Google or Wikipedia - Which is Your First Stop? 171
dwarfking asks: "Over the last several months I have noticed that more and more often, when I am searching for information on the web, I find myself starting at Wikipedia instead of Google. It used to be that the first hit on many of my Google searches linked to Wikipedia articles, so I started going there first. I've found that except for searching for current events, by starting with Wikipedia I get a good explanation of the topic of interest and the pages generally have links to other good resources that are right on topic (without the need to scroll through dozens of hits). Are others of you seeing similar shifts in your search usage and if so, do any of you think this could become a trend for the larger community? If so, then what could that potentially mean for Google?"
Google wins (Score:5, Informative)
Good question, but personally I still always start with google. Unless I'm simply in wikipedia research mode, then I can sit for hours in front of the thing going from one article to the next...
Re:Google still wins (Score:5, Interesting)
Google is still the first place I go for most of my queries. However, I find myself going to Wikipedia first when I want an overview of a topic and I know I've got a good keyword to get to it. And often when I'm using Google, the first article I look at is the Wikipedia entry.
Where my usage has really changed is when my first choice of keywords for Google leads to too many wrong responses (too much verbiage about Paris Hilton when looking for hotels in Paris). When this happens I now often look for a Wikipedia article to scan for better keywords to feed to Google. This is a very slick way of quickly narrowing the scope of the search.
Google is incredible. Who would have guessed that searching with "30 mi + 10 km = ? leagues" would get an answer?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Actually, now that I think of it, I use BringBackThePorn.com for most of my searches...
Re:Google still wins (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Google still wins (Score:4, Informative)
Try searching for paris -hilton...
Ta-Dah!
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=paris+-hilton&sta rt=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 [google.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That seemed to work pretty well. The whole first page (didn't look further) as all about the hotel, not the person.
I've found that if you know how to ask google what it is you w
Re:Google wins (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Google wins (Score:4, Informative)
I'll use google if I want to buy something, or for specific sorts of preprogrammed searches, like Google Calculator, or tracking UPS packages, or if I already know something is on another site, and then include the site address in the search. Looking for anything general on Google is just asking for irritation.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait. Encyclo means all, and pedia means teaching, or knowledge, and yet you say it's not a ball of every piece of human knowledge, it's all knowledge?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It depends (Score:2)
both (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeap, I have never read so much about history and other random topics before I started reading Wikipedia. It's almost addictive. I also signed up for Brittanica to give it a fair trial, and while the writing is somewhat better, the linking is generally pretty hopeless, and the coverage of some topics very basic. So although I read some articles, it didn't lead me on constantly to
Re: (Score:2)
Google (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Google (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Google (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
g for google
gi for google images
gg for google groups
gm for google maps
w for wikipedia
y for yahoo
d for dictionary.com
i for imdb
amz for amazon
t for technoarati.com
The best thing about this system is you can get rid of the search box and reclaim some FF real estate
Re: (Score:2)
L for Google I'm Feeling Lucky.
Skip the google page entirely and go straight to what you're looking for. You quickly get the hang of when to use it and when you might need to go a few search results down. Sometimes I even use it when I know the web address but don't feel like typing "www.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
An accidental middle-click becomes an odd form of "Go to a sort-of random page", which is often tantalizingly connected to what you're currently doing. Sometimes it's freakishly connected to what you're doing and it's hard to see how Firefox went to a weird page that
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
middlemouse.contentLoadURL = false
general.autoscroll = true
Set those values to gain autoscroll, and disable the bloody feature responsible for the random page views.
Re:Google (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought Microsoft pretty much had a monopoly on doing that. They must at least have the patent.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Create a firefox bookmark for this url:
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awikipedia.o
2. give it a keyword like 'gwp'
3. That's it, now try it by typing "gwp starcraft" into your location bar for example.
Same difference, just using Google to search Wikipedia.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google... Sort of. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It depends.. (Score:5, Insightful)
To me it's not really an either/or situation, plus Wikipedia can be very lacking in some areas, especially current events or information about more specialised fields.
I'd say Wikipedia and Google are safe from each other (though leaning more towards Wikipedia, since Google often sends you there anyway).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, Google is better for less precise search terms, such when you can't remember the origin of a movie quote, or some other reference, or when you're looking for something that can't fit under one title on wikipedia.
Re:It depends.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Google's music search system is fantastic - but it doesn't carry enough information. I have to follow a link to a vendor site to get release information, or to find a larger picture of the album cover to save.
