Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Searchbox redesign

Spun-off from talk:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign

Archived discussion, resulted in: Keep Go/Search

 * The following section is an archived debate of the proposed change to the project page layout. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Result of discussion: Discussion archived, create separate proposal per creeping featurism. Use status quo of "Go/Search" for now. --DavidHOzAu 05:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Title of "search" box and buttons
(ongoing in section above)

Discussion on keeping original (if you like original better than either, but don't have any comment on any 'particular' alternative, please put your opinion here):

search 


 * Oppose either change [vote to keep original]. The search box is perfect the way it is. I don't see why absolutely EVERYTHING in the sidebar has to be tweaked in some way. JoeSmack Talk 16:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Then you obviously didn't read the discussion which points out not one but two flaws with the search box (linguistic wierdness with search as label and search as text, and ambiguity in regards to what the exact meaning of "go" is and what each button is actually searching). You have the full right to support the original but you can't call it "perfect". Elvarg 17:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on Elvarg's suggestion:

search 


 * Support strongly. It's a lot more accurate, and easier to understand because it's descriptive, plus it's still short. --Quiddity 04:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Equally strong support, per Quiddity. &mdash;David Levy 05:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Makes sense by definition. --DavidHOzAu 05:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * [edited out some initial angry commentary] Why put up this proposal for a vote while leaving mine alone, and while the discussion regarding this change is still ongoing very actively? I'm questioning the basic design of this proposal above, so I don't think you should consider it a sure winner just yet. Discussion is always favorable to a vote. And besides: there is another proposal, by me, which you have ignored for this vote. Why? —msikma &lt;user_talk:msikma&gt; 06:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didnt mean to insult your suggestion in any way, it just hadnt gotten any support apart from you and had many criticisms, whereas the other (above) had at least 3 people supporting. You're more than welcome to add your suggestion above/below (done). (All the "options" in each subtopic of this thread can be added to at any time. (That's one of the things that differentiates this from a vote/poll. Everything is in flux still, on these points.)) -Quiddity 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Support per my nom, but I do reassure this is a discussion and not a vote. If you support or oppose a particular design you must give reasons, and it is these reasons that carry weight, not the vote itself. I already gave reasons when I nominated this design, but I'll summarize them again: 1. Cleares ambiguity pointed out by David Levy where search title is redundant with search button (analogy with ice cream shop that sells chocolate and ice cream); 2. Makes it very clear to what each button does, and 3. Does not guarantee anything will be found as searched, in line with Wikipedia's ideology, whereas a "find" title would create such a perception. Elvarg 17:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly object - I've given numerous reasons as to why this is bad. Hardly any of them were answered with good counterarguments. Read the discussion above or below. It actually disappoints me strongly that what is essentially a design team could have come up with such an awful proposal as this that takes no note of the grasp of the casual user of this site. —msikma &lt;user_talk:msikma&gt; 18:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

 Discussion on Msikma's suggestion:

