Talk:Search engine (computing)

message: Shouldn't Hotbot be in the timeline of search engines? --66.229.183.101 15:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Hotbot to timeline? 

message: 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)
:Done. - Bevo 19:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open Source & Free software POV 

message: 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)
thread_title: Orase "real time search engine"

message: I think the following should be changed:
*Drop several minor players, especially drop any meta-search engines (like mamma) or mere "portals".  They aren't real search engines (plus there's thousands of them).  
** How do you define what search engine is notable or not notable? Can you make some type of explicit, academically founded statement about which to exclude? Some threshold of media popularity, size of index, date introduced, peak number of users at year X or in some given time period or as of right now? Or is it just how well some marketing company did in promoting their own service? Did the engine introduce a key technologies of some sort? I just point this out because anything short of making a well known rule of what to list or not to list is firmly grounded in subjective, of the current time, thinking, and not encyclopedic, it seems. Josh Froelich 22:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested changes regarding MSN Search and others 

message: 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 think it's far too simplistic to be worth linking to. --Macrakis 22:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Search Engine Relevancy Test 

message: 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
:I'm inclined to agree.  I've removed it; someone can put it back if there's any NPOV to be salvaged. /blahedo (t) 01:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blorby-Advertisement? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Case sensitive search engines? 

message: 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)
replies: text: My understanding is that Schmoogle is simply someone using Google's API to search deep into Google's results and deliver them in some kind of randomized order. Not notable for here, since its just a hack. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Schmoogle

message: 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)
replies: text: Donald Knuth's views on "email" support you. Jason Godesky 16:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Web-words

message: 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:
::: Search Engine Charts
:::: *Bruce Clay, INC's Search Engine Relationship Chart ® 
:::: *ihelpyou, INC's Search Engine Partnership Chart 
:::: *Yahoo! vs. Google Results diagram 
The charts were very limited, not dated, and appeared to be obsolete years ago. -Wikid77 14:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: SE Charts

message: I would like to recommend the addition of the following article:
*The Corruption of Electronic Information
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.
::It does not seem to come from a known reliable source, & there is probably material on this topic that does. But it doesn't seem absurd.  Perhaps we should soon think about an article on "search engines & society" or something of the sort, which  could appropriately link to many essays. DGG 05:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External Link Suggestion

message: 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)
thread_title:  Poor wording in "Notes" 

message: Is it possible that a search engine could be a bad thing to use? Schools are strating to block them.
: Which school would want to block search engines? Gulliveig 04:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Search Engine bad? 

message: This is not notable nor a NPOV, reeks of commercial slang. Should be removed Josh Froelich 22:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Guruji paragraph

message: 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)
thread_title: Article References

message: 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)
thread_title: Goodsearch.com

message: 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)
replies: text: No, see  DLX 01:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't Yahoo! the most popular search engine? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Google is mainly used for porn"  remark defaces the "Search Engine" page? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Google in china was a fiasco,not because the censorship which all the search enigine should be respected.The google in chinese search the result in character not in word,so its analogy in english search is that search in letter not in word.(for those who didn't understand chinese,generally speaking chinese word needs at least two different characters to make senese)That's why google suffered a failure.The reason why baidu success it's that it understood the difference between chinese language and alphabeta systems.Don't even to blame all for the chinese policy.There are many american Hightechs successed in China,but google seemed too confident for himself to not consider the differentiated market.--Ksyrie 07:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Baidu

message: 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)
thread_title: Searching

message: Do we really require this here?
I marked the section as .
So one please suggest.
Mugunth 11:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Costs of Search engine servers 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Too much focus on Google 

message: 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 , but their homepage  doesn't really tell much so far. Anyone knows enough about to write an article? Gulliveig 08:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Megaglobe 

message: 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)
replies: text: Second that.  I removed it.  --Whiteknox 23:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picsearch 

message: 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 ), Government search engines (like "Google US government search"  and searchgov.com ), Legal search engines (like law.com  and lawcrawler ), travel search engines (like Travelocity  and Expedia ), financial search engines (like Business.com   and Hoovers ) 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  and board-tracker .
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 , Technorati and Blog-search-engine .
4.	Mailing list search engines  like "list of lists"  or E-Zine List 
5.	Chat Search engines  like Chatsearch  and Search IRC . —The preceding --Yoav Pridor 14:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  Thanks for adding the content.  I worked on stylization; if I made a content change that is incorrect then I'll be glad to fix it.  The main thing now is that links that take the user outside of wikipedia (e.g. [www.searchgov.com]) should be put at the end of the article under "External Links".  --Whiteknox 16:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: okay. If I put them on th bottom how will readers know they are links? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ypridor (talk • contribs) 15:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked in the Manual of Style and it says you're right. In a case like this, embedded links are appropriate. --Whiteknox 20:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Vertical search engine chapter  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Market share 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yahoo is the number 1 site in traffic.  But Yahoo is a portal with many functions, including news, email, etc. Every serious statistic I've seen agrees that Google is the most-used search engine, by pretty much every measure you can think of: number of searches, number of users, number of pageviews.... And that's without even counting the searches done by Google for other sites, e.g. AOL. --Macrakis 19:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Google Screen Shot needs to be replaced

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed.  I have removed the section.  Any server farm, whether search or portal or email or corporate data center, consumes a lot of electricity.  --Macrakis 18:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Search engine and the environment????? 

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Google.com front page.png

message: 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)
thread_title: Charity search

message: 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)
thread_title: History

message: 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
: This website seems to be defunct now. Jarble (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Powerset

message: 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):
:: This is a generic overview only. For Web searches, see: Web search engine,
:: or for a particular search engine, see: List of search engines.
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)
replies: text: I see no problem with your change.  The problem of lack of sources still remains, even in the shortened article. EdJohnston 00:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, I will try and add in some sources eventually. I have hundreds, so I will try and filter that down to some of the best ones that fit wiki standards. Josh Froelich 19:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Converted to overview only

message: *1) I removed this: 
*“The Vertical Search Survey 2008,” E-consultancy, December 2007
it looks like spamlink, requires registration at Convera website to get a report sponsored by the company.
*2) I added a need for a citation on the opening paragraph. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (5th Ed) gives 'search engine' as "Computing: A program which searches for and identifies specified items in a database or network, esp. the Internet". The loose definition here of an 'interface' instead of a 'program' covers anything that might incorporate a search engine, and has resulted in the List of search engines page looking like a Yellow Pages for the Web. Ray3055 (talk) 12:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: The link to the only citation is dead.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.142.158.137 (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: ...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)
replies: text: This question is somewhat vague: are you referring to desktop search engines, or something else? Jarble (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  more sources needed