Comments on: Search engines and the quavering wotsit of council powers

By: sergiu birzu

sergiu birzu — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 03:18:46 +0000

80 pounds is a significant fee, too bad i feel sorry for her.

By: Ideal Gov administrator

Ideal Gov administrator — Mon, 28 May 2007 02:24:00 +0000

Alan – I meant that the Trans-Gov policy is to close down 500-odd web sites and focus all on DirectGov. The reason we keep doing this same old search gag (apart from the fact it’s fun) is that I just dont understand for what purpose Direct Gov search is ever better than Directionless. Add to that the fact I really cant be doing with Directgov editorialising (see Cluetrain rewrite) and I just cant see the point of DirectGov. And that’s a lot of our money spent on it, before, during and after your time. I’m not trying to be difficult here – I just dont see what that money has bought us. I just want good e-services, navigable government data which others can reuse and good search. Am I a dimwit/being difficult or are the Emperor’s new clothes not all they’re made out to be?

By: Ideal Government Administrator 2

Ideal Government Administrator 2 — Thu, 24 May 2007 17:45:27 +0000

ooh guv, your links seem to have quavers where they need wotsits! Sort it out!

By: AlanM

AlanM — Tue, 22 May 2007 12:32:06 +0000

“soon to be one and only e-goverment web site for the central search terms” isn’t quite true. when i left directgov and i appreciate it may have changed since, directgov only searched its own site, it didn’t go anywhere else in government. that was a policy decision, one that i disagreed with but understood at least, to try and keep people inside the “walled garden” of joined up government. any links to outside sites are manually forced to the top of the ranking if they’re absolutely necessary. so it would be no surprise to find a complete absence of niche news stories on directgov’s search engine. as you rightly say, why search government’s entire estate if google does such a good job?