search 


 * Support A suitable alternative to the current implementation, and only one name needs to be changed. Note that I do not disagree with this or the above version. --DavidHOzAu 10:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Mainly because we don't have an "advanced" search. An advanced strongly implies such additional options as searching namespaces, boolean search, or any other advanced features, none of which exist on Wikipeida. A person clicking Advanced would be very surprised and think our search has a bug or something. All these 2  buttons do is that one searches an article's title, and the other searches all text in the article namespace. This option donesn't tell anything about this, and seems to promise something which we don't have. Elvarg 17:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll also try to rebuff a key argument for this version, namely that "Go is a common web search button, and my version is wierd and unweidly". "Go" is an abstract button, and is used on search engines when it is very clear what will be searched. It is mostly used either on corporate websites where it is obvious searching will search the company's products or other important items, or on search engines such as Google where it is clear the WWW is what will be searched. But if you take a look at more specialized searches, you will find they use other words than "Go". For easiest example, look at any embedded Google or Yahoo search engines in somebody's website. They will have as options to search either "Site" or "WWW" buttons, not a "Go" button, because "Go" would be too ambigous. Same thing here, you need to be more specific about what you are searching, so specific tags such as Titles and All Text make sense. Elvarg 18:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In all fairness, our 'Search' page does include the additional option of searching within different namespaces. I still oppose these labels, however, because the word "advanced" does not describe the button's primary function (sought by most users) and because of the aforementioned ambiguity of the word "go" (which is widely used on other sites to describe the function assigned to the other button).  &mdash;David Levy 18:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have never seen any (good) site or search engine that used the word "go" to search in an advanced fashion. It always tries to return results as quickly as possible, but of course none of them can be as fast as our search engine due to the way it internally works. "Go" is supposed to do what people expect it to: make you go to an article! This is how it got its name. Not because it's ambiguous in any way. How can anyone not expect a "go" button to take them to an encyclopedic article? You have given no reasons as to why "go" is ambiguous except "it is". It is expected that "go" takes a user to a result; nothing less, and nothing more. People do not expect to see anything else here, and thus it is not vague or unspecific. —msikma &lt;user_talk:msikma&gt; 18:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally I'd be all for making the Search page a real advanced search, where instead of showing a list of results based on the sidebar query and then showing search options, we would first let the user enter all parameters, including namespace search, and maybe - GASP! - actually implement boolean search. Then, based on the selection, the user clicks search from the advanced page, and his searc is processed. In this case, the search button should be just a link going to the advanced search, and the only button on the sidebar would be the quicksearch "go". If we had that, I'd be all for Go+Advanced, but that's just too far from what we have here. Elvarg 18:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Support - naturally, since I made this suggestion to begin with. There are many unanswered arguments against Quiddity Elvarg's proposal. I do not think it is right to consider this stupid and pointless vote as valid until those claims are addressed in a discussion. See the discussion above. —msikma &lt;user_talk:msikma&gt; 18:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My key arguments:
 * "Titles" and "all text" is ambiguous. What do they really mean? Sure, we know that they refer to the fact you're searching either the titles of articles or the full text of articles (in which case you are returned a list of results). But does the casual user really know, or want to know this? No! They expect their search engine to do what every single search engine in existence does: take them to the page they're looking for as quickly and painlessly as possible. Does the casual user realize that a search engine searches through just titles of articles, as they are concise enough to be used as keywords? Maybe he will expect "titles" to search through titles of fields of study. Or maybe it will search through all headers in an article as opposed to the titles. And "all text"? Does it have anything to do with the way the articles are returned, without images perhaps? To us, these are all simple questions: our search engine works like we realize it does. But to the casual user, especially those with an incomplete grasp of the English language, these terms are very vague and do not properly and concisely enough describe the functionality of these buttons.
 * "Go" and "Advanced" state precisely what our search engine does. It's the most simple and fitting label that such a button could have. It makes you go to the article you typed in. "Advanced" allows you to do just this: make an advanced search. If you search via this button, not only are you returned similar pages, you are also allowed to search in different namespaces, such as discussion pages. How some people do not see this as an advanced search is beyond me -- it certainly is well beyond the scope of the "go" button.
 * "Go" and "Advanced" are what people expect their search engine to be labelled as. These two labels can be found everywhere on the web, second only to the ubiquitous "Search" label. This is what people will recognize as search buttons, the "Go" one as the one they should likely use, and the "Advanced" button in case they really cannot find their article otherwise (but they should, seen as how most pages can be simplified to more abstract topics and then followed through to more specific articles via wikilinks).
 * These are arguments that "Titles" and "All text" cannot make for themselves. It is believed that people will "realize" how to use them, and they might, but that does not make them any better. There will still be confusion over this by the group of people that visits our encyclopedia the most: the casual users. I hope that, in this design discussion, we will continue to look at the facts and then make an intelligent decision. —msikma &lt;user_talk:msikma&gt; 18:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Primarily because if only the single button changes (from "search" to "advanced") it will be similar enough that users might think we've actually upgraded our search engine! I'd prefer to leave it as the original, than change it to this. --Quiddity 21:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of proposals
Oh great, this is exactly why I hate voting. Someone else can come along and think the first proposal is winning, even though I cannot see any consensus in the comments of either proposal. While putting our opinions in vote-form has gotten things moving, all its done is help to fork the discussion into two. We were so smart. In my opinion, Msikma has a good reason for objecting; not all of his/her points have been addressed. However, the problem with both is that "All titles" and "Go" doesn't do any searching if multiple articles with a similar title exists. The likelihood of finding the right article in such cases is low, especially if one doesn't want that exact article but a related one, and not all such pages have otheruses at the top of their article as they should. In other words, clicking "Go" in search engines (such as Google's search) always gives a list, not a website. Also, "Advanced" is usually a link, not a button. Regardless of the failings of both, what is needed here is changing the default search behavior.

