[vox-tech] [help@google.com: Re: [#19464334] Searching for dotfiles]

[Peter Jay Salzman]

On Thu 13 Jan 05,  1:25 PM, Mark K. Kim <lugod at cbreak.org> said:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Peter Jay Salzman wrote:
> 
> > On Thu 13 Jan 05, 12:42 PM, Mark K. Kim <lugod at cbreak.org> said:
> [quotes trimmed - getting way too long!]
> > > Most dotfile has a corresponding /etc file with same syntax so...
> >
> > Yes, but I don't care about /etc/application/2.1.5/config/.dotfile.  I care
> > about:
> >
> >    .dotfile
> >
> > > should Google allow dotfile searches specifically for unix users but not
> > > their global equivalents?
> >
> > Yes.  Because if anybody wants information on ".vimrc", they'll search for
> > ".vimrc".  If they want to search for /etc/vimrc, they'll search for
> > "vimrc".
> 
> The syntax for /etc/vimrc (or more accurately, /usr/share/vim/.../vimrc)

Why more accurately?

> is same as that of ~/etc/.vimrc.  So why would one be motivated to search
> for .vimrc when one simply wants to find out the syntax of vimrc files in
> general?

Because most people are users who edit .vimrc.  Not administrators who edit
/etc/vimrc.

> In such scenario, the search engine dropping the dot is the
> right behavior.

That, my friend, is called axiomizing an unproven principle.  :)

> The only scenario I can think of where searching
> specifically for ".vimrc" is more desirable over "vimrc" is if "vimrc"
> isn't searchable, making ".vimrc" the more appealing search term, which is
> the case for ".forward" because "forward" is a generic English term.

Good example!  Can you think of any others?

> But let's look at the statistics.  How many dotfiles do you know that
> isn't searchable besides .forward because it conflicts with another, more
> popular or broader, term?  Just go ahead and check your home directory.

.acrobat
.adobe
.audacity
.Audacity
.bidwatcher
.bittornado
.bittorrent
.calendar
.cvs
.ddd
.gnome
.gtk
.hugo
.loki

Many others.

> Knowing this statistics, can a gigantic search engine like Google (or any
> generic search engine) justify making an exception for such class of
> files?

You already know my answer.  I assume that's supposed be rhetorical?

> If Google started making exceptions for everything, it really is going to
> slow it down for everone.

Will it?

   if (serachterm does not have dot as first character)
      go about my normal business

> And remember Google has to make these
> exceptions for the googols of searches it really does to every day.  Each
> exception should be justified, and in my opinion, dotfiles isn't
> justifiable.

Spoil sport!!!

> > > I don't think a generic search engine like Google should be that specific.
> >
> > I'm simply advocating returning searches for "foo" if you ask for "foo".
> > How is that specific?
> 
> Then it should make that exception for every word, not just for dotfiles.

Please justify this statement.

> But as they explained, doing that is too much for Google.

And as Rick explained, that was a boiler plate response.  They fooled you
with a canned response.   :(

> And as I mentioned in an earlier e-mail, making an exception for all words
> with punctuation in front of the word has some problems as well.

And as I explained, I don't care about all words with just any punctuation
in front of them.

> > > It's up to the person doing the search to use the right keywords:
> > >
> > >    forward unix email
> >
> > Perhaps.  Good point.  But "forward unix email" isn't quite what a person
> > searching for information on ".forward" is looking for.  Results can range
> > anywhere from exactly what the person wants to configuring sendmail.
> 
> Yes, but the right query will bring the right page to the top.
 
Maybe.  Maybe not.

Pete

-- 
The mathematics of physics has become ever more abstract, rather than more
complicated.  The mind of God appears to be abstract but not complicated.
He also appears to like group theory.  --  Tony Zee's "Fearful Symmetry"

GPG Fingerprint: B9F1 6CF3 47C4 7CD8 D33E  70A9 A3B9 1945 67EA 951D