Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft/Search box poll

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The main page redesign opening editing session ended on February 18th. The one outstanding issue is whether or not to include the extra search box in the header. This straw poll is to gauge opinion on this from the Wikipedia community and decide which version to put forth to an official final vote.

The design options include:

  1. Second search box (main page only)
  2. No extra search box

This poll ended 4:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC).

Contents

Straw poll

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus to add it, therefore, No. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Please note that this decision applies strictly to the proposed Main Page. If included, the additional search box would not appear elsewhere on the site.

Include the second search box:

Yes

  1. Absolutely! Searching is the most efficient way to find stuff. Renata 07:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Aesthetically, it looks better. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Keep, friendlier. Reminds me of amazon.com, which is a good thing.--Urthogie 13:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Kevin Baastalk 15:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Absolutely! It is the single most important thing on the main page. People search and encyclopedia for something, they don't browse it. It should be the focus off attention on the page. --WS 16:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Not because it's be particularly useful but it looks much more aesthetically pleasing. --Celestianpower háblame 16:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Yes, yes. People I talk with always hate going to the side search bar (oddly enough, sometimes the center of the page loads faster than the side). Also, it look better. BrokenSegue 18:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Sure. It's redundent, but it would help newcomers. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 18:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Absolutely. The rest of the redesign is a nice facelift, but really not all that important. A prominent search box is essential. zafiroblue05 | Talk 19:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. Petros471 19:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  11. I must admit, when I first heard of the idea, it sounded like loser talk, but then I saw the second box and it looks great! Veteran wikipedians may be used to the sidebar, but new users to any page can often be disoriented by the other options and miss the most important tool (the bar!). The second bar is visible at first glance; keep it. Rod ESQ 20:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  12. Keep, makes it easier for newcomers to find the search box, even though it is redundant. --CannotResolveSymbol talk 20:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  13. Yes. It's prominent, and it also has the total number of articles above it, which I think the front page needs as it makes Wikipedia sound more impressive. The other option only has that information right near the bottom of the page. Also, it's aesthetically pleasing. James Kendall [talk]
  14. Yes, it makes searching more prominent - redundancy shouldn't be such a huge issue as it is the front page only. The inclusion of the search box also allows the no. of articles to be listed - a small feature which it would be a shame to drop (especially since we are now getting into very impressive numbers - I can see the point in dropping it if the number was embarrassing).SFC9394 21:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  15. Anything to help newcomers. --AySz88^-^ 23:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  16. I know that when I first visited the site I was a little overwhelmed by the front page. It took me a while to realize that the right side bar had basically everything navigation-related. I just think that the addition of the new search bar could only help make the front page more user-friendly and the addition doesn't hurt the appearance at all for me.--CountCrazy007 01:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  17. Definitely! People usually don't look at the side of the screen. Usually from top to bottom. Hohohob 01:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  18. Yes. It's okay that it's only on the first page: people expect a search box on the home page. Otherwise you'd have to complain about the search box on the multilingual portal. At worst they'd click "back" if they need to find it again. --Geoffrey 03:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  19. Yes; I think it looks rather elegant, and balances the page, relative to the other version.--ragesoss 04:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  20. Yeah, if you're reading the categories and articles and such, it's nice to have a search box right there and not have to move over to the side, moving to another "box". --The Human Spellchecker 04:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    The above comment seems to imply a belief that the second search box would be present throughout the site. This is not the case; it would appear only on the Main Page (if the design is approved by the community). —David Levy 04:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    If the large up and to the right search box were to be on every page (as it is in the Classic skin) then it could have my vote. To put it on only the Mainpage seems trickery; now you see it and now you don't. "WTF, what happened to the search box place thingy? - Oh now I see, I have to go back to the Mainpage each time @#@*&!* - Oh great" hydnjo talk 04:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  21. Totally. Search needs to be emphasized. I thought that this was one of the main reasons for redesigning the main page! --Travis 05:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  22. Yeah so did I. The whole reason I hate the main page is because it doesn't have it. Tobyk777 05:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  23. Yes how can you not have it Tobyk777 05:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  24. I am slightly concerned with people thinking the search will always be on top, and then not finding it, but at the first visit people will probably want to search, so I have to go this way. - cohesion★talk 08:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  25. Yes - It is higly useful for all visitor, can be easily found rather than looking down the side panel, and the number of articles statistic helps to give a scale of the project. --Jorvik 08:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  26. Yes. It does not look out of place, it is not confusing, it will not appear on other pages. It helps people find articles. I see no drawbacks. Mikademus 10:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  27. Yes, per Cohesion. -- Tvaughn05e (Talk)(Contribs) 10:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  28. Yes, we definitely need to meet the needs of new users of Wikipedia, and this is the way to do it. JACooks 16:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  29. Yes, looks better without taking up too much spaceJschwa1 17:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  30. Nice and eye-catching for first-timers. Biglin 18:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC).