If we limit ourselves to only changing the first, (since "search" is pretty much okay no matter what it searches,) we can tidy these proposals up very quickly. Both "Go" and "All titles" are not suitable when it comes to the title first button, since searching by title not guaranteed to give a list. (I would also like to add that merely changing "Go" to "Go there" has not been suggested yet.) Whatever happens, this is getting so ridiculous that I am willing to completely ignore all proposals on the search buttons if it is the only thing stopping us from reaching consensus on the final layout. --DavidHOzAu 22:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. This issue needs its own seperate proposal. Lets leave the buttons as they are for now.
 * I'm also even more convinced now, that any change in button text, will give the false-impression that we already have upgraded or changed our search-engine functionality. Which would lead to great disappointment! --Quiddity 02:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Would anyone object if I closed the search-box proposals with "Discussion archived, create separate proposal per creeping featurism"? --DavidHOzAu 04:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No objection here. I disagree with almost everything that Msikma has written, but I presently lack the time and energy to adequately address his epic posts (a taste of my own medicine, I know).  I agree that this has become a proposal in and of itself, so let's put it to bed for the time being.  &mdash;David Levy 05:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Search discussion
Even if the "search" section retains that name, we should ask the developers to add to MonoBook the option of changing it. Presently, it automatically duplicates the second button's label (sans uppercase letter), and there's no means of changing it to something different. I'll remind everyone that in the Cologne Blue skin (which includes this additional option), we already use the word "find" to label this box. This is not a new concept, and it's because of a technical limitation that we haven't implemented it in MonoBook. (There was a consensus months ago.) The only argument that I've seen against it (that people refer to the entity as a "search box") fails to consider the "find" label's use in Cologne Blue (which hasn't led to any confusion of which I'm aware). The big button is labeled "Search," after all.

I'll reiterate that the box serves two functions: "search" (which seeks out the typed term in articles) and "go" (which attempts to display an article with that exact title or something very close). It doesn't make sense for these to fall under the heading of "search" (which describes only one of the two functions). Conversely, the word "find" accurately describes both. From a linguistic standpoint, the current setup is analogous to a dessert shoppe telling people that it has two kinds of ice cream: cake and ice cream. &mdash;David Levy 22:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think "search" is better than "find" anyways. "Find" implies that the searcher will find the answer s/he is looking for. While WP is the largest encyclopedia ever, we do emphasize that it is constantly being built on, and in no way full and complete, and as such there is no guaranteed "finding" of anything. When the user clicks search or go, they will be searching WP, but they only may find what they are looking for. I see no reason to spend tons of effort to make a clear-cut label misleading.


 * To address your point, I think we should try renaming the buttons rather than the label. For example, label "search", and buttons named "Exact" and "Similar" Elvarg 22:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You make a valid point regarding the word "find," and I like your alternative idea. Perhaps buttons labeled "Titles" and "Content" would work.  This, of course, would still require the same modification to MonoBook.  (Otherwise, the section would automatically be labeled "content.")  &mdash;David Levy 22:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's a quick mockup with different versions:

Not only any of these options eliminates the linguistic mess David mentioned, but it makes it much clearer to the reader what exactly each button is going to search.

Elvarg 22:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the third example a great deal. The "Titles" and "All text" labels make the most sense to me, and the buttons' combined width doesn't exceed that of the input box (in my browser, at least).  Indeed, such a change would address my original concern and increase clarity at the same time.  Excellent idea!  &mdash;David Levy 00:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ditto. Much clearer. --Quiddity 01:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * actually, same here, but i don't care that much. --gatoatigrado 02:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's that much better. It's still very ambiguous because of what such a button might imply. "All text"? It still takes some expectation of what a search box is to be able to conclude that it must imply searching for that particular search string in all of Wikipedia's text. Furthermore, all (almost all) search engines use either the label "Search" or "Go", and the former seems like not such a strange choice if there is consensus for using the title "find" for the entire box. I suggest the following: —msikma &lt;user_talk:msikma&gt; 08:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[suggestion removed; obsolete, see suggestion below]

