This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. Graestan(Talk) 01:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi all. We are looking at the site search on Wikia, in particular because we think it may be a factor in slowing the site down. We also hope to improve results.
So we are planning to switch to a Lucene search and would like to try this on Wookieepedia (and Uncyclopedia) to see if it really does improve performance.
WoWwiki has been on this for a while, and are pleased with how it's worked. So trying on a couple of other big wikis is the next step. The plan is to add it here and a) monitor any improvements in site performance and speed, and b) get your feedback, and information on any bugs you see.
The advantages are (outside of possible performance improvements) that it's easier to set up which namespaces are searched by default and that it may be more effective in giving relevant results. The disadvantages are a changed results page with results in titles no longer separated from results in text. There's probably more on each side of the equation, but we should find that out as we go along.
So that's the plan, please let me know what you think. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I think not separating results in titles from results in text will be a massive step back in usefulness. Any performance gain from the software is likely to be lost in the resulting repeated searches of users trying to find exactly what they are looking for. jSarek 12:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
It works for words with only three letters! And improved performance can only be a good thing. But I also agree with jSarek, having titles and text results separated is useful and I don't really want to lose that. Green Tentacle(Talk) 18:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I rely on the title separation to create disambiguation pages and such. I'd rather stay with the old system if the new one comes with such a massive loss of functionality. -- Darth Culator(Talk) 18:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
From what you and Uncyclopedia have said, this is possibly going to be a key issue. I've talked to Emil, and he thinks that the version that goes with Mediawiki 1.13 (yes, it's coming) will have the ability to separate title and content matches. We'll look into this. If it doesn't, and if it's important enough to people, we may be able to tweak it ourselves to do this. I'm not sure of that yet, but it's something to keep in mind. The test will be without this feature, but should give us information on any other problems and benefits of this search -- sannse (talk) 09:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The title and text matches are important for me. But if you can tweak it, I'm in support of the idea. Soresumakashi 06:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The Lucene search is now on, the plan is to leave it in place for just over a week and see how it affects performance and searches. Please leave any feedback here... let's see how it works! -- sannse (talk) 08:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC
Agreed. So far, I'm seeing no reason to keep this "upgrade." - JMASHey, it's me! 00:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm incredibly dissatisfied with this new and "improved" search functionality. Running a search for, say, Yanibar, yields "no results", while pressing "Go" will take me to the article. Running a search for Alderaan yields the planet as result number one, but not the yacht of the same name. The worst off is Anakin Solo, who doesn't even appear on the search in the first page, much less the ship named after him. This "loss of functionality", as Wikia staff have put it, is a rather big deal in a universe where lots of things have similar names. There are a dozen plus things with "Clone Wars" in the title, and they're not all displaying on the first search page. This is a major loss for the already paltry search function. Enough said. Atarumaster88(Talk page) 01:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Same here. The new search is just barely this side of completely worthless. Until the test ends, or someone kludges a solution to this problem, I'll be using an offsite search. It at least prioritizes by title. jSarek 12:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Missing articles on search results and no title search doesn't seem like a step forward. Green Tentacle(Talk) 13:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. It's also less useful when searching for typos, such as "wookie" - any page with the word "wookiee" appears too, which isn't always helpful. It also doesn't always show the text the word appears in underneath the link to the title, which I miss. The old version was better. Aqua Unasi 02:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
If the objective of the trial was to drive people to Google, they've succeeded. :-| -- Darth Culator(Talk) 02:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I rebuilt the index today. It seems like the previous version was broken in few places. Please let me know if you still find any missing articles from the new index. --Emil (talk) 09:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Another problem: a search for "commited" turns up over eleven pages of results. The catch? None of the results seem to actually contain the word (they all have the proper spelling of "committed") so searching for typos is pretty impossible with this new search function. This is a pretty major problem. It's something I'd very like to see fixed. -- AdmirableAckbar(Talk) 18:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help everyone. That was a useful test that helped us fix one bug and highlighted other issues. I don't have results on how it affected performance, but Emil and the technical team will look at that again. The wiki is back on the default search now. Many thanks once again -- sannse (talk) 13:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I found myself missing the new search when I was looking for something today (using "Insider 55" to find Star Wars Insider 55; the current search is useless with numbers like this). After the initial fix, I found that the new one was actually very useful and more accurate than the old search. However, the lack of distinction between title and article matches was still a drawback. Is there any possibility that such an option could be made on the new search? Or could we perhaps have the ability to use both searches? -- Ozzel 06:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
We are looking at just those things :) Firstly, the separation of title is popular, so we are looking at whether we can pull that into the Lucene search. And we are also looking at what it take to give an option in your preferences so that you can choose between the two searches. Search has never been really good enough in my opinion, so I'm hoping this project can really improve it -- sannse (talk) 08:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)