This content originally appeared on DEV Community and was authored by Jason Bann
Confident answer, dead link. Classic.
This is a 90-second drill to test whether an “AI answer” cites reality or decorates fiction.
The 90-Second Drill
1) Copy the claim. Pull the exact sentence the model is selling.
2) Open 3 tabs.
-
site: filter for primary sources (e.g.,
site:.gov,site:nature.com). -
filetype: for reports and methods (
filetype:pdf OR filetype:csv). - date range: match the timeframe the claim pretends to cover.
3) Verify author + provenance. Is the author real? Is the publisher the originator or a blog copying a blog?
4) Label the verdict.
✅ trustworthy / ❓ unknown / ❌ garbage (decorative link or irrelevant source)
Query Patterns (Copy/Paste)
-
"quoted phrase from the claim" site:.edu -
topic name filetype:pdf 2022..2025 -
site:arxiv.org "exact method"
Your 5-Line Receipt
Claim:
Primary source:
Method check:
Date match:
Verdict:
When to Use Perplexity/Bing vs. Go Direct
- Use aggregators to discover candidates (fast).
- Go direct for verification (slow by design).
Full breakdown, examples, and failure cases: (canonical)
https://vibeaxis.com/perplexity-vs-google-find-the-source-not-the-hype/
This content originally appeared on DEV Community and was authored by Jason Bann