The above suggestion has the universally understood "search" as its primary label. The "advanced" tag will not be used by people who just want to find articles; they'll be presented a full text search if the title they're looking for does not exist anyway. There's just one problem: these two labels seem to be too big for the box they're in. So perhaps we might use this one instead, if it is technically impossible to mend this (by decreasing the size of the font, for example): —msikma &lt;user_talk:msikma&gt; 08:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

search 

Anyway, it all boils down to the fact that a more accurate description only makes it more vague. There are a few terms used almost universally on the internet, so why should we try to use anything different? —msikma &lt;user_talk:msikma&gt; 08:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your argument at all. You've cited the fact that people need to know "what a search box is" for the labels 'Titles' and 'All text' to make sense, but isn't that true of any labels?  I'm confused by your claim that "a more accurate description only makes it more vague," and your proposed labels don't make any sense to me (and I'm an experienced user).  Moving the 'Search' label from one function to the other (assuming that we could make it fit) would be disastrous.  The word 'Advanced' conveys practically nothing, and it doesn't seem to apply, even with pre-existing knowledge of the button's purpose.  (To me, the ability to jump directly to an article on the desired topic seems more "advanced" than bringing up a list of potentially useful pages.)
 * Yes, the term 'search' is used throughout the Internet. What's remotely inconsistent or ambiguous about labeling the box accordingly and specifying choices for what to search?  Google does the same thing.  (I'm looking at my Gmail account right now.  I see a search box with two buttons&mdash;one labeled 'Search Mail' and the other labeled 'Search the Web'.)  &mdash;David Levy 08:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Every single site or web portal ever uses either "search" or "go" as main search button. Clear as day. Not a single one uses "exact" or "title". Totally unclear, especially from a casual user's point of view. Also, every single site or web portal ever uses "advanced" for bringing up "advanced search tools". This is what "search" currently does. It shows you which pages are relevant to your search query, and in which namespaces to search. That's more advanced than just immediately going to the topic you searched for. I believe that using "search" as label for the portlet, "go" for the first button, and "advanced" for the second button is much more obvious, for both casual users and advanced users, than the "exact" and "full text" etc. buttons. —msikma &lt;user_talk:msikma&gt; 13:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I dislike "advanced" for a few reasons, but primarily because it makes the button 4x the size of the "go" button (intuitively confusing, as it's the secondary button). --Quiddity 18:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I couldn't disagree with you more, Msikma. Buttons labeled 'Titles' and 'All text' (appearing directly below the word ' search ' and the input box) would tell users exactly what they're searching.  How is this setup "totally unclear"?
 * You're also ignoring the fact that our order of priority is the opposite of that used by sites such as Google. You keep stressing that these sites use 'Search' or 'Go' as their "main search button," but that typically triggers the function that we've made secondary.  There's nothing inherently intuitive about applying this label to the function that Google calls 'I'm Feeling Lucky' and applying the term 'Advanced' to the function that others call 'Search' or 'Go'!
 * It's common to see a single search box with buttons (either this type or radio buttons) describing the different targets.  There's nothing unusual or unconventional about this.  &mdash;David Levy 19:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly. I totally agree.


