On 19 May 2010 03:59, Matthew Brown mor...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm against the idea of automatically updating content for the reason that
it's assuming the prediction in the article about a future event is true and
actually happened as predicted.
Two examples of outdated statements, both spotted
The link to Special:Search is the magnifying glass icon next to (or
in) the search box.
To get Search instead of Go, do what Magnus Manske suggested a few days ago:
just type your search query, then hit the cursor up key to select
the last point in the dropdown box, which is the good ol' search
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
wrote:
The link to Special:Search is the magnifying glass icon next to (or
in) the search box.
To get Search instead of Go, do what Magnus
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Magnus Manske
magnusman...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
wrote:
snip
But pressing the down button does nothing any more. *sigh*
Yeah, they replaces AB with CD, then silently removed D. Be
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Magnus Manske
magnusman...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
wrote:
The link to Special:Search is the magnifying glass
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe if the Go page had a Not the result you wanted?
Click here to search by text prompt at the top?
That would work as well. I also find throwing a random extra term into
the search helps focus it and takes you to the search
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
The down arrow still works for me.
Whoops. I meant clicking the *up* arrow no longer works for me.
In my original post (which Magnus replied to) I had mentioned the down
arrow when I meant the up arrow.
You can't even
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure changing the default from Go! to text
search is the answer, though - and adding another button would be
confusing. Maybe if the Go page had a Not the result you wanted?
Click here to search by text prompt at the top?
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 default is
search not go, I suspect more people are used to getting a list
In which year of Wikipedia's existence did it start to really attract and
satisfy users? In other words, when did it hit a critical mass of good content
so that users searching for information on Topic X had a reasonable chance of
finding something on the site that would make them want to
On 19 May 2010 16:43, Michael Ritchey ritche...@familysearch.org wrote:
In which year of Wikipedia's existence did it start to really attract and
satisfy users? In other words, when did it hit a critical mass of good
content so that users searching for information on Topic X had a reasonable
A google news search for Wikipedia is revealing:
http://news.google.com/archivesearch?pz=1cf=allhl=enq=wikipediacf=all
A table of google blog hits by year (easy to do) would probably be a good
way to get impressions of cultural use, with scholarly and academic use
following about 3-4 years after
Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
In the first case, he did. In the second case, it didn't, because the
program got cancelled. A self-updating text would be fine in the first
half, but quite problematic in the latter.
Nice catches. I've been seeing them all the time too in my casual
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,
15 matches
Mail list logo
