---
# System prepended metadata

title: Web Search and evaluation

---

# Web Search and evaluation
## Google Search
*Learn to refine your Google search and use Google’s Advanced Search page.*
- What would you query to see how many pages on the English Wikipedia site mention “Northeastern University”? How many results did you get?

I set:
>all these words: Northeastern University
>language: English
>Site or domain:wikipedia.org 

Result link: [English Wikipedia pages site mention Northeastern University](https://www.google.com/search?q=Northeastern+University+site:wikipedia.org&lr=lang_en&safe=images&as_qdr=all&tbs=lr:lang_1en&ei=Q7VMYbzWH9Gm_Qal1p_oDg&start=0&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwj8g_bGy5XzAhVRU98KHSXrB-04MhDy0wN6BAgBEDs&biw=1289&bih=621&dpr=2)
![Result image](https://i.imgur.com/6J7GlSO.png)

- What would you query to see web pages about the skate fish but no pages about an “ice rink”?

I set
>all these words: skate fish
>none of these words: -ice rink

Result link: [Web pages about the skate fish but exclude an "ice rink"](https://www.google.com/search?as_q=skate+fish&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=-ice+rink&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=&tbs=)
![Result image](https://i.imgur.com/54cIMHt.png)

- What would you query to see web pages about the Northeastern Huskies from the first day of 2001 through the last day of 2002?

I set
>all these words: Northeastern Huskies
>Customize time range: From 1/1/2001 to 12/31/2002

Result link: [web pages about Northeastern Huskies from the first day of 2001 through the last day of 2002](https://www.google.com/search?q=Northeastern+Huskies&lr=&safe=images&as_qdr=all&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2001%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F31%2F2002&tbm=)
![Result image](https://i.imgur.com/vPJbcF6.png)

- Find me the top image of a pair of penguins with a “Creative Commons” license, sometimes referred to as “labeled for reuse with modification.”

I set
>all these words: a pair of penguins
>usage rights: Creative Common Licenses

Result Link: [a pair of penguins with a “Creative Commons” license](https://www.google.com/search?as_st=y&tbm=isch&as_q=a+pair+of+penguins&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&imgsz=&imgar=&imgc=&imgcolor=&imgtype=&cr=&as_sitesearch=&safe=images&as_filetype=&tbs=sur%3Acl)
![Result image](https://i.imgur.com/U5lNwGv.png)
The top image
![The top image](https://i.imgur.com/EtvZ4qz.jpg)

***
## Web credibility
- Find a web page of questionable credibility and apply some of the criteria discussed by Valenza and Berkley Library.

Result link: [web page of questionable credibility](https://www.dhmo.org/environment.html)

Reasons: 
According to [Berkeley library](https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/evaluating-resources), I used Authority, Publication & format, Documentation to assess the credibility.
> 1. **Authority**: 
The author is Tom Way, and the author’s point of view is Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) harms the natural environment. However, the web page does not indicate if he is an expert, a scholar, or a professor in the field
>
> 2. **Publication & format**: 
it published on Dihydrogen Monoxide Research Division of United States Environmental Assessment Center. It is an online article published on an organizational website, but the website is also owned by Tom Way rather than an official organization.
> 
> 3. **Documentation**: 
There are lots of data included in the article, but no primary sources provided, and no citations.

According to the [Valenza](http://blogs.slj.com/neverendingsearch/2016/11/26/truth-truthiness-triangulation-and-the-librarian-way-a-news-literacy-toolkit-for-a-post-truth-world/), I applied some of toolkit for a “post-truth” world to check the credibility of the web. 
> 1. **Check About and About me pages**: 
There is no organization called United States Environmental Assessment Center. When search Tom Way (the author’s name), only result shows he is a Computer Science professor. However, it’s nothing to do with the article's research field. Also, in the main site where the article published, there is a note on the bottom: *content veracity not implied*.
> 
> 2. **Go back to the source**:
No source citation provided, but the author do use data and statistics.
>
>3. **native advertising**：
In the main site, there is a big column says Support Cause! Visit the DHMO.org Store. Such a large advertising sign means the site is most likely commercial, so it's not a reliable web.

## Wikipedia evaluation
- A version of the “Joseph Reagle” Wikipedia article stated (a) I worked at the World Wide Web Consortium and (b) my book Good Faith Collaboration was “bestselling.” How does these claims relate to the policy of [Wikipedia: Verifiability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability)? Would you suggest any changes to the page?

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) has a inline citation. The policy states any term that raises suspicion need a source. Click on the reference of the inline citation, it is a historical personal statement, but it is under the W3C official website which can be marked as reliable source. 

The book Good Faith Collaboration has a [hyperlink](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Faith_Collaboration) that directs audience to its Wiki page, but there is no additional infomation says the book is Bestselling. I also Googled the book individually, the publisher Mit Press also didn't say it was a bestselling. Thus, I think mark Good Faith Collaboration as “bestselling” did not fit the policy.

My suggestion: 
Firstly, I think remove the term "bestselling" because there is no reliable source prove it.
In addition, I saw *stigmergy* in your Wiki page, I’m not sure what this is. Since the term is italic, I think audience will notice that and have the same doubt as me. Would you mind putting a reliable inline citation to explain it.

- According to its history, when was this article first created?

History: First created in 1 August 2011








