TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: Google - how far do you go? From:"rebecca officer" <rebecca -dot- officer -at- alliedtelesis -dot- co -dot- nz> To:"Kevin McLauchlan" <Kevin -dot- McLauchlan -at- safenet-inc -dot- com> Date:Thu, 03 Apr 2014 16:26:53 +1300
I'll look past page 1 of google if I'm looking for something
exhaustively. Occasionally I need to know whether *anyone* has talked
about something. In those cases, I'll look through all the results
google gives me, just in case there's something on page 8. Not that
there ever is.
For just general info-hunting, I almost always stay on page 1.
For Wikipedia, what Haim said.
>>> Haim Roman <haim -dot- roman -at- gmail -dot- com> 3/04/14 09:06 >>>
I need a reason to spend time looking past page 1 of searches. What
make me think that there is better information via the links on page 2,
etc.? If it's clear to me that I'm not getting the info I want via
links on page 1, then I'll check further pages. But that's often a
that I need different search text.
For explanations that are more than a definition, then I normally
google. But among the results, I tend to go to the Wikipedia links.
Wikipedia is not divine revelation. But what on the net is? In fact,
in print is? (I'm excluding religious texts from this discussion)
- "Unadulterated dreck on *all* fronts" is quite a strong charge.
do you know?
- I tend to trust it for information on computer & network
types of computer equipment, etc., though I can't prove it's
- I'm suspect of it on political issues, but that's true for most
political material (online, hardcopy, or broadcast).
- If you can find a reliable source of information for a given area
knowledge, then of course you should prefer that.
Howard (Haim) Roman -- haim -dot- roman -at- gmail -dot- com -- 052-8-592-599 -- ××××
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 10:44 PM, McLauchlan, Kevin <
Kevin -dot- McLauchlan -at- safenet-inc -dot- com> wrote:
> In your normal, everyday interaction with public search engines
> Bing, DuckDuckGo, etc.), for roughly what percentage of search
> you bother to look past page 1 of the results?
> That is, I'm assuming that most people check page 1 of search results
> start clicking likely links, or else take a look at what came up as
> and decide right away that they need to revise their search, and
> occasionally (if ever) proceed to page 2, 3, or (shudder) further.
> So ... why do you mostly consider page 1 far enough (if that's what
> do), and why do you go past page 1 on those occasions that you do?
> I mostly go with hits from page one of search, until I've exhausted
> links (or skipped, based on an obviously low-probability summary),
> I might try page 2 or three, though my perusal of links from page 1
> usually given me some hints as to how I might usefully refine my
> instead of going further in the current results. It's been literally
> since I went past page 10 on any search. I'm more likely to switch
> engines and retry a search than I am to 'go deep'.
> On a related note, when you want to look up a term, and want more
> dictionary definition, do you automatically use a standard Google (or
> or...) search, first, or do you go directly to something like
> Finally, if you are one of those people who think that Wikipedia is
> merely ... er.... uneven, but is generally unadulterated dreck on
> fronts... is that based on recent visits, or on the last time you
> in 2007... or was that 2005... ?
> The information contained in this electronic mail transmission
> may be privileged and confidential, and therefore, protected
> from disclosure. If you have received this communication in
> error, please notify us immediately by replying to this
> message and deleting it from your computer without copying
> or disclosing it.
> Doc-To-Help 2014 v1 now available. SharePoint 2013 support, NetHelp
s, and more. Read all about it.
> Learn more: http://bit.ly/NNcWqS
> You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as haim -dot- roman -at- gmail -dot- com -dot-
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> techwr-l-leave -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
> Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
>http://www.techwhirl.com/email-discussion-groups/ for more resources
> Looking for articles on Technical Communications? Head over to our
> magazine at http://techwhirl.com
> Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions? Search our
> email archives @ http://techwr-l.com/archives
Doc-To-Help 2014 v1 now available. SharePoint 2013 support, NetHelp
enhancements, and more. Read all about it.
NOTICE: This message contains privileged and confidential
information intended only for the use of the addressee
named above. If you are not the intended recipient of
this message you are hereby notified that you must not
disseminate, copy or take any action in reliance on it.
If you have received this message in error please
notify Allied Telesis Labs Ltd immediately.
Any views expressed in this message are those of the
individual sender, except where the sender has the
authority to issue and specifically states them to
be the views of Allied Telesis Labs.
Doc-To-Help 2014 v1 now available. SharePoint 2013 support, NetHelp enhancements, and more. Read all about it.