What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
142 Comments
- Molnies, on 10/10/2007, -6/+310Wikipedia has one of the worst search engines out there, I always use Google to find the Wikipedia articles I'm looking for...
- Oakes, on 10/10/2007, -1/+196Let's not go overboard - Wikipedia can't even begin to touch the suckiness of digg's search.
- RawOysters, on 10/10/2007, -2/+78I'm sure Google is shaking in their boots.
- appletalk, on 10/10/2007, -3/+63Please bury this.
Wikia != Wikipedia, even though they have the same founder.
The title should read "google in danger from wikipedia's founder", or "wikipedia's sister site" - orangekid13, on 10/10/2007, -5/+40We are Google. You will be assimilated. Resistance is Futile.
- cquinnd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+35As long as Google can index pages from Wikipedia, having community support in search results may only serve to give Google's search results more relevant information to work from.
- rudy23, on 10/10/2007, -0/+34tell me about it. I use google to search digg most of the times. Why doesnt digg just integrate google serach into the site instead of worrying about making it better.
- nmajdan, on 10/10/2007, -4/+29Wikia. Not Wikipedia. Wikia is commercial while Wikipedia is not.
- Vlatro, on 10/10/2007, -4/+21You racially insensitive prick... If you knew the first thing about Mexican culture, you'd know that most of the ball sucking happens on Tuesdays.
- rnwen2750, on 10/10/2007, -14/+31Yeah, I don't think google has much to worry about. Wikipedia is notoriously unreliable. I'll stick to google - fast, efficient, and easy.
- rudy23, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16Google killer not used in title. Disappointed :(
- hockey, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16Sensationalist headlines suck.
buried. - Kitsune818, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12The difference is google is here, now, with most of the bugs worked out over time. Wikipedia's search, on the other hand, is just vaporware at this point.
Not to mention social search sites suck because of spamming/result poisoning/bombing. - purrp, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Community = open to abuse.
I don't think Google is losing any sleep over this.
Then again, neither were Altavista/Excite/Lycos/other search engines I can't even remember anymore... - madtaco, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11True dat.
- bushawa, on 10/10/2007, -8/+18Finally, someone else has said it. What is with Digg's search? It sucks more balls than a Mexican prostitute on a Sunday!
- facelesscoward, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Wikia != Wikipedia
- lord138, on 10/10/2007, -6/+14I hate, uhm.. you?
- CraigJ, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9you can digg wikipedia articles?
- jasmin888, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5What's feet got to do with it? ;D
- gtlogic, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Did you zombies even read the article? It's not going to use the current wikipedia to beat google, they're using a new user driven search technology to do so. You can't make a claim about how the current wikipedia search compares to google since they're not the same! jesus, think past the obvious. digg me down all you want, but most of the responses look like they were generated by google bots.
- Razster, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Hear Hear!
Digg.com's search is horrible at best, it is slightly lower then Wiki's search which too is crap
google search is the way: site:wikipedia.org 42
site:digg.com Meaning of Life 42 - nobody554, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6and Wikipedia hates you too
- Vlatro, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6I love how some losers try to interpret the article for them self then post their interpretation as the article header. The actual article's title read: "Wikia details plans for search rival to Google". Let's put that into context. The key word in the original title is "Rival". not "in danger from". There is an important distinction there. A bear and a trout are rivals, but the bear always wins. Rambo and the Korean army are rivals, Rambo wins. The word rival suggests an opposition, but not equality.
Also, "Plans to" means it hasn't happened yet. If it had, I doubt they continue planning for what has already happened. context is everything.
I also would place my bets with the multi-billion dollar corporation versus the group that has nearly gone bankrupt 6 times.
Also regard the quote from wikkia-founder Jimmy Wales "I could be wrong about this..." Comments like that don't exactly inspire investors.
Not to mention, the entire point of the article is combining human controlled editing for contextual evaluation with probability results from search algorithms. Google has been doing this for a while now. Play the image match game for an example of what I'm talking about. Plus, as the posters ridiculous title makes insanely clear, humans are not the best at putting information into context. While a machine may not understand the data, it doesn't have any position on the subject to taint the interpretation.
