Article seems well written, and I can forgive the defensiveness given how much bile was spat in their direction.
When I saw the cpedia article on here I also thought it was stupid. With the explanation it makes a lot more sense what it's trying to accomplish. A little blurb on each cpedia page with a summary of that explanation would probably do wonders.
He's right though, often when I google something, there might be 20000 results, but only 3 with unique info. Solving that problem is a reasonable goal, and it's a bit ridiculous to all point and say 'look, they didn't solve it perfectly, hahaha'.
You are right that googles' results can be repetitive. But I am not expecting cpedia to be perfect. I am just expecting their solution to be better than the problem. And that's not the case right now.
Yeah, the thing that keeps me from giving it much kudos is that I suspect it really is just sentences from the search results strung together in random order, with some noun phrases turned into section headers. And that's not really particularly innovative, though it's audacious to do it and call the result an encyclopedia article. If there is any attempt at producing coherent structure out of the sentences as they're strung together, it hasn't shone through...
When I saw the cpedia article on here I also thought it was stupid. With the explanation it makes a lot more sense what it's trying to accomplish. A little blurb on each cpedia page with a summary of that explanation would probably do wonders.
He's right though, often when I google something, there might be 20000 results, but only 3 with unique info. Solving that problem is a reasonable goal, and it's a bit ridiculous to all point and say 'look, they didn't solve it perfectly, hahaha'.