::<blockquote>"Google is very good at many types of search, but in many instances it produces nothing but spam and useless crap," </blockquote>
::The same can be said about Wikipedia; it has very many good articles, but many articles are nothing but spam and useless crap. ~ '''''[[User:ONUnicorn|<span style="background:#0cc;color:#fff5ee">ONUnicorn</span>]]'''''<sup>([[User talk:ONUnicorn|Talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/ONUnicorn|Contribs]])</sup> 22:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Who hasn't run an occasional Google search and received a load of spam? Today I browsed Wikipedia and eventually reached [[sex symbol]], which was tagged for lack of sources. So I thought I'd run a quick search for definitions and commentary from reputable sources. I've set my Google preferences. Surely ''[[Harper's]]'' or ''[[Vanity Fair]]'' occasionally run articles on the subject. There really wasn't much of use in the top 100 Google returns.[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Sex+symbol] Wikipedia was at the top, followed by an image gallery, then a Wikipedia mirror. The fourth return looked promising: a ''[[New York Times]]'' article. That discussed a current fad for bearded men - too specialized for a general article about sex symbols. Fifth was an online quiz; sixth, an overview of current [[Bollywood]] stars; seventh, a very short biography of [[Theda Bara]]. Then (and it surprised me that this sort of thing placed no higher) sex advice. Ninth was some avatar downloads. Then a blog about [[Jon Stewart]]. My Google preferences give the top 100 returns on the first page but the rest were about the same: an algorithm's regurgitation based on superficial text analysis and website prominence rather than an intelligent human being's assessment. Some people run that search more for personal amusement than research purposes, but even for that the results were quirky: none of the summaries mentioned [[Brad Pitt]] or [[Angelina Jolie]], but [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Pee-Wee Herman]] turned up. There's no accounting for taste... <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]<sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charg]][[WP:EA|<span style="color:#0c0">e!</span>]]''</sup></font> 01:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
::In no short order... the search project is not supported by Amazon; it is not (as far as I am aware) a commercial venture; Jwales did not "connect Wikipedia" to the new project. What you have there is a slightly garbled version of the ''Times'' article, which itself got several important factors wrong... [[User:Shimgray|Shimgray]] | [[User talk:Shimgray|talk]] | 01:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
