A1: I think what
The Cow is getting at is that when we miss a node, we give a pile of things like it. This is good and bad. Of course we have to search for "nate" but it's easier to get a dead-on hit I think than it is to get a pile of stuff " LIKE " it.
It's bad because maybe it's a little
expensive. This is a good web
experience, in that it is automatically searched for you.
If we searched for a "
JayBonci eats foobar" via a link, we'd get a "hey!" nothing was found! and a list of applicable choices that are somewhat close to this. I think what The Cow is suggesting is that we don't give those "close"
e2nodes.
...And I think that is bad. For instance, the other day I clicked on a link for
The Gospel of Nicodemus in
AMJ's writeup underneat Joseph of Arimathea. It had been auto-noded under
Gospel of Nicodemus by
dann, because that happens to be the title he chose. Without those close matches, I may not have found it, or worse yet, written up about it under a close,
misspelled, or differently-formed
title.
Maybe this is a good option for a user setting for advanced users who know what they are doing, but this could really mess up newbies.
I don't know much about the exact causes of the load problems here, but it looks kinda like that following "close" nodelinks off into
oblivion (or other cool and interesting nodes) isn't the problem. Without that feature (or having that feature an extra click away), you'd break one of the neatest parts of
everything2, IMO.