What do you use as a Search engine

[Moosie]

.. I'm Partial to Google..... Anyone else ? Yahoo ? MSN ? Ask ?

 

[MNHunter]

Google exclusively

 

[sreekers]

Google, they just have better resources.

 

[carbonarcher]

Google 99.9% of time for general info. Search engine on Medscape is great for medical info.

 

[guppie9]

Google...but Wikipedia is great for general knowledge questions.

 

[JohnSWA]

Mostly Yahoo.

 

[2fastnaz]

Google or dogpile

 

[Curly]

Booble is ok.

 

[wsmslinger]

yahoo mostly but times ive used google

 

[TheTone]

Google about 90 percent of the time, Yahoo for about 9.9 percent, and .1 percent something else.

 

[powderburn]

Google, Altavista

 

[Moosie]

Booble is ok.

Thinking it was a Joke I looked that up........ OHHH dang !!! thats for the Adult section hump hump

 

[noharleyyet]

Gunner mostly. Just type keyword Bush & he explains it in detail

 

[Moosie]

I put Keyword Bush in google search once without the filter on ...

 

[noharleyyet]

I put Keyword Bush in google search once without the filter on ...

Good plan my man...aside from the tittillation, bet you still get a hit from a Gunner rant though.

 

[snake river rufus]

Google, Ask, or metacrawler

 

[sreekers]

Guppie, wikkipedia is a horrible source. Anybody can contribute to it, no peer review whatsoever. I had a guy in one of my classes use a source off of there to write a paper. He failed because he used it as a source. If you want good stuff for knowledge us Google Scholar. Sorry if anybody is a huge wikkipedia fan, but once again its hard to filter everything you see on the net.

 

[guppie9]

Wow sreekers...I knew that it was all submitted by people, but I thought that it was reviewed. I know that sometimes there are arguements about what should and shouldn't be in the articles. The info I have read about subjects I already know about was quite factual. I am sure, though, that, as with anything on the internet, you have to be careful with the information. I don't think I would ever cite an internet resource if I was writing a paper of some sort unless I was positive about the source.

I've never tried google scholar...I'll have to check that one out.

 

[sreekers]

Yeah, wikipedia has a lot of stuff on it. Generally as a rule if the source for information isn't going to be peer reviewed trash it. What peer reviewed means is that other people from the same field would looking at the information. When you do a search some engines allow you to classify it as peer reviewed journals. Those things are great for reliable information. Another thing that was necessary was for it to come from the original source. On Wikipedia I could take somebody's article change it slightly, submit it, and then have changed the article from the original owner. If it comes from say "Time" it has to be cited from the "Time" website. The hard part now is sorting through all of the bad stuff to find accurate info. Especially when it comes to all of our hunting stuff! As you can tell by some of our more heated discussions.

If I came across rude about the wikipedia thing I didn't mean to be, just wanted to be honest about the source.

 

[snake river rufus]

sreekers you are absolutely right. All the conspiracy nutjobs do use wikipedia for some reason