Exactly. I guess the irony was lost on you, no? *NM*

I would like to make a respectful request of fellow Pedro's Board users that we stop using the "I Googled" argument to support our point of view. I certainly value when people post links or pointers to good articles that discuss facts, pros/cons, personal experiences, etc., but I have noticed a disturbing uptick in the number of posters supporting their arguments (whatever they may be) by saying: "I Googled it and get tons of hits."

I Googled "My Cat Looks Like Hitler" and got 479,000 hits, including photos. I am not going to claim that cat-owners are Nazis.

So I would like to respectfully ask my fellow enthusiasts that when we get into arguments about quality (good or bad), service (good or bad), value for money (or not), and what mods are worth doing, that we stick to reputable publications or source materials.

Just my two cents worth. Flame suit on.

1998 986 Turbo-Look Cab
172,000 Miles
Dilithium Crystal Supercharger



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2011 05:36PM by Red_Lightnin!. (view changes)

"it's on the internet, so it has to be true"... is not true??

1998 986 Turbo-Look Cab
172,000 Miles
Dilithium Crystal Supercharger

and found a Bettie Page sticker on fleabay. Weird. Just sayin'.

Of course, "on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog" is my favorite search term.

Dave - 06 987 S coupe SG/NL; gone (but still my first love): 03 986 AS/GG/BK;

Are you saying an on-deadline author who has time for limited discussions with a few sources and then writes an article for Pano or Excellence is what we should value as opposed to the collective experience and the accumulated discussions and corrections that bring many experiences and perspectives to light?

How often has one of those reputable publications with a reputation made a mistake and had to print a retraction? How often has a letter to the editor gotten the fact or conclusion "right" even in the limited space the editor gives the writer?

I like my news and my opinions exposed to critics. Because maybe they are right and only by reading/listening to their arguments or viewpoints will mine be enlightened.

I've been the subject of articles published in reputable publications and I wasn't impressed with their facts or presentation in most cases.

That is one of the reasons I publish online, to expose my ideas to the immediate and harsh light of examination and I feel that is done most effectively online where people can tell me the error in a trivial manner where they may not take the trouble to write to a reputable publication that may publish their ideas days or weeks later. If you followed the evolution of some of the articles I've written, you'd find them now full of ideas that had their sources online and in suggestions/corrections I've received online. Or maybe they will now have a well reasoned contrary viewpoint. (I turned down an offer to write a book just a few weeks ago. Too static. Couldn't be easily enough corrected when I made a mistake.) Good golly I've gotten enough facts wrong too. Thanks for the courteous corrections and even for the discourteous ones. They made me rethink and recheck.

This is a discussion that has been going on for years with respect to journalism...(Interesting article on this very subject in this month's Atlantic)... how to value the gray ladies versus the blogosphere. I value both. I want to hear and read both. Then I'll form my opinion. Imagine just getting one opinion and then accepting that pre-digested version of the truth. How 1950s and two TV networks. How CNBC or FoxNews.

Just because it is online certainly doesn't make it right..but it does give it a chance to be enlightened by additional facts and ideas from others. Maybe more quickly, easily and likely to be.

Google and other search engines just make it easier to find for those adept at imagining the search string(s) that will best expose the facts/ideas.

IMHO

(One who was fortunate enough to be online for over 40 years)

Mike, my issue is not with you or any particular source. When you make statements, you tend to reference sources.

My issue is that people seem to have taken to typing stuff into Google and then reporting back that "this issue is all over the internet" rather than picking a few credibly looking sources and digging into them.

Hence my example about cats look like Der Fuhrer. I am just asking people to dig into some of the source material instead of just saying "I Googled it and found a bunch of hits, ipso facto truth."

BTW, I have been just as guilty of this as everyone else but I am going to try and be better about it.

And Laz, yes, this is more appropriate as a Board Improvement topic, but nobody ever reads that page and given the number of argumentative threads lately my objective here is to encourage people to improve the tone and their source references a bit to try and make the threads more useful for other when it comes time to making decisions.

I actually think Mike's pages are excellent because he references his sources, so if something doesn't sound right or if I want to know more, I can dig into it. Just hoping we can make things more useful. I work in science and research, so I guess referencing is ingrained.

1998 986 Turbo-Look Cab
172,000 Miles
Dilithium Crystal Supercharger

You know, I heard about a cat that looks like Der Fuhrer, somewhere in the cyberspace Google bible

John, you're in rare form

I do understand that Googling can be merely facile, but along with various sources, media, and most importantly, critical thinking, it has its place. What are the ramifications of someone Googling about Porsches and coming upon this site? Also, doesn't this thread better meet the definition of the Board Suggestions forum?

Then again, I never tell the truth. Do you believe me?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2011 07:02PM by Laz. (view changes)

Of course you're right about googling on a topic.

which is published by CQ Press:

"Experts caution that determining the credibility of online data can be tricky, that critical-reading skills are not being taught in most schools. In the new online age, readers no longer have the luxury of depending on a reference librarian's expertise in finding reliable sources. Anyone can post an article, book or opinion online with no second pair of eyes checking it for accuracy, as in traditional publishing or journalism."

Quote
db997S
which is published by CQ Press:

"Experts caution that determining the credibility of online data can be tricky, that critical-reading skills are not being taught in most schools. In the new online age, readers no longer have the luxury of depending on a reference librarian's expertise in finding reliable sources. Anyone can post an article, book or opinion online with no second pair of eyes checking it for accuracy, as in traditional publishing or journalism."

And a single source citing unnamed so called experts is to be used as the basis for this opinion and strong agreement subject line????

but it is a bit hard to tell if irony is intended or if the poster intends "the truth".