Subject: Re: [boost] Boost Evolution
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-18 00:01:08
On 5/17/16 8:49 PM, Paul Fultz II wrote:
>> On May 17, 2016, at 9:52 PM, Vladimir Batov <Vladimir.Batov_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On 05/18/2016 12:33 PM, David Sankel wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:28 PM, Vladimir Batov <
>>> Vladimir.Batov_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>> More so. If one tries to search for "C++ Boost" (as Robert suggested) and for "Boost software" as you David suggested you'll immediately see that people by far prefer Robert's (I do).
>>> Yes, people prefer c+boost over even C++! (
>>> If you move your mouse over the results, you'll see that "C+boost" was what
>>> the system looked for. When you type in "boost" in the search box you'll
>>> get the "Software" grouping disambiguator. cmake doesn't need a
>>> disambiguator. The original graph is a good reflection of reality.
>> Thank you for pointing it out. Indeed, the pop-up box does show "C+boost". Still, the "Search term" box shows "C++ Boost". You seem to outright dismiss the information provided by the "Search term" box and to present the pop-up box info as the sole truth. I am far from convinced it's justified. In fact, the "q=C%2B%2B" seems to indicate that it indeed searched for C++.
>>> When you type in "boost" in the search box you'll get the "Software" grouping disambiguator.
>> You seem to trust that filtering component working flawlessly. I am again not that sure. :-)
>> More so, the numbers shown in that pop-up box are questionable... not to say outright bogus. :-)
> The top queries for boost software(as David suggested) show things like âboost threadâ or âboost pythonâ, which seem to be very relevant search queries, however, the âC++ boostâ search show top queries like âvitamin Câ or âhepatitis Câ which is completely off track.
Actually this has been entertaining on a number of levels.
Could we agree that this particular tool won't be of much use to our