Well, this is infuriating...

[Dot Matrix]

Trying to do some research on NY State rock strata. This is what I got...

 

 

 

 

:angry:

 

EDIT: Hmm, maybe this is better suited for Members Metropolis?

[+LogicalApex MVC]

I am confused... What is the problem?

[Max Norris]

Is it the one site that's irking you? Exclude it. Search "kt boundary in ny -site:creation.com" Works with both Bing and Google.

[Dot Matrix]

I am confused... What is the problem?

 

Doing a search for Rock Strata, and it's poisoned by Ken Ham idiocy.

 

Is it the one site that's irking you? Exclude it. Search "kt boundary in ny -site:creation.com"

 

I was trying to figure out how to do that. Thanks.

[Torolol]

oh, a creationist site?

[+virtorio MVC]

You've been Hammed

[+LogicalApex MVC]

Doing a search for Rock Strata, and it's poisoned by Ken Ham idiocy.

It isn't the job of the search engine to censor its results. It is supposed to show you popular content based on your query... It is almost obvious that creationist content would rank highly... It is far more likely to be actively discussed...

 

If you want to search for factual information only you should be searching via fact focused indexes... This could be Wikipedia (of course, reliability of information is always an issue), Google Scholarly search, various academic databases... Or you just exclude the sites that you spot appearing when you aren't interested (as Max Norris suggested)...

 

It is your job to search in the right place or adjust your query accordingly ;)

[Dot Matrix]

It isn't the job of the search engine to censor its results. It is supposed to show you popular content based on your query... It is almost obvious that creationist content would rank highly... It is far more likely to be actively discussed...

 

If you want to search for factual information only you should be searching via fact focused indexes... This could be Wikipedia (of course, reliability of information is always an issue), Google Scholarly search, various academic databases... Or you just exclude the sites that you spot appearing when you aren't interested (as Max Norris suggested)...

 

It is your job to search in the right place or adjust your query accordingly ;)

Right, but for the first and second results? It can't give me results for published research, anything of the sort? It has to throw me right into that junk? I know they don't censor, but to see that first before *actual factual information* is not right.

[+Red King Subscriber²]

By any chance are you using American Google and Bing?

[+LogicalApex MVC]

Right, but for the first and second results? It can't give me results for published research, anything of the sort? It has to throw me right into that junk? I know they don't censor, but to see that first before *actual factual information* is not right.

Why isn't it? The sole reason Google rose to dominating search was their ability to accurately rank popular content for given queries... Google shows you what is linked to most often, not what is "factual" or "right"... That isn't its job...

 

It is obvious that Creationist content would rank higher on less popular queries. As it is likely to be more actively discussed... Just like in the "real world" people don't go around saying the sky is blue all the time, but if some people vehemently disagreed they would be more adept to do so (even if their disagreement isn't factual).

[Dot Matrix]

By any chance are you using American Google and Bing?

Yes.

 

 

Why isn't it? The sole reason Google rose to dominating search was their ability to accurately rank popular content for given queries... Google shows you what is linked to most often, not what is "factual" or "right"... That isn't its job...

 

It is obvious that Creationist content would rank higher on less popular queries. As it is likely to be more actively discussed... Just like in the "real world" people don't go around saying the sky is blue all the time, but if some people vehemently disagreed they would be more adept to do so (even if their disagreement isn't factual).

It would be nice if they didn't. If I really wanted to be part of the "controversy" idiot crowd, I'd search for Creationism, but I didn't.

[+LogicalApex MVC]

It would be nice if they didn't. If I really wanted to be part of the "controversy" idiot crowd, I'd search for Creationism, but I didn't.

Well, I'd argue expecting to see confirmation biased geared results makes you no better than the "idiot crowd"... But I'll skip that argument for today.

From what I hear, using Google while logged into your Google account they will give you "tailored" results... I don't know how this works in practice. I value my privacy too much to use any search engine in this manner and I prefer results that don't subject me to confirmation bias.

[Ian W]

Yes.

 

 

It would be nice if they didn't. If I really wanted to be part of the "controversy" idiot crowd, I'd search for Creationism, but I didn't.

Dot, I do not understand the problem. You searched for a topic, and the search engine provided you with results that were relevant to your search query. You don't have to like the results (I often don't), but the search engine did what it was supposed to do.

[Hum]

New York State rock strata:

 

http://geology.about.com/od/maps/ig/stategeomaps/NYgeomap.htm

 

http://regentsprep.org/Regents/earthsci/rockcorrelation.htm

 

http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/nysgs/nygeology/sed_stratigraphy/index.html

 

http://www.rasny.org/geostory/therocks.htm

 

http://www.troy.k12.ny.us/Old%20Sites/Faculty/dibarij/earth%20science/answer13_14.html

 

http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/33893.html

 

http://www.napscience.com/earthscience/unit5%20review.pdf

 

http://www.geo.sunysb.edu/reports/ny-city/index.html

 

http://www.newyorknature.net/Geology.html