Alexa Test not Wikipedia! Fridge 20:25, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Firstly, Wikipedia passes the Alexa test easily. Secondly, the article is about the project Wikipedia, not the website Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not just a website. Angela 20:41, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Alexa test says things about sites being in the top 100 and sites in the top 1000 (and also top 100,000). Wikipedia is not in top 1,000 (though might soon). OK Wikipedia is not just a site... but then most websites are not just sites: they are companies and people and projects :just like wikipedia is a project. Anyhow I wanted to say that some sites higher in Alexa wouldn't be in Wikipedia (like porn sites) but others lower than Wikipedia might be so Alexa is not a good test. Fridge 20:47, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • If you want to discuss the policy - go to the talk page of that policy. Trying to prove a point by listing things here really isn't a good idea. Angela 20:52, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

end of moved text

Please note, the policy says:

• we should have articles on important websites, important being defined as Alexa-ranked higher than some threshold (100 or 1,000)
• we should not have articles on unimportant websites, unimportant being defined as Alexa-ranked lower than 100,000
• nothing at all about articles on websites in the fuzzy zone between important and unimportant

-- Cyan 00:56, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The Google Test

Are there any guidelines as to how many Google hits a topic needs to pass? I just added a page on Mary Devenport O'Neill who gets 4 hits, two on Wikipedia, but I think she is important enough to merit inclusion. By the way, she died when I was a child, I never met her, and I'm not related to her, but she played an important bit part in the history of 20th century Irish poetry, my main field of interest. Bmills 17:02, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think the Google test is simply one of many heuristics use to determine if an article belongs on Wikipedia. Nor is Google the ultimate reference; it will skew to the popular and the general. Your entry seems a fine addition to Wikipedia. orthogonal 17:15, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I just started Balaenoptera omurai, which has 0 Google hits (take it as read that I am only VERY distantly related to this whale species) There are no hard and fast rules to the Google Test, and some contributors actively dislike it as a guideline because of its limitations particularly with matters of history. Pete 17:16, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Google hits just a guide. If you are knowledgeable in the field and say she is important, that should be good enough. Clearly not a vanity page, which is the biggest problem here with the obscure biographies (autobiographies). Also yours is well written (does not go into her pets' names, lifetime moves, childhood friends, etc.) explaining why she is significant. -- Marshman 17:18, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I only asked because the Google test is quoted so often on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. As a relative newcomer, I'm still feeling my way around these things. Bmills 17:23, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Re Balaenoptera omurai:

I have checked in Copernic Agent. There are 14 results:

One each in National Geographic and Nature

One Japanese, one Polish, one Czech, one Argentinian, one Norwegian

Seven German results
Dieter Simon 01:15, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

That's not surprising - the news about that whale species did just came out yesterday, so we are very fast to include an article on that. Right now google has 56 unique hits for that one, and the number will probably increase more. andy 12:41, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It's only one guideline. It is perhaps most useful (but not limited to this use) for contemporary topics and for evaluating vanity pages. Daniel Quinlan 01:42, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)

Yes. It does tend to get overused IMO. We don't want Wikipedia to reflect the bias already shown on the WWW, especially since a similar bias is probably produced by the demography of our editors as a population. But, both finding print media to cite, and verifying them when cited, are a lot more work than just typing a query into Google. Andrewa 03:23, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Agreed, Andrewa. My perspective is probably skewed by the fact that I've been making contributions around writers and writing and in almost all cases with those writers' books to hand. I also try to add external links to provide as much verification as possible, but sometimes this is difficult as with Mary Devenport O'Neill. And sometimes the information on the Web is wrong, or slanted. Bmills 12:05, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Wikpedia should be the means of getting lives on the web for which no other pages exist. If Google does not note it, thats all the more reason for putting it on Wikipedia! This is not a measure of their lack of importance, but more of the intersts of people who post web pages. As to who ought be noted, the index volume for the 1911 Britannica (not alas, included in the online edition), has biographies classified by subject, so the names of all the painters, all the engineers, etc, are in one place. The original Dictionary of National Biography is out of copyright now, but not on line. There are in-copyright biographical dictionaries which can form the basis for wikibiogrpahies to be written with just a little work Apwoolrich 13:27, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agree with the previous: 'Google testing' gives special privilege to certain subjects. It is an invalid method for determining the content of an encyclopedia. Think about it the other way round: if a subject has millions of WWW search hits does the world really need another page about it? Adambisset 14:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Asymmetry

One aspect of Google that is IMO poorly understood on VfD in particular is that the test is far more useful for supporting a keep vote than for supporting a delete.

From Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Professor Felina Ivy:

• Keep. Well-written article on a subject of great interest to a substantial number of people. Another demonstration that the 'Google test' may be great at providing evidence for a keep vote, but it is absolutely useless as substantiation for a delete vote. The reason is simple: Many encyclopedic subjects are not well-represented on the web. And while it's easy to check when Google gives a false positive by providing unrelated hits, there is no easy way of checking these false negatives. Andrewa 23:47, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Are you trying to tell me that the google test is flawed here because Pokemon characters are not well represented on the web? A search for "pokemon" and "character" gets 533 thousand hits. If this was a significant character, surely she'd get more than 38. Delete, or failing that Merge. DaveTheRed 01:10, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Nope, I'm trying to tell you that this character may not be well represented, but that's not why I claim the Google test has limits, nor do I claim that the Google test is flawed. It's just misapplied. No change of vote. Andrewa 01:20, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I think the google test can be misused both ways, depending on the subject. The subject matter is key, and is often overlooked by those who think it's all in the numbers. It's easy for many unencyclopedic things to get a substantial number of google hits, through self promotion, having names in common, as well as various things that exist only on the internet, hence displaying all references to a subject, rather than what is generally thought to be a mere sample from which one can extrapolate. Likewise many subjects are not well represented on the internet, mostly things that predated the internet and have not seen widespread discussion since its advent. Holding, say, minor historic figues of antiquity to the same significant google results as, say, porn stars, is ridiculous. The google test has its limits. Severe ones. And one must keep in mind not only the number of hits, but what the hits actually are. I've come across many pages that had no apparent mention of the subject I was searching for, and this must be taken into account. I will say this, however: something that turns up 0 google hits is very unlikely to be notable enough for an encyclopedia, and, is somewhat unlikely to exist. Of course, they may be exceptions to this too. My point is false positives and false negatives are both common, and anyone who thinks any Pokemon character is underrepresented on the web is delusional. My vote is below. -R. fiend 04:58, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Much of what is said here should IMO be incorporated into the Wikipedia:Google test writeup, but I think a little more discussion should happen first, and here is probably the place to do it. Andrewa 20:52, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• In my opinion there should be some sort of loose stated hierarchy of how many hits is significant for a subject. Something along these lines, starting with subjects that would require the highest number of google hits to be deemed a significant result:
  1. Porn stars. Any attarctive woman willing to show off her (usually large) breasts can easily surpass most nobel prize winners in google hits. This does not in itself make them notable. There are thousands and thousands of people in the porn industry, and while quite a few are notable, Jenna Jameson is the exception more than the rule.
  2. Internet phenomena. Usually the results of a google search indicate only a small fraction of the number of times a subject has been mentioned in print, conversation, over the airwaves, etc. Then there are those things that exist almost only on the internet. Googling Winston Churchill gets me just under 2,000,000 google hits, which is still only a fraction of the times he has been mentioned in some form. Now googling slashdot gets me nearly 9,000,000. Is slashdot 4 times more significant and encyclopedic than Churchill? Clearly not. The slashdot hits basically represent slashdot in its entirety. Clearly both are encyclopedic, but it's easy to see how the google test favors slashdot.
  3. Figures in entertainment. Through promotion, and the fact that rather frivilous things such as movie stars get more than their share of mention on the internet, entertainemnt figures are overrepresented. The "information superhighway" is as much an "entertainment superhighway". Of course, many of these figures are discussed inordinately outside of the internet as well. And since fame generally means notability in some form, the google test here is only slightly favors this category.
  4. Subjects that have been existent/active in the internet's heyday and Famous people who are alive/were alive at that time. This is many subjects, and what many people have in mind when doing the google test. Things to keep in mind are, for example, someone who served in the US House of Representatives from 1997-2001 will likely have more google hits than a comparable person who served from 1957-1961. This does not make the first person more notable, it's just that he was alive during the internet age.
  5. Converse of the above. In this category we have our second congressman. Another example is Gaius Gracchus, who gets less than 7,000 hits, and Dennis Kucinich, who gets 354,000.
  6. Obscure/esoteric subjects of an encyclopedic nature. Open any encyclopedia and it shouldn't take you long to find something/someone you've never heard of. Some of these will yield few google hits. Various technical/scientific subjects fall into this category. The bar is lower for these things because they aren't necessarily discussed in the mainstream. Of course, everything scientific is by no means encyclopedic, but one must not dismiss them because they don't have as many google hits as that guy who played "Man in Elevator" in that movie about the college kids on a panty raid, and his article was deleted.
• This being said, anything that results in no google hits at all is very unlikely to be encyclopedic. If it exists, it's likely mentioned somewhere on the internet, but even that is not always true. None of this is ever meant to be set in stone, just as the google test itself should not be. But it should give some food for thought to those people who take the flat view that 3,000 hits passes the test but 400 fails, or whatever. It is much more complex than that. -R. fiend 22:26, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Website redirections

The Alexa section points out that articles on certain websites should be linked to the corresponding entity behind it. But this makes no sense to me intuitively; the article on Microsoft has very little to do with microsoft.com, per se. What if the person looking it up wanted to know when the website was created, the design changes it's gone through, the extent of its resources, possible domain name conflicts, etc? The Microsoft article is certainly relevent, and should be linked, but a company is not equivalent to their website.

