[Swizec]

The ultimate bookmarking tool: Google.

Just google for something you want to use. It works like magic. The info is always up to date [1], it always finds what you need from the most obscure of references your brain comes up with, and no links are ever broken.

Oh and everything is a single click away. Win.

[1] no working off of stale bookmarks where the author neglected to go back and say "HEY THIS IS BAD NOW, DONT DO IT"

[DanBC]

An English MP was caught in the expenses scandal. That MP was facing heavy criticism in the press for some of the things they had claimed for.

To respond better to the press this MP paid for public relations training.

The MP then claimed for the PR training on expenses.

I read about this in a national UK newspaper. (Either the Telegraph, or the Independent, or the Grauniad.)

I cannot find the name of the MP or the story.

Web searching doesn't always work.

[Swizec]

You mean the first hit for googling "telegraph MP expense scandal" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/9815...

It's about "The police have re-opened their enquiry into the former MP Denis MacShane after he admitted submitting fake receipts to claim expenses.", which sounds a lot like your story.

So I'm guessing the guy you're looking for is Denis McShane.

[DanBC]

No, but thanks for playing.

Specifically, there is no mention in that report of expenses claimed for public relations training.

[bjterry]

Are you referring to this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5425...

I found this article as a link from the first result of: telegraph MP expense scandal "public relations" training (I added the quotes because lots of articles about MPs seemed to have "public" in them without mentioning "public relations").

[lttlrck]

You should have bookmarked it. Then you could have posted the link here and we could have found it on Google :)

[ScottWhigham]

I love how people want to show you how clever they are ("I found it!") rather than deal with your topic for what it was. Is it desperately wanting an upvote, or "Can't wait to prove someone else wrong"? Oh well.

[Wilya]

> no links are ever broken.

I'd take my broken links over Google's "Did you mean..." any time. Practically speaking, except for constantly recommended stuff, Google's memory doesn't go more than a year or so back in the past, unless you know very precisely what you are looking for (at the very least, title and author of stuff).

[Swizec]

Probably depends on what you're looking for?

When I'm googling for coding tips, I often find blogposts that are several years old simply because they're still relevant and still solve my problem.

Guess it's different for news ... but I wouldn't look for old news anyway. Or at least I haven't needed to so far.

[spladow]

Google doesn't always find the thing I want, at least in the context of a bookmark, which is something specific that I want to return to. When I consult my bookmarks it's not necessarily to remember the broad strokes of a story, it's to read someone's take or even a specific line from an article that I only vaguely remember now that some time has passed, but suspect was really good. Sometimes Google gets me what I want, but often there are similar stories from larger sources that trump what I'm looking for.

Sometimes I feel like going back through things I liked (or have been meaning to read for a while) about a certain topic in bulk, so bookmarks with tags are nice. Querying Google to show me everything I've thought looked interesting about [x] won't work.

Sometimes you want something that isn't up anymore. Google has cached pages for lots of stuff but not everything. Pinboard will keep a copy of everything I bookmark.

[genwin]

I tend to google to re-discover things I already have bookmarked. It usually takes more effort to look for the bookmark.

[Swizec]

Yes, when I noticed this I stopped using bookmarks :)

[criley]

Honestly, my bookmarks are a dramatically better resource than Google for many things.

Remember: Google is full of SEO optimized bullshit and the highest links are generally the ones that want to be highest and not necessarily the best.

Or, another way: The best resources online are not always posted by SEO-friendly people on major websites. I can curate those gems into an awesome list.

Google misses gems and Google is curated only by an algorithm that is heavily targeted for manipulation.