MediaWiki talk:Googlesearch

Initial request: (so I won't have to search again) Dori | Talk 02:07, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

Done! Thankyou Lupo Tannin 10:00, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yahoo search line 4 from top misses a space before vspace. (Not here on talk but in the message text.) --grin 09:32, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)

Duplicatory effort?
"We recommend you search Wikipedia before creating a new article to avoid duplicatory effort."

"Avoid duplicatory effort" just seems too legalese. Maybe change it to "avoid duplicating an existing article"? – Minh Nguy&#x1ec5;n 20:25, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I reworded it a bit to make it clearer. Does the current version read better? Dori | Talk 20:30, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

Which search engines to list?
ask.com have asked to be added to this page. Are there any objections to that? Are there any others that should be here? Is there a better way to display them than just listing them all in separate boxes? Angela. 19:53, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

OED
The extremely informative Oxford English Dictionary now has a search form that can be used on other sites. Of course, only users at institutions like colleges, schools, or libraries would have access to the search results, but they are so useful, and we are already used by many at those institutions, that I think it should be included. Any objections? &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-06-14 17:49


 * Yes. It's not free, and we shouldn't be advertising any particular service. Shimgray | talk | 20:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * We advertise Google and Yahoo, both of which are commercial sites with ads. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-06-18 21:31


 * Yes. I think Shimgray's second stated reason is pretty silly, given that we're already "advertising" services such as Google and Yahoo! on this page.  However:
 * The existing two links provide ways to access Wikipedia. Someone who is entering something in the search form on Wikipedia is probably looking for an article on Wikipedia.
 * Even if that weren't the case, the OED isn't even an encyclopedia. Linking to a dictionary when users are looking for an encyclopedia entry is not generally helpful.
 * This is even leaving aside the issue of how many of our readers have access to the OED online. Those two points are still sufficient that I'm quite puzzled as to why Brian is suggesting we include this entirely irrelevant link.  If someone would like to suggest we link to the internal search facility of a mirror of Wikipedia, that would make sense; if someone would suggest that we link to another online encyclopedia, that would also make sense, although I don't think I'd support it; someone suggesting that, when our internal search facility is down, we provide links to a dictionary that for that matter many if not most of our readers will have difficulty accessing . . . that just leaves me confused, I'm afraid. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It's simple: the Google and Yahoo search boxes provide the option, via a radio button, to search the entire WWW, not just wikipedia.org&mdash;commercial sites (including Google and Yahoo themselves), subscription sites, and all others. Now how is that different from providing a search for one specific commercial site? We are essentially saying that we will only allow people to find content that Google and Yahoo index, and no other locations which may be more useful (and in this case, definitely are). The boxes could simply provide searching only en.wikipedia.org, but they don't; they offer searching the entire web (that's indexed by their sites). I'm fine with that, but I'm not fine with offering to find some commercial or subscription-based content, but not others, which is what we're doing now. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-06-18 21:44


 * The Web-searching button is secondary to the Wikipedia-searching button; the latter is the sole reason we have the search forms at all. This is what gets displayed when Wikipedia search is down, so we provide alternative ways to search Wikipedia, and incidentally also the Web.  The latter is provided partly due to convention, partly because no one bothered to change the default HTML that Google and Yahoo! provide, and partly as a courtesy for their Wikipedia-searching service, a service the OED doesn't render. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * And where did you get that information from (on why WWW search is provided)? Did you pull it out of a dark orifice? &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-06-20 00:05


 * I just discovered this "feature" when my database went down...I was angry to see a link on my site that would essentially notify Google.com that MY database was down and effectively announce one of my users having a real-time problem on my site. The radio button confused the issue, seeming to suggest that a search would take place on my site.  This is advertising that MediaWiki is free to do on their site, but burying this feature on everyone's site seems not merely sloppy but unscrupulous.  The debate should not be who do we play favorites with, but why is the "feature" not well announced to installers?  Why is it not easily configurable, and set to a default position of OFF?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.54.99 (talk) 04:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Images
WRT removing the images... I don't get it. "Fair use"? These images aren't covered by the image-use policy, which deals with on-wiki content, any more than the (copyright-reserved) Wikimedia logos are. Indeed, they're not even hosted locally - these are links out to transclude external ones. Can you please explain why you're removing them in more detail? Shimgray | talk | 12:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Because they're company logos, and not free? 1ne 19:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you going to respond? 1ne 07:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry - been unexpectedly busy the last couple of days.
 * I still think we've a fundamental divide in conceptions here - I honestly don't see how our policies on what form of material is and isn't acceptable as content automatically apply to the site infrastructure. Our use of the logos is a legitimate identifying use, and is deriving them directly from a copy made available for this purpose eg rather than being "bundled" with the free content. For better or for worse, they're what people expect to see next to external search boxes, and I really don't see how applying a hardline interpretation of "not free bad" helps improve this - which is, after all, an obscure backup search function.
 * If I get a chance in the next couple of days I'll post somewhere more high-profile; see if I can get some feedback from a third party Shimgray | talk | 09:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The foundation is comitted to useing free software. The practical effect of this is that the interface is mostly GPL. Those images are not GPL nor are they under any other free lisence nor are they copyright the foundation. thus they should be removed.Geni 22:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We cannot use copyrighted logos here because our fair use rules limit them to the article space. ( H ) 22:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

rename it
it should be externalsearch and not googlesearch because yahoo is also included. --78.34.4.125 (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This feature is innappropriate as it sits
1) The name SHOULD be changed to something like external search. 2) This page should default to OFF 3) Installer/admins should be able to turn it on after providing a sub page for each of any number of separate search providers 4) Theoretically, in order to be added to any of the open content license sites the vendors wishing to be included should provide a properly licensed link image  Short of all that this page, and elsewhere as appropriate, it should be made very clear how to cleanly disable the feature.