Derrick Coetzee 15:32, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Google Scholar

This was copied a couple of times; it was originally on the Village Pump. Maurreen 08:04, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Google Scholar at http://scholar.google.com/ looks like an interesting new tool for research into scientific publications on the Internet. It is described as " Google Scholar enables you to search specifically for scholarly literature, including peer-reviewed papers, theses, books, preprints, abstracts and technical reports from all broad areas of research." At first glance, this seems to be far more helpful for finding relevant refences than other search engines. Please try out, and please give feed back. Should Scholar be recommended in our How-to pages? Kosebamse 15:21, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

<end of copied content>

Yes, I think it should be recommended. :-) –– Constafrequent ^{(talk page)} 06:27, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Google test Template?

Does this exist?

If it did, what would it do? --Smack (talk) 05:11, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Another kind of Google test

I often use Google to determine the most common form of a word, e.g. 'canoe touring' vs. 'canoe camping'. Shouldn't this be listed? --Smack (talk) 15:58, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Whether this is a good idea is somewhat arguable, but no more arguable than the Google Test as stated now. Please be bold. Deco 07:15, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I dunno if this matters, but this concept is commonly known as a "Googlefight", popularized by the website googlefight.com. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 02:50, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

POV tool

The "Google test" is not being used as any sort of test at all. I would strongly suggest reducing this to something along the lines of a "Google researching" how-to article for newcomers to Wikipedia who want to learn how to detect copyright violations and then merging it to the appropriate location.

In no way whatsoever has this this "test" ever been evenly applied, even when comparing two articles within the exact same genre or category (or sub-sub-category). To describe it as such is false and misleading. --GRider\^talk 21:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Google test is a useful tool. It is not perfect, nor is it the only measure of notability. But as long as we recognize its inherrant biases, I see no reason why it can not be used effectively. Your recent edits to this article have tipped it strongly into POV territory. For instance, it is certainly not necessary to list every single instance of where you think the test has been used unfairly. DaveTheRed 22:03, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Censorship does not qualify as making something form a neutral point of view. Bastardization of the English language also does not equate with NPOV'ing. Be advised. --GRider\^talk 22:20, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Censorship? How is removing a POV section of an article censorship??? Censorship implies that I am trying to keep the public from knowing that there is a bias to the Google test. This is emphatically not true. I do maintain that your list is POV. It is a list of articles that you happen to think shows the google test to be invalid. The list is inherrantly POV because its inclusion criteria is subjective. I will not revert just now, because I have no desire to enter a revert war. And for the record, your comment about bastardizing the English language is way out from left field. DaveTheRed 22:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, calling this a "test" is left field. Raising a red flag is not. --GRider\^talk 23:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How can you argue that it's not a test? You can argue that its a biased test, or a frequently misapplied test, but that doesn't make it any less of a test.

To get back to my previous point, I have made the assertion that your list of articles where the google test fails is inherrently POV. If you wish to keep it, please list any reasons you think it is not, and should stay. DaveTheRed 01:03, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with Dave on that point. It would be more useful to make some statistics, i.e. what is a 'substantial amount' of googles for a band? And for a company? And for a website? Radiant! 18:42, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, I'm kinda against giving statistics, because the google test is so imprecise. How many hits it takes to be notable is in many ways a subjective measure, and one that should be made on a case by case basis. Who's to say that a band that gets 1000 hits is notable, but one who gets 999 isn't? I think we need to stress that failing the google test is not proof that something is not notable, rather it is only circumstantial evidence against it. DaveTheRed 00:07, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The fact that you are so vehemently against providing statstics on how many Google hits are needed in order illustrate notability of a subject only further proves the inherent subjective flaws of the so-called "Google test". The Google test is not a test, there is no way to reproduce the same results time after time on VfD because it is not evenly or fairly used based upon the subject. In fact, if you applied this so-called test on the same exact subject one week and then tried it again 6 weeks later you would very likely have a different outcome. This is not a test if the answers are different every time. --GRider\^talk 18:14, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since you have not defended the inclusion of your list, I have removed it again. Before you revert, please give a good reason why the list is not inherrently POV and should stay. DaveTheRed 02:57, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• They've been reinserted. Citing direct examples of how the Google test fails is what helps makes this article closer to a neutral point of view. By not allowing in such evidence you are the one guilty of imposing a pro-Google test POV. --GRider\^talk 18:10, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"This is not a test if the answers are different every time."

I must respectfully disagree with your assesment there. That just means its a test that's used in a subjective manner. Perhaps it would help to quote webster:

TEST 1. the procedure of submitting a statement to such conditions or operations as will lead to its proof or disproof or to its acceptance or rejection

Notice that this defintion states nothing about reproducible results. The google test submits a statement (I think X is not notable) to an operation (googling) that will lead to its acceptance or rejection. How is this not a test?

Now, as for your list, It is is a list of instances that Grider thinks invalidate the google test. Tell me how that is NPOV. I don't think any of them invalidate the google test. Some of them demonstrate its biases, but none of them invalidate it completely. The list as is comes off as a petulant attempt to get in the last word on your nominations that failed. Please give me a good reason why they should be kept. DaveTheRed 19:33, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Foreign languages and non-Latin scripts

I think the following needs to be pointed out on this page: Claims for the non-notability of a topic is occasionally made based on few Google hits, where the claim is actually false because a considerably larger number of hits may be found if searching in the correct script or for various transcriptions. An Arabic name, for instance, needs to be searched for in the original script, which is easily done with Google, provided one knows what to search for, but one also has to take into account that e.g. English, French and German webpages will likely transcribe the name using different conventions.

In addition, different forms of a name used in the original language has to be searched for. A Russian personal name has to be searched for both including and excluding the patronymic, and any search for names and other words in strongly inflected languages should take into account that arriving at the total number of hits may require searching for forms with varying case-endings or other grammatical variations not obvious for someone who does not know the language.

Doing a search like this requires a certain linguistic competence which not every individual wikipedian possesses, but the Wikipedia community as a whole include many bilingual and multilingual people and it is important for nominators and voters on VfD at least to be aware of one's own limitations and not state conclusively a small number of Google hits for, say, a Serbian poet without pointing out the limited validity of a preliminary search using only one particular transcribed form of the name. / up◦land 08:11, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree whole-heartedly. A section like that would be very useful. Feel free to be bold and implement that change. DaveTheRed 08:25, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am waiting to see if there are any objections or suggestions as to the wording of the section, better examples etc. / up◦land 15:32, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

no objection, I support the idea Tobias Conradi 05:37, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Vfd link

This article was proposed for deletion in March 2005. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Google test Joyous 19:27, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

A humorous aside

As of today:

• "Google test": 9.810 hits [1], fourth hit is Wikipedia:Google test
• "Alexa test": 309 hits [2]

cesarb 00:26, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Disputed?