  31. Yes, It well be more immediately noticed by newcomers.Greatigers 20:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  32. "Redundancy" will help new users, and it will be easier to find the search box. Dan 20:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  33. Yes. It'll be a great help for new users and visitors. -Charm Quark?? 22:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  34. It's a crutch. The new users will leave the nest and the crutch behind in due time, but it can make all the difference in the world to new users ("Hey! That's an easier way to find stuff than paper encyclopedias!") It also adds the article count. But I will not be terribly upset to see it go, especially if we can get the article count in someplace else.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  35. Redundancy is a good design principle. Fieari 02:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  36. Yes. We want everyone, new and experienced to be able to browse and search as easily as possible. Starwiz 03:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  37. Yes. I don't see why not. joturner 03:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  38. Yes, yes, yes! My main reason was that it helps people not familiar with the site to search for what they need; but after seeing the drafts, I also submit that it looks much nicer with the search box as well. --Jen Moakler 04:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  39. Yup. Coffee 05:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  40. Yes, easier for newcomers to find - Palladian 07:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  41. Yes. Shanes 08:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  42. Yes. A search box in the header, like in Draft 6J.2, would definitely look better. I've always thought that, for the Main Page, the searchbox isn't made very obvious. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 08:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  43. Yeah! It is good, specially with the article count above it. This acually makes it easier for people to see how many articles there are - it works better! Other wise it looks a bit weird. Though I think the wording should be changed cos for me when reading I seem to think "Search ALL (insert number here) articles". Maybe "the" rather than all. But I TOTALLY agree - I'm luvin it!Banana.girl 11:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  44. Yes. PeteVerdon 12:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  45. Yes. Why decrease functionality? Add it! JoeSmack Talk 14:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  46. Yes. It gives visitors a direction after reading the predominant title. Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia! Now - Search and explore! hypersonic
  47. Yes, helpful for newcomers. --Spangineer (háblame) 16:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  48. Yes. Great idea. There really aren't any drawbacks to doing this. I really don't understand the complaints about it but there are several. Wow and I thought it was a no brainer... Bourgeoisdude 17:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  49. Yes. Add it. --Lcarsdata - http://ronline.hostingrpaid.com - My website 18:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  50. Add it. Thue | talk 18:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  51. Yes. Looks better.  -- Run!  18:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  52. Yes- For sure, will help new users find articles Brian | (Talk) 18:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  53. Yes, I like it. (I also think the sidebar search box should be moved to the top of the sidebar, right beneath the logo.) — Catherine\talk 19:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  54. Yes. Keep both of them. --^BuGs^ 19:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  55. YES. Search is the best way to navigate a Wiki. A box on the main page as well as the side bar makes this clear. Lumos3 19:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  56. Yes. It looks a bit out of place, ( I like the no-second-search-box design better), but it will definitely help Wikipedia newbies. But leave it just on the main page, nowhere else. Marcos Juárez 22:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  57. yes. More entry points is always better. Denni ☯ 00:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  58. Yes. Nice design, and new people will probably see that box first. Give it a go! Filmcom 16:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • User has less than 50 edits. BrokenSegue 20:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  59. Yes. More helpful to newcomers. Bazza 16:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  60. Yes. One of the left for left-handed people, one on the right for right-handed people. (On big pc-screens right-hand/left-hand placing does make a difference.)
  61. Yes.You can never have too many :). As some people mentioned above, it provides a more obvious search for newbies.--Hamdev Guru 17:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  62. Yes. I came here to vote no after seeing the news item in signpost but a look at the new search box convinces me that the new search box is a welcome redundancy. --Gurubrahma 17:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  63. Yes. --Ningyou 18:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  64. Yes. Newcomers can miss the small box on left. --TeemuN 19:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  65. Yes. I feel that the extra search box enhances the design and appearance of the main page. --Danaman5 20:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  66. Yes, it will be helpful to newcomers.—WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL•20:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  67. It makes the main page more complete. Tarret 21:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  68. Yes a second seach box is a great idea. Mrmattkatt 21:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  69. Yes, I agree, second box is better. EamonnPKeane 21:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  70. Yes - much better useabilityFilceolaire 22:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  71. Yes Extra functionality at no aesthetic cost. Xoloz 03:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  72. Yes easier for new users to see. --Banana04131 04:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  73. Yes I agree an extra box is definitely better Deyyaz [ Talk | Contribs ] 04:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  74. Yes An extra box on the main page makes Wikipedia appear more professional, and improves ease of use. Shardsofmetal [ Talk | Contribs ] 04:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  75. Yes. It's more obvious and helps users find a search location faster. --Siradia 05:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  76. Yes, The extra search-box makes it easier for new people, and does not bring that much extra overload on the main page for others. --Donar Reiskoffer 07:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  77. Yes per most of the above —Zero Gravitas 08:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  78. Ja, it looks nicer. aliceinlampyland 11:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC).
  79. Yes, it's redundant but if that is a common new user confusion then fix it. JamesHoadley 16:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  80. Yes! — FireFox • T • 17:24, 23 February 2006
