Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet

Wikia Search Upgrades Get Closer 57

Posted by CmdrTaco from the step-in-the-somewhere-direction dept.
Barence writes "Wikia Search has been revamped with a wealth of editing tools, to build on its early promise of being a more open search engine. The firm behind Wikipedia has introduced a wealth of editorial tools allowing users to directly edit and annotate results with text, images and links, as well as spotlight specific searches or even delete a site from the search results, a change which affects everyone who conducts that search in the future." Update: 06/04 17:32 GMT by T : Jimmy Wales wrote to point out that despite his role in founding Wikipedia, Wikia is a completely separate company.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wikia Search Upgrades Get Closer More

Wikia Search Upgrades Get Closer

Comments Filter:

  • "Open" (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    delete a site from the search results, a change which affects everyone who conducts that search in the future

    So it's possible to define censorship is "open" now? Awesome.

    And, Yes Yes. I know that one can go to some effort to determine whether a result has been censored and Undo It Yourself in the manner of Wiki. But how is it that you need to have expert knowledge in order to get uncensored information? Is that not the definition of elitism?

    • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by iago-vL ( 760581 )

      You're assuming that it'll be censored and say that way. I doubt that'll be the case -- if a user "censors" something, just like when a user vandalizes Wikipedia, it'll likely be reversed fairly quickly. It would surprise me if this became an issue.

      • Re:"Open" (Score:4, Interesting)

        by nahdude812 ( 88157 ) * on Wednesday June 04, 2008 @11:50AM (#23654831) Homepage
        Except that we know many admins on Wikipedia have repeatedly abused their position to advance a point of view on a topic - sometimes even for a topic they have a vested personal interest in - and suppress an opposing view.

        Who's to say that when an admin of Wikia Search also owns one or more sites in a given category, they won't use their power to repeatedly squash their competitor sites? And that when it comes up for review, their you-scratch-my-back-and-I'll-scratch-yours admin friends won't be there to defend them?

        Jimbo needs to do a lot of work in regard to increasing visibility of administrative process, and addressing administrative abuse (his typical response has been to blindly defend his admins).

        If he doesn't, abuse will become a lot more rampant, a lot more widespread, and a lot more subtle since now we're talking about something which can directly affect profits of a company and those of its competitors.

  • Closer to What Exactly? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by eldavojohn ( 898314 ) * <eldavojohnNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday June 04, 2008 @10:29AM (#23653275) Journal

    Wikia Search Upgrades Get Closer
    Closer to?

    Wikia Search moves closer to open ideal
    Oh, an "open ideal?" Is that a problem? I thought that was all Wikia's Search had going for it right now.

    Don't get me wrong, that's about all Wikipedia had going for it at one time. That and a meager couple thousand pages.

    But I think Wales' search project should aim a little higher at this point in time ... the improved tools are great and I don't doubt this is the openest search engine out there ... but shouldn't we all be a little more concerned about how well it works?

    Also, maybe the reward system should be a little more tangible, like Wikipedia's? I mean, people get a kick out of seeing something they write benefiting everyone in the world. I personally don't get a kick out of knowing that if someone searches for 'Lola by The Kinks' it now comes up with more accurate results. I question the rewards although, to be fair, I also questioned the rewards of Wikipedia.

    It shall be interesting to see whether or not this takes off. I encourage Wales to keep trying because even if this doesn't work, it certainly hasn't cost me anything. I wish him and his staff the best of luck!

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by saibot834 ( 1061528 )
      Wikia Search needs time. Like Jimbo says, when he started Wikipedia he called it an encyclopedia, even though at the time there were no articles. Wikia Search is still Alpha and people should stop thinking its a finished or even practically usable search engine. (Here [techcrunch.com] is an interesting conversation with Jimbo (read the comments))

      BTW: There seems to be some confusion about Wikia and Wikipedia. Short info:
      * Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that uses MediaWiki and is run by the Wikimedia Foundation
      * MediaWiki

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sm62704 ( 957197 )

      Wikia Search Upgrades Get Closer

      Closer to?

      Perhaps "closer to actually being useful?" I hadn't tried it before, but clicked the link to it from TFA.

      I wanted to find the aging but still humorous "police warning" about the new date rape drug "beer". So I luugged in "date rape" beer. None of the first page results returned a copy (there must be hundreds) of the document I was looking for.

      Google had the one I was looking for at the top of its list. Wikai search still has its work cut out for it. A search engine

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by patro ( 104336 )
      Also, maybe the reward system should be a little more tangible, like Wikipedia's? I mean, people get a kick out of seeing something they write benefiting everyone in the world. I personally don't get a kick out of knowing that if someone searches for 'Lola by The Kinks' it now comes up with more accurate results. I question the rewards although, to be fair, I also questioned the rewards of Wikipedia.

