On Monday, January 27, 2003, 6:13:31 PM, Hiroshi wrote:

> But, I realize it while this discussion, things aren't
> going our way for now.  So I'm wathing discussions
> interestingly.

Good to know.

> # Back to the style issue, we have a plan to introduce
> # wiki-like feature to RAA.  That's for linking proejcts
> # and for adding comments of users.

This sounds excellent.

>> From: Daniel Carrera [mailto:dcarrera / math.umd.edu] 
>> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 2:46 AM

>> I certainly think that RAA should have a search feature.

> Maybe I misunderstood you again, but does this English
> sentence imply that RAA doesn't have a search feature now?
> Or are you thinking more detailed search e.g. "search by
> release date, category and description"?  That's on our
> ToDo...

The current search could be improved, but it already provides 60+% of
what anyone could possibly want (i.e. a search engine).  Some people
seem to be ignorant of RAA's search engine altogether!  (I do think it
should be moved up the top right now; that's almost a web UI
standard!)

OK, I've had my 2c, but I just put another nickel in the slot.

The only thing required to be able to do very effective searches is
some metadata that can be indexed (or brute-force-searched; who
cares?).  The simplest and best way to do this is to have some
standard keywords that package owners can apply to their packages.  A
good web interface is not hard: either check-boxes or a multi-list.
(Allow extra keywords in a text area.)  The same interface can be used
to search for stuff.

Knowing *what* you can valuably search for means more powerful
searching, and means you can effectively browse as well - search
whatever categories (oops, I mean "keywords") you are interested in.

This equates, more or less, to multiple categorisation, but without
all the hassle of working out how to implement such a beast.

Easy enough?  Good enough?

Gavin