  81. Yes! It will help new users. PSMax8956 18:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  82. Yes. Better useability. Westfall 18:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  83. Yes Newcomers Newcomers!! Newcomers!!!! Every single friend of mine was looking for some searching tool and didn't notice the original one in the first moment. Do not let people think, that they have to go through categories!! Reo On 20:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  84. Yes. Tough choice, but I vote for a second search box because it would probably help newcomers. --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 21:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  85. Yes It would definitely look better. Pixelanteninja 22:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  86. Yes; though if added, I think it would look best if highlighted a bright color, such as yellow or orange so that eyes would be drawn to it. Another straw poll perhaps? — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 23:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  87. Yes Looks nice and makes search easily accessible for newcomers. I also like the article count. Chrismith 23:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  88. Yes. I didn't even realize there was a search bar on the left until I found this discussion page... I kept going back to the wikipedia.org page to search (now feeling stupid). Oh, and aesthetically I like the look better than the version without the search box. Csjoiner 02:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • User has less than 50 edits (Hence the presumably relevant comment). Csjoiner 02:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
      • This user does have less then 50 edits --T-rex 03:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  89. Yes. The search box takes up a prominent spot that just looks too blank otherwise, has the article count (one of my favorite features), and is very helpful to newbies. --- Dralwik|Have a Chat My "Great Project"
  90. Yes. Oddly enough, before I looked I thought I'd vote no. When I looked I thought it actually looked better (regardless of purpose). I don't really like the redundance... but, I think removing from the left might be a better response to that (and that won't happen). User:Grenavitar at the library --128.175.87.94 02:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  91. Yes. It looks nice and would improve usability. Political Lefty 04:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  92. Yes, agree with 128.175. 213.249.234.229 05:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  93. Yes. Looks better, preserves the categories on the left-hand side. I'm guessing most irregular visitors primarily use search. VMajander 10:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  94. Yes, per most of the above. - Arcadie | Talk 16:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  95. Yes, Looks very good, better than the previous drafts I've seen.--The_stuart 18:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  96. Yes Useful for newbies. Chairman S. | Talk 21:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  97. Yes Looks Nicer, increases site usability, clearer for newer wikipedians. Lawful Hippo 23:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  98. Yes makes it more balanced to the eye (not that it actually is) and will help newcomers probably SECProto 23:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  99. Yes It draws the eye to the ability to search Wikipedia. Considering that new users might not be able to find the search box in the normal location, a notice could be placed when users search Wikipedia from the main page that the search box is now located on the left navagational menu-bar.--Primate#101 01:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  100. Yes It makes the main page more friendly to newcomers. I may just be a subnormal oik, but I didn't see the search box the first few times I used Wikipedia. Hibbleton 02:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  101. Yes. An extra search box on the main page is more convenient for newer Wikipedians and is more noticeable than the search box on the left panel itself. --SYCTHOStalk 03:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  102. Yes, it makes it easier for newbies to see that they can search for things. Dismas|(talk) 04:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  103. Yes, looks nicer, it also keeps the article count above the fold in a context, it's nice to have on display to show what a great resource Wikipedia is. Obli (Talk)? 16:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  104. Yes, i think it looks good and as searching is the best way to navigate wikipedia, why not make it easier for the newcomer?Random articles 17:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  105. Yes, It looks better, and you wouldn't need to scroll down so often if you had a compact browser window. Ms ArtGeek 18:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  106. Yes, especially good for noobs. --NorkNork 18:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  107. Yes, as per above user.--Zxcvbnm 19:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  108. Yes, The search box on the left frame looks idiotic, anyway. And since when do we even bother with frames and navigation panels on main pages? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.2.153.60 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC).
    What frames? Our code makes no use of frames. We "bother" with the MonoBook sidebar on every page throughout the site (thereby providing a consistent interface). Why should the main page, which makes the first impression, be any different? —David Levy 01:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  109. Yes --AMorris (talk)●(contribs) 06:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  110. Yes - just as Google has a search on the top and the bottom of each search results page, Wikipedia should strive to make things easy for less technically adept users. Redundancy often helps usability. — ceejayoz talk 07:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  111. Yes - looks cleaner --Bryan Nguyen | Talk 19:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  112. Yes we got one of those on svwp and I believe it make it clerar that you have found an encyklopedia and as Renata said "Searching is the most efficient way to find stuff." /Grön sv 20:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  113. Most of the casual users of wikipedia never go anywhere near the category system. Wikipedia is NOT a conventional paper based encyclopedia and therefore the search function (from my point of the view one of the huge advantages of wikipedia) should be prominent on the main page. j250x 20:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  114. Yes. Strongly prefer it. BigBlueFish 21:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  115. Yes. It's not logical but neither are the anons who keep leaving non-questions on the reference desk. Registered users will be able to hide it via CSS anyway. Superm401 - Talk 22:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    Experienced users aren't the ones who would be confused by the box's presence, and an empty space would only make the page look even more unbalanced. —David Levy 22:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    Superm401, I can't believe that you believe that an extra search box would be helpful. hydnjo talk 22:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  116. Yes It may be repetition but it looks better with it. Ozone 03:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