For what it's worth, after looking over this article carefully I don't believe it exhibits any particular POV problem, unless I overlooked something. Everything it says seems sensible and neutral. If this has been resolved would someone remove the tag? Deco 00:30, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bkonrad has removed the disputed list, so I am currently happy with the article in its current form. I would accept the removal of the neutrality tag. DaveTheRed 05:23, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No other opinions; tag removed. Complain in my talk page if required. -- Kizor 21:43, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Quote from Jimbo

I think the Google test is often helpful, but should be used with judgment. I see no way to ban people from doing it, do you? It's useful information which ought to inform our judgment, although of course in many cases there can be reasons to override or ignore it. I trust people to make the right decisions thoughtfully, using the Google test as one element among many.--Jimbo Wales 01:01, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Despite the signature, the note above was actually left by User:GRider. I'm not sure what his point is since it is opposed to his remarks above; it would be nice to see what context it was quoted from. Radiant_* 20:25, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • The context is [3] and [4]. --cesarb 01:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Infotiger test

Why do we use the google test instead of the Infotiger test? Isn't it ultimately all just arbitrary? I have created several websites that did not show up on Google. Just because they crawl Wikipedia doesn't mean they crawl everything. The vast majority of the Internet's content will not show up in Google results, in fact. And not everything notable is on the Internet. The phrase "Failed the google test" is a pathetic reason to vote Delete, because, for instance, one school could hire a search engine optimization consultant, spam message boards, etc. and beat out another, more low-tech school (e.g. in Amish country) on the Google test. Are we going to say Delete on the hypothetical Amish Preparatory School for Learners just because Google can't find it? And in any case, is it a good idea to base deletion of someone's hard work on the output of one corporation's software? 205.217.105.2 17:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We use google because it is a popular search engine. If you decide to vote at the vfd board, you are more than welcome to use yahoo or infotiger or any search engine you please. It is best to keep in mind that the Google test is not the only test of notability. If something fails the google test, that is only circumstantial evidence that it is not-notable, not an iron reason to delete. Everytime something passes the google test, it is necessary to check to see if it looks like the subject in question has been spamming google. It is true that the entire internet is not represented on google. But most of the notable parts are. The google test works on the assumtion that if a subject is notable, then someone somewhere will have mentioned it on a website that google links to. Dave the Red (talk) 18:17, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Status dispute

The status of this page as a Wikipedia guideline is disputed by BlankVerse on Wikipedia talk:Semi-policy. I have reclassified it as a proposed policy for this reason.

If you think this page should be classified as a guideline, now would be a good time to speak up. If we have consensus, it can and should be reclassified. -- Beland 02:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• My opinion: I find this page to be mostly a "how-to" piece, more "help" or "advice" than weak or strong policy of any kind. If there is any policy content, it's something like, "The Google Test is to be used as a rough guide, and is not a substitute for human judgement and discussion." The rest is all FYI or perhaps a long-winded reasoning. I could see this page being classified as a "how-to" or "help" and leaving it at that. (The Wikipedia style and how-to categories do need some tidying up, by the way.) I would not object to it being classified as a "guideline" instead, though it would be nice if the "policy" aspect were clearly stated, perhaps as suggested above. -- Beland 02:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Concur with Beland. We could classify it as a 'deletion tool' as well, maybe that would be acceptable? It's presently listed as 'proposed', btw, that doesn't quite feel right. Radiant_* 06:58, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• This page definately should not be tagged with either a Policy or Guideline tag unless there can be shown significant Wikipedia:consensus for its use. I would support classifying it as a "how-to" or "help" page, but even then, it desperately needs to be rewritten (I've had the page on my watch list because it's on my to-do list). BlankVerse ∅ 08:08, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Since it isn't 'proposed policy' per the previous tag, I've marked it as a how-to document. I hope there are no objections, and I'm looking forward to your rewrite and improvement of it. Radiant_* 08:12, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• No one on Wikipedia (not even this page) thinks that the Google Test is always valid, but it's part of our jargon and culture, often referenced as a piece of evidence, and is definitely something new Wikipedians should be able to learn about. I'm not sure if it was ever intended to be a policy of any sort. I would say the Google Test is a tool, rather than a requirement or recommendation (it is certainly not "proposed" - we are not extending the idea that articles should pass the test.) Deco 08:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Also: My personal opinion is that is should NOT be listed as a "Deletion tool" since it is so often misused at WP:VFD. BlankVerse ∅ 08:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• How-to is a good choice for this one. I wouldn't call it specifically deletion tool, or anything. It's commonly useful, but I don't think we want to overemphasize its usefulness for any particular purpose in the heading. Zocky 09:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, I agree. No deletion tool, just a how-to. Sounds good to me. Radiant_* 07:57, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Google Test?

These tests prove nothing It also seems to endorse only one serch engine serch results are most often inconcluseive "If it isn't on google it must not exist" but it does exist use more to back up your claim rather than a random serch engine reserch the topic more

yahoo is a better serch engine in my opinion Dudtz 7/23/05 4:00 PM EST

Google is more of an authority than Yahoo, partly because it doesn't take payment for inclusion in its index. Most SE's do let webmasters include their sites (without being marked as advertisements) in their regular results, and "hitcounts". If you have the money, you can get *any* person, artist, business, product, or whatever you wish, on Yahoo Search in a few days; with the content refreshed frequently. Of course, Google can be spammed, but they don't personally profit from it. --rob 19:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

systemic bias

Google is useless for certain contexts because of the inbuilt pro-American usage bias of the Internet, and indeed the cataloguing system of Google itself. For example - In Britain and much of the rest of the world the light shiny metal is spelt aluminium (pronounced "alu min ee um") and not aluminum (pronounced "alu min um"). Absolutely no-one whatsoever in the UK pronounces or spells it as 'aluminum' and yet if you put "aluminum site:uk" you get more than 400,000 hits, put "aluminium site:uk" into Google and you get "767,000" hits. Someone might conclude that Brits use aluminium 2/3rds of the time and aluminum 1/3rd. But this is clearly nonsense. Note that the top 2 hits with "aluminium site:uk" do not even include the word in the text! They Google cache states that "These terms only appear in links pointing to this page: aluminum". Put "allintext:" into the search and 10,000 hits disappear. this demonstrates the inbuilt bias of the Google engine itself. There still remains the question of why it still shows more than half as many hits for "aluminum" compared to aluminium" - The reason is that much of the content of the Internet is cut and pasted from one site to another. Many American corporations do not bother to re-write their pages for non-American usage. For example on the front page of www.pricerunner.co.uk we find the words "Find the best price on your favorite music". Another factor is the ubiquitous use of Microsoft products. Quite often MS Word ships with the US English dictionary as default (this is how it was installed on my computer at my place of work for example). Frequently people don't know how to or can't be bothered to switch this dictionary to the British English one. Finally many sites use American spellings somewhere one their page because if they didn't Americans wouldn't be able to look up the product in a search engine. All in all Google only reflects the power of the US on the Internet and not usage in real-life. Jooler 21:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

:The internet is real-life. http://google.co.uk does in fact give more results for aluminium than aluminum, when doing a uk-only search. You are unfair to Google, who does recognize that tld's are not perfect indicators of national origin. In fact, Google.co.uk is so good, the first result for "aluminum" was "World-Aluminium" (e.g. American spelling took me to a site with British spelling). This article does address the problems with language bias pretty well. Google is great. Your criticisms of the internet though, are valid, but Google has no responsibility for things beyond its control. --rob 23:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

You have precisely proved my point! "e.g. American spelling took me to a site with British spelling" - Exactly! This counts as a HIT (for the purposes of a Google test) for the spelling "aluminum" even though the page doesn't even contain the word! - You are wrong about the hit count on google.co.uk though - When using Google.co.uk and limiting the pages to from the UK we get 869,000 for aluminum and 1,400,000 for aluminium - this suggests a ratio of 2/5 for the non-native spelling! One that literally no-one in the UK would use, that's real-life. Jooler 23:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I mis-read what the first post said (my eyes have trouble seeing an "i" sometimes). Anyway, since this isn't real-life, I'll depart the conversation (p.s. look up the word "literally" in a dictionary). --rob 23:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

the whole idea of the "Google Test" isn't neutral it promotes Google more than any other search engine it would be better to call it a search engine test Dudtz 9/1/05 3:39 PM EST

NPOV applies only to articles. It's just the name that emerged from the community, no favorism is intended (and no one would recognise the term you use). Deco 21:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Google?

Google test? Are we trying to promote Google? I think we should change this to search engine test. — Stevey7788 (talk) 04:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Invalid test

The whole notion of this Google test is ridiculous. Maybe one day when Google has scanned the majority of all written texts, THEN we can call something like that legitimate, but claiming that Google has access to all, or even close to half of the knowledge or thoughts that man has ever considered is ignorant. As I have realized from trying to Google for related content to that published in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, Google is of little or no help. Is something that was notable enough for the 1911 Britannica no longer notable because an Internet search tool has never heard of it???

