GoogleTagCombinations allow to setup complex queries for social exploring and filtering in a wiki-context. It's an idea of FridemarPache, first published in <-> Meatball:GoogleTagWiki and has a code-prototype, realized by VartanSimonian. See also <-> User_talk:VartanSimonian
As it is written in Java-Script, it should be integrated into TiddlyWiki, which is also based on Java-Script.
Since both sources are OpenSource, anybody who has time and some experience with TiddlyWiki, is invited to make it a plugin of TiddlyWiki.
TiddlyWiki programmers can build on this.
Dialog with TiddlyWiki Developers
On <-> [] (GoogleGroup:TiddlyWikiDev:GoogleTagCombinations) Fridemar asked:
and Tobias Beer answered there (and hopefully here for deepening the dialogue, using the infra-structure of Aboutus):
Subject: Re: GoogleTagCombinations as extension wanted. Is that intended to replace internal wiki link's with external ones? If so, I don't find the idea very propelling, besides I don't think googles indexes get updated this often, or do I misunderstand the concept? Wouldn't you rather want to do things like that with a "simple" firefox plugin like "hyperwords"? Why would you want that in the wiki site itself? Isn't that a bit too much googlifying the whole web?
Thank you Tobias for giving me and other interested peers the opportunity to elaborate a bit on this:
You understand me right, that there is even more potential in it, than "only" replacing the internal wiki links by it. In TiddlyWiki, I suggest, to extend the parser a bit, to allow embedded GoogleTagCombinations, as e.g.
$GoogleSearchTerm1,Comment1 ....some text ... $GoogleSearchTerm2,Comment2 .. etc,
for calling the above defined (and to be improved) function g that call g("GoogleSearchTerm1",Comment1) ....some text ... g("GoogleSearchTerm2",Comment2) ....etc.
These interspersed calls produce (in the TiddlyWiki view-mode) option boxes, that can be (un-)checked by the users and used as a Google query by clicking an additional command-link, that is added to the line, where you have already: "edit","done", ... : This way the new command line shows up as: "edit","done","search", ... For convenience, "search" should only be shown, if there is at least one GoogleSearchTerm defined.
With one marker you get at the same time, two links: one pointing to Google and the other one, to an internal wiki link. Now think this latter template tool generalized to arbitrary (Google-) Tag Combinations and you see the power of this construct and how useful it is for (collective) filtering (in communities).
Please have a look at <->[] where interested developers and plug-in programmers can deepen the dialogue on this special topic.
In the spirit of wiki, the concept author suggests the following simplification:
Each link gets automatically an additional external GoogleTag with option box, unless this dual use feature is unchecked.
To do this, it is suggested to use the commandlinks (currently placed over each "Tiddler"):
"edit","done", "[x] search", ...
"edit","done", "[ ] search", ...
"[ ] search" means: only all usual internal links are shown and "search" is greyed out:
"[x] search" means: all usual internal links are shown and additionally all Google option tags. Besides that, "search" is clickable and onclick produces a complex Google search as defined by the checked TagCombination.
fridemar 12:42, 17 July 2008 (PDT)
From <-> []
Tobias Beer: I am still on the page of right clicking some selected text and doing a "search with... (maybe google or could it not be wikipedia as well?)". Is google indexing these links (in a specific way) once it actually find them? If so, is there a specific google-tag-link-format to adhere to? What are those "comments" you want to pass on to the g function? Are those "simply" tooltips for the links to be created? I can see the idea of the search button in the tiddler toolbar which would probably open a popup listing the "google-tag-links" found in the tiddler content. But again, why all this internal wiki-indexing? Unless google actually indexes those links semantically, I don't quite see the point, besides a certain google-friendlyness/-affiliation.
The following is a structurally enhanced dialogue of Tobias's newsgroup posting in [] . Fridemar did the editorial work for the convenience of the readers and additional writers to plug in.
To Google or not to Google
Tobias: I am still on the page of right clicking some selected text and doing a "search with... (maybe google or could it not be wikipedia as well?)".
Naturally we could customize the involved search-range and search engines. As Google is more universal, it appears to be more appropriate to connect different wikis (especially if they adhere to the CamelCase notation, which now become GoogleTags). You could object, that Google brings too much hits to be useful.
Hey, that depends. Please have a look at the long WikiTags at Meatball:GoogleTagWiki. Although this page exists over a year, the short lists of Google search hits, prove that different wikis could very well be mediated/connected via Google in addition to their internal connectivity. fridemar 14:20, 17 July 2008 (PDT)
Is google indexing these links (in a specific way) once it actually find them? If so, is there a specific google-tag-link-format to adhere to?
