2009/3/31 Carcharoth <carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com>om>:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 5:57 PM, David Gerard
<dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> (In image search, Google and all other search
engines still suck.
> Here's to tagging coming to Commons.)
Isn't that because people don't label, keyword
or otherwise tag images
properly? If they did, then Google would be able to find them and
provide a good search facility. It might also be because lots of
images are locked up in websites that only allow internal searches
(though some are Google-able).
General images on websites are only "tagged" by the file name and the
surrounding text. Maybe the alt= text if they ever bother putting that
on the page.
Google's key 1998 innovation was noticing that good pages tend to be
the ones linked to on a subject. This put them so far ahead of all
other search engines they took over search. Without advertising
themselves.
With Commons, we're wanting a boolean category filter, to turn
categories into tags that can be combined for queries. This solves the
problem of minute subcategories like [[Category:Left-handed dead
Jewish lesbian Presidents with argyria]] - all those attributes can be
a category instead, and the minute subcategory a query.
> Data on Wikipedia will tend to become more
machine-readable. Templates
> are mostly a good idea.
The worry there is that overuse of templates raises
the barrier for
humans to contribute.
The plumbing of templates is horrible, but the actual template
interface is simple. Presumably WYSIWYG editing tools can be tweaked
to make it a fill-in form more accessibly.
- d.