Wikipedia, however, has discography for almost every band, with detailed release information and usually a good-quality album cover. I've started using it first, and only going to Google when Wikipedia's article is missing or incomplete (which is rare).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's allmusic.com:
(page is a
The main page looks nice, but the only discography is a small icon of six albums. Clicking on those takes me to a great page for each album, with very detailed information, but The Byrds had more than six albums! There also doesn't seem to be anything more than names listed for most songs. I'd like more detail, which is especially important when bands release
Depends (Score:3, Informative)
Although, I've got to admit, there's this extension for FireFox that embeds the Wikipedia entries into the Google search results page. I use it at work, and for the life of me I can't remember its name right now, but its awesome.
CustomizeGoogle (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.customizegoogle.com/ [customizegoogle.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CustomizeGoogle [wikipedia.org]
I use it as well. It is WONDERFUL. (If you install it; check the options - TONS of hidden not-default-enabled options)
Re: (Score:2)
Wikipedia! (Score:3, Interesting)
So yeah... me too. :)
I would say (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm being serious. Google is supposed to tell you where to find what you're looking for, like the catalog computer in a library that tells you exactly which shelf to go to, whereas Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, an indiviual book in the library. Comparing the two is IMHO completely pointless.
Re: I would say (Score:2)
Quite often, the Wikipedia article is one of the top links returned by Google.
Googlepædia (Score:5, Informative)
With a Firefox extension called Googlepedia, I "Google" happily, and it'll include (if found) a relevant Wikipedia page to the side of the search results.
Re:Googlepædia LINK (Score:5, Informative)
Google (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Element 115 wordperminium has a relatively short career halflife. Hard to believe you'll have your magnum opus completed before your wordperminium goes cesium if you're spending your time hanging around here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think Debian and Ubuntu's builds of Firefox strip that out, though.
Re: Google (Score:2)
I have Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Google, Google Groups, and Google Images search fields in my Galeon "smart bookmarks" toolbar. So I just type name of thing I'm looking for in whichever seems most likely to return the information I want.
Google.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow... (Score:2)
Firefox extension: Googlepedia (Score:2, Informative)
It depends on the question (Score:4, Interesting)
For example, if I want to find information about "Maxwell's Equations" or "Plate Tectonics", I'd probably go to Wikipedia first, because I'm pretty sure I know what I want. Even if the Wikipedia entry itself doesn't contain the information I'm seeking, it probably has a link to someplace that does. On the other hand, if I'm looking for information about something less clearly defined, of less general interest, or subject to frequent change, like "Linux printer drivers" perhaps, then Google is the way to go. (To complete the idea of a spectrum of resources: if I wanted a driver for an HP printer, I'd obviously go directly to HP's site.)
I don't think your observation portends any great shift away from Google, since I suspect that most queries made by most people fall into the second category.
Same here (Score:2)
Google is your shotgun, Wikipedia is your rifle.
Neither (Score:5, Interesting)
First: either a WIkipedia link or a link to the "official" site, depending on what you searched for. Ask is good at identifying the nature of the search.
Second: about 10 relevant links, with no junk, no ad site, no sales sites.
The downside is that Ask's advertising links are rather obtrusive; they put them at the top and bottom of the page, with a subtly different background color.
My switch from Google was based on a combination of performance and politics: I don't really miss it.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the tip..
Wikipedia first, but not last (Score:3, Informative)
So, while Wikipedia is my first stop, it's rarely my final stop.
Easy! (Score:2, Funny)
Depends on why I'm looking (Score:2)
But for pretty much everything else, I use google. Wikipedia is a great resource for finding out about specific things, but that's only a small percentage of what I need to find online. For example, at work a while back we were having power issues with a recently upgraded room (a computer lab, previously filled with laptops and now filled with desktops, plus there were more systems than befo
Neither (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hmmmm....
Re: (Score:2)
reference mode: answers.com; others: google (Score:4, Informative)
If I'm looking for almost anything else, I go directly to http://google.com/ [google.com].
Comfort level (Score:2)
I also tend to take Wikipedia's entries with a grain of salt. It just tells me what a bunch of peop
My way of doing it (Score:2)
Here's the thing though. When I want Wikipedia, I don't go to Wikipedia. Instead, I search for "topic wikipedia" which always results in Google content, plus direct links to the Wikipedia article. That way, I can tab-open the Wikipedia article and simultaneously browse Google.
Clever, huh?
Google (Score:2)
When I want to search, I use Google. Wikipedia is not a search engine.
If I want an encyclopedia article on a specific topic, I use Wikipedia.
