Talk:Metasearch engine

message: The words are to the left rather than centered.
Zephyr103 (talk) 03:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is still the case today as far as Firefox 3.0.6 is concerned. :( --69.12.157.118 (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I think it is not case of web browser. Rather bug in mediawiki's mechanism rendering SVG to PNG. 148.81.137.4 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 13:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: corrupted graphic in IE 6.0

message: This page is starting to get linkspam from anonymous users, just like List of search engines.  I suggest we revert any URLs added by anonymous users whose most significant contribution to the Wikipedia was to add their favorite URL to our search engine pages.  Any thoughts?  --Ardonik 03:50, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
It's been about a year since I last wrote that and what was true then is still true now.  Here's what I've excised from the article (with links deactivated just in case rel=nofollow is turned off.)
 ===Meta-search engines===
 *Clusty – returns clustered results
 *Dogpile
 *Ez2Find multiple languages, clustered results and search also in the invisible web.
 *Kartoo – a map-based meta-search
 *Laplounge Very clean organized meta-search
 *Mamma – one of the first metasearch engines
 *Metacrawler – searches major search engines
 *metaEUREKA
 *Yooci – international metasearch engine
 *search.com by CNET
 *Don Busca 
 *everyclassified.com – search engine that re-directs user queries to the most relevant classifieds web-sites.
 *Apollo7 searches over the major searchenigines
I think the policy should be that only search engines that have an associated article should be listed on the page (in what is currently the ==See also== section.)  This will make the page less of a target for spammers.  --Ardonik.talk()* July 3, 2005 09:41 (UTC)
::I moved the list to list of search engines which seems to be checked daily for spam. Future additions of the name of a search engine to this page will be promptly removed. Josh Froelich 14:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:LIST. There is no such requirement in general. If I see any I think clearly appropriate I will add them back, with a justifying edit summary. if you have looked at the page history here and at list of search engines you will see that I have rather high criteria, Requiring an article first is risky these days, because short articles about products tend to be speedy deleted, and this leaves no place to start. Since none of us owns this article, and i want to avoid an edit war, I suggest we compromise by requiring a clearly appropriate annotation. This is specifically mentioned as suitable in the list guidelines. DGG 18:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not trying to start an edit war, this was my effort to reduce SPAM in this page. I have some issues with the page in general in its poor writing and commercial orientation, lack of description about the technology, lack of references, and links to product reviews which promote certain products. If you want to reference policies go ahead, I am pretty compliant and am not concerned enough to do anything about it, I thought what I was doing was helpful. When I read this page I don't care about seeing the hottest metasearch engine or knowing why I should choose one over the other. I would expect to see what a metasearch engine is, and nothing more. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jfroelich (talk • contribs) 20:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Linkspam

message: Stuff was all over the place so I cleaned up the layout. Dncnmckn (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting Fix

message: Should legality be mentioned here? Presumably you can't just take and reformat results from another search engine without permission. Equinox ◑ 19:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legality