• Forum Moderator applications are now open! If you're interested in joining an active team of moderators for one of the biggest Pokémon forums on the internet, click here for info.

Just got hit with inspiration

P

Pie

Dead Again
Joined
Aug 20, 2004
Messages
2,452
Reaction score
4
So, I was in the [HASHTAG]#bulbagarden[/HASHTAG] chat, right? And we were having a big conversation on how to make things better for the users.

One big thing that came up in regards to Bulbapedia a LOT is that people don't know how to use it. They don't get how to add content or check what's already there or anything. Some people don't even know how to look anything up.

So then it hit me - we need to make a How To Use Bulbapedia article. Make it so comprehensive that we remove all the "I don't know how to use Bulbapedia!" comments, but try to keep it so simple a Mankey could understand it. And make its existance blatantly obvious.

Does this exist? If not, I'm ready and willing to make it - who wants to help me? And if so, why is it not glaring at me whenever I open the Bulbapedia?
 
WORD!

It took me personally over a week before i figured out how to find articles on the wiki... it really isn't as obvious as most people would think. An article POSTED IN BIG LETTERS ON THE FRONT PAGE would be really useful.
 
The bigger something is, the more likely they will notice it. :P

As for me, I'm one of the ones that doesn't know exactly what to do for the pedia. I've read up on some things I saw on there, but it's a bit confusing to me. If someone made a nice detailed yet easy to read guide, then it would really come in handy.

And I know I speak for many here that look at the Pedia, and wish they could help, but don't understand how to use it. :P
 
Zhen actually has a good idea in his User Profile, with links to shortest pages, most wanted pages, dead ends, etc. I've referenced those a lot when looking for stuff to do, and if we make this page they should all totally go on them.
 
Actually, you're the only person I know who has ever looked at my collection of links.

But really, not know how to look things up? That's absolutely absurd. There is a search box in the sidebar - no scrolling required. And don't tell me that doesn't make sense. The Britannica, apparently the gold standard of encyclopediae, is not organised by topic or subject matter - the articles are arranged in alphabetical order by their title - so if you don't know the title of the article you are looking for, well, is that even possible?

Not realising that things can be edited? There is a bold edit this page link at the top of every page which can be edited. Not knowing how to edit? That is a problem. However, I can see that there are some morons who try to edit without even going through the manual of style, let alone of the wikitext reference. I think it is an issue of laziness and courage.
 
But really, not know how to look things up? That's absolutely absurd. There is a search box in the sidebar - no scrolling required. And don't tell me that doesn't make sense. The Britannica, apparently the gold standard of encyclopediae, is not organised by topic or subject matter - the articles are arranged in alphabetical order by their title - so if you don't know the title of the article you are looking for, well, is that even possible?
Click to expand...
Most websites have the navigation laid right out for you. If you're looking for movie information, you scroll down until you reach the "Movies" section.

Then after that, you scroll down a bit more until you find the movie you're looking for.

By default, most people won't think of searching right away.
 
Those are websites, not web encyclopediae. Seen MSN Encarta? Or Encyclopædia Britannica Online? Search is still the main means. It's just something you have to get used to.

We were thinking about a way to organise it so that someone who just wants to read about things could navigate a little easier, but nothing happened in the end - Bulbapedia:Browse

For example, there was the idea of [bp=Bulbapedia:Browse_by_FAQ]browsing by FAQ[/bp] but that never really got anywhere. Browsing by category - well, the [bp=Category:Top-level_categories]root category[/bp] is starting to grow a little large for my liking.
 
Zhen Lin said:
But really, not know how to look things up? That's absolutely absurd. There is a search box in the sidebar - no scrolling required. And don't tell me that doesn't make sense. The Britannica, apparently the gold standard of encyclopediae, is not organised by topic or subject matter - the articles are arranged in alphabetical order by their title - so if you don't know the title of the article you are looking for, well, is that even possible?
Click to expand...

Zhen Lin said:
Those are websites, not web encyclopediae. Seen MSN Encarta? Or Encyclopædia Britannica Online? Search is still the main means. It's just something you have to get used to.
Click to expand...

And that "getting used to it" is why some people don't really know how to look up what they want, I believe. You may have answered your own question.

