Commentary

Serdar Yegulalp
 

Why Shouldn't Wikia Search Stink (At First)?

After Jimmy Wales took the wrapping off the first version of his Wikia Search system, many people agreed with his warning: yes, it does indeed suck.  The search results are spotty, not always properly relevant, and sometimes just inexplicable.  But really, is there any way for someone to make something new in as well-heeled a field as Internet search engines without falling flat on their face a few times?

After Jimmy Wales took the wrapping off the first version of his Wikia Search system, many people agreed with his warning: yes, it does indeed suck.  The search results are spotty, not always properly relevant, and sometimes just inexplicable.  But really, is there any way for someone to make something new in as well-heeled a field as Internet search engines without falling flat on their face a few times?


More Software Insights

White Papers

More >>

Reports

More >>

Webcasts

More >>

The idea of Wikia alone, though, is I think what draws people to it -- me included -- in enough droves to be genuinely willing to put up with its initially messy and not-always-useful incarnations.  It's an attempt to take a subject that has largely been the domain of commercial outfits and make it "open, objective, and accountable," to use the very words on Wikia Search's "About" page.  This, of course, stands in stark contrast to Google's way of doing things, where its search and ranking algorithms are essentially a trade secret and are monetized through its ad system.

Can it work?  I'd like to think it can.  Look at how Wikipedia itself has become an Internet cornerstone, caveats and all.  The very concept of the wiki and its utility garnered a huge boost from the 'Pedia,' and anyone who's so inclined can grab a copy of Wikipedia's underlying software and put it to use.

The quality of the search in Wikia also doesn't seem to be much worse than Google itself was when that search giant was still in its garage-days infancy.  Most of the basic keyword-type searches I've fired through Wikia turned up a reasonably useful if spotty crop of hits.  When I performed a search for information on the relatively obscure band Merzbow, for instance, the first couple of hits were the band's official homepage -- but the even-more-useful Wikipedia entry didn't show up in the first 50 hits at all.  (Perhaps by design?)

In my earlier comments about Sony, a reader ("David") noted that Sony's successes came at the expense of about as many failures, if not more, and that sometimes that's the prices of progress.  In retrospect, I agree completely with this statement.  Sometimes there's no way to find out what really works without a lot of aggressive tossing and testing.  The real test, I think, will be to see whether the kind of toss-and-test Wikia needs to do to improve its work can be best done in public, out from behind closed doors.


Related Reading




Currently we allow the following HTML tags in comments:

Single tags

These tags can be used alone and don't need an ending tag.

<br> Defines a single line break

<hr> Defines a horizontal line

Matching tags

These require an ending tag - e.g. <i>italic text</i>

<a> Defines an anchor

<b> Defines bold text

<big> Defines big text

<blockquote> Defines a long quotation

<caption> Defines a table caption

<cite> Defines a citation

<code> Defines computer code text

<em> Defines emphasized text

<fieldset> Defines a border around elements in a form

<h1> This is heading 1

<h2> This is heading 2

<h3> This is heading 3

<h4> This is heading 4

<h5> This is heading 5

<h6> This is heading 6

<i> Defines italic text

<p> Defines a paragraph

<pre> Defines preformatted text

<q> Defines a short quotation

<samp> Defines sample computer code text

<small> Defines small text

<span> Defines a section in a document

<s> Defines strikethrough text

<strike> Defines strikethrough text

<strong> Defines strong text

<sub> Defines subscripted text

<sup> Defines superscripted text

<u> Defines underlined text

InformationWeek encourages readers to engage in spirited, healthy debate, including taking us to task. However, InformationWeek moderates all comments posted to our site, and reserves the right to modify or remove any content that it determines to be derogatory, offensive, inflammatory, vulgar, irrelevant/off-topic, racist or obvious marketing/SPAM. InformationWeek further reserves the right to disable the profile of any commenter participating in said activities.

Disqus Tips To upload an avatar photo, first complete your Disqus profile. | View the list of supported HTML tags you can use to style comments. | Please read our commenting policy.
T-Shirt Giveaway T-Shirt Giveaway: Each week we're selecting one great comment from our readers. The author of the comment will receive an InformaitonWeek Community t-shirt. So get posting!
Subscribe to RSS

Resource Links