On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 01:32:36PM +0200, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > * Randy W. Sims <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-17 12:45]: > > There is, however, another advantage to the catagory approach: > > Searching would likely be more consistent. It would help > > authors to place their modules so that they can be found with > > similar modules. It would also help ensure that users looking > > for a particular type module will get back a result set that is > > likely to contain all/most of the modules of that type. > > Why does it have to be either/or? > > There could be two keyword lists, one with fixed keywords, and > the other freeform. Their names would have to be chosen carefully > to suggest this as the intended use (rather than filling both > with the same keywords) -- maybe ``keywords'' and > ``additional_keywords'' or something.
I agree that If there is to be an "official" list of keyowrds then it shouldn't be either/or. The officials haven't regenerated the module list for 2 years, there's no reason to think that the keyword officials will stay up to date. That said, I don't think having 2 lists is useful. The author should supply a single list of keywords. Those that are on the official list are on the official list, those that aren't aren't. The search engine/indexer will be far better at figuring that out than the module author. Otherwise you are just obliging the authors to keep track of the official list and move keywords around in their meta info as the official list chnages. It would be up to the search engine to perhaps give more weight to official keywords. The search engine could also maintain "official" synonyms so that "postgres" and "pg" are indexed together, F
