#thiswritinglife

June 28, 2024

Being a sometime dive down the rabbit hole of the craft and business of writing.


I wrote a piece about research rabbit holes a minute ago (in Internet time, anyway) when researching Abduction of a Slave (Isis4, publishing in January 2025), and it crystalized a realization that has been coming on slowly over, oh, say the last year or so.

Googling is starting to suck.

Kate Shugak knew this before I did. In Restless in the Grave (Kate19) one of the characters says Bill’s Bar and Grill in Newenham is better than Google at getting the news out. In Not the Ones Dead (Kate23) Kate misses a vital clue because she doesn’t go past the first page of Google results. In her defense she never had to before; for a long time the first ten hits were all you needed. Hell, the first three.

That isn’t true anymore. The first search hits on any topic are almost always sponsored; i.e., someone paid to place them there at the top of the page. A Google search has become indistinguishable from a product search on Amazon–vendors pay to have their products be the first thing you see.

I understand that all these Internet billionaires want to become trillionaires and the way to do that is to monetize their service. Okay, I get it, I’m a capitalist, too. (Although there are times when I want to say to these guys, “Dudes, seriously, how much is enough?)

I have a duty to my publisher to get books in on schedule so my fans can read them and I don’t have time to dick around sifting through Google search results. So now, in the menu bar of my browser (which, yes, is still Chrome, for now) I have a direct link to Wikipedia. I have another to Merriam-Webster. There’s a third to Alaska 511, the Alaska Troopers’ Daily Dispatch page, by far and away a better source than any Google search for criminal activities in Alaska.

I’m thinking about adding a link to the online edition of Encyclopedia Britannica (thinking because there is only so much space on that bar), and I’ve checked out the search functions on Smithsonian and National Geographic, which I don’t find quite up to speed, yet. (Try searching Wrangell-St. Elias Park on the latter. Much better to go directly to the NPS page.) The New York Times has digitized its entire morgue and when I had to look up the history of sewing machines I found a NYT article on the topic from 1860. Subscription required of course, but worth it. They are the nation’s paper of record and there is 175 years’ worth of searchable reporting waiting to be mined.*

The Internet is still a wide and wonderful place. Don’t let any one search engine curate it for you.


* Google “how much is a nyt digital subscription” and take a look at the results. Then come back here and tell me in the comments how much you think it is and where you found it.

#thiswritinglife

11 Comments Leave a comment

  1. I’m almost 90 and struggling to stay technologically relevant…then ask myself, WHY?!? Seems a lot more productive to go find another happy hour that has an appetite for Sinatra.
    …then my curiosity raises its ugly head….

  2. $1/week for your first year

    Billed as $4 every 4 weeks, then $25 thereafter.

    The second entry on the first google page, but NY Times was sponsoring the link, so no fair report can be made.

  3. There are still multiple internet search engines available, and not all of them are shells over Google or Bing. Exploring them can be fun, but a definite time-sink.

    I was one of those kids who would lose a whole afternoon at the library while article-hopping in the Encyclopedia Britannica.

    Seeking out multiple sources remains a good practice.

    I still bear a grudge against the New York Times for misquoting me in an interview about the United Airlines flight 585 crash in 1991.

    • Thanks, Susan, I already have a digital subscription. The challenge was to find the price among all the Google search hits. Notice how cleverly they never tell you what the full annual price is on search. You have to go to the NYT website for that, because they figure once you’re there they’ve got you. (although of course I digress, as it’s one of my best things)

  4. Totally agree – Google sucks – and now with AI it is worse and accuracy is going down the drain pipe. You have to be careful with wikipedia too. I have had a subscription for NYT for years and I keep it on the low side. Every time they tell me the subscription is going up, I tell them I can’t afford (retired and income is limited) and they keep me at my current rate. I love going down rabbit holes and do it at least once a day when going through the NYT summary page. There is such an incredible amount of interesting things to read about – just learned about the influences of Charles II.

    Oh by the way I wrote this while in suspended animation so I can stand the wait for the new Kate. They are pumping in the pervious audio books – I’m on Bad Blood – while I sleep. 😉

  5. I agree, I hardly ever use it anymore. I found out I could subscribe to NYT on their New York Times online website. I read articles that lead there all the time. Thank you for adding such great search places. The dictionary is helpful. I have Wikipedia as the go to search place on my Ipad. You could spend all day just looking up random things. Or I use the Maps icon on my Ipad when I read books to find places Like the Margaret Murie book Two in the Far North. I look up each Alaskan place they go along the Yukon. I am going to love clicking on the links. TY Dana.

  6. Hi. I have a British Council library membership which gives me access to Pressreader, which in turn lets me read newspapers and magazines from all around the world. That might be of use to you.

    Also, I thought you might find how I discovered your books interesting. I am a member of many reading clubs on Goodreads and take part in challenges where one has to read books that fulfil specific tasks, simple things like something on the cover or a cover of a specific cover. For one of the challenges, I had to read a book by an author who was born in the same month as me. I was pleasantly surprised to discover that you and I share the same date (though different years) and I read the first Kate Shugak. Since then, I have read all the books in that series a few times, and am currently on book 4 of the Liam Campbell series. I am so very glad that I found your books which have all become favourites, and I am very much looking forward to book 24.
    Best wishes and regards from India,
    Preeti

Leave a Reply to Ginger H.Cancel reply

Discover more from Dana Stabenow

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading