Brion Vibber wrote: Why not offer all: Search box - search button - radio button "Go" (preselected) - radio button "fulltext" - radio button "Google" Magnus

On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 01:47, Andrew Alder wrote: No, it's not; it's exactly the same. Consider (for ease of exposition) an article in the middle of an edit war. Three-quarters of the time it has version "A" (the "stable" version); one-quarter of the time it has version "B" (the "unstable" version). Then, three-quarters of the time, when the Google spider grabs and indexes this article, it will get version "A". Three-quarters of the time, if somebody did a full-text search on the "current" wikipedia database, they would get version "A". Exactly the same. There's also the effect that Brion mentioned: even if Google happened to index a "stable" version when the current version was "unstable", the person would (by default) still end up reading the current, unstable version. Carl Witty

G'day Magnus, Brion and the Group At 02:26 PM 4/12/03 +0100, Magnus Manske wrote: That's a very good suggestion IMO. Andrew A **** andrewa @ alder . ws http://www.zeta.org.au/~andrewa Phone 9441 4476 Mobile 04 2525 4476 **** --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.532 / Virus Database: 326 - Release Date: 27/10/03

On Dec 4, 2003, at 16:36, Andrew Alder wrote: So why are we talking about this? Google isn't going to vanish from the web because we get the internal search back online. -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

Jimmy Wales wrote: On cabal-l(a)wikipedia.org ? :-) Magnus

G'day Brion and the Group At 04:42 PM 4/12/03 -0800, Brion Vibber wrote: We can drop it anytime you like. I don't understand that last quip. I don't think anyone proposed anything like that. In summary, questions that have been raised (with any useful answers I think are agreed) were: * Has there been previous discussion or thought as to whether the in-house search (hence IHS) offers any advantages over Google? A: No. * Are there any advantages to IHS? A: For contributors, Yes. A: For readers, No. * Are there any disadvantages to IHS? A: Yes. * Is it a case of one or the other? A: Not necessarily, there may be other options that offer the advantages of both. It's just an attempt at some lateral thinking. The discussion would be better on the Wiki than on the email list IMO, but apart from myself nobody was interested in talking about it on the Village Pump (where someone else raised it), while here we've had a discussion which I at least find quite a clutter in the mailbox. On the Wiki I can easily scroll up and down the discussion in a single screen, which I like, and refactor useful content with a few clicks. It's many times more time and trouble to do this on an email list. My personal productivity drops to somewhere between one-third and one-tenth I estimate, depending on the subject, which is annoying. I guess you're finding the same problem. I guess also that the easiest thing would be just to go back to what we had before performance problems led to disabling the internal search. I can't even remember what that was, so I'll have no complaints either way. Anyway, that's what I think we've been talking about, and I think the "why" is obvious: To get the best possible Wikipedia. Andrew A aka user:andrewa **** andrewa @ alder . ws http://www.zeta.org.au/~andrewa Phone 9441 4476 Mobile 04 2525 4476 **** --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.532 / Virus Database: 326 - Release Date: 27/10/03