Template talk:google

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Should groups option restrict to Usenet?[edit]

Google Groups now searches all sorts of fora, not just Usenet, so, if one wants to restrict to Usenet, he must check the option "search only Google Groups" and also specify group:*.* (I think). Perhaps template:google should be adjusted so as to restrict to Usenet? (Or are all Google Groups durably archived by Google? If so, perhaps the template should restrict to "search only Google Groups".)—msh210 17:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Until we vote to explicitly enlarge the universe of "durably archived", I would think it should default to Usenet. It might be time to revisit what might be worth deeming durably archived (and accessibly so). That would seem to be a BP matter before a vote. This is as good a place as any to test the waters. DCDuring TALK 17:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Instead of modifying {{google|type=groups|…}}, it might be better to add {{google|type=Usenet|…}}, or even have a separate {{usenet|…}}. But, I'm fine with any of these three approaches. —RuakhTALK 18:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Ooh, yeah, I like the type=usenet approach. Definitely better than losing backward compatibility by changing links in old discussions. (Perhaps we should add "Usenet" to template:googles then, too.)—msh210 18:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
So I've just tested, and sadly, it doesn't seem that group:*.* has any effect; check out <http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=%22i+can%27+t+find+something+about+redirection+on+server+side+like%22+group:*.*>. So, it seems like we can't restrict Google-Groups searches to just Usenet. In which case I think we might as well stick with just the one type, and have {{google|type=groups}} restrict itself to Google Groups proper, as its name suggests. (Do you think the backward-compatibility is much of an issue? Honestly, I haven't seen too many people using this template, and it's nearly always in the context of RFV, where the narrower-scope search is more relevant anyway.) —RuakhTALK 01:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree: if group:*.* is useless, then backward compatibility is unimportant, and type=groups can restrict to Google Groups.—msh210 17:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Done, thanks! —RuakhTALK 03:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)