The only true value of the Google test is when testing the validity or notability of something which Google has scanned much: the Internet. Outside of this, Google cannot be used as a test of notability, only as a possible way of determining verifiability, but even if the test fails, the content is still not "unverifiable". The skeptic has to turn to the submitter for source references, or to the community as a whole, in the hope that one of them might have read a book in their lives. Pcb21 put it best: "I get frustrated by people using the Google 'test' as authoritative - if the web already knew it all there would be less need for Wikipedia!" — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-14 14:26

• Can you give an example of something that's in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica that can't be found via Google? Dpbsmith (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

del.icio.us

I've also found del.icio.us useful in verifying external links and vanity articles. If a significant number of people have bothered to bookmark a site, and tagged it with relevant keywords, then that tells me the link or website is truly useful and informative. How about adding this site, as an added tool for "Google test"? --Aude 03:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Alexa test for websites

What should the rank of a website (other than the official website of the subject or a very related one) be on Alexa to be considered notable enough to be included in the "External Links" section of a page? -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen one in wide use. It's possible for a random non-notable person somewhere to have a particularly nice explanation / graphic / etc. on a more notable topic, so the person's notability or traffic doesn't matter so much, so Alexa perhaps isn't the best thing to use? I mostly see WP:SPAM or talk pages being used to whittle down external links to a managable number. --Interiot 01:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Please note that Alexa is also a small bit of spyware. Every URL you go to while Alexa is running is sent back to the Alexa servers. Also, Alexa is available ONLY for Microsoft Internet Explorer, which does not mean its accurate by any means. People using something within the UNIX family of systems, the MacOS family of systems (not Mac OS X, that's UNIX), or the BeOS family of systems won't be using Alexa, thus, Alexa's results are skewed. Alexa has zero accuracy, as such, it should not be used as a viable means of any sort by Wikipedia. If it comes down to a vote, I vote to strike Alexa from the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. (Lady Serena 02:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC))

The Google test, continued...

I agree with the comment that the term 'search engine test' would be more appropriate than 'Google' test. Personally, I use Clusty (clusty.com) - it has the very useful feature of clustering similar topics, it saves you from clawing through 2.8 million hits.(in 0.0146 seconds)

Yes yes. The name is biased, but that's the traditional term Wikipedians use. You might as well say "laugh" should be spelled "laf". Deco 04:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I question the reliability of google news to provide untainted results anymore. A massive number of internet "news" sources have arisen, for purposes ranging from feeding the celebrity gossip craze to "news" links pages designed to support multiple ads in order to generate income for the owner. Some blogs are now being included in google news searches as well. Does anyone object to my modifying that section of the article to reflect this? Would appreciate input and opinions. -Jmh123 17:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Advertising

This title is an advertisment for Google. There are many search engines other than Google, and this article indicates that, but its title implies that Google is the only search engine that can be used. This page should be moved to Wikipedia:Search engine test. Polonium 00:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Since there was no responce to the comment after 2 days, I am moving the page from Wikipedia: Google test to Wikipedia:Search engine test to end a misleading and Google advertising name. Polonium 00:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd hardly call some project namespace page called "Google Test" an "advertisement" for Google. Many people call it the "Google test" (most likely because many people use Google). I'm tempted to move it back, but I'll await comment before doing so. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I use google as well, but other search engines exist, it is unfair to exclude them. Polonium 20:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Locke Cole (above) and Deco (below). "Google test" ("Google test" -GLAT -Wikipedia) is the common name, at 124,000 hits; "Search Engine Test" ("search engine test") has only 836 — and many of those are about testing search engines, rather than testing topics by use of search engine. (And, no, "Yahoo test" et al. don't do any better.)  –Aponar Kestrel (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Alexa test, Avril Lavigne example needs replacing

The Alexa test section gives as an example of the fact that alexa tests may not be workable, the fact that avrillavigne.com has an alexa ranking of only 1,261,091. Except, oops, the ranking is actually 122,615 as of now. Making this a terrible example. Either this website just got vastly more popular in the last month, or someone added an extra digit onto the end.

I'm going to delete this, but a new example would be a good idea. Here is the text as it currently stands, if anyone wants to find another example to replace it: "A number of unquestionably notable topics have corresponding web sites with a poor Alexa ranking. For instance, http://www.avrillavigne.com had a traffic ranking of 1,261,091 as of January 27, 2006[5], but nobody would question Avril Lavigne easily warrants an article, and its reasonable to assume the site is visited by more people than indicated by Alexa." --Xyzzyplugh 00:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The claims in the article, for example "Alexa itself says ranks worse than 100,000 are not reliable" need citing. Also, the one citation that there is in that section, http://www.mediacollege.com/internet/utilities/alexa/ is dated 2004, and Alexa could have changed a lot (for better or worse) since then. An up-to-date citation is needed. Esquizombi 07:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I added it, and I didn't put an extra digit. If you look at this you'll see it says:

• • Traffic rank today: 408,315
  • Traffic rank 1 week averge: 88,464
  • Traffic rank 3-mth: 122,615

So, you see some wild numbers, that don't seem to fit, but that's the kind of variation that's normal with Alexa. The "page views" and "reach" have also swung wildly. When I saw that number I had to double-check, but it was real. Any number you take from Alexa will give you the same problem. Also, you can only see historical figures if it's better than 100,000. Alexa produces wildly inconsistent results, and therefore numbers used to demonstrate will seem to be wrong. As well, her site uses Flash, and I think at one time (not now) you didn't register different url's for each page visit, which affected Alexa rankings. Also the 122,615 ranking can be beat by a *single* person on a computer, using just a normal web browser, with no automation. --Rob 07:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Added: Incidently when you said "Either this website just got vastly more popular in the last month", I have to laugh. I've personally seen a web site go a *bigger* distance in ranking, from *one* person visiting the pages, with a toolbar, over several weeks (no automation used). That web site didn't get "vastly more popular". It's so simple, and so easy. I find it really sad that people actually think there's a big different between 1,000,000 and 100,000 rank. Why do people put more faith in Alexa than Amazon itself does. Also, while personal experience is not allowed in article space, I hope we can discuss personal experience here, in project space. As, people have to share their knowledge about flaws over things like the Alexa Test, or the Google Test. It's frankly scary to think Wikipedia has deleted many articles usuing these tests, by people who literally don't know what they mean. --Rob 08:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Do the tests give any useful information, in your opinion? If a google search turns up no results, would this tend not to at least mean that at best that the term may be spelled wrong, or at worst that it may be made up? If an Alexa test has a high traffic rating, does this not at least mean the site may be popular, and an exceptionally low one like 1,000,000 or lower that it may be not notable? Are there other better tests that could be applied? Esquizombi 21:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that both tests have some value, in some circumstances. They're good for checking extremes on low-number side. As you say, no google hits is an indication the words, with the exact spelling, might not be used much. Also, with Alexa, a rank better (lower) than 10,000 is hard to "manufacture" manually. But, on the "high" side, they mean much less. An incredibly popular web site can easily and often have 1,000,000+ Alexa rank (example a hugely popular secure web site won't register). A personal blog, that nobody but the author visits, can easily have a 1,000,000+ google hits. Unfortunately, there aren't any great tests out there. I think ultimately, we have recognize the fact that while we can sometimes determine something popular and/or notable, we can almost never, by any means, prove conclusively that something is non-notable/unpopular/unknown. I'm ok with people using this tests, but I hate it, when I see somebody use one test, and then be convinced something is "nn" with meta-physical certainty. --Rob 22:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

"Are there other better tests that could be applied?" - Might want to check out Marketleap.com. And, as mentioned, a very good idea to use more than one test (see my "comparison" of Alexa and Marketleap here: Wikipedia talk:List of ways to verify notability of articles). MikeBriggs 15:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• I believe that the Alexa test would be misapplied if trying to apply it to Avril Lavigne. Lavigne is notable as a singer and meets several of the criteria at WP:MUSIC, so she clearly merits a Wikipedia article. She's not particularly notable for her Internet activity, so we don't need a Wikipedia article about AvrilLavigne.com, just a link to that site from her article. (The current Alexa traffic rank for AvrilLavigne.com is 50,665.) Alexa should be used (if at all) to measure the notability of web sites -- not the notability of the subjects of those web sites. --Metropolitan90 03:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Including search engine test data in articles?