No

  1. It would confuse readers by distracting them from the search box that appears on every page. They would expect to find it at the top, and it would suddenly be gone. David Levy 07:02/07:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Utterly redundant. Raul654 07:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Honestly, the second box seems frivolous and makes the front page look shoddily designed; like the someone forgot that there was already a search box on the left side. We can't make it look like we're too eager to have users type something into our little boxes. --Columba livia 07:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    • User has less than 20 edits. BrokenSegue 20:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • And this is relevant how? Metamagician3000 07:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. It's already in the menu, why include it another time? --Missmarple 08:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Ghetto-rigging? Get the wiki coders to move the search box to a better location (top right of page) if this is a real problem. --Grocer 08:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC) (Grocer is right, switch over to Classic skin for a moment for an illustration. hydnjo talk 14:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC))
  6. The search bar in left bar is enough. --Jannex 10:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. No need, just confusing and aestetically not very pleasing. Batmanand 11:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Redundant, confusing, muddles layout --Quiddity 11:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Completely unnecessary - just repeating tool. --Ck lostsword|queta! 11:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. Search box on the left is already visible enough as far as I'm concerned. Two search boxes might make someone think, "What's so 7special about the other one?" --Spaceman85 | my talk 11:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  11. No, a crutch that disappears with the next click - now that's confusing. hydnjo talk 14:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  12. No, we shouldn't have a second search box. It's pointless to have it, and it just clutters up the main page. Dposse 14:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  13. No, per Dposse. - Siva1979Talk to me 15:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  14. No, unnecessary. The box on the left is fine. Robert 19:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  15. Nope. If a first-time searcher looks for something with the extra search box, they're not going to understand where it went when they want to search again from another page. Give focus to the sidebar search, but don't add a new one Jweed 19:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  16. No, per Robert. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 19:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  17. No. Sidebar search box is consistent across all pages. Murray Langton 20:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  18. No. I like the one-box format Staxringold 21:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  19. No. I find it inessential and redundant.--SpacemanAfrica 22:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  20. No. Redundant and unattractive, and the draft without looks more "balanced" with "Categories · Featured content · A–Z index" on that side. -PoptartKing 23:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  21. Neutralitytalk 00:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  22. No. Redundant, not needed. Takes more bandwidth. --OrbitOne 00:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  23. It just doesn't seem right. schyler 02:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  24. No. Users who can't find the search box on the main page would still have to find it on any other page. Shen 09:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  25. Nah, looks cleaner without it. — Phil Welch 10:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  26. No. Need search box to be in one consistent location, set by skin. Should not be on the page, but should be in the surrounding wikimedia boilerplate, as it is at the moment. Side location is not ideal, but having another, redundant, search box is far worse. Carcharoth 11:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  27. No. Redundant, plus that entire top bar looks cleaner with the links on 1 spread-out line instead of 2 squished-together ones. --niteicetalk2me 19:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  28. No for reasons of redundancy. However, the left hand search box should be improved to make it more visible. --ChrisG 20:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  29. I actually performed a usability test on a person who's never seen Wikipedia before (yes, such people do still exist). One of the first questions—"what is the difference between the search boxes on top and on the left side"? I'd take that as a no.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 20:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  30. No. However, it would be jolly nice to have a fairly prominent article count, but not large enough to seem like we're boasting about it. Something along the lines of "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, currently working on XXXXXX articles" -- IvanP/(болтай) 20:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    • No, its pointless.
  31. Its better the way it is now, cleaner. Derf noxid 21:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  32. Any users will be quite capable of finding the existing search tool. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  33. No - should instead provide info on where the search is - and preferably change the color of the search box or something to make it easier to find for new users - and match the color to the instructions Trödel•talk 01:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  34. No thanks. I think it would be confusing to have 2 search boxes. Kaldari 02:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  35. No. The main page would actually look uglier with it there. I changed my vote from yes, because I didn't look at the drafts w or w/o the search box, and now that I did, it's better w/o it. Now that I think of it, the extra search box would just take up more space. --G VOLTT 03:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  36. No. Its redundant Cheesy123456789 04:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • User has less than 50 edits. BrokenSegue 04:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  37. No. Looks too tasteless with it there. --DMurphy 05:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  38. No. Redundant and possibly confusing if a new user can't tell why there's two and may think there's some difference.--Bkwillwm 07:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  39. No. Redundant. I'm teaching my octagenarian father to use the computer. His biggest problem with windows is that there is 3 or more ways to do anything, none of which he can remember. The second search bar will confuse new users who will wonder why there are two, and then one of them disappears. Have you seen this on other home pages? I haven't. I suspect for good reason. I spend quite a bit of time answering questions about categorization. A common question is: what is the difference between lists, categories, templates and (most recently) portals? There is already too much redundancy in the site. There should be less, not more. I hope the article count can be retained if the "no"s prevail. -- Samuel Wantman 09:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  40. No. It doesn't look good in my opinion, and has no justifiable use, being so close to the standard search box as to make no difference, except to confuse people. ThomasL 10:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • User has <50 edits. BrokenSegue 21:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  41. No. Redundant, confusing, and is esthetically unappealing. Paul August ☎ 20:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  42. No, it's redundant and confusing. --Naddy 15:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  43. No, its definitely confusing, and i like the cleaner look of