The contents of the Search engine technology page were merged into Search engine (computing) on 12 August 2023. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Search engine (computing) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Search engine (computing) is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Market Share as of May, 2007 [1] |
---|
Google (all) - +74.5% |
Google.com - 51.71% |
Yahoo! Web Sites - 11.37% |
Google UK - 9.84% |
MSN - 4.55% |
Google AdSense for Content - 3.40% |
Google Canada - 3.24% |
AOL - 1.92% |
Others - 13.91% |
This sounds like an ad. Anyone want to extract the good stuff? -- Stephen Gilbert 17:12 Oct 27, 2002 (UTC)
Why can we have a "
list of search engines" but not a list of "
open-source search engines" that people keep deleting?
Isn't it just because it's open-source?
-- Taku 17:14, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)
Google has updated the presentation of its content. Can we have a new screen shot in order to reflect an up-to-date example? Constafrequent, infrequently constant 16:41, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
How can you get a search engine? You have to purchase it? it is a software or a hardware??
Shouldn't Hotbot be in the timeline of search engines? -- 66.229.183.101 15:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
The Open Source/Free Software POV is quite visible. The Open/closed-source opposition is not important enough, from a neutral POV, to be presented in the introduction of this article on search engines. It should be presented near the end. Marc Mongenet 02:12, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
I have removed the description of Orase. It may well be a useful tool, but it's not a search engine in the usual sense since it doesn't create an index, but spiders in real time. It belongs in some article on search tools, covering Copernic etc. -- Macrakis 23:46, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think the following should be changed:
I haven't done this myself, since I don't remember the relevant dates for things (like when the beta rolled out). It's a little hard/confusing getting the dates straight, since most people (even reporters) don't distinguish between the "MSN Search portal", and the actual Microsoft-powered search engine (with msnbot crawler). Unless a company produced a new search engine, with it's own algorithm and crawler, it proably shouldn't be on this page. If it's worthy of being on this page, it's definately worthy of having it's own article. -- rob 11:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
The paragraph about Ask.com seems a little like an advertisement. Should it be pruned?
Jennifer Brooks 00:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I would like to propose adding an external link to the www.webmasterbrain.com/seo-tools/seo-experiments/the-search-engine-experiment/ The Search Engine Experiment . Opinions?
I wonder if there would be value to discussing search engine bias either on this page or in its own separate entry.
The Blorby-paragraph seems like advertising to me. Isn't it to be deleted? Unsigned comment by 83.129.55.233 09:54, 7 January 2006
How about adding external links to major conferences with a Search Engine focus and to trade publications such as http://searchenginewatch.com?
At the very least Lucene should be mentioned, if for no other reason that Wikipedia uses it...
I totally agreed on that point. Lucene must be at least linked from this article as one of the first really functionnal open source search engine. It has allows great steps in search engine area by providing a plateform for numerous expermiental search engine. In my point of vue a special paragraph should be included there and an entry in the history.
Are there any case sensitive search engines left? Seems to me that Google, Yahoo etc are all case insensitive when performing searches, ie. search for "ozzmosis" will match "Ozzmosis". Once upon a time AltaVista was case sensitive, but seemingly no longer... -- ozzmosis 04:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC) world cup
Could someone tell me what 10B and 10TB stand for? I really would like to know because I find this whole article interesting.
I believe that there is a recent search engine called "Schmoogle" its name being based, in part, upon Google, but this article does not mention it. Should it be added to the list of search engines? ACEO 20:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
13-September-2006: I have made global edits to revert some web-words to common spellings: the capitalized term "Web site" has been reverted back to "website" and the capitalized term "Web page" has been reverted to "webpage" (16 times), in the sense of a page viewed on a browser, even inside a company's internal Intranet systems not on the World Wide Web. Although some might use the capitalized term "Web page" as a general term (beyond the Web), the term "webpage" can be used to describe browser pages seen on internal Intranet webpage systems, which are not on the "Web" ( World Wide Web). Searching in Yahoo! Search matches the word "webpage" to millions of webpages, just as the word "email" is used in webpages 10 times more than the formal hyphenated spelling "e-mail" etc. It seems to be typical, in a technological field, that the important "definition of terms" is not usually done up-front, so the world is left to haggle terminology (such as "website") years later. Anyway, I recommend keeping the spellings "website" and "webpage" in the article. - Wikid77 16:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
07-October-2006: Someone had added a section of "Search Engine Charts" which were out-dated (including old "Ask Jeeves" and old "MSN Search" using "Yahoo!") and contained many advertising links: that section was removed as unencyclopedic:
The charts were very limited, not dated, and appeared to be obsolete years ago. - Wikid77 14:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I would like to recommend the addition of the following article:
It provides an accurate synopsis of the social impact of search engines on online information and how Google is shaping the value of information. It also outlines the importance of search engines in this day and age. I added it but removed it in case it was not appropriate. If it is not appropriate here, any additional suggestions about its placement would be appreciated.