Is this appropriate?: Jihadunspun.net#Site stats? Esquizombi 04:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfair

I strongly disagree with this method of verification. What if EVERY site required a google test??? And besides, maybe wikipedia is that item's first foray into cyberspace. I propose to scrap this method or atleast revamp it in a big way —Preceding unsigned comment added by RDLP715 (talk • contribs)

Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Given that your edits otherwise look like patent nonsense, and you have not responded with verifiable proof that their subject (a) exists (b) is verifiable (c) is not "original research", I cannot see any reason why they should not be speedy deleted; therefore, as per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion CSD1, I have done so. Also, please read WP:NOT, particularly the bit about advertising. -- Karada 18:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Official?

So is this an official policy, guidline or process? I'm kind of confused if it's something that's suggested or something that must be looked at during an AFD. Because if you can use it whenever it suits you it seems a little pointless. What am I missing? 128.143.63.86 06:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Biases

The discussion misses some of the other biases of Google and the web. Americans are still the largest and most prominent group of English web users so many websites follow American usages. However it is arguably incorrect to say this applies to world English speakers as there are many English speakers in countries such as India. Personally, I think you don't prove much by a Google search when you are debating American vs Commonwealth terms. You need to look at other issues... Nil Einne 18:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

New tool

Take a look at this site Fight. It shows a tool that compares two keyworlds by the number of sites after a search in Google. It might be nice to add it to the page. CG 09:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Title?

Can we please move this back to Wikipedia:Google test? I know it's biased, but that's what we call it. You can't change the jargon by changing the page title. Deco 17:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Your suggested title favors one company over all the others. It would be like calling all operating systems "Windows".--Patchouli 04:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Of course it does. But that's what we call it. It's like saying the word "woman" is sexist because it has "man" in it. You can't reinvent jargon with page moves. Deco 19:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the jargon is changing, for example on this page, search engine test is used instead of google test. The new page title is unbiased, and google test still redirects here. Based on this, the new page title should be kept. Polonium 12:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, if you think this term is in use I guess it's okay. But I would suggest we update the many references on this page to the "Google test", and also update hit counts to specifically note what engine was used to obtain them. Deco 13:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Google Test Is Worthless

There are over 7,690,000 results for "you was"[6].

This proves that we shouldn't create an article for everything that renders many results using search engines.--Patchouli 04:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Nor did anyone claim this. To quote the article, "The Google test has always been and very likely always will remain an extremely inconsistent tool, which does not measure notability. It is not and should never be considered definitive." Deco 13:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Alexa test section

"Also, because of Alexa's recent plan to sell access to their web index by the hour, many websites with 'noncommercial' licenses have begun blocking Alexa's crawler completely'"'

The above line is confusing to me. What is meant by "websites with 'noncommercial' licenses"? In the U.S. websites are not licensed by any local, state, or federal government so does this refer to a license given out by Alexa for noncommercial websites to use their database content? Also, why would such websites feel the need to block Alexa's crawler? --Cab88 22:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Is using Google Test an example of Original Research?

I was recently in a dispute with another user at Talk:Vaccinium_vitis-idaea over the relative popularity of two names. I quoted Google-test figures to bolster my argument, and the other user claimed this was an example of Original Research. No amount of quoting WP policy pages would dissuade him from this view. The debate on the words' popularities has died down now, but I think it would be useful to address the question of whether Google Test is Original Research directly, perhaps with a comment on it in the main project page. What do other users think? Kaid100 18:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Guideline misleading?

The guideline appears to suggest Google tests establish popular usage. This is of course complete bull. It's fairly well established that Google/the internet is biased against American usage over other English usage out or proportion to their population because they're over-represented. This is even true for native English speakers such as Canadian, British, Australian, New Zealanders but is even worse once we consider the large number of second language speakers, especially from the developing world such as in India. Google/the internet is also biased to the young, male, l33t, and well the 'geek' population (all of which save l33t includes me). I propose the addition of the word "internet" to mention of popular usage for this reason. Google established popular usage on the internet, not popular usage in general Nil Einne 08:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively, make it abudantly clear it may establish popular usage (rather then does establish). In theory, the in a nutshelf should cover that but a lot of people appear to be unaware of the systematic biases on the internet. BTW, Wikipedia talk:Search engine test#systemic bias has another issue worth considering. Nil Einne 08:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this a guideline?

Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not seeing where there was a consensus to make this a guideline. As far as I can tell, a "guideline nutshell" was added [7] ; then, later, it was categorised and marked as a guideline [8]. But it seems that the initial nutshell was added (incorrectly) purely as a summary, not to imply that this is a guideline. Has there been any consensus to adopt this page as a guideline (personally, I feel it should not be/have been yet)? Trebor 00:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking that marking it as a guideline would be making a statement about its level of maturity or acceptance. What would you call it? E.g. is it an essay? Kla'quot 00:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure; I've only just come across this page. The discussion over half a year ago didn't seem to come to a conclusion either. At the moment, I think it is written as a guideline, because it is "actionable (i.e. it recommends, or recommends against, an action to be taken by editors)" - if it was cleaned up and improved a bit, I think it would be useful to be able to refer to. I was just concerned that it hadn't achieved consensus (or, in fact, that much discussion at all) and had been marked as one by accident. Trebor 00:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I've marked it as a how-to topic. Thanks for bringing this up :) Kla'quot 01:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Refactor of page

I'm refactoring this page that had a lot of text and a low proportion of bulleted immediately summarized information. I've got as far as the first two sections, but "real life" has intervened.

I've therefore left the original text but put it into a new structure, and will work on it a bit more later. I haven't deleted anything, so at present its quite long....

When I finish it, I'll summarize what has been done, and so on. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Update - done. Compare to before which was an essay, now its more a factual guide to search engine uses and issues; how to use them and what reliance to place on them. I've kept most of the old material, but a lot of it was in big paragraphs that readily abbreviated to a bullet point, or contained excess wordage. It now contains guidance on policy usage, a mini-tutorial on using search engines with WIkipedia, and so on. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"How To" or "Essay"?

Some of this seems like it's a How To guide, but there's an awful lot of editorializing in between. Can we maybe separate out the instructions of how to use search engines to support arguments from the warnings on misuse of the results? I mean, nobody should point at a How To guide to dismiss another editor's argument. Torc2 (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan de Boyne Pollard's revision

Large OR section "sourced" to a self-published blog? I don't think that's sufficient. Torc2 (talk) 02:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to keep reverting this, but the guy refuses to discuss his change. He keeps linking to his own self-published website as a source. Torc2 (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't keep reverting it. Discuss it here and try to come to a consensus with all of the editors who read this talk page. I'll start small by stating: links to homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard don't seem appropriate here especially considering they're being added by the author of the article. Do others agree? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 00:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion - instead of changing/reverting many paragraphs at the same time, try just one section at a time. At first glance, it seems that many of the changes in this edit war are simple wording or formatting differences and may be non-controversial. Try to identify the specific points of disagreement. The link mentioned above and associated text probably is the main bone of contention. You may be able to agree on all the other differences. Sbowers3 (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• His initial change was much larger. I left about half of it because I didn't think it was controversial. At least, it didn't represent the complete change in philosophy that the recent changes do. I guess that's how the link to his page remained, since it wasn't there before his first edit. The 'further reading' section is also just links to some blog articles that probably wouldn't stand up to WP:EL or WP:RS requirements, but I don't know if the standards are the same here as they are for regular articles. Torc2 (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the link is questionable. The linked page, as best I can tell from nosing around the site, is one of many opinions expressed by one person on a variety of subjects. Several of the "FGA"s look like they would make for interesting and thought-provoking reading but it is unclear what makes them any more authoritative or reliable than any other essay that might be found on the internet. (To the extent this particular FGA is authoritative because of the citations contained therein, then a link or links to the underlying research would seem to be a more direct way of making the point.) The fact that the editor has linked to his own opinions is not troubling in and of itself, but there is a kind of circularity about it. ("If you aren't certain that my edit is a sound one, then take a look at what I've said on the subject elsewhere.") JohnInDC (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• I hoped for a discussion here, but it didn't happen, and it seems from the comments above like there isn't consensus for the change. Torc2 (talk) 09:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I much prefer the version that you support. I really don't like Pollard's wording. TimidGuy (talk) 12:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, John, for reverting. I feel like the language in Pollard's version isn't appropriate. For example, I cringe when I read this: "Raw hit counts do not, in fact, measure anything at all. Search engines do not in fact give correct hit counts, as scientific researchers trying to use them as research tools have been disappointed to discover." I much prefer "Raw hit count is a very crude measure of importance." Pollard's language is too emphatic, such as twice saying "in fact." The comment on the disappointment of scientific researchers doesn't seem necessary. TimidGuy (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There's all kinds of specific problems with it. It's false to make that assertion that hit counts don't measure anything at all; they just don't measure what the user sometimes claims they do. However, for example, replying to a claim that a term like "shindiggining" is a common term in widespread usage by pointing out that it registers zero hits on any search engine is entirely valid. If it comes up with a few million hits, that's not a complete argument in itself, but does give cause to do more investigation before writing the claim off as false. Torc2 (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

