Wikipedia talk:Search engine test

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Guideline? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  BuddhaInside-ism 

message: 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)
thread_title: Asymmetry

message: 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)
thread_title:  Website redirections 

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

text: Yes, I think it should be recommended. :-) –– Constafrequent (talk page) 06:27, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Google Scholar

message: Does this exist?
:If it did, what would it do? --Smack (talk) 05:11, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google test Template? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: no objection, I support the idea Tobias Conradi 05:37, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Foreign languages and non-Latin scripts

message: As of today:
*"Google test": 9.810 hits , fourth hit is Wikipedia:Google test
*"Alexa test": 309 hits 
cesarb 00:26, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A humorous aside 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Quote from Jimbo 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Status dispute 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Google Test? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: systemic bias

message: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Google? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Invalid test

message: 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)
thread_title:  del.icio.us 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Alexa test for websites 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Google test, continued... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Well, I use google as well, but other search engines exist, it is unfair to exclude them. Polonium 20:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Locke Cole (above) and Deco (below). "Google test" () is the common name, at 124,000 hits; "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,  et al. don't do any better.)  –Aponar Kestrel (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising 

message: Is this appropriate?: Jihadunspun.net#Site stats? Esquizombi 04:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Including search engine test data in articles?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unfair 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Official? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Biases 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New tool 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Title? 

message: There are over 7,690,000 results for "you was".
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Google Test Is Worthless 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Alexa test section 

message: 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)
thread_title: Is using Google Test an example of Original Research?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Guideline misleading? 

message: 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  ; then, later, it was categorised and marked as a guideline .  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I've marked it as a how-to topic. Thanks for bringing this up :) Kla'quot 01:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this a guideline?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Refactor of page 

message: 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)
thread_title: "How To" or "Essay"? 

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Jonathan de Boyne Pollard's revision

message: 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)
replies: text: Depopulated. Consider it claimed - rst20xx (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claiming shortcut 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Power search options. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sensationalism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Dictionaries and other reliable sources should be more clearly preferred to Googling! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Common search engines 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Google News and press agencies 

message: 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)
thread_title:  4icu? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tamerlane vs Timur 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A challenge to the accuracy of this page 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Google scholar in "Specific uses of search engines in Wikipedia" 

message: 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.
 
Aliveness Cascade (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exact phrase searches - more explicit recommendation, if not requirement-to-use, needed. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2019 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Articles labelled "PR" or "blog" in Google search results 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Assessing Common Name 

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

message: the page currently does not have the template  although it's semi-protected, when will it be added? thanks 103.47.210.34 (talk) 02:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: --DB1729talk 04:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add a template 

message: The redirect Wikipedia:ALEXA has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Steel1943 (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Wikipedia:ALEXA]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]