Putting scientific in the search criteria should redkrect there then.
Comment on it works! only 99.99$!
Kolrami@lemmy.world 2 years ago
scholar.google.com is where you want to go.
Also, in my Google-fu experience technical terms work well for finding better scholarly results.
snooggums@midwest.social 2 years ago
Kolrami@lemmy.world 2 years ago
At the very least, it might be nice if they ask you if you want to go there instead.
On the other hand, I’m just happy that Google Scholar hasn’t gotten completely destroyed by SEO yet.
NegativeInf@lemmy.world 2 years ago
Bro, the works cited is the SEO.
Deceptichum@sh.itjust.works 2 years ago
What’s the scientific term for rocks?
Kolrami@lemmy.world 2 years ago
In fairness, I was thinking specifically of plants. I expect better results when looking up “S. lycopersicum” than “tomato”.
An example off the top of my head is saying pyrite instead of fool’s gold.
Mo5560@feddit.de 2 years ago
I still remember trying to find the space group for Copper Telluride. No amount of technical terms could help me there.
NegativeInf@lemmy.world 2 years ago
Same experience I have had. Swapping to scholar gets me relevant results that aren’t filled with ai gibberish and backwater Hokum. Still have to be careful about study sizes and sigma values and applicability, but miles ahead for at least getting to that being my issue.
Deceptichum@sh.itjust.works 2 years ago
arstechnica.com/…/scientists-aghast-at-bizarre-ai…
lemmyman@lemmy.world 2 years ago
Yes this is absurd, but it’s a (serious) scientific community issue, not a search engine issue.