I just came across the post below

I’v also seen the video on facebook.
Few things in it are worth discussing. It’s something I’v being try to get out of my chest long long time.

Thus

Google doesn’t have information please

I will explain that using the Hon’s definition of “Bloody widow”.

Disclaimer: I’m NPP sympathizer but have no interest in this back-front Ayawase election aftermath. The national security have done a bad job. We need professionalism next time. But that doesn’t give the license to coin a new definition.

Now, that out of the way, let’s get back to main business. I will explain what I mean by “Google doesn’t have information” in 3 points.

Note: Going forward, I will occasionally referencing to google as “Sheikh Google”. I think it deserves that dignity. 🙂

  1. Sheikh Google does not have information. Google only knows places where information is. Google’s work is to point you there. Period!
    When you pull up your browser and search for the phrase “bloody widow”, google only points you to possible websites or places where the word “bloody widow” have been mentioned. If you need some videos on Shata_f**k**g_wale, google will point you to Youtube or soundcloud or some other locations.
    If you need info on Ayawase by-election, Google will point you to Ghanaweb, myjoyonline, citinewsroom,modernghana. This is because there are articles on these websites that talks about Ayawase by-election. Any website or page that doesn’t talk about Ayawase West by election will not show up.
    That is all google can do for now. Google DO NOT HAVE INFORMATION... Google is only a pointer to information. That is what search engine does. It keeps records of other website pages that can give you what you need. Google is a search engine.
    In local terms, we can say Google is just a “connection man” that points us to the right information instead of trying to take us abroad through fake documents. The information doesn’t belong to Google. That is why if Ghanaweb pulls down an article, you won’t find it again online.

    In short:
    You can not reference Google. Google doesn’t have a definition of a word or a phrase or anything. You must reference a specific website or resource that Google pointed you to.

    What she read is from the online Cambridge dictionary. So it should be “According to the online Cambridge Dictionary” NOT “According to Google”. Who writes his thesis and reference just google.com. You need to reference the correct web page.

  2. What she read is a definition of Widow. Not Bloody Widow. Probably she got there through google, by entering the word bloody widow, I can understand. But that is not the definition there.
  3. It looks like she didn’t understand what’s written there too. Maybe because of how it’s arranged. Below is what she read

The page gave the definition of Widow. Not Bloody Widow. The page further explains other uses of the word Widow.

  1. Fishing widow
  2. Football widow
  3. Golf Widow

Thus, a woman whose partner is often not at home because he or she is fishing or playing football or golf.

She kind of mixed everything up. I think I’ll blame the arrangement.

I’m only bringing this up so we all learn. We are all limited in fields that doesn’t interest us. No one is jack of all trade. This “According to Google” is common among sports funds and presenters too.

Ask him who was the highest EPL goal scorer in 2000, and he will tell you “According to google, It’s XYZ”.

Google is not a source please!