4 ms·

Am I the only one who just skips the search engines and go straight to the source? If I want factual information, I just go to Wikipedia and use their search.

Am I the only one who just skips the search engines and go straight to the source? If I want factual information, I just go to Wikipedia and use their search. If I want to shop I'll go to respected online stores and again use their inbuilt search feature. Obviously I've just built up a list of good sites in my head which I trust... Google search is good for discoverability if you're new to the web I guess? Although in the old days that's what web directories where good for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_web_directories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_web_directories

forbiddenvoid 5y ago
> Google search is good for discoverability if you're new to the web I guess? This is almost certainly not true. I don't think kids (who make up the vast majority of 'new to the web') care about using Google for discoverability. They'll use YouTube, Twitch and Instagram to find things they care about. Google is for answering questions, not finding new things. And honestly, it's not generally that good at answering questions. Source: my 10-year old.
pkamb 5y ago
It's much easier to type "searchterm" or "searchterm wiki" in your web browser address bar and then click through to the Wikipedia result than it is to first navigate to every individual site and use their non-standard search bar.
- CodeGlitch 5y ago
  By my calculations it's one less click. Is that going to save you that much in your lifetime to get you better* results? *better = more predictable in my case
- MiddleEndian 5y ago
  I just have https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%s&title=Special:Search https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%s&title=Special... bookmarked with the keyboard shortcut `w` So `w fish` will produce `https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=fish&title=Special:Search https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=fish&title=Speci...` which auto-forwards to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish
MattyRad 5y ago
Wikipedia is the perfect contrast to google search results. - It contains 100% signal- no noise- and provides helpful related links if you need more information. - Pages are organized and brutalist. - Every page has a steward who (thanklessly) keeps the information accurate, up-to-date, and ad-free. Contrast this to Google: - 50-100% noise (depending on the query; more information requires more queries and therefore less signal) - SERP pages are disorganized and absolutely riddled with UX dark patterns (modals, banners, autoplaying video, etc). Many pages with good info are over-styled/over-javascripted/over-languaged, and finding the one or two sentences you're looking for is a chore. - One-off SEO spam plagues everything; ads and affiliate links are pervasive. Stewardship is a waste of time.
- barbacoa 5y ago
  As people turn to Wikipedia for information the same momentum that ruined Google is sure to follow. It's already happened to Wikipedia pages that even tangentially touch anything political. If you go on the talk pages you see a slow motion battle between good faith editors that want an encyclopedia of information with a neutral tone, vs bad faith editors that want to use Wikipedia to represent their idealogical narrative. It's even spilled over into historical pages that don't carry the "correct" judgement on the past. https://www.wired.com/story/one-womans-mission-to-rewrite-nazi-history-wikipedia/ https://www.wired.com/story/one-womans-mission-to-rewrite-na...
- MattyRad 5y ago
  It's probably worth noting that Wikipedia breaks character occasionally and does the banner panhandling, intentionally nosediving UX to put an ad front-and-center. This is the behavior that should be penalized by search engines- however difficult it is to quantify. Wikipedia is some of the highest quality info on the internet, so they should be able to afford the penalty themselves.
  - thorncorona 5y ago
    > It's probably worth noting that Wikipedia breaks character occasionally and does the banner panhandling, intentionally nosediving UX to put an ad front-and-center. They are asking for donations to fund their best-in-kind free project. I know ads aren't popular on HN but if you don't want ads, and you don't want a donation banner, how do you expect sites to be funded?
0xffff2 5y ago
> I'll go to respected online stores ... such as? The only general-purpose online store available to me is Amazon as far as I know, and I certainly wouldn't call them respected.
- CodeGlitch 5y ago
  In the UK, so YMMV. General "stuff": Argos Clothes: next, M&S Electronics: https://uk.rs-online.com/ https://uk.rs-online.com/
StanislavPetrov 5y ago
>If I want factual information, I just go to Wikipedia and use their search. Wikiepedia is a very good resource for a lot of things, and a good jumping off point, but you shouldn't assume that you are getting "factual information", especially when it comes to hot button social or geopolitical issues. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-c...
- CodeGlitch 5y ago
  Yes fair enough, but I'm not sure you could get those things from anywhere?