the other version. Besides wikipedias allure comes in browsing not searching. --Larsinio 15:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  44. No. One is enough. Two would be confusing. -- Marcika 16:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  45. No. Redundant. Nobi 17:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  46. No... redundant and clutters page on a smaller monitor. I would prefer the initial emphasis of the page to be on the featured articles as these demonstrate the best of the project, and thus reject a design that favours a quicker pass through the front page. Plus the side search bar is plenty visible enough already. --Estarriol 17:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • User has 2 edits. BrokenSegue 21:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • ...which is somewhat irrelevant to users ability to judge the usability of a website design. I wasn't aware that I needed 50 edits to be considered to have an opinion worthy of merit around here, do I need to hop off and make 48 random edits? {sarcasm} --Estarriol 17:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  47. No, looks ugly and out of place. Current search box is sufficient--it is easy to find and unobstrusive. ~MDD4696 22:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  48. No. I think that the extra search box would be only a waste of space.--Bic1313 22:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • User has less than 50 edits. BrokenSegue 23:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  49. Prodego talk 23:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  50. No. There's no need for 2 search boxes when looking at the main page and that would be weird. Keeping it minimal is efficient and makes the front page friendlier. PHF 00:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  51. No; redundant, looks bad, may confuse some users. Tgies 01:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  52. No. Redundant, and results in inconsistency between pages. No need and awkward. G-Flex 01:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • User has 11 edits. BrokenSegue 03:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  53. No. It'll be redundant. *drew 03:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  54. No, pointless. Dep't. of Redundancy Dep't. TheDevil (UTC)
  55. No, one is enough. ant_ie 09:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  56. No. I think emphasizing the search box is important, but it needs to be in the same place on every page. Otherwise users might become confused. Commercial websites like amazon.com don't do it and we shouldn't either. NoIdeaNick 09:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  57. No. It would be better to direct attention to the search box on the sidebar that appears on every page. However, it's not something I feel strongly about and the page looks OK with the extra search box present. —Whouk (talk) 13:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  58. No. It is important for the design to be consistent and not have extra bits in certain places. Robmods 13:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  59. No. It's inconsistent and looks out of place. Two on one page is silly. ElliottHird 13:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  60. No – Smyth\talk 16:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  61. I think it detracts from the functional and somewhat unique "Go" and "Search" options in the traditional box. Thekohser 16:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  62. No I am not opposed to a second search box, but this one looks too crammed into a small space. --Measure 16:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  63. No I am sure the space can be used for other things. --Kash 17:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  64. no, clutter. one is one too many already, imho (use google instead, taking weight off WP servers). dab (ᛏ) 18:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  65. No new user are likly to reload the main page everytime they want to search for a new article. Doesn't fit for an encyclopedia. see WP:WINASE --T-rex 18:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  66. No design looks better without it johnSLADE (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  67. No completely unneccicary Vistago
  68. No it's ludicrous, it's absurd--Dannycas 00:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  69. No It'll confuse new users. Let's say a new user sees the top search bar, and is going to search for something with it, when they see an interesting link. They click on the link, and when they're done reading the article, they go to the top of the page to search for the the thing they initially wanted to look at. *poof* The top search box isn't there anymore! ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 00:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  70. No Better to keep a unified design throughout all the pages, which isn't done by plonking a redundant extra search box on the main page Tphi 02:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  71. No Unified design, keep it proffesional GrapeSteinbeck 02:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  72. No Redundant, unprofessional, waste of space. thejabberwock 04:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  73. No Unnecessary. Yet I don't see the total number of articles anywhere on the Main Page without the second search box. Low grade. --JohnOYou found the secret writing! 04:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • the article-count got moved to a more contextually relevant location on the main page, at the top of the "Wikipedia languages" section. --Quiddity 07:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  74. No It seems silly and redundant to me to have two search boxes. MiraLuka 11:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  75. No Redundant, per everyone else. toad (t) 12:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  76. No Just seems redundant Lurker 13:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  77. Please no. — Trilobite 14:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  78. No Move your mouse about 2cm to the left instead. Stu 16:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  79. No Emphsize the left searchbox instead. — Aubanel 17:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  80. No Instead go back to Classic style as default, since it is more readable and already has two search boxes in useful places. (This change would create a third: two of them close together)--Henrygb 17:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  81. No There's no need, there's already a search box on the left. One is enough. You don't see two search boxes on google.com now do you? Manipe 19:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  82. No. One is enough. - Darwinek 20:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  83. No. The one on the left is enough. It'd be nice if that one could have "search number of articles" on top of it though. CheekyMonkey 21:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  84. No, the search feature on Wikipedia sucks. Really, it does. No point in having a horrible feature shown twice! --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 21:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  85. No doesn't look nice to me, and since it doesn't appear on other pages it would confuse users. Plus, it doesn't format correctly on Linux/Opera--SirNuke 23:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  86. No It's redundant.
    —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.175.87.94 (talk • contribs). BrokenSegue 02:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  87. No, there is a potential technical problem, Alt-F is designed to automatically place the cursor in the search box on the left so that one can begin typing w/o clicking it.. if we're going to place the search box, we must be sure that it does not attempt to respond to the same call. Beyond that, having multiple search boxes is redundant.. drumguy8800 - speak? 03:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  88. No Flying Canuck 04:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  89. No Redundant, confusing. 1 page == 1 search box. Pavel Vozenilek 05:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  90. No Keep it simple. But do try to highlight the regular search box.Sprague 21:41, 24 February 2006 (PST)
