Slashdot Mirror


Wikia Search Launches Alpha, Not Ready Yet

babooo404 writes "Jimmy Wales' latest project, Search Wikia has launched into alpha this morning. Most reviews have been negative. The system is a 'social search' and uses the Nutch search algorithm. You can friend people along with creating profiles, and the system uses a Wikipedia-style format for 'mini articles.'"

24 of 107 comments (clear)

  1. Aha, can't have proofs, but competes with google by tjstork · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ok, let me see if I understand this. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that can't have proofs or in depth reference materials, because more detail is out of scope for really no reason. But, they can somehow try and turn wiki into another google or a facebook.

    Interesting!

    Me thinks wiki should focus on its content.

    --
    This is my sig.
  2. no go by jacquesm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I tried it on a bunch of fairly simple queries and got nothing but extremely lousy results.

    On the web first impressions really matter and I think wikia fails horribly in that respect.

    Please Jimmy Wales go and fix wikipedia, it needs urgent attention, especially protection from editors running wild, and please, google go work on getting rid of that spam and fixing the rankings...

    1. Re:no go by garcia · · Score: 4, Informative

      You need to read some of Jimmy's comments on one of the blogs linked in the summary, especially the one I have copy/pasted below... The most important part is the second paragraph and while I am no Wikipedia fan and certainly agree with your comments that protections need to occur from what I assume you mean by "editors running wild," I think what he says below is very important for this new project!

      From here:

      January 6th, 2008 at 10:50 pm

      Release early, release often.

      It's a project to *build* a search engine, not a search engine. We've been telling everyone that constantly. I'm sorry Michael's disappointed, but having said that, we didn't build it for him, but for people who think that openness, transparency, and participation are more important than slick releases.

      When I launched Wikipedia, I wrote at the top of the first page "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". On that day, anyone reviewing it would have laughed. What's this? There's nothing here! This is not an encyclopedia, it is an empty website with some funny editing syntax!

      So the comparison to Google on day one is just mistaken. Google didn't launch a project to build a human-powered search engine, they launched an algorithmic search engine with a clever new idea. So they didn't have to wait for the humans to come in and start building it.

      We aren't even running with a real index yet, just a placeholder index. Yeah, the search sucks today. But that's not the point. The point is that we are building something different.

    2. Re:no go by ZombieWomble · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I've read these comments, and I see two potential issues with them:

      Firstly, he makes a comparison to Wikipedia on day one, and says how all anyone would see is a page with a "funny editing syntax". The problem is, from all reports I've seen, this new engine doesn't even have the equivalent - it's just a standard algorithmic search with a very limited site list at the moment. If it had the beginnings of a collaborative search engine it may be more interesting, but as far as I can see this is all "in the future", and right now its just a bad search engine gathering together tags from users.

      Secondly, I think Jimmy has misjudged his market slightly - he seems to feel that Wikipedia was successful because of "openness, transparency, and participation". Personally, I would guess it was because Wikipedia was free, when most comparable knowledge sources were closed and expensive. Sure, the first few users were probably idealists to whom the above points were important, but it's the free aspect and the momentum they gained from that which has been the real source of Wikipedia's popularity, I suspect. Given they lack a similar advantage over the well-established search engines, I don't think Jimmy can get away with being so blase about not having any slick releases.

  3. citation needed by snarfies · · Score: 3, Funny

    Sorry, these reviews are not from reliable peer-reviewed sources and all references to them should be deleted. In fact, this whole article should be speedy deleted as non-notable.

  4. Work on wikipedia's search first by mcsqueak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe this will be rolled into Wikipedia once it's done, but it seems me to that their search algorithm needs *plenty* of work. Thanks to the glories of SpellChecker, I can't spell worth a damn... when I misspell something in Wikipedia, it rarely finds it in the results, whereas Google always know what I meant to type AND OFFERS ME A CORRECTION. On Wikipedia, I have to go look how to spell whatever I'm searching for correctly, then put it back into Wikipedia's search just to find what I'm looking for.

    Very frustrating...

    1. Re:Work on wikipedia's search first by LMacG · · Score: 2, Informative

      1) www.google.com
      2) (your search term here) site:wikipedia.org
      3) go

      Presto.

