Help upgrading to 10.10
jordon at envygeeks.com
Thu Oct 14 16:03:10 UTC 2010
On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 16:23 +0100, Alan Pope wrote:
> On 14 October 2010 16:14, Tom H <tomh0665 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Google's just as likely to point you to wiki.ubuntu.com as it is to
> > point you to help.ubuntu.com.
> I have no knowledge of the internals of how Google decides what to go
> for. Most 'documentation' resides on doc.ubuntu.com and
> help.ubuntu.com so I'd /imagine/ that's where people link to
> (hopefully) so that should push those up the ranks. Indeed googling
> for ubuntu and upgrade gives only one link to wiki. but two for help.
> and one for ubuntu.com.
> Not trying to argue, just testing the theory.
I've noticed that google also places links based on clicks and
relevancy. There is some kind of bad ass algorithm going on at Google
and we must get a hold of it. That aside, doc.ubuntu.com should be
converted to help.ubuntu.com or doc masters should start migrating
redundant articles over.
I don't know what the logic was behind it, but I assume it might have
been to separate user input from official output but at this point in
the game with everything being so outdated in most places, it just
throws people off. Ubuntu changes so rapidly their weak point has
become documentation, because they can't focus some development time on
it. What needs to be done is set official doc masters, start migrating
and then have users start building real world knowledge bases with
dedicated doc masters just reviewing, testing and correcting.
Case in point: Old grub articles that don't apply any more (for the
most part) then there are old encryption articles that just explain it
wrong, down the latter we go?
Anyways, I think you're both right, because there are times where I end
up with help.ubuntu.com doc.ubuntu.com and wiki.ubuntu.com in a row one
after the other, then there are times where it's all confusing and the
wiki says "piss off will ya" but researching, I get help :/
More information about the ubuntu-users