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 Wed, May 19, 2010 at 17:40, Steve Summit s...@eskimo.com wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:
I suppose the idea is that most people using that search box want
go functionality,
Many tech-savvy editors, perhaps, but certainly not most readers.
not search functionality, but seeing as Google's
Anyone know why there isn't an article on Wikipedia on polarized light
microscopy?
It is listed at PLM:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLM
But is not even linked as a redlink.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Polarized_Light_Microscopy
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Carcharoth
carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Anyone know why there isn't an article on Wikipedia on polarized light
microscopy?
Are you talking about [[Differential interference contrast
microscopy]] or [[Interference reflection microscopy]]? Both appear to
On 20 May 2010 12:48, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Anyone know why there isn't an article on Wikipedia on polarized light
microscopy?
Seems to simply not exist yet. It did exist as a redirect at one point
but it's gone now:
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Magnus Manske
magnusman...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Carcharoth
carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Anyone know why there isn't an article on Wikipedia on polarized light
microscopy?
Are you talking about [[Differential
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
Spotted by Matthias:
http://www.mightaswelldance.com/blog/2010/05/how-wikipedia-kept-me-out-of-jail/
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
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
On May 15, 2010, at 10:12 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
But I can't say that these points really apply in many cases that we
appear to be applying them: We would reject as reliable sources many
hobbyist blogs (or even webcomics) with a stronger reputation to
preserve, less
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Philip Sandifer snowspin...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 15, 2010, at 10:12 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
But I can't say that these points really apply in many cases that we
appear to be applying them: We would reject as reliable sources many
hobbyist blogs (or even
Might be of interest:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/10130195.stm
Pakistan has blocked the popular video sharing website YouTube
because of its growing sacrilegious content. [...] Some Wikipedia
pages are also now being restricted, latest reports say. [...]
Carcharoth
Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Might be of interest:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/10130195.stm
Pakistan has blocked the popular video sharing website YouTube
because of its growing sacrilegious content. [...] Some Wikipedia
pages are also now being restricted,
On 20 May 2010 17:56, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Might be of interest:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/10130195.stm
Pakistan has blocked the popular video sharing website YouTube
because of its growing sacrilegious content.
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
Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 17:40, Steve Summit s...@eskimo.com wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:
not search functionality, but seeing as Google's default is
search not go, I suspect more people are used to getting a list
of search results and clicking the top one than
On 19 May 2010 15:51, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
... Yes, it makes a lot of sense that there would be such a button in
Wikipedia, because quite a lot of the people who type obama probably
just want the article about the president (but someone should research
how many
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
Relatedly, a proposal!
Search box, two buttons. One, search or go, acts as the old
mixed-search go button - it is a direct leap to that title, else
falling back on the search. The second button is advanced; it takes
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,
I chuckled.
Emily
On May 20, 2010, at 10:13 AM, David Gerard wrote:
Spotted by Matthias:
http://www.mightaswelldance.com/blog/2010/05/how-wikipedia-kept-me-out-of-jail/
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To
On 20 May 2010 16:13, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Spotted by Matthias:
http://www.mightaswelldance.com/blog/2010/05/how-wikipedia-kept-me-out-of-jail/
Very good :-)
AGK
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe
On Thu, 20 May 2010, Carcharoth wrote:
The combination results in a badly distended view of knowledge that has
wrecked more than a handful of articles on Wikipedia.
Some examples may help.
I already gave an example of the Marion Zimmer Bradley article: a published
author has a dispute with a
They're different. Polarized light microscopy is the oldest and basic
one. There is indeed more than the geological applications, but for
the ordinary technique the geological application are by far the most
important. Excellent (non-free) article at Nikon's site,
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
Philip Sandifer wrote:
On May 15, 2010, at 10:12 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
But I can't say that these points really apply in many cases that we
appear to be applying them: We would reject as reliable sources many
hobbyist blogs (or even webcomics) with a stronger reputation to
preserve,
On 21 May 2010 04:40, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
While this is not a reply specifically to what Greg raises, it
is a fact that we aren't just giving the cold shoulder to
silent knowledge, but also stuff written down in a language
not our own, when it happens to exist.
35 matches
Mail list logo
