https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38403

--- Comment #11 from Dan Garry <dga...@wikimedia.org> ---
(In reply to Daniel Naber from comment #9)
> I don't - it would be great of course if that was possible. I'm using
> https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spezial:
> Suche&search=languagetool&fulltext=Suche&profile=all&redirs=1 which is good
> enough, only that I'm too lazy to look through all the results as most are
> old. Having them sortable I'd only have to look at the first 2-5 or so
> results.

Search fundamentally can't satisfy your use case. Say, for example, someone
added "LanguageTool" in a JS file in their user space five years ago, then made
a copyedit to a comment yesterday; in this case, the search would show up with
this as the most recent result.

A better thing for you to do would be to make the LanguageTool insert some
comment into the edit summary of anyone who used it (e.g. "Copy edited using
LanguageTool"), then query a database dump to find what you're looking for.
[[WP:AWB]] does something similar to this.

(In reply to Jan Ainali from comment #10)
> Well, my use case was simpler. I am an engineer. I see search results with
> meta data. I want to sort it based on the meta data to see what pops up. It
> would be awesome to find outliers, such as pages referring to new stuff but
> with old dates or extremely large or small pages.

You've told me you want to sort by date because you want to sort by meta-data.
That isn't a use case, because it doesn't actually help me understand the
problem you're trying to solve.

> It would also be great to
> create an alphabetical list based on a search for use on an edit-a-thon.

Due to the way search works, for most queries this would generate a list of
articles with nothing in common. For example, searching for [[Barack Obama]]
and sorting alphabetically would generate nonsensical results such as [[Aaron
McGruder]], an American cartoonist, followed shortly thereafter by
[[Abbottabad]], a city in northeastern Pakistan.

In this case, browsing a category would be a better idea if you're looking for
related articles. In fact, for editathons, I've personally found much more
success by giving participants a list of articles where the topic is notable by
definition but the articles don't exist. For example, a Fellow of the Royal
Society is unquestionably notable (see point 3 in
[[Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Criteria]]), yet many Fellows do not have
articles.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Wikibugs-l mailing list
Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l

Reply via email to