To elaborate a bit on my concerns about the self-published link: I said above that it is circular, that it doesn't really add to the authority of one's edits to simply cite to a different place on the internet where you yourself once said the same thing. I also find it singularly unhelpful to encounter a link in support of a proposition and then discover, upon going to the link, that it is just some person's synthesis of what the scholars are (may be) saying, and furthermore that if I want to see what the scholars themselves are saying, I have to continue on to them. I suppose, finally, I figure that anyone who can write an opinion piece summarizing some category of research and put it on his personal web page ought to be able edit the thing to render it appropriate for the Wikipedia page itself by taking out the POV and citing directly to the scholars on whose research the entry is based. It's up to the editors of the Wikipedia pages, not the readers, to conduct that exercise. JohnInDC (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you're right. That was my main concern too. And following the links really seems to me like the scholars are saying something closer to what we've already got in the essay than an all-encompassing "totally useless" argument. Incidentally, the link to the FGA page is still there, and the "Further Reading" section is just links to two more blogs. Should we replace those with links to the actual peer-reviewed material instead? Torc2 (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, if the ultimate sources say more or less what he says they say. (While you're at it you might tone down some of that hyperbole too, e.g., "raw hits measure nothing".) JohnInDC (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe a consensus was reached to remove the J.deBoynePollard link and the hyperbole. However, J de Boyne Pollard keeps re-adding it to the project page. He still hasn't chimed in here for some reason. I'm going to revert his change unless somebody has an issue. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• I did it this time. I think the question has been posed long enough that somebody would have posted objections by now. Torc2 (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Claiming shortcut

Wikipedia:Good topics would like to claim the WP:GT shortcut. I'm in the process of changing any pages that link to it already to link to WP:GOOGLE instead. Any objections? If not, I'll collect it soon - rst20xx (talk) 00:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Depopulated. Consider it claimed - rst20xx (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Power search options.

There are two options you can use for google searches: | (this replaces NOT) and * (google's word wild card).

So instead of (flavor OR flavour) (quark OR quantum OR physics) you can search for (flavor|flavour) (quark|quantum|physics). Similarly piometra OR pieometra OR pyametra OR pymetra can be replaced by piometra|pieometra|pyametra|pymetra.

If you are uncertain about a single world the * can be used as a wild card. harry * truman will find Harry Randall Truman as well as Harry S. Truman. Note using quotes drastically changes the results of using this wild card.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Bing

Should we perhaps add a mention of Bing? I've found lately that it is tuned differently enough from Google to make it a distinct, useful tool. - Jmabel | Talk 04:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sensationalism

I propose adding sensationalism to the undue weight paragraph under general biases, as this is a problem I am continually running into on Wikipedia. The popular media routinely uses sensationalism to label or categorize a topic, and inexperienced editors either do not possess the critical thinking skills necessary to objectively analyze the issue or accept without question the repeated use of a term because it was "widely reported". Viriditas (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Dictionaries and other reliable sources should be more clearly preferred to Googling!

Alternative spellings and usages can have their relative frequencies checked (eg, for a debate which is the more common of two equally neutral and acceptable terms).

This section is a big problem and a major source of the many amateur discussions and much original research about spelling and usage on Wikipedia. As written, this section encourages original research and doesn't point out that modern dictionaries describe usage and no longer prescribe it, as they did in the past. A very commonly heard incorrect claim in discussions on WP is that dictionaries prescribe usage.) This section should point out that dictionaries use very large databases of citations from a large variety of mainly printed but also other sources and use professional skills in evaluating the results from these databases. We need to add explanations of what flags like "also" etc. and other usage labels and the order of different spellings in dictionary entries mean.

This page should have a note at the beginning pointing out that dictionaries and other reference works are a much more reliable way of checking for spelling and other usage frequencies than any amount of Googling we can do. The only things that search engine tests can add is information about common spoken usage that is possibly different than in printed sources and about possible new trends not yet recorded even in online dictionaries. --Espoo (talk) 08:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree. This weird "advice" causes more confusion than collaboration, see most notably Talk:Aluminium/Spelling#Google stats again the end comment of that section proposing Aluminium to be renamed to "Butts". I think that statement should be deleted. Google (Search engine) tests could be used only for vaguely negative indications, such as "there is few sites supporting/treating... and therefore there is very little evidence that... ". Google tests could never ever be used to prove anything, they can just add some emphasis to other arguments that in and by themselves aren't dependent on Google tests to hold. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 11:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Common search engines

I think Scirus should be added to "Professional research indexes", they cover some ground Google Scholar has no access to. And let's not forget ADS and arXiv. Paradoctor (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Google News and press agencies

There's a potential bias regarding Google News which isn't mentioned here and I think should be. Press agencies syndicate their content, so that a piece written by staff can end up being published on multiple news sites.

Google News is frequently used in discussion relating to WP:COMMONNAME, but I think it should be used with greater care.

A hundred articles produced by the New York Times, the Guardian and and Sydney Morning Herald gets you a hundred returns on Google News. But a hundred articles produced by AP, FP and Reuters could get you thousands of returns. So, lets say the first three prefer "tomayto" and the second three prefer "tomahto". Google news would tell you that "tomahato" wins by many hundred percent. But that's not a real reflection of the reality that the sources are split fairly evenly. It's actually a wildly unreliable place to look, at least in cases where house style is likely to be an issue. --FormerIP (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• If you read the tutorial here it explains how you can include or exclude only certain words, phrases, or sources "AND ("New York Times" OR Guardian OR "Sydney Morning Herald")" when performing a search. Even better than specifying the sources just by name, you can specify the corresponding sites by name, like http://www.google.com/search?q="Lech Wałęsa" site:britannica.com OR site:bbc.co.uk OR site:nytimes.com OR site:guardian.co.uk OR site:smh.com.au.  LittleBen (talk) 05:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

4icu?

Is the table row devoted to the 4icu university ranking site appropriate here? Note that the 4icu site mainly seems to be a specialized combination of other search engines, and relies on google custom search as the method for users to search its own site. It doesn't even seem to rise to the level of notability to include in a university ranking page on wikipedia (see Talk:College and university rankings#4icu.org_Web_Popularity_Ranking:_evidence_of_notability), and it isn't clear what common uses would be made of it to make it worth including here. I dare say there are lots of such narrowly specialized (and possibly biased) search engines out there to be included if this one is appropriate. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Tamerlane vs Timur

Over at Timur there is some debate whether to title the page Timur of Tamerlane. Someone was citing the most used term was Timur. But I was argueing that these results vs a Tamerlane search are not apples to apples because there are other notable people with the first name Timur so it would presumably inflate the results. So is there some way to sort this out using the search engine test? Or is there another way? Thanks. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 04:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• You can find some examples of how to include or exclude specific words, phrases, or sources when performing advanced/specialized searches, and a tutorial, here. For historical figures, though, you're probably better off doing a Google Books search and checking out Ngrams. There's also Project Gutenburg. Don't hesitate to ask again if you need more help.   LittleBen (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic insertion

I've noticed that the sub-section 'Specialized options, including searches to include or exclude Wikipedia itself', under 'Using search engines', has recently had quite a lot of material relating to the use of diacritics added to it. Leaving aside my own feelings about this topic, this looks like an attempt to use a 'how to' page to promote a policy position which does not have anything intrinsically to do with the topic of this page, and about which there is no consensus. Would anyone mind if I trimmed that section to remove the most irrelevant bits? AlexTiefling (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• The tutorial explanation was expanded back around Nov. 20, with the Google template examples added around Nov. 25.
• It explains (1) how to do specialized searches, and (2) how to use Wikipedia Google templates to greatly simplify searching multiple reliable sources simultaneously. Surely this explanation of how to use templates like Template:Google RS is appropriate here?
• This explanation provides practical examples corresponding to the phrase below the table (in the section "Specialized options, including searches to include or exclude Wikipedia itself") that says (quote):

"Site inclusion/exclusion is often very useful to get views either from a named website, or from any other websites—e.g. it can be used:

