User:Hoopz
Hello, my nick is Hoopz :-), i remember altavista.digital.com. I'm here since April 23. 2008 and i hopefully came to stay.
At Wikipedia i am "Pearl"
At the Google-Webmaster-Help-Forum (de) i am "luzie"
And finally at liebe.de-chat, schnuggel.de-chat and MSN (Live-Messie) my names are "herbeigeeilt", "herbie", and "herbi".
< let's use this one outside wikia too ;-)
[edit] Principles of New Search
Our Four Organizing Principles (TCQP) - the future of Internet Search must be based on:
- Transparency - Openness in how the systems and algorithms operate, both in the form of open source licenses and open content + APIs.
- Community - Everyone is able to contribute in some way (as individuals or entire organizations), strong social and community focus.
- Quality - Significantly improve the relevancy and accuracy of search results and the searching experience.
- Privacy - Must be protected, do not store or transmit any identifying data.
5. Trust - Must be here to stay, must be reliable in it's policies, must be honest and true, must be different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will be thinking all that over ... ^^ hoopz 23:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thoughts about mini-article policy
Please consider these as mere opinions of mine after a few days watching this:
1. "Mini-articles" should be as closely connected to search as possible.
2. "Mini-articles" will have to be as short as possible. there's no need to make a "mini-encyclopedia" (as we have a big one already, this here should be about search).
3. Links in "mini-articles" will have to point to corresponding SERPs, not to other miniarticles, as these are shown on serps anyway and relationships between mini-articles themselves are kept (again see points 1 and 2).
4. "mini-articles" should only contain external links to one or two canonical sites and only if present search results don't yield these by themselves. there should be no need to put any text into this link (URL only), as the external content pointed to is necessarily the one mentioned in the mini-article. a canonical site could also be a wikipedia-article, which in _some_ cases should obviously be the best search result anyway. external links could be removed later when serp-quality allows.
5. please dont only write a mini-article, but also discuss search results on the corresponding page (e.g. http://search.wikia.com/wiki/Mini_talk:Topic ) every time you do and in the course of events, if possible, several times again to monitor and discuss the hopefully evolving quality of results.
(6. it would be _very_ nice to have "mini-articles" written automatically (if we stick to them this is, i think, a must) - in some way - later - perhaps, or semi-automatically and to standardize them in such a way, that they could be shown and possibly used otherwise in later stages of wikia too. which to me does not seem likely by now yet, at least not the way they mostly are now, except exemplary cases like Lambert ...)
(7. a question: why do we call them 'mini-articles'? if anybody could come up with another word for these mini-articles, the better ... i'm feeling uneasy with that term, there must be more in them than just a dwarf-wikipedia-kind-of-thing, they (must) have a function other than just providing information the results should contain anyway, even already in the descriptions shown on the serp ... call them "basic search guide"? "guidelet"? "search helplet"? "searchlet"? "first light"? "search anchor"? "micro result"? "search glimpse"?)
hoopz 21:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thoughts about how to prevent spamming
How could spamming be avoided when users are permitted to actively insert new search results?
Maybe there are some ideas for that in what Google calls 'Image labeler', where images are shown to different anonymous users to be described by them using one or a handful of keywords. A label is only given to the image, if the users independently have used the same keywords to describe the image. This concept of mutual anonymous random check could possibly be used here(?):
Assuming an user wants to insert a new search result for whatever search s/he performed, another randomly chosen new search result recently inserted by another anonymous user is shown first, to be checked (good / bad) and if "good" rated (1-5) by the user before s/he can continue to insert h/er/is own new search result (url, description). As long as a new search result is not checked yet, it resides on a common waiting-list before its randomly chosen to be checked by the next user willing to insert another new search result, and, if good, to show up in the serps, or, if bad, checked again and, if still bad, deleted from the waiting-list.
New, user generated and user checked search results would show up fast enough if more and more users participate in the process of 1. searching and 2. inserting new search results and at the time (forcedly, see above) 3. checking and rating anonymously random new search results.
hoopz 15:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)