oops wrong button hit when new message appeared [?] On 29 October 2010 13:18, Gnangarra <[email protected]> wrote:
> Galleries need to be encouraged to higher degree, these galleries work well > as a guide but also as a way for potential contributors to identify areas > where theres a short fall in available media. > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Banksia --- which then links to the > species categories directly > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Western_Australia then steps down to; > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Perth,_Western_Australia > > What about a bot reading descriptions identifying keywords then adding it > to those categories as a way to reduce the reliance on editors to select the > categories. > > The other thing is the search results try > > commons search for canoe > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=canoe > google images search for canoe > > http://www.google.com.au/images?hl=en&source=imghp&biw=1680&bih=869&q=canoe&gbv=2&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= > > Commons search returns a list most people will see the category link and > only 4-6 images initially, compared to google 32 images and 5 alternative > search options -- the layout of the results on commons could be alot better. > Even simple things like the first return is a link to the category:Canoe the > information it gives on the category is "*28 B (1 word) - 04:37, 27 > September 2009*" thats not really enticing people to even look there, then > click on the link and you hit a soft redirect to "Canoes" another click then > returns 196 images, plus 8 subcat with a further 10 subcats and 290+ photos. > That initial search should have return the category of Canoes(because thats > what is used) and the descrition should be something like "*196 images, > +27 subcats containing 472 images*" now that would entice people to > explore the category > > If you search for the intiial example of > Genetics<http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=Genetics>you > get first on the list a link to the category its description is "2 > KB (19 words) - 11:05, 10 November 2009" it does nothing to indicate the > depth of information available, click on the category it lists just 5 > subcats but theres 14 more if you page to the next 200 each with multiple > subcats including one cat that has 25256 files. > > We need a search result screen that coveys the availablility information > when a search occurs so that people are able to understand whats actually > available. Whie the M/P issue is annoying most people once they are enter > past the differences wont encounter it again. Commons could benefit with an > address that is uniquely commons but commons function is as a repository to > all projects maybe call it "Wikilibrary" > or "Wikirepository" which would give some difference to the Foundation to help stop the M/P confusion > > > > > > > On 29 October 2010 10:11, John Vandenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Neil Kandalgaonkar >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > As for the Wiki(p|m)edia thing, I have to say I agree 100%, although I >> > don't know what other complications there might be. >> > >> > >> > On 10/28/10 1:21 PM, Lars Aronsson wrote: >> > >> >> Now, the second part. Finding pictures in Commons >> >> is really hard. It seems that categories and textual >> >> descriptions are added by the uploader, and rarely >> >> modified or enhanced by others. Finding a map of bird >> >> migration paths across Europe might be easy, but >> >> finding a plain and simple map of Europe is hard. >> > >> > I was just talking about this with some other people at the WMF... I >> > don't fully understand the ramifications of the debate, but it seems >> > obvious to me that categories as implemented are not useful. >> > >> > The debate I see on Commons and elsewhere focuses on trying to fix >> > Categories, but frankly IMO it would be better to migrate them to some >> > other systems entirely. >> >> I agree. >> >> > I've been mumbling about creating a design doc or mockups for my ideas >> > to a few people at the WMF... is anyone else interested in working on >> this? >> >> IMO, the problem is not how it looks, but the utility of the information. >> If the metadata was more accessible, more people would fill it in. >> see e.g. >> >> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Dublin_Core >> >> -- >> John Vandenberg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Commons-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l >> > > > > -- > GN. > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > Gn. Blogg: http://gnangarra.wordpress.com > -- GN. Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Gn. Blogg: http://gnangarra.wordpress.com
<<364.gif>>
_______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
