Talk:Full-text search

message: #Create new articles so that the ugly red links go away.
#Create an information retrieval category and add relevant documents to it.
#Check list of querying techniques to make sure it's complete (it isn't).
#Explain that search engines use varying methods to express boolean operators, etc.
#Incorporate modern information; Alta Vista?  All popular search engines today work off the concept of full-text searching.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.35.22.253 (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: To do

message: Google's PageRank algorithm is referred to as a search algorithm, but isn't it a relevance ranking algorithm, not a search algorithm? Nurg 01:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that it is a relevance ranking algorithm, but it is used along with a basic vector-space model in the case of Google to provide a search algorithm. I would rather not make a direct reference though, it would be better to cite citation analysis, citation index, or Bibliometrics. Josh Froelich 14:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Search algorithm

message: AFAIK, MapReduce-based fulltext search as employed by e.g. Google doesn't use a classical fulltext index as described in the article. Rather, it uses massive parallelism to actually scan each document in real time as the search runs (rather than offline when an index is built), finding those that match ("map" stage), and then collects and ranks the results ("reduce" stage). The article makes it sound as if building a fulltext index were the only way to efficiently perform full-text searches over large numbers of documents. Multi io (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: MapReduce

message: The article does not make clear the distinction between boolean
pattern matching in text (string matching) and information retrieval. -- JakobVoss (talk) 10:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  search vs. matching 

message: This article uses the terms "full text search" and "free text search" interchangeably. Is there a difference?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.24.156 (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: "Full" vs. "Free"

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Full text search. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101223192214/http://www.lucidimagination.com:80/full-text-search to http://www.lucidimagination.com/full-text-search
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This page needs a History section. Full-text search is a candidate for the algorithm with the most far-reaching effects on human activity so far in CS history.
Encyclopedant (talk) 04:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section needed 

message: This should be merge with IR. full-text search is merely an improvement over boolean keyword search that takes into account some meaning by using stemming or lemmatization. I think it sits on a continuum where on one end there is boolean keyword search and in another end there Concept search. i⋅am⋅amz3 (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds plausible, so I added merge tags in accordance with Wikipedia:Merging. --DavidCary (talk) 05:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Closing, with no merge, given the uncontested objection (based on the importance of full-text searching. Klbrain (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Information retrieval]] 

message: This edit adds the "AnyTXT Searcher" link which claims to be free and open source software but can apparently only be obtained as binary downloads for Windows platforms. No licensing information is given, even at the SourceForge project page. It looks like advertising to me. PaulBoddie (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I bet the person who added it saw it as “free software” and “OSS” and since they are free, but proprietary, they should be moved to “proprietary”. Kigelim (talk) 02:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising