U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
60%↑
40%↑
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) J. Danielson
(R) Sheri Davis
50%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
August 15, 2010 06:44 PM UTC
20 Comments
I from the old school, start with a general resource and narrow it down. Google, Bing (sounds like fruit juice), Ask, Yahoo, etc have algorithms that are often too apparent. So they are frequently less useful now than a couple of years ago. Especially if it sticks with a geographic location.
Wiki is very helpful for deeper research ideas.
For politics I like to go to the websites and blogs.
About 5 years ago I put this link World’s coolest dad at the bottom of a high traffic site I have. Two days later I told my daughter to do a Google search on “world’s coolest dad.”
When my website came up first she look horrified, like there was something wrong with the space-time continuum. She told me that whatever I did, I needed to undo it immediately 🙂
My company exists because of Google – as far as we can tell every customer we have came from either a Google search or a referral from an existing customer (who found us via Google).
And being in the first page for organic results is critical. You really want to be in the first 4 results. In most cases people only look at the first page.
But this is not necessarily a bad thing. If Google presents the 10 most relevant documents for a query, then in most cases you are getting better results than if you went on your own to your favorite authoritative sources and went through their listings looking for most useful info.
This is something computers can be very good at, sifting through billions of documents to find the 10 best. A human being can’t match that.
Because you’re not comparing a human being having infinite time, never getting tired, and making no mistakes vs Google. You’re comparing a person with limited time, resources, and knowledge viewing a preselected set of documents.
If I have read a good article but have failed to save it, I first go back to the paper or news magazine and use their archive. There are times it could be in a number of different papers and I go there first. Maybe it’s the long way around but that’s my approach.
If there’s a list of more than one page with Google, yes I follow through until the titles or dates are out of the realm of possibility.
because it’s usually more likely to find the article I had in mind than a website’s archive search function. Some of those sites are terrible at that.
At the CU Journalism School “Invisible Web” outreach seminars they taught us lots about the advantages of Advanced Search.
It’s usually more successful searching newspaper archives than the newspapers’ websites. First of all, the newspaper searches return too much irrelevant crap because there’s usually no way to group search terms; second, they’re often crippled with regard to how far back they go.
Advanced search limited to a newpaper’s domain name usually gets past both those obstacles.
n/t
is that like the dark web?
🙂
They had a 3-year grant from Cox.
Even though the grant ran out last year.
It has a terrific collection of links–a very valuable resource.
http://www.colorado.edu/journa…
Despite being a NYT owned paper, it sucks.
Better searching with Google and mention the paper’s name.
I go very deep because I’m usually getting a lot of returns on very specific terms. I can’t say that I do much “research” through Google unless I know absolutely nothing about a subject. But Google Scholar is a great tool.
The default for Google is to display 10 results on a page.
You can change that and make it as large as 100. That is my default.
So, I seldom go beyond the first 100 results, but I do go way down in the 100.
I would write more, but I just don’t have the proper attention span to do so.
Goodbye.
So why go past it?
I never do just one search though. I usually do at least 3 searches when researching something, maybe more depending on how big of a fight I’m looking to get into.
I’ll read a site from my search, then I’ll take something from that site (author, source cited, quote given, etc.) and search that.
I’ll do this over and over until I’m satisfied that I have the facts.
I also will do several different search terms a lot of the time. So only the first page, but first page for 3 – 7 search terms.
and what I gathered at the time was that the Internet might be actually suited to our historical tendencies as we would have needed bursts of high intensity concentration in our ancestral past to deal with the imminent threat posed by a Saber Toothed Tiger about to devour us. So maybe we are hard wired for the Internet.
(and I know the irony of skimming articles…)
🙂
then use a Google search to back up what I find on Wiki. Wiki is a pretty good source for information on a wide range of information usually written in plain English. This is especially helpful when looking up arcane law terms or language usages or etymology. Google can be very helpful with advanced search functions but even with a basic search as long as you are looking for common answers or mainstream publications.