Trying to read up on how gossip really works, I found a nice ’79 article: Teasing, Gossip, and Local Names on Rapanui. Sadly, Google scholar says it only ever got three cites. That seems an underestimate of its value to me. The rest of this post is just lots of quotes:
I would expect it to be less reliable in the sense of omitting citations entirely (especially for stuff that has never been digitized); I'm more puzzled why it's omitting citation counts for citations it clearly does know about because it led me directly to them!
FWIW, I was surprised to see only 3 citations for something with fulltext already available, and double-checked. GS is wrong about the citation count - I easily found additional citations it isn't counting inside 'related articles', eg https://anthrosource.online... (which cites it as McCall 1981, presented paper). It's probably more like 10-20.
I would expect it to be less reliable in the sense of omitting citations entirely (especially for stuff that has never been digitized); I'm more puzzled why it's omitting citation counts for citations it clearly does know about because it led me directly to them!
Maybe Google Scholar citation count is less reliable for such old papers.
Fulltext link: https://scholarspace.manoa....
FWIW, I was surprised to see only 3 citations for something with fulltext already available, and double-checked. GS is wrong about the citation count - I easily found additional citations it isn't counting inside 'related articles', eg https://anthrosource.online... (which cites it as McCall 1981, presented paper). It's probably more like 10-20.