Now let's consider that the search is based on open source code. That means Google can see exactly what is being done and with very few limitations can incorporate it into their own search algorithms.
I'm not saying I like Google better than wikia, I love them both. I think any advancement in one project has a positive impact on the other, The title is purposfully misleading to incite fanboy flamewars, rather than actual discussion or interest in the project. - Chairboy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6I love Wikipedia, but I don't get how this will work. Will there be a few hundred 'canned responses' to common search terms that have been edited by the community? And if so, how will that reflect changes to the web? Google Just Works because it has a good series of algorithms for figuring out link popularity and whatnot, technology that would by it's very nature be better equipped than people. The web changes all the time, what are the odds that search results for things that aren't super popular will be updated on the WikiSearch as fast?
It's an interesting sounding plan, and I look forward to seeing it in action, but I have a certain skepticism right now. - Arock66, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Honestly, why would they think people want this?
They could do so much more with the money they are going to waste in this battle against other superior search engines. - RyeBrye, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4A search engine written in PHP? that can't be good.
- slapthemonkey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Google is more reliable and accurate.
- HanSolo69, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You don't happen to be my English professor do you?
- Bamborzled, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Too lazy to type five extra letters?
- NiX0n, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Buried as Inaccurate, because false headline writing should not be rewarded.
- OBKenobi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Jesus was a Jew, you blithering idiot.
- TechNTools, on 08/04/2008, -1/+4Sorry folks, google is not a monopoly...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly - masonba2000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Google and Microsoft for that matter are not in danger.
- kerms, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Google in danger? buried as inaccurate
- kurupttek, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2But dont call it a Killer please
- strum40, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Great a search engine from a group who doesn't even have a spelling assist on their current search. I know you should just be able to spell things correctly, but when you type in someone's name or a complex chemical it would be nice if the search was smart enough to help you out.
- joe7845, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Irrelevant. The search service they are planning has nothing to do with the Wikipedia search feature.
- OBKenobi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2[quote]Honestly, why would they think people want this? [/quote]
To have an open search engine that isn't controlled by a single corporate or national entity. - harmil, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7Molnies, please go re-read the article. This is about a planned search service to be offered by Wikia, not the existing search utility provided on Wikipedia.
As for the headline, "Google in Danger from Wikipedia," there are three problems:
1. Google isn't in danger because Wikia search doesn't exist yet.
2. Wikipedia has nothing to do with this (other than being the Wikimedia foundation's currently most popular and successful project)
3. The above two points cover the entire headline, leaving no useful context. - elementop, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Ummm...who *doesn't* use Google to search for anything anymore (other than apparently you, that is)?
- gdgi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2this is the most ridiculous claim i've seen in a long time.
- disappointed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Joe Sixpack should drink more water.
- ChuqAU, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Or even just "Google in Danger from Wikia" - no need to associate everything wiki-related to Wikipedia!
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2a sampling of some of my recent google searches:
openssh GSS_C_NO_NAME
kogelnik li laser beams and resonators
GLIBCXX_3.4.4 not found
ubuntu apt-get kde window decorations
bankofamerica alliance deutsche bank bnp paribas
yeah. i don't think wikia is going to do much help here. - fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Nobody's in danger from any of wikipedia's sister sites.... they have many sites but only one success.
- BravoLima, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2
@Philluminati
goodonyamate! Wikipedia, redacting reality in realtime! No thanks, you wanks! Even Google
merely oppresses the truth, compared to Wikimpedia. ; ^ ) - JoshChan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2you have some very serious mental problems...
- netkid91, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Stop bashing the Chinese issue, their other option is to stay out of China, besides, if a Chinese person REALLY wants to search "DEMOCRACY" they'd use Maxathon, which is now the most prevalent browser in China...
- OBKenobi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2All this proves is that Diggers still do not read the articles.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 142 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is