 * If we're all agreed (of those that agree) on the 3rd option, could we archive/remove the other two? They're just a distraction if we're only discussing the 3rd. --Quiddity 04:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your reasoning is totally wrong, David Levy. For one thing, Google is the only search engine that has such a thing as "I'm feeling lucky", and it isn't what I'm referring to. Look at other search engines as well instead of just Google. There are two kinds of searches: a simple one and an advanced one. In our case, the first button is the simple one and the second is the advanced one. This does not compare to Google's "I'm feeling lucky" button. The problem with the setup Quiddity suggested is that users simply expect to find an article when they search for it. They are not interested in any internal workings of the engine, and thus will not like having to make an intelligent decision between searching through "just the titles" or "all text". Which one is more accurate? They don't know. Whereas with "go" and "advanced", they know exactly which one to pick. They will never use the advanced option because it presents them with information they do not need. Quiddity: we can archive the other versions once we agree on this. I don't agree yet, and I feel there are things left unsaid, so I would like David Levi to come back to this discussion for just a while longer. —msikma &lt;user_talk:msikma&gt; 06:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't claim that 'I'm Feeling Lucky' is an industry standard. I merely cited the well-known feature that's most similar to that of our first button.  The major distinction here is not "simple" vs. "advanced."  It's "go directly to the specific page that the user most likely seeks" vs. "display a list of pages that the user might seek."  There's nothing unusual or "advanced" about the latter, but our format dictates that we assign it secondary importance (which doesn't change the fact that it's exactly the same as the function widely labeled "search" or "go").  How you can claim that our first button's function "does not compare to Google's 'I'm feeling lucky' button" is beyond me.
 * I still don't understand why you believe that telling users exactly what they're searching would be confusing or unintuitive. Suppose that someone is researching the topic of "sharks."  Why shouldn't we offer the option of seeking an article with the title "Shark" or searching for articles containing the word "shark" somewhere within their text?  How are the arbitrary terms "go" and "advanced" more intuitive or easier to grasp?  Why do you believe that it makes sense to present users with an option that "they will never use"?  Why do you want to withhold the ability "to make an intelligent decision"?  &mdash;David Levy 09:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You say that these buttons are not about "simple vs advanced", but if you look at them objectively, it is. The first one allows someone to quickly jump to the page that they most likely are searching for, even if it is an ambiguous term. The second one allows not only seeing the topics that are relevant to the user's search query, it also allows them to search in different namespaces such as Wikipedia or Talk. That's more advanced than the simple search; there is no way you can deny that. —msikma &lt;user_talk:msikma&gt; 13:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As you've continually noted, we're attempting to label the buttons to accommodate typical users. Advanced options are present, but most visitors will never use them.  The page itself, however, is something that most people would want to use (for a non-advanced purpose).  We should describe its basic function, not the additional variables that are tacked on.  &mdash;David Levy 14:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But when exactly does a casual user need to do non-direct searching? That's the thing about these pages: you just go directly to an article and if it's not the exact thing you're searching for, you'll follow a disambiguation page towards the page that you do need. Our search engine, while conventional in many ways, simply isn't typical. It is expected that when typing in the name of something you wish to read about, you get to that article immediately. There is no need whatsoever to label such a page with "titles". You did not tackle my argument that nobody really knows what "titles" is at all. —msikma &lt;user_talk:msikma&gt; 05:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't see how this has anything to do with Google. Sure, our current "go" button behaves just like "I'm feeling lucky", I won't deny that, but this isn't about Google. This is about how search engines work in general. —msikma &lt;user_talk:msikma&gt; 13:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In general, search engines' default behavior is to display a list of pages that match the search terms entered. This is the function for which the button usually is labeled 'search' or 'go' (or some slight variation thereof).  Assigning the 'go' label to a button responsible for a different function (jumping directly to one of these pages) is unintuitive.  The confusion currently is mitigated by the use of the label "search" for a button that triggers the usual function, and you seek to change this to "advanced" (which would tell users almost nothing about the button's purpose).  &mdash;David Levy 14:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How is assigning "go" to a label unintuitive? It does exactly that: toss you right into the article you need! Sure, it doesn't provide a list, like other search engines do, but that's only because our search engine is more efficient. It can simply search through concise titles, whereas Google and co. are unable to do this. There is absolutely nothing unintuitive about clicking a button called "go" and expecting to go to the article you just typed into the search box. It is baffling that you would say that it is (without providing any reasoning!!) We are not Google. We are not Altavista. We are not Yahoo!. We are Wikipedia, and searching directly for an article will allow you to view that article directly. That does not mean we should not use BASIC and UNIVERSALLY UNDERSTOOD AND USED labels for our buttons. Because not doing so, THAT is terribly unintuitive. —msikma &lt;user_talk:msikma&gt; 05:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As for your second point: nobody wants to think when using a search engine. They are searching for something, and the search engine is a tool to find it. But people do not expect a search engine to behave any differently than just getting them to where they want, and fast. Imagine being a casual user and wanting to go to that "sharks" article. If you're presented with searching for either "titles" or "full text", you will need to realize that articles consist of a title and a "text". But what exactly is a title? Perhaps the headers could be seen as titles. And what is a "full text"? People could misinterpret this, especially if English is not their first language. I am Dutch, and I know that, for example, my father would not like having to think about what those two labels mean. —msikma &lt;user_talk:msikma&gt; 13:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm confident that the distinction would be clear to most people fluent in English, and it certainly wouldn't be difficult for others to pick up. I'm occasionally presented with such a challenge when I visit non-English websites, and I don't expect them to be changed to accommodate me (which couldn't realistically be done without using English).
