Talk:Search engine/Archive 1

Lycos crap
That. Seems as of Oct 2013 lycos is an spam thing hub to many sites mentioned here, like Hotbot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.76.159.1 (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Worlds first web crawling search engine
Jonathon Fletcher, JumpStation, 1993 (it is already on page, but this is still of interest) more info http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23945326

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.167.69.4 (talk) 09:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this might be JumpStation (albeit archived version) http://web.archive.org/web/19971210202429/http://js.stir.ac.uk/jsbin/jsii

maybe also

http://web.archive.org/web/20040721083401/http://js.stir.ac.uk/

(213.167.69.4 (talk) 09:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC))

Game search engines, remove?
Should we remove the Game search engines section? I don't think it's relevant to the article. Game search engines only cover a meaningless part of search engines on the internet

Timeline table to include demises
the table should have another column, so AskJeeves it would say "now Ask.com", perhaps with the date, etc. etc. It would be both a lot more informative, and more useful.74.68.152.245 (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Google ranking
"Google is currently the most popular search engine." I added a need for a citation here, because the Alexa Top 500 in fact ranks Yahoo ahead of Google (at Nov 2007). So a citation is needed to justify the statement. In addition the statement may need to be clarified/limited in its extent as to by who/where it is most popular - e.g. English speakers? USA? Europe? - since Google has many domains apart from .com Ray3055 (talk) 12:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As a search engine, Google is by far the market leader - I added the citation. Alexa likely has Yahoo higher cuz Yahoo gets more visits to all their properties, since more people use Yahoo Mail, MyYahoo, etc. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  14:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yes, I agree, the Alexa rankings are not limited to 'Search' sites. I added an additional ref since the Nielson link rated only 'US searches', although I know they also cover other countries.Ray3055 (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

no one cares —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.26.189 (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Google is currently the most popular (which most accounts say that it is), we don't want to have to edit this page every time the market dynamics change. The statement should be neutral, like "Google is an example of a search engine".

Drmadskills (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Missing in Historical statistics
http://www.madeinusa.org search engine Created 19-Nov-1997 should be listed in cronological order in your list.

WWWW (has Wikipedia page saying it was the first WWW search engine, and as I recall, that's true) is missing from the history section. Dmanin (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup needed
I suggest that this article needs cleanup, particularly a trimming of external links. Some of the reference formatting is mismatched, and the choice of references is spotty. Some individual sections are tagged for improvement. The list of See Alsos is gigantic; some of these might just be included as links in the text. A good pass of copyediting might be able to fix the article. If you are strongly attached to any of the current external links, please say more about why they are valuable. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to go through this article now, I've added it to my "wiki watch" list. I actually inserted the civicseo.com external link, it's a website with information related to search engine optimization. Which I feel is directly related to the article, I also included an internal link to the wiki search engine optimization article in the see also. SDSandecki (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I also think the section "Challenges faced by Web search engines" needs to go, unless some accurate references can be obtained. SDSandecki (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Can I get some ideas on what we should and should not get referenced in this article, I'll do some researching later tonight on anything question. SDSandecki (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The History paragraph is a wall of text. Dividing it into sub-paragraphs would be fantastic, but I'll leave it to someone who is more comfortable editing. 70.88.126.180 (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Two (format) corrections at: Ask Jeeves & A9.com items, at the Timeline INFOBOX
or not to check minor edit box, versus: the major edit: version that should be reviewed to confirm that it is consensual to all concerned editors.
 * I don't know exactly (I have no experience at this classification) if I have


 * So I don't check it.
 * I've spent a lot of time to explain myself versus the few time needed to change what I consider a minor edit. A formating problem (of the TIMELINE box), to put clearly that these items:
 * Ask Jeeves & A9.com items
 * correspond to (relating to)
 * those years 1996, 2004; at this article(Web search engine).
 * If you read all I have written here, maybe you understand a little.


 * The subject: the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_search_engine
 * The problem is about the table/BOX (You can see the wiki CODE) class="bordered infobox"
 * It's about the information (years & two Web_search_engines):
 * 1997~96		Ask Jeeves: 	Founded
 * 2005~04		A9.com: 	Launch
 * 2005~04		A9.com: 	Launch
 * You cannot know which of them did what they did.
 * It is a matter of formatting. A problem that I can correct.
 * im on wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.190.163.33 (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1st: I looked at (them) it:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ask_Jeeves ( ... redirected to.. ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ask.com
 * 1996 = Founded.


