---
# System prepended metadata

title: Web Search and Evaluation

---

# Web Search and Evaluation

## Google Search

There are many ways to make a Google search more exact, as detailed by Google's "[Refine web search](https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/2466433?hl=en)" help page. This is where tips and tricks for the search bar can be learned. For example, to see how many results are on the English Wikipedia that use exactly the words "Northeastern University," search "Northeastern University" including the quotation marks and specify the site by writing site:en.wikipedia.org. This yields about 5,780 results.

![](https://i.imgur.com/KLADSJz.png)


Another example of these advanced search functions is to find the available web pages for skate fish that do not mention the phrase "ice rink." To do this, you would search skate fish and then write -"ice rink," again including the quotation marks to ensure that results with either "ice" or "rink" in them can still show up.

![](https://i.imgur.com/W0pIGmE.png)

Next, to narrow a search by dates, you search for whatever, click "tools" under the search bar, and then select "any time" and adjust to whatever desired. For example, if you are searching for results for "Northeastern Huskies" from the first day of 2001 to the last day of 2002, you could select "custom range" and then enter those date ranges. It should read back the dates that you entered under the search bar, like the image below. 

![](https://i.imgur.com/uuJiMgj.png)

Finally, to narrow an image search you can use the Advanced Google Image Search, linked [here](https://www.google.com/advanced_image_search). Let's say you're looking for the top image that shows up for the specific phrase "penguin pair" and has a "Creative Commons" usage right. The advanced search should look like the image below and generate this wonderful photo of two penguins as the top result.

![](https://i.imgur.com/vATvd7p.png =400x)![](https://i.imgur.com/KweMqjR.png =215x)


## Web Credibility

I question the credibility of [this article](https://thetab.com/uk/2022/07/25/celebrity-private-jets-carbon-emissions-climate-change-263281) written about which celebrities have used the most CO2 emissions while flying their private jets. The article concluded that Taylor Swift used her private jet the most, amassing 8,293.54 tonnes between January and July. Whether you're a fan of Taylor Swift or not, it's important to put bias aside and use our "critical thinking skills to judge the reliability and credibility" (Valenza) of this news report.

Following Valenza's suggestions outlined in "[Truth, truthiness, triangulation: A news literacy toolkit for a 'post-truth' world](https://blogs.slj.com/neverendingsearch/2016/11/26/truth-truthiness-triangulation-and-the-librarian-way-a-news-literacy-toolkit-for-a-post-truth-world/)" to check for accuracy, I started by looking into the author. Phoebe Kowhai doesn't appear to have any history in environmental studies or pop culture, giving her little authority to speak on the subject. She is an Assistant Editor at "The Tab," a sensationalist site that closely resembles the tabloids. The story written on celebrity carbon emissions, other articles written by Kowhai, and the site as a whole are aiming for an emotional reaction, generated by provocative headlines. Going back to Valenza's suggestions, I tried to investigate the source that Kowhai cited. However, the [link](https://weareyard.com/) led to a marketing agency's website, not any specific data collected on the celebrities. The inability to corroborate sources makes the whole situation even more suspicious. 

As advised by the [Berkeley Library](https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/evaluating-resources), I also tried to isolate the purpose of this article. The subheading gives it away, reading "Shocker, Kylie Jenner isn't even in the top 10." Jenner had recently posted about her use of her private jet to take a [17-minute flight](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/21/kylie-jenner-short-private-jet-flights-super-rich-climate-crisis), which resulted in public backlash. Kowhai's article aimed to take the attention off of Jenner and turn it to Swift and the other nine celebrities featured in the article. 

Finally, I need to acknowledge my own search bias. I am a big fan of Taylor Swift's music and defend her choices more than I would other celebrities. However, I feel I remained as neutral as possible in pointing out the inaccuracies in this article, while also not excusing celebrities' gross overuse of private jets.

## Wikipedia Evaluation

As per the policy of [Wikipedia:Verifiability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability), all information must come from a reliable source, and the editor must demonstrate verifiability by citing reputable sources. In this version of the Wikipedia page for [Joseph Reagle](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Reagle&oldid=620740325), it claims that he worked at the World Wide Web Consortium. This properly cites w3.org, specifically a page on [Joseph Reagle's involvement](https://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/). This is a reputable site for information on this organization, indicated by the .org at the end of the URL. There is more information referenced on this site with details of Joseph Reagle's work history and various organizational involvement, furthering its credibility. 

Another claim made by Reagle's Wikipedia page was that his book *Good Faith Collaboration* was "bestselling." There was no provided citation for this claim, which defies Wikipedia's policy of Verifiability. While there was a link to another Wikipedia page on *[Good Faith Collaboration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Faith_Collaboration)*, there was no evidence there either that this book was a bestseller. I took to Google, where I again found no evidence to support this claim. Therefore, I would call to remove this statement from the Wikipedia page.

Finally, while I found no other information in this Wikipedia article that appeared untrue, I did not find a reference for the claim that "Reagle wrote his Ph.D. thesis on Wikipedia editing, which he described as *stigmergy*." Some digging found that this was an accurate claim, just with no source to defend it on the Wikipedia site. 

This page was created on August 1, 2011, according to the "View History" tab on Wikipedia.