 * Of course, I don't believe that your proposed labels would help anyone (regardless of his/her level of English). They simply don't make sense.  They fail to explain what functions are being carried out.  How is that easier to grasp?  &mdash;David Levy 14:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It is ambiguous. You cannot deny that. Why did you not tackle my arguments? I gave a few arguments that show how the labels that have been proposed by Quiddity are unusable, and you did not respond to a single one except "I'm sure they'll pick it up". What kind of reasoning is that? Sites use "go". Sites use "search". They have been doing this since the Internet took off. I remember sites from 1996 that did this. How do my labels, which have been used universally for over a decade not be any use? What you're saying here is laughable. If you wish to make a case for yourself, you could at the very least say more than just "I'm sure they'll figure it out". That does not prove anything about whether your case is more useful; it only says that people might accomodate to what could be a bad change. —msikma &lt;user_talk:msikma&gt; 05:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you mean Elvarg, I didnt propose any labels. --Quiddity 06:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But "go" and "advanced"; he knows he doesn't need advanced for his casual and simple searching, and that "go" will simply do what he wants to: take him to the article. -msikma &lt;user_talk:msikma&gt; 13:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * But what if someone doesn't want to go directly to the article and wants to perform a simple full-text search (without using any of the advanced options)? Burying his/her desired function under the intimidating label of 'advanced' is not helpful.  &mdash;David Levy 14:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The only people who will want to do that are generally editors, who will know how to use the button anyway. The people who want to search for a non-exact article title will realize that "go" only takes them to an article directly, and will thus try the advanced function. It's natural that the advanced function will provide more comprehensive search options: and it does! Again, this is a universally agreed on term, used since the early days. But how often will a casual user need this button, anyway? He won't! If he can't find the article he wants to, he can get there via disambiguation pages or "see also" links, or simply by following wikilinks. Or his "go" search won't yield any results and he will be forced automatically to use the advanced search anyway. Why is it a problem that "advanced" is something he will not directly want to click on? It isn't! And again, why would he want to "do a full-text search"? How are we to expect them to realize how a search engine works? They want to find something about sharks, they type in "shark" in the search box and click "go", and then they expect the system to figure out how they will be served their page. Assigning "descriptive" labels like "titles" and "full text" to these buttons is terrible, unuseful, and unthoughtful to all except people who edit Wikipedia and thus know the ropes. Those labels that you have suggested, they are the intimidating ones. Not the labels that I am suggesting, which, like I've said continually, are universally understood! —msikma &lt;user_talk:msikma&gt; 05:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In case he wants to search for shark discussion in discussion pages of Wikipedia, he can choose the "advanced" option and tick the box that allows him to search through all discussion pages. -msikma &lt;user_talk:msikma&gt; 13:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, what about users who aren't interested in any of the advanced options (such as searching non-article namespaces) but wish to perform a basic search and display the articles that contain their desired term? &mdash;David Levy 14:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * See my previous talk block. —msikma &lt;user_talk:msikma&gt; 05:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is how people have come to expect their search engines to operate. -msikma &lt;user_talk:msikma&gt; 13:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I expect to be given the option of displaying a list of pages that contain my search term. &mdash;David Levy 14:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What you expect, I have no idea of. You're an editor. Not a casual user. What a casual user expects a search engine to do is simply get him to the page that he wants to read. Flawlessly, quickly, without being confusing and without requiring more input than desired. It's expected, in an encyclopedia, that if there is an article about "sharks", and the user types "shark" in the search box, he doesn't necessarily have to click the "sharks" article in a list of results. Afterall, why should he do that? The search engine works better than that. There's no reason to presume that people will expect a list of results. Again, see my previous talk block. —msikma &lt;user_talk:msikma&gt; 05:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * They are absolutely not arbitrary terms! Like I said, almost every site in the world uses either "search" or "go". It's universally understood. -msikma &lt;user_talk:msikma&gt; 13:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but not for the function to which you wish to assign it! &mdash;David Levy 14:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are! "Go" does just what it's supposed to do: it lets you go towards an article! How is that not true or not understood? How will anyone be able to expect anything different? —msikma &lt;user_talk:msikma&gt; 05:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Whereas "full text" and "titles" is ambiguous and uncertain, at least to most casual users. —msikma &lt;user_talk:msikma&gt; 13:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Obviously, I disagree. &mdash;David Levy 14:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So you believe that people, when searching, will want to think about whether they search through "titles" or "full text"? Do you think that my dad or my grandma will want to learn how a search engine works? You think that these people, who make up the majority of Wikipedia users, will not just want to type something in and be expected to go towards their article quickly and painlessly? You expect them to realize that in order to go towards an article quickly, they need to tell the search engine to search through "titles", as titles are concise descriptions of what an article is all about? You don't expect them to want their search engines to feel like typical search engines as they can be found all over the internet? Well, think that if you will, but don't expect me to agree. —msikma &lt;user_talk:msikma&gt; 05:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You two are going round in circles! I think both your arguments have some merits, in that "Go" is an easily understood term, and that "Advanced" is a totally inappropriate label, but I think it is best to go back to the drawing board and come up with something new (see the proposals below), rather than use these two extremes. Carcharoth 10:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

