Search engine assignment
Content
Search Engine Assignment General Studies In DLP 1.3 “what’s happened to my front teeth”, the learning issue that I was assigned concerned normal tooth calcification and sequencing and variations that could occur to these two processes. I used Google, MetaCrawler and PubMed in order to find relevant sources. Google: Google is an extremely popular search engine, most probably due to its simplicity, making it easy to use for the average net-surfer. For research purposes, however, this search engine has both pros and cons. First Keyword Search: tooth calcification Number of returned hits: 104,000 The huge number of the hits returned reflects upon the need to refine the keyword search, as there are many irrelevant sites, such as sites related to tooth decay, or various forums, such as Yahoo Answers, which cannot be deemed suitable for academic use. This keyword search returned with mainly definitions of tooth calcification from various medical dictionary sites, which although useful in order to find a very brief overview of the topic, is not useful in terms of research and learning. These ‘top sites’ listed in order of relevance by Google, are also not helpful in academic learning, as they are written in very simple terms, so that the majority of people can understand the content without confusion. In order to refine the search to make it more relevant to the research topic, I became more specific in the keyword search, by adding more words that were significant, and I changed my keyword search to “tooth calcification +sequencing +normal”, which returned with 31,000 hits. The top sites returned were a lot more academic and relevant to my topic. Most of the sites returned were journal articles, research papers, and also in textbook form (via Google Books). These sources, particularly the Google Books, were extremely helpful for my work, as they were relevant sources, with much detail on the topic. The language of the text was formal and academic, therefore allowed the text to be detailed and concise. In comparison to my first search, refining the search increased the relevancy, credibility and accuracy of my information greatly. Overall, Google is an effective search engine, in terms that it is easy to navigate and understand. However, in using it, one must be specific in order to gain relevant information otherwise it becomes quite time-consuming to sift through relevant and irrelevant information. Furthermore, the information that is shown via Google, is not restricted to information of academic standard, and therefore a lot of the sites are not useful in terms of academic learning.
MetaCrawler Meta Search engines work by using a variety of other standard search engines such as Google, Yahoo and Ask. Using the words ‘tooth calcification’ in the keyword search in MetaCrawler, this returned with 55 sites. The first pages of sites were mainly ‘sponsored’ sites, which were mainly sites that advertised dental products. This is clearly not useful for academic learning at all, as these sites are not credible or accurate, as they would be biased in order to advertise their product The other sites that were shown were in a variety of forms, such as journal articles and medical dictionary meanings. Medical dictionary meanings are not particularly useful, as they are only
intended as a brief overview. Although journal articles are academically credible sources, seeing as the keyword search was very broad, the articles were not related to my topic. In order to refine the search, I entered “tooth calcification sequencing” and got 27 hits returned. However, after looking through the sites, the majority were still sponsored sites, and a few other sites, such as journal articles and digital library files. These were quite useful and relevant, as they were credible, accurate sources and had an academic writing style.
PubMed I found PubMed to be the most difficult to navigate and to find relevant information, however, all of the articles are credible, accurate and suitable for academic purposes. In my first keyword search, I typed in “tooth calcification”, and got approximately 2000 hits returned. The fact that there were so many articles, it was obvious that I needed to refine my search. Using the ‘Advanced Search’ option, I refined my keyword search to “(tooth calcification) AND (permanent)” and chose for all the articles to be related to human dentition only. This refined my search down to 239 articles, only a few being relevant to my topic, however those that were relevant, were extremely useful, and addressed most of my issues in my topic. The information in the article was reliable, accurate and unbiased. This is based on the fact that these are research papers means that the information must be, as it peer-reviewed by other colleagues in the field. The downside with PubMed is not only the fact that it is difficult to navigate, but since these medical articles are extremely specific to particular case reports, it is difficult to find information to get a general overview of the topic. Discussion For my learning issue, I found myself automatically using Google as my first search engine, since it is easy to use. However, it became obvious that in comparison to PubMed, it lacked in reliability and accuracy. Google also returned with an extremely large number of sites, most of which were irrelevant for academic purposes, as they were either too brief, not in an academic writing style, or suited more for the general population that may be concerned with their general oral health. In using the Meta Search Engine, MetaCrawler, it was very similar to Google, in terms of its ease of use, however, it returned with very few sites (fifty or less). This is due to the fact that these Meta search engines are combining all the standard search engines. However, the consequence of this is that the majority of the sites were sponsored sites from the standard search engines, and therefore useless for my purpose. Those that were not sponsored links, however, tended to be quite useful and relevant to my topic, however I had to decide for myself whether they were reliable sources or not. PubMed, although difficult to use, was the most suitable for academic purposes. The journal articles are reliable, accurate and peer-reviewed. There is no advertising on the pages and the articles are not to sway opinion, but rather to inform, and are therefore objective and unbiased. Evaluation “Physical Growth and Development” - http://www1.umn.edu/webcore1/pysgrth2.htm Accuracy: The information in this article is reliable as it has references to particular text books, and is from a University Website. However, I ensured that the information found in this source
correlated with information in other sources I found. There does not seem to be an editor, or any peer-review. Authority: There is no author on the website; however, it can be safely assumed that it was from a university professor from the University of Minnesota, as this is where the information is from. There is also no sponsor of the page, nor any links for further information. The only way I found the university was by looking at the URL domain. Objectivity: The information on the site is purely objective, only showing facts, without any bias. This is most likely because the information on this website is used as a teaching tool for students at the University of Minnesota, and thus must be as accurate as possible. There is no advertising on the page, or any logos. Coverage: All the topics for my learning issue were covered in this website, and there were also additional links for further information relating to tooth calcification, sequencing and also variations that could occur. I believe that this website was an incredibly useful website, as it had a lot of relevant information, however, the formatting of the website made it difficult to judge its reliability and currency.
