Re: an attempt to fix the Google search problem

From: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL www <pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: an attempt to fix the Google search problem
Date: 2016-11-10 23:45:58
Message-ID: CAM-w4HNrzBzFiMKjyy0uKK5xukgifxTKsKwVEmRJPMQBHHQBRw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-www

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 8:17 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> Do people really search for something with a specific version
> specified? I've never done that, because I rarely particularly need
> to, and because I think that it wouldn't work.

Fwiw when I searched for Oracle docs I found including version numbers
*did* reliably produce better results. In that case the problem is
that there are too many blogs and support pages that try to help and
you have to include extra terms to filter out just the most helpful
ones. Including terms like version numbers really helps winnow out the
chaff of pages that are for older or newer versions or aren't
technical enough to specify what version they're for.

I think a more realistic scenario to consider is someone running an
older release and searching for something like
"ssl_renegotiation_limit" or "wal_level hot_standby" would find
nothing at all rather than documentation for a version that may be
what they're actually running. Now.... the fact that
ssl_renogitation_limit is the *only* such example could find more
recent than 9.2 may mean it's rare enough that it's not much of a
concern

--
greg

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-www by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2016-11-11 00:37:57 Re: an attempt to fix the Google search problem
Previous Message Steve Atkins 2016-11-10 20:28:24 Re: an attempt to fix the Google search problem