On 5/21/10, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
now need to try typing the title of the longest article (which was
mentioned somewhere recently) to see if that will break the new gizmo.
:-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_word_in_English ;-)
--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Casey Brown li...@caseybrown.org wrote:
On 5/21/10, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
now need to try typing the title of the longest article (which was
mentioned somewhere recently) to see if that will break the new gizmo.
:-)
I like the changes from what I can see so far. Some of the stuff I was
saying earlier had gone is now back, so it looks like it was a
temporary thing while the changes were made. I like the way the text
now adjusts to being left-justified so you can see the whole text. I
now need to try typing the
Of course, I meant right-justified...
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 7:42 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
I like the changes from what I can see so far. Some of the stuff I was
saying earlier had gone is now back, so it looks like it was a
temporary thing while the changes were
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 06:20, Naoko Komura nkom...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Just a quick update:
Updated search interface was rolled-out to English Wikipedia earlier
today. Thank you all for your quick feedback.
Thanks for fixing the full-text search.
There's a significant change from Monobook
Naoko Komura wrote:
Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 04:15, Naoko Komura nkom...@wikimedia.org wrote:
We have updated the new search interface to address the issues above and
it is currently staged on the the prototype [1]. This update addresses
the reported issues
On 20 May 2010 16:23, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Yeah, but are they using the search box or using Google?
A moot question. There is no excuse for having Wikipedia make do with
a search box that is at best odd—and at worst an obstruction to our
reader's searches. What bothers
On 22 May 2010 00:28, AGK wiki...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 20 May 2010 16:23, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Yeah, but are they using the search box or using Google?
A moot question. There is no excuse for having Wikipedia make do with
a search box that is at best odd—and at
On 22 May 2010 00:36, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
Not so. The search box in classic is on the top left (as well as the
second one at the the end of the page). As far as I'm aware this
requies no changes from monobook.
I may have been being a little sarcastic :P. Sorry if I confused you.
AGK
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 12:28 AM, AGK wiki...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 20 May 2010 16:23, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Yeah, but are they using the search box or using Google?
A moot question. There is no excuse for having Wikipedia make do with
a search box that is at best
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 2:06 AM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
We have a rough proxy for use of search, I believe, by seeing the
traffic to special:search. We could try seeing if this exhibits any
noticeable difference after the chance.
We're limited here by the fact that, for
David Goodman wrote:
Not bad in terms of function, except for the small size of the search
box, which should be twice the current size there. But it would
still be better on the left side, under the logo.
Ah, but it would be confusing to be out of step with other websites,
wouldn't it?
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 3:26 AM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
Not bad in terms of function, except for the small size of the search
box, which should be twice the current size there. But it would
still be better on the left side, under the logo.
How about having JavaScript
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 04:15, Naoko Komura nkom...@wikimedia.org wrote:
We have updated the new search interface to address the issues above and
it is currently staged on the the prototype [1]. This update addresses
the reported issues such as truncation of search queries [2] and the
search
On 05/20/2010 01:13 AM, Charles Matthews wrote:
Ah, but it would be confusing to be out of step with other websites,
wouldn't it? Never mind that Wikipedia is sui generis and well known in
its own terms, it would be confusing not to conform to other sites in
having design imposed, not bubbling
Well, according to Google, there are somewhere between 1.5 and 1.8
billion internet users in the world. If we ignore those numbers and
say only 1B use the internet, then according to Alex wikipedia.org
gets about 13.5% of internet users. That's 135 million users. We
definitely don't have
Yeah, but are they using the search box or using Google?
Carcharoth
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Amory Meltzer amorymelt...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, according to Google, there are somewhere between 1.5 and 1.8
billion internet users in the world. If we ignore those numbers and
say only 1B
On 20 May 2010 16:17, Amory Meltzer amorymelt...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, according to Google, there are somewhere between 1.5 and 1.8
billion internet users in the world. If we ignore those numbers and
say only 1B use the internet, then according to Alex wikipedia.org
No, I mean actual data
On 05/20/2010 07:57 AM, David Gerard wrote:
On 20 May 2010 15:51, William Pietriwill...@scissor.com wrote:
But
assuming a 99:1 novice to expert ratio for our traffic, the current
approach must have saved an awful lot of extra clicks from novices.
Ahh ... do we have numbers from
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:30 AM, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote:
Good question. I should say that I have no inside knowledge on this
project, and am speaking purely as a random Wikipedian who does web
stuff for a living. That's just my educated guess, both on ratios and
clicks.
William Pietri wrote:
The community of editors definitely make this place what it is, but our
shared goal is to serve readers, and I think that should be paramount in
our minds. Especially in situations like interface design, where a
classic and incredibly common mistake is for internal
On 20 May 2010 16:29, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
No, I mean actual data from the actual use of our site. Putting the
search box in the same place as other popular sites is on the
assumption that people will find this more familiar. But what's the
actual data say about the change? I
Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 04:15, Naoko Komura nkom...@wikimedia.org wrote:
We have updated the new search interface to address the issues above and
it is currently staged on the the prototype [1]. This update addresses
the reported issues such as truncation of search
Magnus Manske wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 3:26 AM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
Not bad in terms of function, except for the small size of the search
box, which should be twice the current size there. But it would
still be better on the left side, under the logo.
On 20 May 2010 16:29, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 May 2010 16:17, Amory Meltzer amorymelt...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, according to Google, there are somewhere between 1.5 and 1.8
billion internet users in the world. If we ignore those numbers and
say only 1B use the internet,
Just a quick update:
Updated search interface was rolled-out to English Wikipedia earlier
today. Thank you all for your quick feedback.
Regarding the search location, we understand the inconvenience and the
sense of disorientation when the frequently used tool is moved around.
However, we
Hi, everyone.
We have received problem reports and feedback that search queries were
truncated sometimes and the search suggestions were hard to read or
chose due to the limited width. We apologize for introducing broken
behaviors in using the search. In order to mitigate spreading the
Not bad in terms of function, except for the small size of the search
box, which should be twice the current size there. But it would
still be better on the left side, under the logo.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 9:15 PM,
28 matches
Mail list logo