• To find pages on Microsoft terminology that are not self-published by Microsoft (not ending in microsoft.com),
• To find pages that are official US or UK government sources (end in .gov and .gov.uk accordingly),
• To find sites from a given country (more likely to end with that country's initials, such as ".fr" for France),
• Or particular media publishers (eg, "cnn.com" or "bbc.co.uk")" (unquote)   LittleBen (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I see you've reinserted the diacritics-related material that I removed. Do you fancy abiding by your topic ban on the subject of diacritics? AlexTiefling (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• As I explained, this was inserted on Nov. 20, before my topic ban. The research methodologyy—how to research terms of usage—is what is being explained, even if you object to the examples. The template—developed in my user space in November—is a very useful tool for Googling multiple reliable sources simultaneously. It is useful because—for each search—Google ranks the sources in order in the search results, with the more widely respected results at the top. Wikipedia is supposed to be about using reliable sources, and the template makes it so easy that surely there is no excuse for not properly researching accepted usage or terminology. LittleBen (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection to the section or the general methodology. It's the undue weight given to the topic of diacritics that bugs me. I did not remove the entire section; only the examples that were diacritics-related. As explained, they appeared to endorse particular conclusions which are not a matter of WP policy, and thus distracted from the generally strong nature of the section. The one about Arguello was also way too long. (After edit conflict): Please learn how to use preview. Your constant re-amendment of the same pages is quite disruptive. You have been asked to amend this behaviour previously. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that the explanation of Template:Google LC is longer than the explanation of Template:Google RS—because the former example shows how to research a little-known topic (a soccer player) by selectively removing a flood of results for a much more well-known tennis player with the same name. This is essentially a much more complex version of the Madonna of the Rocks vs. Madonna (singer) example.
• I have moved the longer and more complex Template:Google LC example below the relatively simple Template:Google RS example.
• When I compose a reply, I often copy already-written items from other pages. The easiest way to do this is to save an intermediate copy of the reply and then add to it. If you answer before I have finished writing a reply then that interrupts the process. LittleBen (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The Arguello examples refer to an ongoing debate elsewhere on Wikipedia, and you can't pretend not to know that. You included the text "The search results suggest that, in major English sources, the preferred way of spelling the name is to omit the diacritics." in three examples you wrote, each of which refers to a person whose name is debated elsewhere. This gives the false impression that your search technique is authoritative. English-language sources are not more reliable or more neutral than non-English ones, especially for information about people whose first language is not English. By directing people to use this highly biased method, you are pushing your own point of view. You have had this explained to you before.

And for the love of all that's holy, how dare you claim that me posting one correctly written reply 'interrupts the process' of you using the live version of the page your personal scratch pad? Your hamfisted editing technique disrupts other people's replies to you. Get it right first time; this is what preview is for. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• For the record, I think I have only once "added an unaccented variation of a name or other word as an alternate form to one with diacritics" (in the lede of the Walesa article) and probably never "converted any diacritical mark to its basic glyph on any article or other page". This was all a sham to stop any discussion about doing proper research in a broad range of reliable sources, and to stop any discussion about keeping English Wikipedia widely accessible and useful to the majority of people who can't read foreign languages—a trustworthy resource as to English usage and spelling in a great majority of reliable sources in the real world—while properly catering to the minority of people who want to see both versions together, which I support. LittleBen (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The 'real world' includes plenty of people who use Latin scripts and don't speak English, and you know it. You can't know that only a minority of people want to see both versions together. And you're deliberately quoting from the narrow parts of your ban, when what you were told to do was to stay off the topic. The smokescreen of templates and 'reliable sources tools' doesn't really get you away from the fact that what you're doing is trying to build a tool for pushing your POV into WP's guidance to its editors. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• I really care very little about diacritics, but I do feel very strongly about NPOV, about keeping Wikipedia as a reliable and trustworthy source—and about minimizing or eliminating edit warring, move warring, and intimidation by a few ultra-nationalists. As for how names of people and places should be written in English, I would think that governments would be the among the most reliable sources as to proper usage. (I may write an expanded version of the Google RS template that searches official Government sites corresponding to all the major language versions of Wikipedia). In the case of Poland, there's this government site. Surely it's ridiculous to say that the official government site is not a reliable source, and that the majority English usage should be completely stripped out of an article—not appearing even once in the lede—because it's "not encyclopedic" or it's "unethical" to use English in English Wikipedia. LittleBen (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I have never claimed that 'majority English usage should be completely stripped out', nor will I. Indeed, there are plenty of cases - mainly historical - where I would argue for English forms which are quite different to the native ones to be used more or less throughout. But this is something which can be determined on a case by case basis, per WP:COMMONNAME, rather than by using your bias-promoting templates. But I still think it is crazy to suggest that the Polish government's English-language site is more reliable than their Polish-language site. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• <Quote> they appeared to endorse particular conclusions which are not a matter of WP policy <unquote>. I understand that official WP policy is to be neutral—I haven't seen any policy that requires official English versions of names to be completely stripped out of English Wikipedia, have you? LittleBen (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No, and what's more, I'd oppose such a policy. But what you're doing, with your little notes that "The search results suggest that, in major English sources, the preferred way of spelling the name is to omit the diacritics", is to try to introduce the reverse of such a policy by stealth. Please stop. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: There is no such thing as 'official English', so the idea that there is reliably an 'official English' version of anything at all is nonsense. The appearance of variant spellings in official English-language versions of documents produced by non-English authorities is as much an artefact of the translation process as anything else. That doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't use them, but I think you give far too much weight to a feature which is incidental, rather than essential, to the media in which it occurs. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• <Quote>I think you give far too much weight to a feature which is incidental, rather than essential, to the media in which it occurs<unquote>. Do you mean that you think that the use of English is incidental, rather than essential, in English media? LittleBen (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

If you think English is so important, please take more time to read my own writing more closely for comprehension. I do not believe that establishing definitive English variants of personal names is an intentional function of the majority of English-language sources produced by agencies whose primary language is not English. And I still think that sources in the native language of a subject are generally at least as reliable as those in a foreign language such as English. Your gambit with the templates her deliberately undermines that. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• So who should have the final say as to how Chinese, Japanese, and Korean words and names should be written in English, if not the corresponding governments and the majority of reliable news media who tend to respect what governments and major international organizations like the UN, the Nobel Prize Committee, and the Olympic committee decide? (Of course names of famous living persons, as recorded by such organizations, are usually the same as the "international" version of their names as shown in their passports—passports usually show the name in the local language plus the "international romanized version" of the name). Doesn't the same argument apply to other countries too? LittleBen (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No, the situation with countries and languages that do not use Latin alphabets at all is not a useful parallel. I know that's your actual preferred area of interest, and I have no quarrel with you about it. But I don't think it's relevant here. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know what the Latin alphabet has to do with it. Are you suggesting that English Wikipedia should be written in the Latin alphabet? The several extended Latin alphabets have little or nothing to do with English. LittleBen (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• <Quote> I still think it is crazy to suggest that the Polish government's English-language site is more reliable than their Polish-language site.<Unquote> Are you suggesting that the Polish language site is a reliable source for English usage relating to Poland? Because Polish usage is surely incidental, and English usage is surely primary, to English Wikipedia. LittleBen (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Statements by the Polish government in Polish are likely to be more comprehensive, relevant and accurate than their statements in English, yes. This is true whether we are on the English, Polish, Latin or Japanese Wikipedia. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• The three encyclopedias and seven news media sources that are searched simultaneously by Template:Google RS are generally considered to be the most authoritative guides to accepted English usage. Are you contesting this? LittleBen (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm not contesting it, although I didn't know that such a canonical list formed part of our WP:RS policy. I'm disputing that such sources are automatically more authoritative for any purpose, whether naming conventions or any other, than ones originated by reliable creators using the same language as the subject. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• As I mentioned above, I will probably write an expanded version of the Google RS template that also searches official English-language Government websites corresponding to all the major language versions of Wikipedia. Names of famous living persons—as recorded by major international organizations such as the UN, the Nobel Prize Committee, and the Olympic committee—are usually the same as the "international" version of their names as shown in their passports: passports usually show the name in the local language plus the "international anglicized version" of the name. Such "anglicized (passport) names" of famous nationals of a country will also appear on the government English-language web site of that country, as well as being reported in the same form by the majority of reliable news media. LittleBen (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• The major foreign-language versions of Wikipedia appear to include German, French, Italian, Dutch, Polish, Swedish, Romanian, and Serbian. I have omitted Spanish and Portuguese from this list because I'm still looking for the most reliable sources. I have omitted Russian for the same reason, and I haven't yet researched Czech sources. I have already created a template for Vietnamese—it searches the ten reliable sources in the Google RS template, plus another nine official and major English sites in Vietnam. Chinese and Japanese also deserve separate templates. LittleBen (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

All you have done is to convince me that you are wilfully missing the point. I've tried to assume good faith, but I can no longer believe that you really don't understand me. You're choosing to ask me to restate my point, or feigning incredulity that I'm really suggesting particular things, because you prefer that to taking my point seriously, even in disagreement. I'm through here. I'm going to remove the specific POV-pushing lines from the guidance, but not the needlessly wordy and POINTy examples, and leave it at that. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have put together a starter version of the template at {{User:LittleBenW/Template test4|Test term}}. This searches official government web sites and official government tourist websites for Germany, France, Italy, Holland, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Sweden, Romania and Serbia—about 15 web sites in addition to the ten of the Google RS template. It should be useful for researching names of people and places. It still needs to be tested and documented. LittleBen (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Another caveat?