      Well, maybe the reward could be search results which YOU find relevant.

      I think Wikia Search could be even mor

  • Problems? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Wednesday June 04, 2008 @10:40AM (#23653465) Journal

    as well as spotlight specific searches or even delete a site from the search results, a change which affects everyone who conducts that search in the future."
    Anyone else see anything wrong with this?

    I want my results to be as agnostic as humanly possible, which means keep human hands out of my results.

    The problem with this type of search is that those with agendas will control the results. While I may like the agenda or support it, I don't want to limit what I see to just my POV. There are too many people who can't think beyond their own little world.

    I don't want Scientologists skewing results. I don't want Bush Bashers skewing the results anymore than Obama Haters. I don't want KKK results being skewed up or down because of an agenda (or two).

    I want to see Huffington Posts along with Michael Savage. The moment someone starts monkeying the results, the agnostic nature of searches goes away, and the search will become useless to me.

    • Re:Problems? (Score:4, Informative)

      by FooAtWFU ( 699187 ) on Wednesday June 04, 2008 @10:45AM (#23653571) Homepage

      as well as spotlight specific searches or even delete a site from the search results, a change which affects everyone who conducts that search in the future."
      Anyone else see anything wrong with this? I want my results to be as agnostic as humanly possible, which means keep human hands out of my results.

      Good. Have fun searching spam.

      Seriously, even Google's PageRank stuff relies on "human hands" placing links to documents on web pages.

      • Re:Problems? (Score:4, Informative)

        by Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Wednesday June 04, 2008 @10:56AM (#23653739) Journal
        I'm pretty sure you don't know how Page Rank works.

        From Wikipedia .....

        PageRank is a link analysis algorithm that assigns a numerical weighting to each element of a hyperlinked set of documents
        The results are based on an algorithm, not human manipulation. While PageRank isn't perfect, it is still about as good as anything else out there.

        • Re:Problems? (Score:4, Informative)

          by pablomme ( 1270790 ) on Wednesday June 04, 2008 @11:32AM (#23654477)

          The results are based on an algorithm, not human manipulation.
          The GP's point is that the data the algorithm uses is supplied by humans (those who write the webpages that link to other webpages).

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Archangel Michael ( 180766 )
            All Data is touched by Humans, so that is a specious argument.

            Data that is massaged by humans to get a certain result is tainted. Which is one of the flaws of PageRank system. I didn't say PageRank was perfect, just about as good as it gets.

            The point is, whenever someone learns how to game the system, it will end up like when PageRank gets exploited by irrelevant websites pointing to each other.

            I prefer a system where gaming the system is less likely. The approach here is to actually game the system.

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by pablomme ( 1270790 )

              All Data is touched by Humans, so that is a specious argument.

              It's not, it implies that it's not a matter of whether the data is human-provided or not, but of what amount (and type) of human implication is involved.

              Clearly WikiaSearch will need anti-spam and anti-censorship measures, but it may well be feasible to make it a good search engine.

              The problem IMO is that the quality of the search results is affected by the popularity of the search engine, and the popularity of the search engine is affected the quality of the search results. So for this to work they need a

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by pbhj ( 607776 )

              I didn't say PageRank was perfect, just about as good as it gets.
              Then why don't google _just_ use PR to provide list rankings rather than applying adaptations over the top?

              I think a moderation system that's less digital would be better.

        • If you take humans out of the equation, this [wikipedia.org] tends to happen.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Ben174 ( 853174 )
        Upon a quick glance at the recent updates page, it's apparent that Wikia's going to have their fair share of spammers [wikia.com].

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by patro ( 104336 )
        "Good. Have fun searching spam."

        Spam won't simply disappear if you let humans edit the results.

        In case of Wikia Search a spammer can edit the search results deleting the competition and he will be the frist match for a search for a short period of time until his edits are reversed.

        If the search engine has lots of users then even this short period of time can be very profitable and brings in thousands of visitors.

        I wonder how they will fight it. Delayed propagation of edits into the search results is no good

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by chunk08 ( 1229574 )
      So true. While the philosophy of Wikipedia and Wikia would perhaps hope that this would bring more "relevant" search results, it will be controlled by agendas. Wikipedia is, but so many people with different agendas edit it that everyone pulling in different directions "tends" to move it toward the middle. Since results can simply be deleted in Wikia Search, and one must go to some effort to find them again, the first person with an agenda who edits a search (the first person who edits the search), will mos
    • On the other hand it could make a handy mobile bookmarks system. Just do a search for "aeqoucqoueiriue123" then add all your bookmarks to the results. Next time you want to see your bookmarks just do the same search again.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by XanC ( 644172 )
        Ah, Dvorak gibberish. I'd recognize it anywhere. Lovely layout, isn't it?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Kingrames ( 858416 )
      The way I see it, it's no more censorship than letting everyone who searches say "that has nothing to do with what I was searching for" and actually seeing the computer respond.

