- I have to guess what keywords to use… over and over again.
Every time I look on Google for content I know is out there, somewhere, I have to guess what keywords to use. IMHO, this requires a superior act of skill and patience because to get the good stuff, (you know, the paid research studies, the articles by industry experts)… well, to get that stuff you pretty much have to know the lingo. - I find the results page overwhelming.
Too much text, not enough substance. I’d rather have 5 very targeted, reliable resources to read than thousands of unknown junk competing for my attention. - I can’t filter the results.
Within both of my vaccine searches, it’s pretty obvious that there are subtopics to tackle… where to get it, who’s on the preferred list, latest or breaking news, how it started, etc. Want any of that stuff? No such logical groupings or filters are available. Search again. - I believe the resources are unreliable and inaccurate.
When reviewing the search results for “swine flu vaccine”, I noticed that Wikipedia out-ranked the CDC as a resource. Seriously. Don’t you think the CDC a more qualified resource to talk about swine flu facts than a bunch of wikipedians? How am I to know if someone adding the content on Wikipedia is an expert, is a doctor, or is my next-door neighbor’s 16-year-old kid?Note: This is not a slam against Wikipedia, which does have some good content. However, when I’m doing research, particularly for something that impacts my health or my business, I want to know who that person is, where they’re from, how I can reach them, what makes them an “expert”, etc. Google offers none of that.
- I find sponsored links are often irrelevant and just add clutter.
I got a chuckle checking out all the people trying to make a buck off of H1N1 and swine flu…and yeah, you can bet Google’s laughing all the way to the bank. As a prize to the most irrelevant ad, I’m providing a link to it. The winner is: Dr Weil’s swine flu ad for antioxidant and multivitamin package. - I do not care about content type, I care about quality.
I don’t care if the content is an image, video, blog, or book. My concerns are that the content is reliable. Videos of news clippings about H1N1/Swine flu vaccines are very relevant to my search. Why don’t they appear in the results listing?
Bottom line, Google’s not a good research engine. Tune in for part two, “Why niche Web sites are better than Google”.
6 Comments
Isn’t it against the law to trash talk Google? Oh yeah, not if you’re Microsoft. I’d be interested to see a comparison of Bing (MS’s new Google search killer.) If anyone has any great comparison articles, please post a comment. BTW- I don’t think Bing solves any of the problems you mention in this article, but I wonder what problems they do think they are solving?
I think if you are going to rate the accuracy of a search engine you need to try some of the others. I admit, I love Google, but to say that you can’t find quality material from it is just slander. I am a computer tech and run into new problems every day and find exactly what I need in a matter of moments. While Bing is faster, it is far less filtered than Google, at least in my experience! If you are looking for a reference on the subjects of dogs don’t go looking for cats.
If Google is no good, then what do you recommend? I use it because I don’t see anything better and it’s worlds above anything before it’s time.
Have you tried using this? You may find more scholarly material here.
You should probably try this out instead.
http://scholar.google.com/schhp?hl=en
Now that I’ve completely lost my credibility trying to figure this out, I’ll actually post the link