My example had first button bolded. I think it is needed to show that it is that button which will be used by default (when Enter is pressed from search box) Elvarg 03:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. If you know how to code that, please update the examples.  The second button's function also needs to be fixed.  (I simply copied the code from the project page.)  The problem with your graphical version is that it's browser-specific.  (The styling is significantly different in my browser.)  &mdash;David Levy 04:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The bolding is probably a function of the CSS id="searchGoButton", and you can only have 1 call to an id per page. So we can't include it in the mockup, but it'll appear in the actual version. --Quiddity 05:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, how come the Russian Wikipedia (using same monobook-looking skin) already is able to have different text in title and second button? Check out http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/ and take a look at their search box. You don't need to know Russian to be able to see that the title of the searchbox has different text from either search button. Elvarg 06:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a good question. I was told that this was impossible.  Perhaps the code already has been changed, or maybe the Russian Wikipedia is using some sort of workaround.  &mdash;David Levy 06:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A quick check revealed that some of the other Wikipedias also have different text for the section title and second button. &mdash;David Levy 06:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Apparently, the second button's label can now determined via MediaWiki:Searchbutton (which hasn't been created). Unless I was misled, this must be fairly new.  (The section's title is determined via MediaWiki:Search, which I was told covered both.)  &mdash;David Levy 06:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It appears that MediaWiki:Searchbutton isn't new, but its compatibility with MonoBook is. I found a non-Wikimedia wiki for which the page was created on 18 June 2005.  It's running version 1.5.5 of MediaWiki, and the feature is not present.  Of the Wikimedia sites that have begun using MediaWiki:Searchbutton, all appear to have created the page no earlier than the end of last month.  &mdash;David Levy 07:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the search "Titles" and search "Contents" layout. It actually describes how the Wikipedia search function works. Actually, I mostly now type in my search term in the browser window and hit return. If there is an article, I go straight there. If not, I hit the "search" link in the "not found" page. But I started out using the search box, and I guess nearly everyone does. Regarding the proposal to have a button labelled "Advanced" - I would expect that to take me to an advanced search option, like the "advanced search" link from Google. Our equivalent would be the check-boxes at the bottom of a search page like this, allowing searches in different namespaces. Carcharoth 22:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