forbiddenvoid 5y ago

> Google search is good for discoverability if you're new to the web I guess? This is almost certainly not true. I don't think kids (who make up the vast majority of 'new to the web') care about using Google for discoverability. They'll use YouTube, Twitch and Instagram to find things they care about. Google is for answering questions, not finding new things. And honestly, it's not generally that good at answering questions. Source: my 10-year old.

pkamb 5y ago

It's much easier to type "searchterm" or "searchterm wiki" in your web browser address bar and then click through to the Wikipedia result than it is to first navigate to every individual site and use their non-standard search bar.

CodeGlitch 5y ago
By my calculations it's one less click. Is that going to save you that much in your lifetime to get you better* results? *better = more predictable in my case
MiddleEndian 5y ago
I just have https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%s&title=Special:Search https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%s&title=Special... bookmarked with the keyboard shortcut `w` So `w fish` will produce `https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=fish&title=Special:Search https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=fish&title=Speci...` which auto-forwards to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish

MattyRad 5y ago

Wikipedia is the perfect contrast to google search results. - It contains 100% signal- no noise- and provides helpful related links if you need more information. - Pages are organized and brutalist. - Every page has a steward who (thanklessly) keeps the information accurate, up-to-date, and ad-free. Contrast this to Google: - 50-100% noise (depending on the query; more information requires more queries and therefore less signal) - SERP pages are disorganized and absolutely riddled with UX dark patterns (modals, banners, autoplaying video, etc). Many pages with good info are over-styled/over-javascripted/over-languaged, and finding the one or two sentences you're looking for is a chore. - One-off SEO spam plagues everything; ads and affiliate links are pervasive. Stewardship is a waste of time.

barbacoa 5y ago
As people turn to Wikipedia for information the same momentum that ruined Google is sure to follow. It's already happened to Wikipedia pages that even tangentially touch anything political. If you go on the talk pages you see a slow motion battle between good faith editors that want an encyclopedia of information with a neutral tone, vs bad faith editors that want to use Wikipedia to represent their idealogical narrative. It's even spilled over into historical pages that don't carry the "correct" judgement on the past. https://www.wired.com/story/one-womans-mission-to-rewrite-nazi-history-wikipedia/ https://www.wired.com/story/one-womans-mission-to-rewrite-na...
MattyRad 5y ago
It's probably worth noting that Wikipedia breaks character occasionally and does the banner panhandling, intentionally nosediving UX to put an ad front-and-center. This is the behavior that should be penalized by search engines- however difficult it is to quantify. Wikipedia is some of the highest quality info on the internet, so they should be able to afford the penalty themselves.
- thorncorona 5y ago
  > It's probably worth noting that Wikipedia breaks character occasionally and does the banner panhandling, intentionally nosediving UX to put an ad front-and-center. They are asking for donations to fund their best-in-kind free project. I know ads aren't popular on HN but if you don't want ads, and you don't want a donation banner, how do you expect sites to be funded?

0xffff2 5y ago

> I'll go to respected online stores ... such as? The only general-purpose online store available to me is Amazon as far as I know, and I certainly wouldn't call them respected.

CodeGlitch 5y ago
In the UK, so YMMV. General "stuff": Argos Clothes: next, M&S Electronics: https://uk.rs-online.com/ https://uk.rs-online.com/

StanislavPetrov 5y ago

>If I want factual information, I just go to Wikipedia and use their search. Wikiepedia is a very good resource for a lot of things, and a good jumping off point, but you shouldn't assume that you are getting "factual information", especially when it comes to hot button social or geopolitical issues. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-c...

CodeGlitch 5y ago
Yes fair enough, but I'm not sure you could get those things from anywhere?