Putting scientific in the search criteria should redkrect there then.
Comment on it works! only 99.99$!
Kolrami@lemmy.world 5 months 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 5 months ago
Kolrami@lemmy.world 5 months 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 5 months ago
Bro, the works cited is the SEO.
Deceptichum@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
What’s the scientific term for rocks?
Kolrami@lemmy.world 5 months 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 5 months 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 5 months 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 5 months ago
arstechnica.com/…/scientists-aghast-at-bizarre-ai…
lemmyman@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Yes this is absurd, but it’s a (serious) scientific community issue, not a search engine issue.