[rfc-i] URIs in RFC references, was: feedback on draft-iab-styleguide-01
"Martin J. Dürst"
duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Tue Mar 25 18:42:41 PDT 2014
On 2014/03/26 00:41, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> But of late I have found it generally quicker and easier to simply
> google the name of the rfc or draft and include site:tools.ietf.org.
> This generally gets where I want to be more easily.
Just using the single word 'tools' as one of the search words actually
is enough and works very well.
> Arranging things so that google easily gets you to the right place would
> be a nice goal.
Google goes to the 'right' place by definition. As part of their overall
search optimization, what search algorithms do is that if users click
the second link more often than the first, then they move that up. If
users select a link but then come back to the search page to select
another, that link gets moved down.
So in some very real sense, what's high up on Google (and other search
engines) is what people want. Of course there's some lock-in, in that if
there are only tiny differences between two versions, people will just
tend to click on the first link, and that will keep that link up there
even if the second link might be preferred slightly when tested without
giving one of them a headstart.
More information about the rfc-interest