I'm startled I did not notice it before. This article is not about search engines. It is about web search engines only, except for the introduction and a few lines later on. Two choices:
Advice is solicited. DGG 03:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
When I said this about List of search engines the response was basically do nothing. No one has responded to my request for advice since January (on its talk page anyway). I think the that "best" solution would be number two. The article itself mentions other types of search engines completely unrelated to "networked" searches. -- Benn Newman 00:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The phrase "logical reasoning" and similar phrases in the "Notes" section are rather wooden. Someone needs to take a hack at fixing them (I can't think of a phrasing that is much better) -- Whiteknox 20:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
SqueakBox replaced the picture of Google's home page with a picture of Webcrawler, suggesting POV problems with Google. I'm curious to see if anybody else thinks that Webcrawler is a better choice or if anybody thinks that the article is biased towards Google's POV. -- Whiteknox 14:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible that a search engine could be a bad thing to use? Schools are strating to block them.
No! never . it brings more and more elobarate world wide informations. somebody using wrong ways,it is particular people's mistake. but most of the peoples are very useful by these search engines.
This is not notable nor a NPOV, reeks of commercial slang. Should be removed Josh Froelich 22:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
This article lacks real references. I just wanted to point that out and suggest that each statement in this article should be reviewed and that someone should spend time finding some authoritative primary sources to reference. I don't have time, so in bits I might take a hack at it. Should use the REF and REFERENCES tags in wikisyntax too. The following is just to get this section of the talk page started. Josh Froelich 22:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
If you read this history article, you will notice that the famous Tim Burners Lee mentions that hypertext (coined by Ted Nelson) itself was a search interface originally. It also points out the origin of search engines from the prior concept document retrieval. When you place the section 'History' in an authoritative resource on search engines, you might want to consider this, that 'search engine' is a marketing/slang term within itself. I mean, in simpler terms, the invention of the web and the history of the internet itself was really a big, giant attempt at making what we now know and refer to as a 'search engine' Josh Froelich 23:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I mean, you are talking about 1990, what about 70AD?
There was a mention about charity search engines like www.goodsearch.com in the article. It has now been removed. Can somebody explain why that mention about www.goodsearch.com in the article has been removed? If there is no valid reason, please add that back to the text. Maybe we can even create a section about sites of similar genre which includes www.charitycafe.com etc.
This particular type of search engine is not really linked to a search engine category. It's more like an action around search engine or something like a particular use of them. Perhaps we can think to a dedicated section related to specific involvements of search engine in politics or associative actions. G.Dupont 13:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
At least when considering hits per day, wouldn't Yahoo! be #1? Unless the article meant in "fanboy" status. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jorophose ( talk • contribs) 23:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
The remark at the end of the first paragraph: "Google is mainly used for porn." does not seem appropriate for an enclyclopedia article, nor is it likely to be a true statement regarding Google, given Google's wide use during day be business professionals and by families in the evenings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.76.240.247 ( talk) 20:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
Totally agree about that comment. Is there any argument to validate the assumptions ? If they think about most searched terms, just take a look to the other search engine (who have almost the same top-words). G.Dupont 14:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I use Google as my main search engine when researching for medical subjects and papers. I don't use it to look for porn. Not that there's anything wrong with that. S. Mass —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.28.1.114 ( talk) 04:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Much more has to be said about Baidu in its history (same for Baidu dedicated article). The most important thing is that there is more reasons why the Chinese market has only began near 2000 and that certainly not limited to the "media control policy of Chinese government". Then more information should be provided simply on its large use in China (the most used search engine in China for the most speaked language in the world). I wanted to do so but cannot edit this article yet (to young account in en-wikipedia). G.Dupont 14:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
chinese censorship is real..just search for it. u will find a bunch of articles. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8FBCF686&show_article=1 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4088702.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4647398.stm http://www.cfr.org/publication/11515/media_censorship_in_china.html etc..
Somebody, possibly from baidu itself, has vandalised the section to make it an advertisement of their search engine. Please do something about it.
This article should be linked to [searching] or better will be to add an article to the searching task in search engine which is more about computing a similarity between user's need (expressed in a query) and the sources indexed by the engine (called documents corpus and which can simply be the Web). G.Dupont 14:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
chinese censorship is real..just google. u will find a bunch of them. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8FBCF686&show_article=1 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4088702.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4647398.stm http://www.cfr.org/publication/11515/media_censorship_in_china.html
Do we really require this here? I marked the section as {{OR}}. So one please suggest. Mugunth 11:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I think there is too much focus on this article on Google. It should really be more neutral. Joe 16:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
After my site has been visited by a search engine named Megaglobe I was attempting to find some more info in here. There was a press release [4], but their homepage [5] doesn't really tell much so far. Anyone knows enough about to write an article? Gulliveig 08:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The article about picsearch seems to be clear marketing to me. shouldn't it be removed? 86.80.176.20 08:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I Would like to add a chapter to the contents of this article about "vertical search engines". Attached is the text I propose for this chapter:
Vertical search engines
Vertical search engines or specialized search engines are search engines which specialize in specific content categories or that search within a specific media. Popular Search engines, like Google or Yahoo!, are very effective when the use searches for web sites, web pages or general information. Vertical search engines enable the user to find specific types of listings thus making the search more customized to the user's needs.
