Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 ... 10
1
Science & Technology / Re: Geek Talk
« Last post by mo on November 13, 2018, 04:02:46 PM »
I think just barely active.

You might like Lucifer's first album if you like that style. Actually, it's not as hardcore metal. I heard a track from them and it made me remember Kittie, which is what led to me looking them up in the first place.
 
Cyberpnuk turned me on to Kittie. I have one of their CDs from back in the day.
2
Science & Technology / Re: Cars
« Last post by Dr. Leonard HmofCoy on November 13, 2018, 03:20:44 PM »
I keep getting Tatra and Tata mixed up.

What.


(bodacious tatras)
3
Science & Technology / Re: Geek Talk
« Last post by Dr. Leonard HmofCoy on November 13, 2018, 02:53:46 PM »
Wait, wind it back a bit - is Kittie (band) still active? I loved them!
4
Science & Technology / Re: Geek Talk
« Last post by random axe on November 13, 2018, 10:45:57 AM »
Since the classic version of InfoSelect won't seem to work properly on any machine I still use, I've been thinking of what the hell I can do to keep notes on the computer.  I've been considering creating my own wikis for different projects.  Not online, just locally.

I have no idea how difficult it is to do such a thing, but one of these days I'll look into it.  I've looked at a ton of note-keeping software, and most of it looks just awful.  In fairness, most of it seems to be set up for collaborative team projects, which is almost more awful, but you gotta do what you gotta do.
5
Science & Technology / Re: Geek Talk
« Last post by mo on November 11, 2018, 02:39:54 PM »
I'm disappointed. I was hoping for some kind of shortcut.

I'm relieved. I wasn't doing it the wrong way for the past 20 years.

I started to go look to see if there is some kind of shortcut, but holy crap, disambiguation is some complicated business. I skimmed through it but didn't see anything.

And there are exceptions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joker (appropriately)
6
Science & Technology / Re: Geek Talk
« Last post by random axe on November 11, 2018, 11:56:14 AM »
Surely that, but god only knows what-all goes into their decisions on how to route your search.  I'm sure it's mostly done with software that even the Googlers don't really understand.

Amazon's still a dozen times worse, though.  Most embarrassingly bad commercial site search function of all time.


With Wikipedia, if you add _(disambiguation) to the end of a search URL, it'll send you to the disambiguation page if there is one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer

vs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer_(disambiguation)
7
Science & Technology / Re: Geek Talk
« Last post by mo on November 10, 2018, 03:18:04 PM »
not difficult for an experienced user, but infuriating for the newb.

 :hmm: How do you get to the disambiguation page? Is there an easier way?

Quote
One thing to keep in mind is that Google searches have been fake for years and years.

You mean as in preferring to give you Lucifer (the company they sell advertising to)?
8
Science & Technology / Re: Geek Talk
« Last post by random axe on November 10, 2018, 09:37:41 AM »
No, you're basically right, though -- Wikipedia's search isn't very good.  It often fails to turn up the disambiguation page, for instance, and it's truly horrible at fuzzy searches.  (I just tried "borsct" in both Google and Wikipedia, and Google guessed I might mean "borscht" but Wikipedia just gave up.)

Part of the problem at Wikipedia is that the pages themselves are often formatted improperly.  The search engine may expect that the main page for Lucifer will have a direct link at the top to a disambiguation page, but the Lucifer page may be missing that link.  And if it is, finding it requires that you jump through hoops -- not difficult for an experienced user, but infuriating for the newb.

One thing to keep in mind is that Google searches have been fake for years and years.  Wikipedia has less of a dog in the fight, but Google is trying to control where you go, not to give you what you want.
9
Science & Technology / Re: Geek Talk
« Last post by mo on November 10, 2018, 09:25:53 AM »
I can do Wikipedia searches from the address bar...

Many times, if not most, I end up on Wikipedia, or I'm looking for a Wikipedia article to begin with, but Google seems to be more successful at knowing that I'm looking for Lucifer (the band), as opposed to Lucifer the TV show, or whatever. Wikipedia doesn't even want to take a stab at it, they just send me straight to their internal search results instead of the disambiguation page. Their search engine isn't very intuitive.

lol I just pulled that example out of my ass, and it's totally wrong. Google thinks I'm looking for the TV show, Wikipedia serves up the mythological figure. Anyway, my point is, it's somewhat unpredictable, and Google has a higher success rate. If I search for "Lucifer band", Google will get the right one, Wikipedia offers search result listings with the correct one being third.



10
Science & Technology / Re: Geek Talk
« Last post by mo on November 10, 2018, 08:56:16 AM »
Heh. I was just noticing that yesterday too. I was googling "Kittie" (band). The images are the top results from GIS, not Wikipedia.

I hope Google is paying Wikipedia for the stuff they are scraping off them.
Pages: [1] 2 ... 10