oh, yes. it's working nice and snappy now.
David Merrill <david(a)lupercalia.net> napisał:
>Congratulations on the move to the new software. No, it wasn't
> completely smooth, but things like this *never* are. All in all it
> went pretty damned well.
> And the new software is just plain schweeet.
> David C. Merrill http://www.lupercalia.net
> Linux Documentation Project david(a)lupercalia.net
> Collection Editor & Coordinator http://www.linuxdoc.org
> Windows is an utter kludge, the ultimate tar baby, sucking you in, making
> things harder and harder, until you are hopelessly snagged and stuck,
> exhausted from fighting with it, resigned to despair. It is an inscrutable,
> god-awful mess, a disaster waiting to happen, a bonehead botch-job jammed
> with you-can't-get-there-from-here idiocy. They could train soldiers to
> kill by forcing them to struggle with this.
> --Paul Somerson, PC Computing
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
Okresl Swoje potrzeby - my znajdziemy oferte za Ciebie!
[ http://oferty.onet.pl ]
If you check out
you will see that many entries under "Character formatting" are
screwed up: the new parser apparently doesn't allow entities like
& in <pre> formatted entries. That was different with the old
What is the percentage of Wikipedia pages that get edited each day (or
week, or month), and has that percentage changed over time?
Or what are the number of daily page views, page edits, and searches?
Of course, on the first day, 100 % of the pages were altered... so it
would be reasonable to think that the rate of change slowly decreases
as a wiki site grows. Is this so? Do wiki pages find their final
form, never to be edited again, or at least more and more seldom?
Could we get some numbers on this?
Would it be reasonable to update the search index each time a new
version of a page is saved? In that case, the search would still be
indexed (and fast), but it would always be up-to-date.
There is a major bug in the script that wasn't spotted on the test site. The
bugfix is in the mail, waiting for Jimbo to install it.
In the meantime, beware of editing and saving articles that contain special
unicode characters in "&something;" notation. You might trash the page. Try
preview first, if the whole page is visible, it should be OK.
Again, the bugfix is in the mail, and will probably online within minutes.
Sorry for the inconvenience,
I hereby apologize for the inconveniences my software currently causes. But,
nothing like that ever showed up on the test sites, and it seems the current
problems are "only" a matter of configuration to handle "real-life" load. As
far as I can tell, it is *not* a problem with the script itself, and should
therefore be fixed soon.
I am confident the new functions will outweight the rough start.
Seems to be working better now. I need to go through all my pages
now and update them (with things like parenthesized titles and
no subpages andso on), but it just so happens that this is the
weekend of the big poker tournament at Casino San Pablo, so it'll
have to wait for next week :-)
Memory usage seems to be the greatest problem. I'm lowering the maximum number
of apache connections to get that under control. This might cause some problems
for some people connecting.
The real solution is the buy more memory. This machine has 512Mb, I will bump it
up to 2 gig as soon as I can.
What a surprise! I checked
http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-January/date.html to be
sure and see no announcement that the 'pedia was cutting over to Magnus'
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/special:RecentChanges doesn't even list a page
that obviously mentions this historic event.
Oh, well. What's done is done. But I have noticed turmoil that I can't keep
up with. All the links seemed to be getting generated or interpreted
incorrectly (or both), pointing to create-a-page. But links of the form
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/something worked fine. Now as I write, all
seem to point to the home page. Sigh. Thrash, thrash, thrash.
I looked through the last 5,000 changes and see mostly [Automated
Would one of these users who have been active care to comment?
In the search engine, I am currently "smashing down" all 'ing' words. This
does wonders in _most_ cases, but fails miserably in some other cases. It seemed
to help, on balance, when I did it -- but the wikipedia was smaller then.
In the current case, we are looking for the page [[Conditioning]]. My technique
of chopping off the 'ing' performs poorly here.
So, I'm eliminating the 'ing' trick now. I'm still keeping the 's' trick. So
'horse' and 'horses' return exactly the same results. Someday, if we have lots
and lots of cases where that doesn't work, I'll switch back.
'ing' is a less obviously good idea, after all. It was nice to return the same results
for 'network' and 'networking'... when there wasn't much in the database, this ensured
that something marginally useful would show up.
Further clever tweaks are always possible -- but soon we will be upgrading to Magnus's
software, and the search will -- at first -- just be whatever default behavior comes
from MySQL. Perhaps that can be improved upon.
Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com> writes:
> In the current case, we are looking for the page [[Conditioning]]. My
> technique of chopping off the 'ing' performs poorly here.
You should see what it did to my attempts to find [[Albert Spalding]]
"Wikipedia does rock. By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there
are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12 Jan 2001)