  91. No - redundant, I've had a look at the proposal and I just don't like it where it is. (wow, 92 votes to 91, this is the closest poll I've seen...) -- Gurch 11:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  92. No κаллэмакс 12:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  93. No Also, the current draft is worse than the current main page. Needs more images to make it more appealing. This is why i completely agree that; a camel is a horse designed by committee. The magical Spum-dandy 12:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  94. No. Not as visually appealing. Rangeley 16:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  95. No, same reasons as stated above --northyen.dk 16:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  96. No. It means that the links have to be shifted to the right giving a pile of links which is simply ugly. Sgd 18:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  97. No, Redundant and visually unapealing. Tiberian 18:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  98. No, simply it would be overkill. There is no reason to have two search boxes. It would be better to prehaps elminate the side one, instead of two. But two boxes, is one too many. It's going to be confusing to new users whom will question which to use. It's a waste of time. One box should be enough. Yanksox 19:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  99. No,Doesn't help people to learn how to use Wikipedia. If needed, find a way to highlight the standard search box on the left.--agr 19:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  100. No The one search box is enough and none extra are needed. Raylan 20:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  101. No redundant and confusing, but a nice though. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  102. No I like the look of page without the search box.--God of War 22:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  103. No, as above: redundant and potentially confusing. bcasterlinetalk 23:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  104. No. If I want a search box, on ANY site I will check the top bar or the left bar; that's basically standard across the web. It's not very far down, and can be seen easily. It does what it says. Simple. Radagast 01:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  105. No. Simple and consistent is better. Kusma (討論) 03:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  106. No. Redundant, and the main page looks better without it. Hbackman 05:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  107. No. Redundant. Lankiveil 05:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC).
  108. No. Again, redundant. For some reason this box makes the new version of the page look worse. --FlyingPenguins 07:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  109. No. Redundant and confusing. Looks unprofessional.Metamagician3000 07:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  110. No. A less cluttered front page is better. meco 09:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  111. No. Redundant and confusing. --Davidstrauss 09:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  112. No. --TonyM ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!! 13:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  113. No. Duplicatation. Page appears unbalanced. --Cavrdg 13:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  114. No. Confusing and redundant. vedant (talk • contribs) 15:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  115. No. As per everyone else. The disadvantages outweigh the benefits. Refusing and condundant.-PlasmaDragon 16:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  116. No. Poor placement. Messes page layout Dodo bird 20:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  117. No. Like everyone said, it's redundant. If anything, make the current search box more noticeable, and make the insertion point automatically appear in the search box (I've been wanting that to happen for a long time). EdGl 22:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Oooh! Now that would be nice. hydnjo talk 23:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for liking my idea! I'm glad someone agrees. It would be so much more convenient not having to move the mouse over and click in the search box all the time. Since searching is the main function of the site, it should have the insertion point automatically appear in the search box, just like on Google. So why not change it? I don't see a downside to it... EdGl 02:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I've seen this discussed in several places. See here and here. It is a scroll vs. autotext issue combined with using the arrow keys vs using a mouse scroll wheel. There are two workarounds that I have seen people mention (and I've added them to the FAQ entry) - some systems allow use of a keyboard shortcut like Alt-F to focus on the search box. There is also the option of using www.wikipedia.org which defaults to the English search and is focussed on the search box. Carcharoth 09:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
          • I have long wanted this and never knew why it wasn't there. Thanks for the heads up, Carcharoth. Intrigued, i investigated some javascript and found that IE6 supports an "onmousewheel" event which would be a nice work around, but firefox does not support this event. So there goes that. --Jeff 04:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
            • Try the tab key to liven the search box. That works fine with Safari, I don't know about other browsers. hydnjo talk 20:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  118. Nope. Ashibaka tock 23:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  119. No. One is enough. --UrbaneLegend 02:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  120. No. Honestly, the second search box looks nice and it calls attention to itself. However, not only is it redundant but it also has different controls than the normal search box (it doesn't have a 'Search' button). There's just too much potential for confusion here. Search needs to be more prominent, this isn't the way to go about doing it. Tjohns ✎ 02:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  121. No - Top of the page may be the first place you look, but sidebar comes right after. Too confusing and distracting to have two boxes for the same thing. Emphasizing the sidebar search box or putting the pointer inside it would be better. Frogs 03:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  122. No No point, as far as i can see. Its not like the left hand search box is hard to see or understand, on the main page or elsewhere WookMuff 06:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  123. No! The version with the search box forces content (Categories · Featured content · A–Z index) into the left side and away from the portals, which is confusing; the version without has all content on the right and all meta on the left, which makes sense. Melchoir 06:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  124. No. Inconsistent with other pages; gives an unprofessional design idea. --Gennaro Prota 11:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  125. No, redundant and unnecessary. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  126. No. Nice idea at first, but it's redundant, especially if the left-hand search box is going to be emphasized anyway. Oh, and like others have said, it would confuse new users as it won't appear on every page. Benhoyt 20:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  127. No. It would just be an unnecessary distraction--we already have both "go" and search". Theshibboleth 21:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  128. No. Repitition isn't the answer. zachjones4 23:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  129. No. It looks less cluttered without it. --72.140.8.253 00:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  130. No I thinks it makes it look less symethical and ugly. Jedi6 03:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  131. No redundant, i vote no. --Jeff 03:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comments