Fridemar: If you take as suggested the original CamelCase, compare the following two Google queries, for which I guess, that we will see CamelCase selecting sharper then a combined search:
- G GoogleTagWiki CamelCase for precise Google tagging
- G Google+Tag+Wiki BlankSeparated string of search-terms
fridemar 14:20, 17 July 2008 (PDT)
Tooltips over Tags
What are those "comments" you want to pass on to the g function? Are those "simply" tooltips for the links to be created?
Fridemar: This is a good idea of you. Originally I made those comments as a test context, because I didn't integrate the construct in a WikiEngine.
We may omit this feature for the moment, because the "Tiddlers" can give this context. So the function g needs only one parameter. fridemar 14:20, 17 July 2008 (PDT)
Tobias: I can see the idea of the search button in the tiddler toolbar which would probably open a popup listing the "google-tag-links" found in the tiddler content.
Fridemar: This is another good idea, that makes the construct even more user-friendly. Originally I thought of screensized Twiddlers, where the tags can be checked without scrolling. fridemar 14:20, 17 July 2008 (PDT)
Tobias: But again, why all this internal wiki-indexing?
Fridemar: I don't quite understand what you mean by this, since my focus is just on ExternalWikiIndexing. fridemar 14:20, 17 July 2008 (PDT)
Tobias: What I mean is: parsing a tiddlers content for specific link declarations to collect them and display (and store?!?) them in some sort of list. --tobibeer 14:12, 19 July 2008 (PDT)
Fridemar: I understand. This collection is for collaborative exploring and connecting similar Web-activities in other wikis, that might give a work context to be bilinked. Even, if we have a tiddler with some WikiTags (i.e. CamelCaseWords, that are not yet internally defined), we can query Google for peer-activities in "conventional" Wikis. In hosted TiddlyWikis, however I don't know, what methods are developed to allow deep linking of distributed Tiddlers. Anyhow the user-controlled, stored positive queries, could be a base for (more or less) Meatball:IncidentalCollaboration, even for "monadic" TiddlyWikis (i.e. such wikis that have no built-in capabilities for deep (Google-mediated) bilinking with other TiddlyWikis) fridemar 15:29, 19 July 2008 (PDT)
PS:Meanwhile I see, that deep-linking for different TiddlyWikis, doesn't seem to be a problem, years ago, it was. [mptw2-tiddlyspot:HelloWorldMacro]. But does Google index the internal Tiddlers, I still don't know. fridemar 16:40, 19 July 2008 (PDT)
Tobias: Unless google actually indexes those links semantically, I don't quite see the point, besides a certain google-friendlyness/-affiliation.
Fridemar: If wikizens use their WikiTags in a considerate way, they create SpindleCellsInTheGlobalBrain, enabling Meatball:IncidentalCollaboration. As soon as we have
Tobias: I don't quite think CamelCased naming will result in a well structured brain. Structure doesn't come from names, but rather from relations between objects (or information) and a certain consistency as to objects (inter-)action.
Fridemar: I couldn't agree more with you, that CamelCase alone won't do it :-)
However I think we need both fuzzy and high precision identifiers for interwiki collaboration: the first for brainstorming, searching and connecting to other collaborative agents in the Web, the latter for analysis and synthesis in teams, that emerge as a selforganizing open process.
Perhaps you know Marvin Minski's model of the mind "The society of Mind", where the idea of a global mind becomes visible.
Do you think that all those dispersed activities in the GlobalBrain are already in a consistent workable form :-) It appears to be more like an Alzheimer state.
You are right, this is not a well-structured brain (i.e. a system, generated by some sort of recognizable syntax). But who cares.
Perhaps you too have noticed the current rather disconnected wiki activities here and there...
As a mild intermediate antidote against Alzheimer,(especially) LongCamelCaseIndentifiers, mediated via Google, may be helpful just now, to help to accelerate the wiring of a GlobalBrain. fridemar 16:09, 19 July 2008 (PDT)
PS:Meanwhile I see, that deep-linking for different TiddlyWikis, doesn't seem to be a problem, years ago, it was. [mptw2-tiddlyspot:HelloWorldMacro]. But does Google index the internal Tiddlers, I still don't know. fridemar 16:43, 19 July 2008 (PDT)
fridemar 05:04, 16 July 2008 (PDT)
Thanks to FND, who answered to our initiative with G [], we modified it to an even more useful G TiddlyWikiComplexSearchPlugin, on the way to a G TiddlyWikiGoogleTagWiki, a special case G GoogleTagWiki. fridemar 15:33, 31 July 2008 (PDT)