What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
The camera starts rolling on Best Buy holiday campaign. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - A behind the scenes look at one employee's singing debut.
114 Comments
- trghpy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+58take google down? No.
Become an alternative search engine? Yes.
It'd be nice if there was a search engine alternative to google. In the last 2-3 years I've never gotten what i was looking for though MSN/Yahoo. Hell AltaVista returns better results than yahoo.
Ask.com isn't a search engine, its where we send grandpa cuz he doesn't understand boolean searches. - BigSax, on 10/10/2007, -2/+32Short answer - Probably not, but it could compete.
And props to them for not calling it a "Google killer." - jetskirider650, on 10/10/2007, -2/+30I think Wikipedia right now has a terrible search engine. If it is anything like that, I would say no.
- Otto, on 10/10/2007, -4/+24Answer: No. Wikipedia's search engine sucks rocks. Google searches Wikipedia WAY better than Wikipedia does.
- Aurostion, on 10/10/2007, -2/+19And our queries will start returning: "Not notable. Your website has been tagged for quick deletion."
- atrus123, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13Sounds like the way Yahoo! used to operate.
- Philodox, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Did you know that search engines were human powered (to varying degrees) before Google came along? I really don't think we're going to head back down that road.
- superpixel, on 10/10/2007, -4/+15but no ads, right Jimbo?
- 1jaxstate1, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13The answer is NO, just as it was yesterday when this was on digg.
- TTURabble, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7No, because it will become just as elitist as wikipedia is. I don't want a bunch of people editing my search results because some prick decides that its not informative or relevant. I will decide what websites are relevant and informative when i search for something, you can take your opinions and shove them where the sun don't shine.
- phej, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8So wait, you're telling me I can volunteer for a for-profit company like Wikia and help them get better search results and not get anything from it? Where do I sign up!?
Working on Wikipedia is different because it's non-profit. No one makes money from the work we all do, but Wikia search is different, people will be making money off my time and work while I get none of it.
No thanks. - djdole, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6FYI, there are other ways to secure funding beyond site-space whoring.
Jim Wales has always been against banner advertising, and this view has been (so far) reflected on Wikipedia through it's content posting rules, and the funding of the site.
At least once a year Wikipedia will have a donation drive on their website. You'll see a 'progress bar' at the top of the site asking for donations and showing the progress of the donations to the goal. It's kinda like a web-equivalent of NPR's telethons. - gamerzworld, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9Live search is just MSN Search with a new name.
- Gugel, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6There are a LOT of problems with this human-edited search results idea. For example, how will they deal with people unjustly altering results?
- acceptab1euname, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Yeah, I can't wait for the pompus administrators from Wikipedia to start applying the 'policies' to search engine results....while it'd be awesome if I could start tagging search results as spam or garbage or inaccurate and get better searches in the future, I can't imagine this working out well with all the fun bureaucratic nonsense that Wikipedia has set up for itself. Let the edit wars commence...
- mgrest, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I agree with your comment. Wikipedia's search engine right now is poor. It relies on 100% accurate spelling of terms in order to produce search results. This type of algorithm doesn't suit a Wikipedia search.
For example, I may be searching for an obscure city in Eastern Europe, and unless I get the spelling just right, it's not going to help me; unless someone got there before me and redirected my nearly-correct spelling to the actual article (which is the case some of the time but not a real solution).
Maybe the whole story has come about as Wikipedia recognise their search engine is not up to the job, and instead of writing a bespoke Wikipedia search engine, they are looking at expanding the effort to provide a community driven search engine.
I think their plan is sound. It'll probably make use of some sort of search bar; "You searched for xxxxx. Here's a page that the community thought was the best match for your search of xxxxx. Please help us evolve our system by telling us if we got it right".
After a year of learning I think we might have something here... - jenesys, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6If the search engine is as accurate as their stories, hell no.
- SoulMaster2, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Will I be able to search Wikipedia and come up with useful results? Cause Wikipedia has the ***** search I've ever seen, and worst of all since I don't know about the things I'm looking up, spelling would be one of them
- Error601, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4This a bit more to running google than a search engine. Like the huge amount of storage and computer power behind it.
- PatrickA, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5No.
A lot of people still don't understand search enough to even realise what search engine they use. Sit behind the middle aged people in your office and watch them typing urls into the search box and queries into the address bar for 10 minutes and you realise that people won't change no matter how bad the user experience is. Until Google actually stops working for some reason people will not switch. - Cerium, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5It would be interesting to have available, but anyone who knows how to use Google can get it to say the answers...
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4{golf clap}
- bnuk013, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4yeah i get so sick of the ***** google spits out, i've found if im looking for something recomended by an actual human i just tack the word "forum" on the end of it and then it brings up random forum posts about said topic.