Category focus vertical search engines:
This type of search engine, search's for sites, pages and other online content which is relevant to a specific area or category. This group of vertical search engines includes shopping search engines (like Froogle or NexTag [6]), Government search engines (like "Google US government search" [7] and searchgov.com [8]), Legal search engines (like law.com [9] and lawcrawler [10]), travel search engines (like Travelocity [11] and Expedia [12]), financial search engines (like Business.com [13] and Hoovers [14]) and others.
Media focused search engines:
This type of search engine focuses on searching within specific online media. This group includes amongst others: 1. Forum and discussion group search engines which scan Discussion boards, forums, groups, answer pages and other "many to many" online media. Search engines of this kind are Omgili [15] and board-tracker [16]. 2. News group search engines which scan news groups worldwide. The most dominant member of this group is Google groups. 3. Blog Search engines focus on the blog sphere. Some of the members of this group are: Google Blog Search [17], Technorati and Blog-search-engine [18]. 4. Mailing list search engines like "list of lists" [19] or E-Zine List [20] 5. Chat Search engines like Chatsearch [21] and Search IRC [22]. —The preceding -- Yoav Pridor 14:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC) comment was added by Ypridor ( talk • contribs) 05:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
It would be nifty to have a chart here showing the market share of the major search engines over time. -- Beland 14:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Yahoo being the current no 1 search engine, the 1st picture with this artile, of a screenshot of Google, labeling it as the no. 1 search engine needs to be replaced. The present Alexa ranking if Google is 3.-- Pinaki ghosh 00:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Why not have a section talking about how many times yahoo, google, etc employees take a dump and flush the toilet too? All that wasted water... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.97.20.102 ( talk) 19:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
Just a pretext for Picsearch to add their marketing link ! We should remove the entire section !! (unsigned comment by User:84.139.212.171 2007-05-11T18:43:49)
Image:Google.com front page.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 16:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you think the date founded should be kept in the table in this article? It's making it look very cluttered and I'm not sure how important it is here... especially since it's not consistent across all entries. I think it might be a better idea to develop a more detailed table on the list of search engines page. Let me know what you think? I'm willing to do that.
Removed this section. Both the examples are not describing original search engines. These cannot be valid examples of search engines. Ganesh J. Acharya 10:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
The history section are showing 1.1 Google.com, 1.2 Yahoo etc. It does not seem to be appropriate. They need to highlight the history of search engines more. Ganesh J. Acharya 10:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
http://www.powerset.com/ is currently running a closed beta of their 'natural language search engine'. Do you think it should be added to the list? The only public release for it has been some blurry screen shots on TechCrunch. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Searchmaven ( talk • contribs). 3 July, 2007
09-November-2007: I have restored the article " search engine" to the November-2007 overview form (as minimal content), adding the following top hatnote to lessen shock for others who might expect the prior full content (from 2 months ago):
The prior information, from before September 2007, is mostly contained in the other article " Web search engine". By keeping the overview article short, it can be easier to expand details in the various spinoff articles. Also, the topic phrase "search engine" was a major target for vandalism, so keeping the article as a short overview reduces text for embedding vandalism, typically hidden by multiple consecutive edits of a large page. Other articles have been sheltered from vandalism, by the similar tactic, of moving them to altered names, slightly reworded from being exactly a targeted topic phrase, such as avoiding " theory of evolution" or " Nazi", etc. - Wikid77 20:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
it looks like spamlink, requires registration at Convera website to get a report sponsored by the company.
The link to the only citation is dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.142.158.137 ( talk) 02:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
...Search Engine with pictures from which go to "video games", to "App." and all "virtual-pictures"? There are Search engine to show books, music and film, WIKIPEDIA, etc... but not "Virtual Search Engine" like "Windows 10" "explicitly" in Internet-form, with all-pictures (by categories) "full-video-display"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.38.65.148 ( talk) 13:43, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
this article current state is super bad. it only references one source. It need at least some 10 to establish notability. besides the types of search engine should be discussed in prose, as to make clear in a encyclopedic way that there are search engines other than web search engines. Hfnreiwjfd ( talk) 22:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
same topic fgnievinski ( talk) 18:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)