Timeline for Please help define the limits of General Reference
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 16:02 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.english.stackexchange.com/ with https://english.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Nov 16, 2015 at 9:17 | comment | added | Nemo | Agreed with @J.R.: OneLook is transparent in that it's just a search engine, although that means it's no reference for anything nor subject to improvement. Wiktionary, given its open process and strict rules, is way more trustworthy than websites which disguise themselves as dictionaries while being just content dumps (see also meta.english.stackexchange.com/a/7315/130551) and is also subject to improvement (see meta.english.stackexchange.com/a/7314/130551 ). | |
| Jun 28, 2013 at 17:55 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | @Lynn: Very true. For many of the really basic questions (those that I think should be on ELL, not ELU), it's easy for native speakers with a smattering of Google-fu to come up with a good search term. But the questioner (who obviously doesn't know the answer) might not really know how to make Google "deliver the goods". That's why I left myself some "wiggle room" by saying a reasonably obvious search string. | |
| Jun 28, 2013 at 17:47 | comment | added | Lynn | @Marthaª: I tend to agree with FumbleFingers. Just about anything can be answered through Google with enough effort. I only closevote things that I can find with extremely little effort - because that usually indicates that the OP has not expended any effort in asking. Of course, it's all relative. Sometimes it's hard to find the right search terms if you don't know the terminology. | |
| Jun 28, 2013 at 15:00 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | @Martha: I respectfully suggest that for most purposes, only exceptionally basic questions about the use of English can be definitively answered from Google's home page. If you need to follow up a link, the question is probably more complex. It may be unreasonable to expect the questioner to select the right link to follow up, and to isolate the requiored information from whatever he finds there. | |
| Jun 28, 2013 at 14:52 | comment | added | Marthaª | If anything Google-able is general reference, then we might as well close up shop and go home. EVERYTHING can be Googled. | |
| Jun 28, 2013 at 14:45 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | @Martha: I surely am. If the information a questioner seeks is so commonplace that it can be read within one of the first few 2-line "snippets" shown on the Google home page following "search", I'm quite happy to define that as de facto General Reference. If it's actually necessary for the questioner to select and follow up one of those links to find what he's looking for, it might not be GR. | |
| Jun 28, 2013 at 14:10 | comment | added | Marthaª | What possible relevance could it have whether you had to leave Google's home page or not? Surely you're not implying that anything Google-able is General Reference? | |
| Jun 28, 2013 at 13:22 | comment | added | Lynn | @snailboat - I can't, for what it's worth :) And even if someone could, I think it unreasonable to expect a casual enthusiast from a) knowing they can do so and b) going to the trouble to do so. | |
| Jun 28, 2013 at 10:48 | comment | added | user28567 | At least in the US and UK, I think most people can access the OED if they have a library card. public.oed.com/how-to-subscribe/does-my-library-subscribe | |
| Jun 28, 2013 at 10:47 | comment | added | J.R. | What's wrong with OneLook? It links to other dictionaries, many of them quite reputable. | |
| Jun 27, 2013 at 22:56 | history | answered | FumbleFingers | CC BY-SA 3.0 |