To add: As an owner of the "Britannica Deluxe CD 2000" , lemme add that it's really odd how they absolutely, positively don't learn from their mistakes.
The "electronic" Britannica was crap 4 years ago and it's still crap today. Yes, they've eventually made a Mac version again and made a PC version that doesn't break when you upgrade your browser. But really. I mean. 4 effed-up years. That's a bleeding eternity in IT terms. All the worse because I really love their content -- only the "wrapping" is such a royal pain in the bottle and glass. We should learn from the EB's miserable failure. </rant>
DISCLAIMER: The occurrence of phrases such as "4 effed-up years" and "miserable failure" is a complete coincidence and in no way whatsoever related to any kind of current events. Besides, if there's anything wrong with anything emanating from my address, there's probably some minion to blame -- never me. <WMD>Because I never lie nor err.</WMD>
On 20 Oct 2004, at 04:16, Jens Ropers wrote:
HOW ARE YOU GENTLEMEN. ALL YOUR ENCYCLOPEDIA ARE BELONG TO US.
More Britannica-bashing (with a splash of Wikilove): http://macuser.pcpro.co.uk/reviews/64348
One interesting point: from the article:
The search feature is functional but unintelligent: it won't correct 'apppendix', for example, or find anything at all if you ask it about the humble, misspelt 'bananana'. It will discretely warn you of your mistake by turning your search term red, but when sites such as Google can take a guess at what your poorly spelt words mean, we don't see why an encyclopaedia shouldn't be able to do the same.
Of course we currently already create "misspellings" redirects (manually), but that's no substitute for a "fuzzy logic" implementation. This may take the form of an extra "Did you mean..."-box on the "WP does not yet have an article"-page. If such is considered useful, someone (<slacker>i.e. someone else ;-)</slacker>) could BugZillify this as a Feature Request.
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com