      --
      Slightly disreputable, albeit gregarious
    2. Re:Work on wikipedia's search first by owlnation · · Score: 3, Funny

      But for better quality results:

      1) www.google.com
      2) (your search term here) -wikipedia
      3) go

      Presto.

  5. Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Highlighted article when I search for "sex":

    Mini Article About "sex"

    Sex is a term which is very often searched in the internet. Thus, a mini-article about pages with free pictures / videos without spam would be important.

    First result for "George Bush"

    George Bush Is A Crackwhore!
    ... handjobs for cash. George Bush is addicted to smack ... some blow.. yah know... like George Bush ...
    http://www.george.bush.isacrackwhore.com/ - Cached - 1.26

    This is genius. I think I know what I'll search site I'll use next time I need some entertainment.

  6. Which part of ALPHA... by KingSkippus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Which part of Alpha did these guys not understand? It is, by definition, "Not Ready Yet"!

    Jimmy has pointed out that they're not even running against a real index yet, just a placeholder index. He even went so far as to say, "the search sucks today." The idea wasn't to launch a finished product that's ready for primetime. It wasn't even to launch a particularly working application. The point was to put something out there to demonstrate some rudimentary functionality while they continue to work towards something that does work.

    You know, like a Beta.

    I think it's kind of sad that Jimmy put something out and said, "Here's what it kinda will look like, and sorta how it will work," and people's first reaction is, "It's not a fully-functional working product? What a piece of crap."

    I think I'll wait a little longer before judging. If you don't like the concept, fine, don't like the concept. But to bust its chops because it's not fully functional is a bit premature and silly at this point.

    1. Re:Which part of ALPHA... by kebes · · Score: 2, Informative
      Agreed. This is a very early prototype, and should be treated as such. I think people's expectations are quite high because of how large and complex Wikipedia currently is. They forget what Wikipedia looked like when it first launched!

      In the review entry, Jimmy Wales posted a comment that responds to these criticisms quite accurately:

      Release early, release often.

      It's a project to *build* a search engine, not a search engine. We've been telling everyone that constantly. I'm sorry Michael's disappointed, but having said that, we didn't build it for him, but for people who think that openness, transparency, and participation are more important than slick releases.

      When I launched Wikipedia, I wrote at the top of the first page "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". On that day, anyone reviewing it would have laughed. What's this? There's nothing here! This is not an encyclopedia, it is an empty website with some funny editing syntax!

      So the comparison to Google on day one is just mistaken. Google didn't launch a project to build a human-powered search engine, they launched an algorithmic search engine with a clever new idea. So they didn't have to wait for the humans to come in and start building it.

      We aren't even running with a real index yet, just a placeholder index. Yeah, the search sucks today. But that's not the point. The point is that we are building something different.
    2. Re:Which part of ALPHA... by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which part of Alpha did these guys not understand? It is, by definition, "Not Ready Yet"!

      I always took "Alpha" to imply feature-complete.

      I think it's kind of sad that Jimmy put something out and said, "Here's what it kinda will look like, and sorta how it will work," and people's first reaction is, "It's not a fully-functional working product? What a piece of crap."

      Personally I think it's crap not because it doesn't work, but because there aren't any original good ideas to it. Mini articles are cool, but not at all original, and the idea that they're going to populate them solely from user contributions rather than taking them from a free content source or buying them from somewhere is dumb. Sure, rating results doesn't work, but again, not at all original, and probably not that useful unless and until there are millions of people using the thing. Then there's the whole Myspace/Facebook/whatever stuff. Not original, not well integrated into the rest of the site, not interesting to me, and not a good idea in the first place (to integrate the two).

      Wales says "It's a project to *build* a search engine, not a search engine." Fine, but how does Jimmy expect to get people to build a search engine for his for-profit business? There are answers to that question, but I don't see where Jimmy has hit on any of them. The Alpha that launched today doesn't seem geared to developers. Sure, when Wikipedia was launched it sucked. But at least I could edit it and make it not suck! And anything I added could be used by anywhere in the world, not just Jimmy Wales or Bomis. What can I do with Search Wikia? Add to the mini-articles? Lame.

