YAG(Google)RT - Search without getting message board crap

[RightIsWrong]

Ok, the vast bulk of my post count has been in P&N and I have to do a lot of the googling to look up info to either refute or substantiate a claim.

What really bothers the shit out of me is when trying to search for an exact quote of something that you can just tell was taken out of context and all you are able to find is stupid, idiotic hits from posters on other forums/boards continually perpetuating the rumor or out of context crap without actually being able to find the damned quote to see how accurate or way out in left field that they really are.

It's driving me nucking futs already! Why doesn't google allow you to filter out message board posts if they don't offer any credible sources in their news section so that you can possibly find it somewhere else on the interweb?

 

[mugs]

You need to call up Google and have them create a customized version of their search engine for your specific purposes. It's a new service they offer.

 

[mundane]

*[citation needed]

 

[torpid]

Depending on the quote, you can sometimes search news only or specific sites such as Bartlett

 

[Jeff7]

Tis one of the biggest challenges of the Internet now - how to effectively search through it all. Computers are inherently stupid, and unfortunately, our language doesn't always help.

Want info on river banks and you search for "banks." You'll probably find all kinds of stuff on subprime mortgage problems.

And then there are those goddamn ad sites that are nothing but page after page of ads.

I also find that too many searches turn up blog posts of some idiot yammering on about nothing, instead of real, credible sources.

The Internet itself probably could use some kind of drastic restructuring, but the inherent anarchy of it would mean that you'd have jackoffs posting porn advertisements without regard to categories. The alternative would be some sort of "government" for the Internet, which is also an unpleasant idea. The freedom of the Internet is what makes it so attractive. It's also what allows it to degrade into a cesspool of idiocy. The two are not entirely compatible.

 

[spidey07]

If you have to google to prove a point, then you really didn't have a point or know the subject in the first place.

Also you can search just news.

 

[jdoggg12]

Originally posted by: spidey07
If you have to google to prove a point, then you really didn't have a point or know the subject in the first place.

This is the dumbest thing i've heard all week. There are plenty of things i know to be fact, but would still need google for proper validation.

For example:
If one were to ask why the sky is blue, i could tell you its b/c of the atmosphere and how it interacts with the light... but beyond that i'd need google or some other means to further clarify/prove/support my answer/argument.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: jdoggg12

Originally posted by: spidey07
If you have to google to prove a point, then you really didn't have a point or know the subject in the first place.

This is the dumbest thing i've heard all week. There are plenty of things i know to be fact, but would still need google for proper validation.

For example:
If one were to ask why the sky is blue, i could tell you its b/c of the atmosphere and how it interacts with the light... but beyond that i'd need google or some other means to further clarify/prove/support my answer/argument.

The thing is a lot of the stuff you read on the intarweb isn't true, so using it to back something up without understanding what you're talking about just makes you look like a fool.

 

[jdoggg12]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: jdoggg12

Originally posted by: spidey07
If you have to google to prove a point, then you really didn't have a point or know the subject in the first place.

This is the dumbest thing i've heard all week. There are plenty of things i know to be fact, but would still need google for proper validation.

For example:
If one were to ask why the sky is blue, i could tell you its b/c of the atmosphere and how it interacts with the light... but beyond that i'd need google or some other means to further clarify/prove/support my answer/argument.

The thing is a lot of the stuff you read on the intarweb isn't true, so using it to back something up without understanding what you're talking about just makes you look like a fool.

Then we are in agreement that the real fool is the one that cant decipher real/valid/trusted information from the crap information.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: spidey07
If you have to google to prove a point, then you really didn't have a point or know the subject in the first place.

Also you can search just news.

Why didn't I realize that? Of course you are the world renowned expert on every topic that you post on whether in P&N or ATOT. :roll:

You could actually use some googling to verify your stance/opinion once in a while. It might stop you from posting some of the crap like this:

I can't think of any. Continual good decisions regarding the war, sound foreign policy decisions regarding Iran, fighting the dems and their pork and attempts to repeal the tax cuts and hurt our troops.

All good news.

That is from a thread entitled Bush's Greatest Mistakes 2007

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: jdoggg12

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: jdoggg12

Originally posted by: spidey07
If you have to google to prove a point, then you really didn't have a point or know the subject in the first place.

This is the dumbest thing i've heard all week. There are plenty of things i know to be fact, but would still need google for proper validation.

For example:
If one were to ask why the sky is blue, i could tell you its b/c of the atmosphere and how it interacts with the light... but beyond that i'd need google or some other means to further clarify/prove/support my answer/argument.

The thing is a lot of the stuff you read on the intarweb isn't true, so using it to back something up without understanding what you're talking about just makes you look like a fool.

Then we are in agreement that the real fool is the one that cant decipher real/valid/trusted information from the crap information.

Bingo. A hardcopy written source from a crap organization isn't a more valid source of info than wikipedia. It's a digital world now folks, so discrediting a source merely because its online is so 20th century.

Now, refuting a point someone makes about the stock market using info you got from a blog written by a 19 year old college econ major vs say, motleyfool...