  • It should be strenously emphasized, that we are concurrently working towards visually Emphasizing the left-hand search box, with a colored border or highlight. Please give your opinions in the Highlight left-hand searchbox thread. --Quiddity 22:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


  • Interesting note: commons has recently redesigned their main page and have included a dsearch box in the header. See commons:Main page. Renata 02:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I created another draft that is essentially the version with 2nd search box, but with a better focus on it (it probably makes the vote more fair I think as this is much better looking I think, it does not look like the search box has just been pasted in). I think it is a lot better and puts the attention to the most important part of the page: Draft with better focus. --WS 16:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
The example page presents the second search box in the only manner that could possibly be compatible with the design elements that already have garnered consensus. Yours defies the clear consensus in favor of listing the portal links in columns within the header box, and it places the second search box even closer to the first search box's location in the classic skin. Also, the text wraps in the 800x600 resolution. —David Levy 16:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
This one is closest to the draft with the most votes (6G), which didn't list the portals within the header box. Where can I find the discussion that lead to that consensus? --WS 17:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Please read the talk page and the archive. The straw poll was a means of fostering discussion and gathering input, not a contest to determine which single draft was the "winner." Draft G was the only one of its kind, so the supporters of that style all voted for it. Meanwhile, it also generated the most opposition, and other drafts (many of which were very similar or nearly identical to one another) received far more combined support. —David Levy 20:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Just reminder to everyone. Think why people come to WP? Not to read our featured articles or to look at featured pics (it's nice if they do). They come here because they are looking for info. So let's help them find it. Do not force them to browse through endless categories, lists, almanacs, compilations, etc etc. Second search box for you might look stupid and redundat because you can navigate WP blindfolded, but newbies can't. Also, there is this KISS principle. And please don't vote because "the box is too high/low." Please vote on the general principle; technicalities will be worked out later. Renata 16:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm baffled as to how the confusing presence of a redundant search box that vanishes upon use could possibly be attributed to the KISS principle. —David Levy 16:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Search box is not confusing. Portals are. Categories are. Lists are. Browsing in general is confusing ('cause way too often you take a wrong turn). Vanishing box is not a problem for me. If you search for something, you will end up in an article or in the search view. If you end up in article, you don't need the box any longer. If you are in search view, there is a box up there. If you clicked something and ended up in WP namespace, and got lost, click "back". Simple. Renata 17:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying that you've never entered a search term, ended up at an article (perhaps the wrong one), and wanted to immediately search again? Are you arguing that there's no value in encouraging readers to use the search box that appears on every page (instead of leading them to assume that they must return to the main page)? Do you honestly believe that people won't be confused when the search box no longer appears where they've been told to expect its presence? —David Levy 17:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The portals and categories are there for people who like them better than searching. The search bar on the left has been there for a long time, and people know that it's there. Putting another search box is just unneccasary. Humans are not as stupid as Renata3 makes them out to be. dposse 18:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You obviously haven't worked in customer service :) I worked briefly in IT troubleshooting, and believe me, people are stupid. Renata 20:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
No, but i've been on the internet for years. Yeah, people are morons. But i do believe that the majority of them know what a search box looks like since Google is pretty damn popular right now. dposse 20:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If the box is not included (which it looks like it won't) could we ask the devs to give focus to the search box on the nav bar. I hate having to click over there. I should be able to just start typing. BrokenSegue 18:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
BrokenSegue, I agree with you on that and it's one of the reasons that I prefer the Classic skin. And, just to make sure that I understand your vote for a second search box, you do realize that the second search box would be present only on the Mainpage. That being the case it seems unhelpful to provide a search box that disappears as soon as it is used, now that's confusing. hydnjo talk 18:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't find it confusing either. In the Main Page, the main focus of the page is navigation of the site, so therefore, the search box should be more prominent; in the next click, the focus of the page shifts to the respective article, so the regular search bar is appropriate. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't find it confusing. eBay does a something similar thing (it has 2 ssearch bars on its main page and only one on most other pages). BrokenSegue 20:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Excellent idea. I second that suggestion. --Quiddity 21:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Although I do not prefer an extra search box on the Mainpage it would be nice to include the number of articles (1,713,057) statistic. hydnjo talk 21:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
It's still on the page (in the "Wikipedia languages" section, where it's contextually relevant). In my opinion, we shouldn't make the article count too prominent (or include it outside of a logical context), because this makes it seem as though we value quantity over quality. —David Levy 21:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed per David --Quiddity 21:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed it. I agree with David Levy, we don't need millions bitten written! at the top of our Roadsign Mainpage.  ;-) hydnjo talk 21:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