  7. Wikipedia's Blacklist In Use? by _bug_ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I can't find anything in terms of documentation on Wikia, but it appears Wikia search is blocking sites on Wikipedia's blacklist from being listed in the search engine. I've pulled a few examples from the blacklist and searched for them and have yet to receive any results on any of those searches.

    Can anyone confirm or refute this? Maybe it's just because the Wikia is in alpha it hasn't indexed much yet?

    If this is the case I'd probably steer clear of Wikia; I'm not sure I ant my search results to be filtered like that.

  8. Be careful... by christopherfinke · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not only are the reviews bad, but using it could get you banned from Facebook.

  9. Losing their way? by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Wikipedia has a first-mover advantage and brand recognition in the encyclopedia domain. With all the silliness about Carolyn Doran, content whitewashing etc, it would seem that Wikipedia might be drifting from its core competence. That articles on Briney Speers' albumns are OK while proofs are not just shows that Wikipedia is really just another mass-market content site rather than a true knowledge source.

    Competing in the search engine space just dilutes their effectiveness even more. Google currently links to Wikipedia and one might guess that a very large % of Wikipedia access comes via Google hits.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  10. I am willing to be patient and give them a chance by MarkWatson · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... before blasting the effort like the top level story poster.

    BTW, last night I looked at their technical information site: http://search.wikia.com/wiki/Search_Wikia

    Some interesting stuff that I did not know about in their "Semantic lab".

    Anyway, it is at least an interesting idea - time will tell how it works out for users, and as a business.

  11. Re:Aha, can't have proofs, but competes with googl by ajs · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ok, let me see if I understand this. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that can't have proofs or in depth reference materials, because more detail is out of scope for really no reason. But, they can somehow try and turn wiki into another google or a facebook. Wow, so much wrong.... so little space.

    Let me wee if I can begin.... nope... trying again...

    OK, so the WikiMedia Foundation, of which Wikipedia is one (and the best known) project, includes Wikibooks, Wiktionary, and many more.

    Wikia isn't any of those.

    Wikia is a project of Wikia, Inc. So you're WAY off in your throwing stones at Wikipedia over Wikia's search... the two have nothing to do with each other, other than the fact that Wikia search will almost certainly index Wikipedia and Wikipedia will almost certainly have an entry for Wikia search.

    Now, on to your proofs beef. Proofs are tough. Sometimes overviews of them can be important, but they're fundamental examples of primary sources, which are not nearly as useful to an encyclopedia as secondary sources that give the context within which the proof is notable.

  12. Wikipedia.org Search Sucks by WebmasterNeal · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Has anybody used Wikipedia's normal search on their site. I can never find anything, It's horrible. Yahoo & Google do a much superior job with searches than they do on their own site. With that in mind, it doesn't make much sense for them to development a brand new search engine type thing when their own isn't that good.

    --
    "During My Service In The United States Congress, I Took The Initiative In Creating The Internet." -Al Gore
  13. I beg to differ by SD-Arcadia · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Wikipedia is so awesome that it has changed by web habits, and half replaced google for me already. When I need to learn about something, from political events to computer games, I find myself starting off with a wikipedia search BEFORE going to google. I usually follow by visiting the external links from the wiki page. Great for getting to the "official page" of whatever I am interested if there is one, without crappy ad spam sites filling up the google search. Not a true knowledge source? Depends what you mean by "true", but Wiki pages beat the regular web for me hands down when what I want is just the naked knowledge and not a whole web page full of "content". Wiki gives me a concise body of text, and a relevant picture most of the times, no ads, no marketing, and no aggressive pushing of any kind of text, image, video etc. When you use wikipedia, you feel in control, while with the commercial nature of the web, you feel like a customer.

    --
    https://dalgamotor.wordpress.com/ - Elektronik beyinlere ozgurluk asisi (Turkish)
    1. Re:I beg to differ by charlequin · · Score: 2, Interesting
      It's only stupid to look at Wikipedia first if you have poor media literacy and don't know how to read it analytically (but then, in that case, you'd probably do poorly on a normal websearch as well.)