If I want to search Wikipedia, I use Google (Wikipedia's search function sucks).
Interestingly, if
Wikipedia Google for information (Score:4, Interesting)
I was searching for data on "USB Mass Storage support in Windows 98" - That was a mistake; Pretty much ALL the hits were for the selling ofr USB Flash drives, with a couple of informational hits, which had nothing to do with Win98.
Google's search quality was extremely good when it first came out, esp. compared to its primary rivals at the time (Altavista/Yahoo), but as it's risen to the top, it's basically been hacked.
The search quality is now as bad as Yahoo and Altavista's used to be, when they were the premiere search engines in the old Modem-days.
IMHO, all sales-related hits should be shucked into Froogle; That alone would clear up the search results substantially.
Re: (Score:2)
For example, try a Google search for "Palm dictionary". Adding things like "+free -buy -shareware" doesn't really help. In my case, I happened to know that WordNet was a good keyword to add to the search and eventually fou
Re: (Score:2)
Give givemebackmygoogle.com [givemebackmygoogle.com] a try. The site itself is nothing revolutionary since it uses existing Google search options, but it does give you a nice list of spamwords to filter out and include in your Firefox keyword search.
I use the right one for my search (Score:3, Insightful)
If I want to see older versions of a web page, I use the wayback machine at archive.org
If I want a quick summary of a single subject, I use wikipedia
If I need to know the name of a song from a few lyrical fragments, I use google.
Google is a search engine for most of the web so if I HAD to limit myself to one starting place, it would be google. Or dogpile
Google Wikipedia (Score:2)
That's an easy one! (Score:2)
Google's still first, but... (Score:2)
part of the query. And more and more often I find myself typing in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Some_Subject_I_Want_ T o_Know_About [wikipedia.org]
directly.
I would definitely say that my search habits are shifting in a gradual fashion, towards using wikipedia more and more. But Wikipedia
hasn't replaced Google, they kinda supplement each other.
Neither ? (Score:2)
Neither? (Score:3, Insightful)
What does it mean for Wikipedia? (Score:2)
What it could mean for google is obvious but a more interesting question is: what could it mean for Wikipedia? What happens when the "search rankings" industry decides that being well-linked from Wikipedia is important too?
general versus specific (Score:2)
Wikipedia search is often broken... (Score:2)
I concur, sorta (Score:2)
Hybrid (Score:2)
Well, I'm obviously clueless, but ... (Score:2)
As a magazine feature writer... (Score:2)
For the museum article, Google was more help: There was no way to parse "interactive tabletop displays" in a way that Wikipedia would return a useful, comprehensive page. On the other hand, WP has a great page on "cannabinoids" that led to a lot of useful references.
Ultimately I used both, though. For instance, I used WP to understand some electronics te
Wikipedia is key competitor to Google (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure that Google would be monitoring the click-through rate to Wikipedia. For more data they might also be measuring the increase in people typing a search query and then adding the word 'wikipedia' after it to make sure that they get the wikipedia page coming up first in the results list. If the users are clued-up they can just submit the request by hitting 'I feel lucky' and go straight there.
More interestingly, when using Firefox users can have the search box set to wikipedia and can then very conveniently type the name of a person or country or a general concept into this box and go directly to the wikipedia page. Using this method no search site is used at all.
Google is still very useful when one knows how to search for things using particular strings of words or combinations of search terms but this is not something that most people are very proficient at. Wikipedia is a better lowest common denominator and I mean this not as an insult but rather as a compliment.
Funnily enough. (Score:2)
Funnily enough if you could check my Google history, you would find that about quoter of all my requests in Google starts with word "wikipedia". And Google obediently fetches me relevant pages from wikipedia ;-)
Both, thanks to Quicksilver (Score:2)
Using Quicksilver means I never have to relearn habits. Let's say "Ask.com" becomes better than google. I can just change the shortcut and no
Answer: Both (Score:2)
Both (Score:2)
And then type in "Wikipedia Blah Blah" with my search term.
The Google index just seems a little more reliable in "guessing" the article I wanted, than the "please try and work out the exact article name" Wikis tend to employ.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
perhaps google is to blame here. they removed "directory" from above the search box a couple years ago...
... which is why i use http://www.google.com/intl/xx-elmer/ [google.com] instead... web/images/groups/directory -- the four google searches i use the most, all one click away from each other.
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20040330 [userfriendly.org] pretty much sums it up.
it's not even in the new "more" tab where they've hidden groups & froogle now.
i use
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)