User:83.253.36.136's ideas
In my opinion, the buttons with their labels overwhelm the label of the search box so much, and are so disconnected from it, that the buttons need to make sense separate from the searchbox label. (For "Titles" to work, it would need to be: Search for: Titles, rather than search Titles.) Go and Search works ok, and I thought of look up as a search box label, but I think this is better:

article finder 

Ideally, the buttons would be "Look up article" and "Search in articles" (and the box label could possibly be dropped?) but I think this is good enough. Let's ignore that we can look up and search other pages than articles. Articles are what Wikipedia is about ... --83.253.36.136 01:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You, my dear sir, are a genius. I rather like this version. --DavidHOzAu 01:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem with this is that I think (though no-one has been able to confirm this) that "Look up" is a colloquialism peculiar to English. A non-English user's first instinct might be to look up at the ceiling! :-) I think that "Go" and "Search" as the current labels are fine. The box header should be changed from "search" to "article search" or "find an article" or "find". Carcharoth 10:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You have a point, but I still like "article finder" though. IMHO, calling it the "article finder" instead of the "search box" was totally thinking outside of the box, no pun intended. It's like naming something for what you use it for instead of what it does on the server. Moving on, the programmer in me would use "Search" as the title and label the buttons "quick" and "thorough". --DavidHOzAu 10:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am non-English. Is there a non-colloquial synonym for looking something up in an encyclopedia (which is the function of the button)? Let's look it up: look up - Definitions from Dictionary.com Alternative: "Look it up", or with an exclamation mark: "Look it up!" Would bolded "Look it up" fit in the space available?


 * Another way of thinking: See the box label and the search field as a sentence: Find article about ________, Go!

 Find article about:
 * Notice that "Find article about:" is normal-sized text in sentence case, and bolded to stand out. The text could also be shorter "Find article:", or it could be "Look up article about:" or "Look up article:". Or the Go! button could be "Look it up". But the phrase needs to be "true" for both buttons, in the sense that for example Go-ing directly to an article and Search-ing for something are both ways to "Find article about:" something.


 * I don't think that "Find" necessarily implies that something will be found. It just says: "Try to find it", or "Find it, if it exists." One advantage of dropping the label of the article finder is that it logically ties it to the navigation box above. --83.253.36.136 17:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * (Now reading up on previous discussion and the Go button. Returning on tuesday later with more ideas and (maybe) a more thought-through opinion. --83.253.36.136 12:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC) )
 * (Now reading up on previous discussion and the Go button. Returning on tuesday later with more ideas and (maybe) a more thought-through opinion. --83.253.36.136 12:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC) )

Question: How could the Go button be moved above the input field (in a mock-up seach box)? I'm thinking about having a button with "Look up article about:" on the top, the input field below that button, and the (smaller?) "Search in articles" button below the input field. --83.253.36.136 14:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Using portlet/inputbox wikicode? not a clue. Probably easier to just create an image mockup, with cut&paste in Microsoft Paint, to see if there is interest, before committing further energy. Quiddity 20:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Product placement?
Probably off topic, but can I ask why Google and Yahoo are the only external search options? Not that you really see this screen much anymore, but I used to see it all the time. Shouldn't all the search engines be fairly represented? Or at least more than two - Jack (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If you have more than two search engines, then it begins to become a problem for our smaller-screen readers and editors. Perhaps a link to List of search engines might do? Google and Yahoo are there because they are the most popular search engines on the internet at the moment, thus making it easier for the most number of people. Harryboyles 10:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Default text cursor in searchbox
Is there any way that by default there is a text cursor in the searchbox? So that users don't need to touch the mouse? This is done by www.google.com - Jack (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This has not been implemented as it breaks the ability to scroll using the up\down Page Up\Page Down keys. Lcarsdata (Talk) 10:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Also Google does that because it is very rare that you have to scroll down the page on the main search pages. Lcarsdata (Talk) 10:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, up/down pgup/pgdown (as well as space) don't work but but scrollwheels do work. Perhaps if it was only implimented on the main page? - Jack (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's been suggested before, but not everyone has scrollwheels (or uses them), and having things act differently on just the Main Page is confusing usability-wise. Sorry. --Quiddity 17:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As for not touching the mouse, you can always hit [tab] to put the cursor in the searchbox. (I believe that's a cross-browser/platform standard?) Quiddity 17:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I had this monobooked for a while. I stopped it for the exact pageup/pagedown/arrowkeys reason listed above. If people want they can monobook it, otherwise i don't think it's something that should be forced upon a user - especially after it has been different for so long.

Fair use rationale for Image:Search screenshot.PNG
Image:Search screenshot.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)