      A pretty large portion of my websearches are out of idle curiosity or unimportant research (like fact-checking for a frivolous hobby purpose). For these purposes, going directly to Wikipedia is often quicker, easier, and freer of ads than a Google search. A scan of recent Wikipedia lookups on my laptop shows stuff like "American Gladiators," "Caffiene," "Somerville, MA," "Radiohead," "Woodrow Wilson" -- all topics for which I had, at best, passing interest at the time I looked them up.

      When I'm interested in something more in-depth, Wikipedia's list of references and links can often provide a starting point of resources to consider that have already been pre-scanned by a human being. For a hot-button issue, it won't help me, but for, I dunno, Islamic democracy (a relevant, modern topic) it provides me with a starting point of links and article references that I can check and judge the validity of myself.

      For really, really important stuff it definitely wouldn't be my first (or second, or third) choice, but then... how often do you do really, really important stuff on the Internet compared to how often you want to know what year "Like a Prayer" came out or what the population density of Iowa is?

  14. Wikimedia != Wikipedia != Wikia by DragonWriter · · Score: 3, Informative

    Ok, let me see if I understand this.


    You don't.

    Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that can't have proofs or in depth reference materials, because more detail is out of scope for really no reason.


    Wikipedia can (and does) have proofs (e.g., in the article on Arrow's Impossibility Theorem.) Usually, in-depth reference is out-of-scope, and appropriate for other Wikimedia projects which may be linked from Wikipedia articles, like Wikibooks (if it is contributor-developed) or Wikisource (for source texts that can be reproduced without copyright problems.)

    But, they can somehow try and turn wiki into another google or a facebook.


    Wikia is not the same thing as Wikipedia, even though Jimmy Wales is centrally involved in both. Wikia competing with Google or Facebook is not Wikipedia (or even Wikimedia) doing so.

  15. Re:Aha, can't have proofs, but competes with googl by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2, Informative

    If nothing else, the oft criticized, and of dubious history, Jimbo Wales is firmly at the helm of both. He is very much in control of both.

    He's actually not at the helm of either, though he exerts a lot of influence over Wikipedia.

  16. Searched for "Tampa hotels", got bottom-feeders by Animats · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Wales was quoted recently complaining about Google's results for "Tampa hotels", and talking about how Wikia was going to be better. So I searched Wikia for "Tampa hotels".

    The first three results from Wikia search are all from the domain "visit-tampa-bay.com". That's one of those bottom-feeder ad link sites. The site is supposed to redirect traffic to Orbitz, but doesn't even do that right. Very disappointing result. Could they have been spammed already?

    Trying "Tampa hotels" in Google gets us "travel.yahoo.com" for the top two results, which indicates that Google isn't biasing their search against their biggest competitor. Next is "traveladvisor.com". Those are OK results; you'd be able to get a hotel room that way.

    Trying "Tampa hotels" in Yahoo search gets us a page from one of Yahoo's special cases. Yahoo knows about "hotels", so we get a list of hotels and prices from Yahoo, and three sponsored results. The top organic result is "tripadvisor.com", which is at least a big-name travel site, followed by "visittampabay.com" (not to be confused with "visit-tampa-bay.com"), the site for the local Convention and Visitor's Bureau. Yahoo certainly tries hard for hotel searches, and seems to be doing OK.

    Trying "Tampa hotels" in MSN search gets results that look much like Yahoo's, but with lower result quality. MSN understands hotels as a special case. There are three sponsored results, and addresses and phone numbers for three real hotels. The first three organic search results are Yahoo Travel, "tampa-hotels.net" (an ad-laden landing page), and "tampa-hotels-discounts.net" (a bottom-feeder generic landing page that isn't even on topic.) Poor results.

    Trying our own SiteTruth the top result is "all-hotels.com", which has a list of hotels with pictures and a reservation interface. The second result is Yahoo Travel, and the third is Expedia. We're sorting Yahoo results on business legitimacy, so that's not surprising. OK here.

    So there's where Wikia is today, on their recommended demo search.

  17. Re:Aha, can't have proofs, but competes with googl by mindspillage · · Score: 3, Funny

    How dare you try to spoil a good Slashdot argument with facts!