- murphygr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4no, because google is already on many people's toolbars, and people are lazy
- x00x, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3No, absolutely not. One thing I am absolutely positive of is that it will not be another search engine type adversary that brings google down. Whatever it is that will eventually supplant google in the way all and every dominant force throughout history have inexorably succumbed to in diminished capacity, it is that of which is as yet unknown, unimagined.
- VenTatsu, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I can see it now:
MP3 Players
Revision history
JobsFanBoi (-> iPod is better than Zune)
GatesGuy (-> Zune is better than iPod)
JobsFanBoi (-> iPod is better than Zune)
GatesGuy (-> Zune is better than iPod)
JobsFanBoi (-> iPod is better than Zune)
GatesGuy (-> Zune is better than iPod)
JobsFanBoi (-> iPod is better than Zune)
GatesGuy (-> Zune is better than iPod)
(and so on for about 5000 pages) - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I was just thinking that very thing. And you know what? I miss that! I liked having that as an option in addition to altavista. I think a good web index is something that is totally missing right now. We have gone the "brute force" route and "machine intelligence" route but maybe it is time to bring the humans back on board.
WP is the right company to do this because we know it won't become an ad infested mess where companies buy their way into the index. Overall, pretty excited about this and I hope it works well. - specialK16, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3NO WAI
- DrawingTheSun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Eat them, according to the "Eat the Bad Wiki's for Food program" (EBWF) we are allowed to eat the people who vandalise the wikisearch.
- plingboot, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I thought Wikipedia was a non-profit charity and not a company. Can such an organisation be sold?
- TheTankengine, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3What the hell are you talking about?
- gegtik, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5I really doubt it... too ripe for abuse, and I suspect the wealth of search terms would make it too grand in scope to be meaningfully administered
- pradvan, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5no. next story please.
- keithmcbride, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Have you seen Wikipedia?
When I want to know about something, I don't even go to Google, I search Wikipedia. People have complete histories and links to related articles all laid out for me.
What people don't understand is that by Google's search rating, the most popular, new pages come up to the top, and older, less viewed things fade away. Just because something isn't posted on some million-viewer site doesn't mean the page isn't informative. - gamerzworld, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Your wrong.
- AlexFerny, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"human-assisted editing" - How do you edit a constantly moving goalpost that has a gazillion billion sites and as many possibly searches?
- HanSolo69, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Not if it won't even be able to find the Wikipedia homepage if i happen to leave one letter out of my search.
- Renton, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3This is my website [citation needed]
- snowwrestler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2And I hear it will be "bigger than the Big Mac."
Can we please stop with the Jimmy Wales spam? He was one (not the only one) of the people who began the Wikipedia project. He didn't build it--everyone did. That's the essential insight of wiki projects--lots of little leaders, not one big visionary. Wales left the Wikipedia Project, and has since minimized the involvement of others in it, because it turns out he actually doesn't like that insight. He wants to be the big visionary leader like Larry Ellison or Richard Branson. But so far all he's got are more wiki projects (that he hosts, but does not lead), and a vaporware search engine.
At least let's wait until the thing launches. I mean it's not like it only has to beat Google. Yahoo and Microsoft are spending a fair bit on their search products too, not to mention Ask.com and all the verticals. - owaters, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Nope. Simple as that. Google searches Wikipedia and more...
- archlich, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1First of all this is the article: http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSN272470320070727?pageNumber=2&sp=true
Secondly, the company that bought this is Wikia, not the organization Wikipedia. Wikia is a for profit company http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikia . Wikipedia is founded by the same guy and runs on the Wikia software.
Thirdly the company Wikia acquired Grub search engine and plans to open source that... (No, not the bootloader) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grub_%28search_engine%29 - Billions, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Plus you can just write your own search results. Har.
- djdole, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'd totally use a wiki-engine over google.
I already use wikipedia to visit specific sites over googleing them. It's just easier to checkout the wiki page and get a little information on the company, then scroll down to the 'External Links' section to visit the page, rather than be advertised to by who knows how many companies that paid to be a "Sponsored Link" at the top of Google's search results.
Granted, I'd still use Google for non-specific searches, but a wiki-engine would totally rock. - AlexFerny, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The more informative something is, the more it spreads though the communities on the internet - and thats the sort of web 1.5/2.0 thing Google counts on in order to rank / find results.
- standsolid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Mahalo?
- macwally, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Finally someone else who realizes how much Wikipedia's search effin' sucks.
- richardiscool, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2WRONG.
- x00x, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1As a huge fan of Spock, logic compells me to consider your statement an expression of admiration and honor. Thank you.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 116 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is