Searching for titles can be a bit difficult, and Bulbapedia can be rather weird at times - search "egg move" and you'd think Bulbagarden had little to nothing on the subject. Search "egg moves" and you get the article. So, people are confused, since they are more used to a list of several articles, rather than an entire database of many of them.

Hence, all the more reason for a Mankey's Guide to Bulbapedia (or whatever we wanna call it) - it makes users able to familiarize themselves with the system quicker, which helps for new people just walking in and probably makes them more likely to stick around.
 
Pie said:
Searching for titles can be a bit difficult, and Bulbapedia can be rather weird at times - search "egg move" and you'd think Bulbagarden had little to nothing on the subject. Search "egg moves" and you get the article. So, people are confused, since they are more used to a list of several articles, rather than an entire database of many of them.
Click to expand...

More than once i've searched for something in the 'pedia, come up with absolutely nothing and ended up having to try and trawl through the categories to try and find what i'm looking for. The Wiki definitely needs hacked/modded with a better wildcard system in the search.

As for not getting how to work it, it certainly confused the heck out of me for a long time. For one thing, there's no clear thing saying "Click here to start an entry" unless you come up against a duff link that hasn't been done yet. The problem was amplified much-more-so on Bulbanews where you're expected to start something new and yet have no clear way of doing so.

Editing is easy enough - I couldn't imagine many people having trouble with being able to click the [edit] link and simply slipping in the relevant text where it's required but the formatting is very confusing itself.

For one thing, making WikiLinks is a major pain that, again, isn't really clearly marked out on the edit page. You not only have to understand the setup for the code to get it working but have to make sure that the thing you link to is spot-on. Even a variation as slight as LeafGreen and Leaf Green is enough to throw it off whack.

Wikis are definitely NOT the most inviting tools for new users and are certainly not the most user friendly in the "Search for it exactly the way we want you to or tough luck" concept either. A guide to explain it to people would be a great idea and I certainly could have done with it when the project first launched.
 
Pie, if you could begin work on this ASAP, it would be appreciated. It's probably best if you concentrate on getting this up to the exclusion of our other projects for now. Getting browsing Bulbapedia to be as intuitive and obvious as browsing any other Pokémon site is a top priority.
 
Pie said:
And that "getting used to it" is why some people don't really know how to look up what they want, I believe. You may have answered your own question.
Click to expand...

Doctor Oak said:
More than once i've searched for something in the 'pedia, come up with absolutely nothing and ended up having to try and trawl through the categories to try and find what i'm looking for. The Wiki definitely needs hacked/modded with a better wildcard system in the search.
Click to expand...

Well, the search engine is rather basic and there is absolutely no way I or anyone else could get it to the level of Google, and I can't blame them for trying. You'd be surprised though - while MediaWiki might be the most popular, or at least, most visible wiki engine, there is not much of a community of hackers behind it.

Now, if anyone has any ideas about how to write a new search engine, I'd like to hear them, but bear in mind, my knowledge mathematics is only high-school level. (Also, I think there might be some venture capitalists interested in such ideas.)

Searching for titles can be a bit difficult, and Bulbapedia can be rather weird at times - search "egg move" and you'd think Bulbagarden had little to nothing on the subject. Search "egg moves" and you get the article.
Click to expand...

That's what redirects are for. Ideally though it should be at Egg move, not Egg moves.

For one thing, making WikiLinks is a major pain that, again, isn't really clearly marked out on the edit page. You not only have to understand the setup for the code to get it working but have to make sure that the thing you link to is spot-on. Even a variation as slight as LeafGreen and Leaf Green is enough to throw it off whack.
Click to expand...

How is this any different from making HTML links, or for that matter, addressing emails? You must get the target exactly right. Again, redirects should make up for common errors. (There are one or two users who seem to be doing everything they can to create redirects for Pokemon without the e-acute.)

but the formatting is very confusing itself.
Click to expand...

Oh please, are you going to tell me next that writing XHTML 1.1 Strict code is any easier? Well, sure, if you think like a computer and don't mind code that visually looks cluttered.
 
It would help more than hurt.

Wiki code does take some getting used to. In additon, many contributors won't have used HTML wich is what you seem to be assuming.
 
Please note: The thread is from 20 years ago.
Please take the age of this thread into consideration in writing your reply. Depending on what exactly you wanted to say, you may want to consider if it would be better to post a new thread instead.
Back
Top Bottom