By March 1st, we will likely have crossed the 1,000,000 milestone — an occasion that will be surely noted on the main page. After that, I don't think the article count needs as much emphasis at the top of the main page. --Aude (talk | contribs) 22:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it makes searching more prominent - redundancy shouldn't be such a huge issue as it is the front page only. The inclusion of the search box also allows the no. of articles to be listed - a small feature which it would be a shame to drop (especially since we are now getting into very impressive numbers - I can see the point in dropping it if the number was embarrassing).SFC9394 21:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact that this would appear only on the main page is a major part of the problem. And again, the article count is located elsewhere on the page, where it's contextually relevant. Shouldn't we aspire to impress readers via the quality of our articles, rather than bragging about the quantity? —David Levy 21:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
It only appearing on the main page is a problem in your opinion - certainly not mine. If it was appearing at the top in all pages then that would be a problem to me (as we would have duplication). The search bar on the left is obscure, and not obvious to the first time visitor whatsoever. The principle function of the main page is to welcome new visitors and show off what WP has to offer - a search field embedded within the main page fits that function like a glove. As for the article count - it is an impressive stat - I didn't say we should brag about it - but equally we shouldn't be ashamed of the number of articles that are here.SFC9394 22:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
The standard search box will be rendered far more obscure if we distract newcomers with an alternative search box that disappears as soon as they use it. I didn't say that we should be ashamed of our article count, but we shouldn't imply that it's the most important thing. —David Levy 22:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) Then one click later when it vanishes would seem to make the real search box even more obscure. hydnjo talk 22:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
The standard search box will stay exactly where it is - it ain't going to change any - the chance of a new user picking up on it and using it is exactly the same. Worst case scenario the user goes back to the main page to search again - but that is still infinitely more desirable than having a browse up and down the main page, not really noticing the search box and then browsing on to another website. Having the box there is win only - if your principle concern is users having a seizure because the top search box suddenly isn't there then that simple isn't a problem, for two reasons:
  • 1. Anyone wanting to search again and again is quickly going to notice the second box.
  • 2. Anyone who doesn't notice it (and keeps going back to main page) would have certainly not notice the search box if it was all that was on main page. The end result with these characters is that we would loose them under the current setup, but with top box we will at least keep them in the site and reading the wonderful content.
As for the article count - it being there doesn't imply it is the most important thing.SFC9394 22:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
We'll just have to agree to disagree on both issues. —David Levy 22:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to point out, that Google removed their running total of "indexed pages" from their frontpage years ago, probably for similar reasons we are placing it lower on the page in this draft: It is a fairly inaccurate number depending on what gets included (that 1,713,057 number includes stubs, undetected advertisements/graffiti, everything requiring cleanup, hundreds of profiles of anime characters (not to pick on a subculture), etc). We certainly won't be printing all the 1,000,000 articles... --Quiddity 02:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I think when wiki or wikipedia becomes a verb then we too could afford to remove it. Google removed it not because it was inaccurate, but simply because it was no longer necessary, they were known as the search engine, so they didn't need to impress anyone with numbers. WP (despite what us who are here everyday might think) is still relatively unknown amongst the web surfing 'normal' people - they aren't going to know upon first glance of the main page whether the site contains 100 articles or 1M - the number helps quantify the size of the place they have stumbled upon, my argument for the number remaining prominent is as simple as that.SFC9394 13:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I should stress that this may not be an election decided by numbers. When I posted this, the vote count was tied at 33. It may not be a perfect tie in the end, but we should look beyond the vote count at the strength of the opinions. Was there one option that had some die-hard supporters, where the other one was just a mild resistance? Especially in a race so close, we should look at the comments, not only the numbers.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It was stated by --Aude at the outset that: "As with Requests for adminship, minimum of 70% support for the search box is needed for us to include it." hydnjo talk 01:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If its gonna be a request for adminship

Well then we'll need a very special bureaucrat. One who can consider both sides, in addition to the numbers.--Urthogie 12:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no way that anyone could make a decision when it is so close. Well, except, of course, Jimbo :) Renata 13:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Too close to decide = no consensus = no search box. —David Levy 13:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I know. Default to status qou. (I feel pretty sad here and you were right about 50/50) Renata 14:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok. Is there a way to publicize this poll to all of wikipedia? Village pump? Current surveys? That open tasks template?--Urthogie 18:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
The news of this poll got published in this week's Signpost which is very high visibility. hydnjo talk 19:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, I added it to {{cent}}. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll put it on WP:CBB.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 12:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
But we also need a minimum of 70% support to remove it from the proposed main page design. Kevin Baastalk 18:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
If the current main page contained an extra search box, that would be true. It doesn't, so such an addition must be backed by consensus. If it isn't, we stick with the status quo (no extra search box). —David Levy 00:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Either way, since more users opposed it than those who supported it, there wasn't a need to look at the 70% figure... now, the next step is an election against the Main Page itself. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Usability_Main_Page_Draft_Search_box_poll_bfba.html"