25 ms·
Since it trivially does what you want with one click, and you’re not the audience, why the bizarre hatred of something you don’t understand? It works great for
by SideQuark 2y ago
Since it trivially does what you want with one click, and you’re not the audience, why the bizarre hatred of something you don’t understand?
It works great for its audience, likely better than any other product. Do you think your desire for rare outweighs the masses that don’t? If you want rare, why even use a tool designed for relevant? Go dig through the stacks at your favorite old library, bookstore, cellar, wherever.
I’d suspect if you were handed random low citation count articles you’d soon find they are not gems. They’re not cited for a reason.
Heck, want low citation count items? Go find a list of journal rankings (well crap, more rankings…) in the field you’re interested in, take the lowest rated ones, and go mine those crap journals for gems. Voila! Problem solved.
And I bet you find why they’re low ranked searching for gems in slop.
- mindcrime 2y agoI have no idea where you got anything about hatred, or any idea that there's anything here I don't understand. I just wanted to make the point that there are, in fact, people out there who are not singularly focused on citation count. That said, I personally don't have any problem with Google Scholar since you can, as you say, trivially sort by date.