There's discussion at Talk:Coypu to move that article to Nutria, where # of Google results has been mentioned in support of the move. I was commmenting on the problematic nature of search engine tests, and wanted to give an arbitrary example of Googles behavior when additional search terms are provided which should vastly narrow the number of results. Anyway, I did [this search], and was surprised by the results. Although I searched for "coypu", Google apparently now knows that "nutria" is a synonym, so I got many results where Google had bolded "nutria", as if it were my search term (some results were even on a prison food called "nutria" that had nothing to do with the animal). While having Google automatically search for synonyms of the entered search term is useful to the users of Google, it further diminishes the extent to which a count of Google results can be used to determine which of two synonymous terms is more common. Plantdrew (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to search for an exact word or phrase, use quotes.[9] Then the count for "coypu" "benton county" reduced to 468 from 17,200.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 01:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Exact word. That's good to know. I knew about using quotes for an exact phrase. My point was about the reported number of results per se, but the content of the individual results. Man of the search results when coypu isn't in quotes had the word "nutria" only, and lacked "coypu" (the term I actually searched). Enclosing "coypu" in quotes gets rid of the pages that only used nutria. The Wikipedia:Search engine test doesn't mention using quotes to force Google to exactly match a single word, maybe something about that should be included.

I'm playing around with it a little more. Reported result number is the same if I'm just searching for the single word "coypu", with or without quotes. If I add a second search term, quotes start making a difference in reported number of results. I tried a couple more places where the animal occurs as secondary search terms (Shreveport and Louisiana); without quotes I get some results that use nutria but not coypu without quotes, and the reported result number went down with quotes. I also tried rodent/Myocastor coypus as secondary search terms. With rodent, reported results went up when coypu was in quotes. Enclosing the secondary search term in quotes also made a difference; results are 10x higher for "coypu"+"rodent" than "coypu"+rodent. My conclusions: search engine tests are very unreliable and exquisitely sensitive to how the search is constructed (and that conclusion is nothing new). Plantdrew (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust any result numbers above 1000. I'd try to filter the search until it gets under 1000, thenclick to the end and see how many real URLs are returned. This will better mimic what the user may potentially see. Even if there are 5 billion pages that say nutria, a user will never be able to reach them.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• sigh* I was trying to constract a query that would get less than 1000 results when I searched for coypu+"Benton County" in the first place. And coypu+"Benton County" or nutria+"Benton County" is way too specific a search to answer the question of whether the animal is more commonly known globally as nutria or coypu (although it's clear that the common name in Benton County OR is "nutria"). Are there any notable topics that don't have a raw count of more than 1000 Google results? I'm not notable at all, but I just Googled myself and have an almost 5k result count for my (globally unique) legal name. Is it even possible to construct a query that comes in under 1000 results where the choice of additional search terms to reduce the result number don't introduce bias? Plantdrew (talk) 04:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Limit the search to reliable sources - choose for example 10 major newspapers, and only search against those urls.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

A challenge to the accuracy of this page

This page is being discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Google search result as a direct source. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Google scholar in "Specific uses of search engines in Wikipedia"

I don't know what is being implied by the content on google scholar: "Google Scholar provides evidence of how many times a publication, document, or author has been cited or quoted by others. Best for scientific or academic topics. Can include Masters and Doctorate thesis papers, patents, and legal documents. Google Scholar search." I would never say something like "X's papers have received 8 bazillion citations on google scholar" cited to the search result, and I would delete it, if i found it. What is the point of this section? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Exact phrase searches - more explicit recommendation, if not requirement-to-use, needed.

Having just seen a well-argued move-request fail because the opposers were intent on giving value to searches that did *NOT* use exact-phrase-search in evaluating different phrases for an article name, I believe there needs to be much more explicit recommendation, even requirement, to use exact phrase searches when evalutating, ehhm, phrases as potential article names.

I see this article is not locked, so I suppose I could just add it, but as I'm a newbie around here, I'm opening a conversation here first.

For the failed move request in question, see Talk:Lucas_Roberts#Requested move 27 February 2017 [EDITED to add: after I raised the matter with the closer, they changed their decision to MOVE] In this instance exact phrase searching indicated that WP:COMMONNAME was the proposed new location Lucas Horton, and not the current old name Lucas Roberts. However, opposers insisted on giving value to searches that did not search on the exact phrases "Lucas Roberts" and "Lucas Horton", and which report hits even when "Lucas" and "Roberts" (or "Horton") don't occur together. Due the sheer commonness of the surname Roberts (almost eight-times as common on the world wide web as Horton), these word-only searches produces stacks or results for Roberts, and the opposers held these results out as valid indication of WP:COMMONNAME, even when I carefully explained to them exactly why they are not. Furthermore, the closer also apparently gave credit to these invalid non-phrase searches - which leads me to believe that wikipedia is not giving sufficient guidance for this.

Hence, I propose that the paragraph on exact phrase searching to be far more explicit, and state a requirement to use an exact phrase search when evaluating a potential title that comprises more than one word. @Born2Cycle: @TAnthony: Aliveness Cascade (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

From the note on the top of the page, it seems that the proposal for an exact-phrase requirement should be made elsewhere, as this is simply an information page, but I also am not so much new to Wikipedia editing, but to discussions of policy. I have big problems with an internet search engine being used as a definer, particularly the heavy emphasis here on Google. I do think that the page provides good information on searches, the possible biases in their results, and how to maximize the relevance of results for a particular purpose. I like it as a “how-to” page.Sallijane (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2019

I really think this article should mention that some search engines opt-out of the filter bubble and provide unbiased results equally for all of their users, and provide examples of some popular ones that do so; specifically, I think that DuckDuckGo, Qwant, and Startpage.com are (in no particular order) the most popular ones. In section 3, the article says that "search engines often will not Be neutral."; I think an explanation can be added that some search engines try to provide unbiased results equally for all of their users (though the results might not be unbiased because of the sources the engine uses in the backend to provide results (for an explanation by DuckDuckGo see this), or because of other technical details (this Twitter thread could be generalized to apply not just to Google so it's always relevant)). Additionally, DuckDuckGo, Qwant, and Startpage.com should be mentioned in the table in section 8, common search engines, next to Google, Bing, and Yahoo! (in the "general search engines" examples). 85.64.33.163 (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles labelled "PR" or "blog" in Google search results

Hi, I'm seeing a lot of articles, particularly newspaper articles published in media located in developing countries, labelled "PR" or "blog" in Google search results, when in fact that there is nothing to indicate that the newspaper article was a blog/PR article and it is not clear how the Google algorithm has determined this. For example, this article in the Ugandan Daily Monitor is listed as "(press release) (blog)" in the Google search results. At AFD this can lead to these references being dismissed as not reliable or not independent based simply on what Google have published, which appears not to be reliable (the Daily Monitor is a well-established Ugandan newspaper and the article is clearly not a blog and very unlikely to be PR). Can we put something in here to say that simply because Google (or any other search engine) lists something as a PR/Blog article, does not necessarily mean that it is? FOARP (talk) 10:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

JSTOR

Does a JSTOR search test count as WP:HITS? Firestar464 (talk) 04:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Assessing Common Name

A "Common Name" section should be added as assessing what the common name of something is is a very common use of search engines here. FOARP (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Retirement of Alexa

Alexa has been retired by Amazon as of May 1, 2022. Greenlio (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Add a template

the page currently does not have the template {{pp-semi|small=yes}} although it's semi-protected, when will it be added? thanks 103.47.210.34 (talk) 02:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done[10] --DB1729^talk 04:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)