MetaCrawler Meta Search engines work by using a variety of other standard search engines such as Google, Yahoo and Ask. Using the words ‘tooth calcification’ in the keyword search in MetaCrawler, this returned with 55 sites. The first pages of sites were mainly ‘sponsored’ sites, which were mainly sites that advertised dental products. This is clearly not useful for academic learning at all, as these sites are not credible or accurate, as they would be biased in order to advertise their product The other sites that were shown were in a variety of forms, such as journal articles and medical dictionary meanings. Medical dictionary meanings are not particularly useful, as they are only
intended as a brief overview. Although journal articles are academically credible sources, seeing as the keyword search was very broad, the articles were not related to my topic. In order to refine the search, I entered “tooth calcification sequencing” and got 27 hits returned. However, after looking through the sites, the majority were still sponsored sites, and a few other sites, such as journal articles and digital library files. These were quite useful and relevant, as they were credible, accurate sources and had an academic writing style.
PubMed I found PubMed to be the most difficult to navigate and to find relevant information, however, all of the articles are credible, accurate and suitable for academic purposes. In my first keyword search, I typed in “tooth calcification”, and got approximately 2000 hits returned. The fact that there were so many articles, it was obvious that I needed to refine my search. Using the ‘Advanced Search’ option, I refined my keyword search to “(tooth calcification) AND (permanent)” and chose for all the articles to be related to human dentition only. This refined my search down to 239 articles, only a few being relevant to my topic, however those that were relevant, were extremely useful, and addressed most of my issues in my topic. The information in the article was reliable, accurate and unbiased. This is based on the fact that these are research papers means that the information must be, as it peer-reviewed by other colleagues in the field. The downside with PubMed is not only the fact that it is difficult to navigate, but since these medical articles are extremely specific to particular case reports, it is difficult to find information to get a general overview of the topic. Discussion For my learning issue, I found myself automatically using Google as my first search engine, since it is easy to use. However, it became obvious that in comparison to PubMed, it lacked in reliability and accuracy. Google also returned with an extremely large number of sites, most of which were irrelevant for academic purposes, as they were either too brief, not in an academic writing style, or suited more for the general population that may be concerned with their general oral health. In using the Meta Search Engine, MetaCrawler, it was very similar to Google, in terms of its ease of use, however, it returned with very few sites (fifty or less). This is due to the fact that these Meta search engines are combining all the standard search engines. However, the consequence of this is that the majority of the sites were sponsored sites from the standard search engines, and therefore useless for my purpose. Those that were not sponsored links, however, tended to be quite useful and relevant to my topic, however I had to decide for myself whether they were reliable sources or not. PubMed, although difficult to use, was the most suitable for academic purposes. The journal articles are reliable, accurate and peer-reviewed. There is no advertising on the pages and the articles are not to sway opinion, but rather to inform, and are therefore objective and unbiased. Evaluation “Physical Growth and Development” - http://www1.umn.edu/webcore1/pysgrth2.htm Accuracy: The information in this article is reliable as it has references to particular text books, and is from a University Website. However, I ensured that the information found in this source
correlated with information in other sources I found. There does not seem to be an editor, or any peer-review. Authority: There is no author on the website; however, it can be safely assumed that it was from a university professor from the University of Minnesota, as this is where the information is from. There is also no sponsor of the page, nor any links for further information. The only way I found the university was by looking at the URL domain. Objectivity: The information on the site is purely objective, only showing facts, without any bias. This is most likely because the information on this website is used as a teaching tool for students at the University of Minnesota, and thus must be as accurate as possible. There is no advertising on the page, or any logos. Coverage: All the topics for my learning issue were covered in this website, and there were also additional links for further information relating to tooth calcification, sequencing and also variations that could occur. I believe that this website was an incredibly useful website, as it had a lot of relevant information, however, the formatting of the website made it difficult to judge its reliability and currency.
