Carcharoth wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Soxred93 wrote:
I feel inadequate. 32. :'(
Well, I have less than 1% of the total. But apparently more than 0.5%
That would be around 20,000 redirects! boggle
2009/12/6 Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com:
When the (insufficiently anonymized) AOL search data was released
I took the top query terms where there were no wikipedia articles
and went about making redirects:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gmaxwell/seo
I'd like to think it helped...
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 8:23 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Most of the typos for MySpace.com and google.com had been created
and deleted by db-R3 (typo unlikely to happen in real life). I
recreated them with an edit summary pointing to that page, as evidence
that people's typing
The Signpost article about the new tool for scavenger hunts (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-11-23/Uploading_tool)
as part of the Wikipedia Takes The City (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Takes_The_City) caught my
eye.
So much so, in fact, enough
Steve Bennett wrote:
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 8:23 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Most of the typos for MySpace.com and google.com had been created
and deleted by db-R3 (typo unlikely to happen in real life). I
recreated them with an edit summary pointing to that page, as
2009/12/7 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
There is an argument that MediaWiki should really just have a very good
natural language search engine that can guess what users are looking for,
despite any typos.
There's an even better argument that a hand-built search engine built by
thousands
2009/12/7 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com:
And there is a further argument that [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy
deletion#Redirects]] should reflect this by stronger wording. As in if
any doubt, don't nominate or delete, since the resource implications of
retaining a redirect
...in 1941, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, bringing the U.S. into
World War II. Not that you'd know that from the On this day section
of the main page. I guess there is an iron rule that nothing mentioned
in any other part of the main page makes it into the On This Day
section (a Today's
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 17:05, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
...in 1941, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, bringing the U.S. into
World War II. Not that you'd know that from the On this day section
of the main page. I guess there is an iron rule that nothing mentioned
in any other part of
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 7:14 PM, Jim Redmond j...@scrubnugget.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 17:05, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
...in 1941, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, bringing the U.S. into
World War II. Not that you'd know that from the On this day section
of the main page. I
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
day's events in history. Excluding Pearl Harbor (or anything similarly
notable) from OTD because a related content item is featured elsewhere
on the page suggests that the event itself is not notable enough to be
listed on OTD.
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 18:55, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps there are folks who are scraping just
the On this day section, or people who look there for interesting
tidbits on the date. Or expect to look there to find articles on the
day's events in history.
True. OTD's contents
12 matches
Mail list logo