      I'm fairly certain that if the people you mention DO engage in dubious practices like that that their accounts will be banned, their efforts undone, and their changes revoked.

      Then, in accordance with the Streisand effect, everything they hoped to accomplish will fail and backfire.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by owlnation ( 858981 )

        I'm fairly certain that if the people you mention DO engage in dubious practices like that that their accounts will be banned, their efforts undone, and their changes revoked.

        Well if Wikipedia is the model then, yes that will certainly happen. After all, Wikipedia has blocked entire countries' IP addresses on the whim of Jimmy Wales.

        The problem is... define "dubious practices".

        Wikipedia blocks for "vandalism". But has never satisfactorily defined what that is -- often in practice it's disagreeing w

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ThomasLB ( 1220384 )
      The major players in the computer business seem poised for a wave of mergers, and when that happens we won't have "agnostic" search results anymore. Instead, we'll have advertiser-driven search results skewed to improve the corporate bottom line. In the near future, an open-source community-driven search engine will be a very valuable resource to have.
    • While I agree that allowing anyone to monkey with your search results is ripe for abuse, you are assuming that there are no humans manipulating your search results at the current search engines. While Google loves to tout the fact that their search results are completely algorithm-driven, they actually have teams of people who use manual intervention on a daily basis to "improve" search results, which usually is done to stop abuse of their guidelines.

      These people can take actions such as setting a site's pa
  • Wikia Search also includes buttons allowing users to try their search on the other major search engines with a single click ...

    You can do site specific searches right from google by using the 'site' option. So to search wiki for 'lenin' you would enter the following on google:

    lenin site:wikipedia.org

    • Wikia Search also includes buttons allowing users to try their search on the other major search engines with a single click ... You can do site specific searches right from google by using the 'site' option. So to search wiki for 'lenin' you would enter the following on google: lenin site:wikipedia.org

      That's two different things altogether. Wiki Search supposedly lets you use other search engines from the same page. The Google example you gave lets you confine the same Google search results to hits from one site.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by risk one ( 1013529 )

      That's not what that sentence says. What wikia has are buttons that try your search on other search engines. It's like Google having a button "try this search on Altavista". Not a great functionality on established search engines, but on a system like this, that needs to find it's place, it's a pretty good idea.

      The main reason they're doing this, I imagine, is that they want to be people's home page, so it's a good idea to offer the same functionality as their previous homepage (eg. Google).

  • Whether I find it useful as a search engine or not, I will find at least some gratification in that I can do nothing but delete all search results from experts-exchange.com

    Yes, I'm bitter, I can't count the number of wasted clicks on their search results from google. Now that google cache doesn't work with experts-exchange, it is nothing but a time waster.
  • Haven't they had enough problems with this before? Seriously, there's one poor guy out there who's already spent most of the last year trying to keep vandals out of wikipedia pages for Clinton, Obama and McCain. (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/nation/5808949.html) And weren't there more issues last year with everyone from major corporations to the Vatican rewriting their pages? Are they just going to employ an army of editors to make sure we're not getting false info? What's the use of info

    • There's no such thing a perfectly trustworthy information. Ever, anywhere.

      The following goes for all information: If you care about being able to trust it, you verify with another source. The more you care, the more you verify.

      Wikipedia has a hard limit to its trustability, and within that limit they are doing very, very well.

      So in answer to your question: he use of information that no-one can trust is as a starting point. It's the use of any single source of information.

  • When ranking concepts directly related to sellable goods, what should get the higher concern? The sites selling the goods, reviewing, the manufacturer of those goods, etc... I see a strange attractor effect on many people drag-n-dropping their site every minute to the top of the page. I see the potential for serious embattlement over the top placement. I wonder how they will deal with this.

  • Despite Wales' hype about Wikia becoming comparable to Google, Wikia is mostly a hosting service for fancruft. The biggest wikis are Star [Trek|Wars|Gate|Craft], the Marvel Comics database, and similar dreck. Wikia's demographic lives in their parents basement.

    This is not a basis for a useful search engine.

    • Not sure about that. If you consider any good collaborative model (based on mutual benefits) you will prefer fans and geeks rather the regular not-caring folks... If Jimbo succeed when trying to put together the fans of several different kind of subjects, he should be able to build a really neat search engine.... Remember, there are people obsessed about a lot of things beyond Star Trek and etc... And on collaborative model, this weird people are exactly the ones you can rely to freely and happily help y

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling

Close