Hey Trey Thanks for the in depth discussion. So if the terms people are using that result in "zero search results" are typically gibberish why do we care if 30% of our searches result in "zero search results"? A big deal was made about this a while ago.
If one was just to look at those search terms that more than 100 IPs searched for would that not remove the concerns about anonymity? One could also limit the length of the searches displaced to 50 characters. And just provide the first 100 with an initial human review to make sure we are not miss anything. James On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Trey Jones <tjo...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > Pine, thanks for the forward. Regulars on the Discovery list may know me, > but James probably does not. I've manually reviewed tens of thousands of > generally poorly performing queries (fewer than 3 results) and skimmed > hundreds of thousands more from many of the top 20 Wikipedias—and to a > lesser extent other projects—over the year I've been at the WMF and in > Discovery. You can see my list of write ups here > <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:TJones_(WMF)/Notes>. > > So I want to say that this is an awesome idea—which is why many people > have thought of it. It was apparently one of the first ideas the Discovery > department had when they formed (see Dan's notes linked below). It was also > one of the first ideas I had when I joined Discovery a few months later. > > Dan Garry's notes on T8373 > <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T8373#1856036> and the following > discussion pretty much quash the idea of automated extraction and > publication from a privacy perspective. People not only divulge their own > personal information, they also divulge other people's personal > information. One example: some guy outside the U.S. was methodically > searching long lists of real addresses in Las Vegas. I will second Dan's > comments in the T8373 discussion; all kinds of personal data end up in > search queries. A dump of search queries *was* provided in September 2012 > <https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/09/19/what-are-readers-looking-for-wikipedia-search-data-now-available/>, > but had to be withdrawn over privacy concerns. > > Another concern for auto-published data: never underestimate the power of > random groups of bored people on the internet. 4chan decided to arrange > Time Magazine poll results > <https://techcrunch.com/2009/04/27/time-magazine-throws-up-its-hands-as-it-gets-pwned-by-4chan/> > so > the first letter spelled out a weird message. It would be easy for 4chan, > Reddit, and other communities to get any message they want on that list if > they happened to notice that it existed. See also Boaty McBoatface > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RRS_Sir_David_Attenborough#Name> and Mountain > Dew "Diabeetus" > <https://storify.com/cbccommunity/hitler-did-nothing-wrong-wins-crowdsourced-mounta> > (which is not at all the worst thing on *that* list). We don't want to > have to try to defend against that. > > In my experience, the quality of what's actually there isn't that great. > One of my first tasks when I joined Discovery was to look at daily lists of > top 100 zero-results queries that had been gathered automatically. I was > excited by this same idea. The top 100 zero-results query list was a > wasteland. (Minimal notes on some of what I found are here > <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:TJones_(WMF)/Notes/Survey_of_Zero-Results_Queries#Highly_repeated_searches>.) > We could make it better by focusing on human-ish searchers, using basic > bot-exclusion techniques > <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:TJones_(WMF)/Notes/TextCat_Optimization_for_frwiki_eswiki_itwiki_and_dewiki#Random_sampling>, > ignoring duplicates from the same IP, and such, but I don't think it would > help. And while Wikipedia is not for children, there could be an annoying > amount of explicit adult material on the list, too. We would probably find > some interesting spellings of Facebook and WhatsApp, though. > > If we're really excited about this, I could imagine using better > techniques to pull zero-results queries and see if anything good is in > there, but we'd have to commit to some sort of review before we publish it. > For example, Discernatron <https://discernatron.wmflabs.org/> data, after > consulting with legal, is reviewed independently by two people, who then > have to reconcile any discrepancies, before being made public. So I think > we'd need an ongoing commitment to have at least two people under NDA who > would review any list before publication. 500-600 queries takes a couple > hours per person (we’ve done that for the Discernatron), so the top 100 > would probably be less than an hour. I'd even be willing to help with the > review (as I am for Discernatron) if we found there was something useful in > there—but I'm not terribly hopeful. We'd also need more people to > efficiently and effectively review queries for other languages if we wanted > to extend this beyond English Wikipedia. > > Finally, if this is important enough and the task gets prioritized, I'd be > willing to dive back in and go through the process once and pull out the > top zero-results queries, this time with basic bot exclusion and IP > deduplication—which we didn't do early on because we didn't realize what a > mess the data was. We could process a week or a month of data and > categorize the top 100 to 500 results in terms of personal info, junk, > porn, and whatever other categories we want or that bubble up from the > data, and perhaps publish the non-personal-info part of the list as an > example, either to persuade ourselves that this is worth pursuing, or as a > clearer counter to future calls to do so. > —Trey > > Trey Jones > Software Engineer, Discovery > Wikimedia Foundation > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Forwarding >> >> Pine >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: "James Heilman" <jmh...@gmail.com> >> Date: Jul 15, 2016 06:33 >> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Improving search (sort of) >> To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <firstname.lastname@example.org> >> Cc: >> >> A while ago I requested a list of the "most frequently searched for terms >> for which no Wikipedia articles are returned". This would allow the >> community to than create redirect or new pages as appropriate and help >> address the "zero results rate" of about 30%. >> >> While we are still waiting for this data I have recently come across a >> list >> of the most frequently clicked on redlinks on En WP produced by Andrew >> West >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:West.andrew.g/Popular_redlinks Many of >> these can be reasonably addressed with a redirect as the issue is often >> capitals. >> >> Do anyone know where things are at with respect to producing the list of >> most search for terms that return nothing? >> >> -- >> James Heilman >> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian >> >> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine >> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >> New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> discovery mailing list >> discov...@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/discovery >> >> > -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>