 * A9.com: Launch
 * A9.com	= its Category: Internet properties established in 2004.
 * A9.com	= went live on April 14, 2004, ( an Internet search engine from Amazon.com ).
 * Well, 2004. I think. Don't you?


 * 2nd: ( I studied the wiki code 1st, and I saw the error, if:
 * we accept
 * 1996 - Ask_Jeeves, and
 * 2004 - A9.com )


 * 3rd: Ok?; But, before: the correction: I gonna writing these lines on this TALK page
 * 4th: I know the two important things are also: I don't know the correct contributor of the article to notificate this to her/him
 * I must not mark the change as minor edit because I have no experience at this classification, and for the first question, in this item #4 (if it's important to say this, to the (...) contributor)


 * & 5th & last one: to correct the page code.


 * I should like, I had gone for a good wiki WAY ( or process ) ! Is there anybody out there ? ... Ciao ( That's all folks! )! PLA y Grande Covián (talk) 07:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

ask.com twice
ask.com is twice present in the chronological list --80.152.134.128 (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"current market share" table should be removed
This should be removed because it (a) is not current; (b) does not reflect the numbers in the citation provided; (c) we should not simply be reproducing other organizations copyright-protected tables of information. We can certainly say "Google is ranked highest..." and then cite such a statistical table, but not simply recreate it. Comments welcome, before I remove it. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  14:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Search Engine
I think that there should be a section in this article regarding Wikipedia's search engine, which blows. The people of the internet should be able to browse the glorious pages of Wikipedia with ease, but lo, it cannot be done. Jimbo, you really screwed up on this one, man! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.55.2 (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

wtf is ...
"The newest Meta search engine are http://77.net it using unique meta search system." ? 74.78.162.229 (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Its been removed. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  18:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

How to find which page my site appears on in search results
How to find which page my site appears on in search results

I shall research : but inviting comments Sanjiv swarup (talk) 08:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Add reference to DSRR
The major search engine components are normally classified as Discovery, Storage, Ranking and Return (or Retrieval), commonly abbreviated as DSRR. This needs to be mentioned in the How Web search engines work section. altmany (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Search Engine Dictionary
http://www.searchenginedictionary.com would be a good addition to the external links. It's referenced often by search engine and seo related web sites and seems most comprehensive of the 10-or-so good glossaries of search engine terms. Dac.Gunter (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Dac.Gunter

Update: Errors on the site. Notably a PDF download that doesn't work. Please ignore suggestion above. Dac.Gunter (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)dac.gunter

Search engine was vandal magnet
17-Nov-2008: For most of 2004-2007, the article "search engine" had been the full description about computer search engines, such as Google, Yahoo Search, Ask.com, and MSN or Live Search. However, the hacking of that article became unbearable:
 * Article "search engine" was hacked/vandalized every few days.
 * Redirecting "search engine" to article "Web search engine" caused it to be hacked every few days by October 2008.

After years of continued, intense hacking and total trashing (of anything named "search engine"), it is quite certain: the name "search engine" is an irresistable vandal-magnet. As of 16-Nov-2008, there was no longer any article on Wikipedia that still contained the full coverage about search engines. The non-stop vandalism was just too intense, and articles were hollowed and cut until most details were thinned down to dust. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA ALERT
"On the NCSA Site new servers were announced under the title "What's New!" but no complete listing existed any more."

I'm no grammeroligist but this don't roll off my tongue good.

no complete listing existed any more. hmmm think, WITH YOUR BRIAN!? -USERNAME —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.64.45 (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Add Sogou Search engine
Sogouis one of the most important search engine in the world,especially in china. Alexa rank 133 now. Sogou Search Lab contributes greatly to the circle of research, for it have opened the enormous Search Logs freely. So it might be written down into the history of search engine. Sogou was first Launched on August 3th 2004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgigabytes (talk • contribs) 14:27, 26 February 2009


 * Definitely notable, based on a Google News archive search. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Anybody want to volunteer to write a short stub article on this search engine? -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sogou already had an article. --Bonadea (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

search suggestios
the captioned feature may also be included in the article,who was the first to start the feature Yahoo or Google or any other search engine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Subzbharti (talk • contribs) 09:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Complete list?
There is no evidence in the citation given that there ever was a complete list of webservers. The list was just a list of some, but not all, webservers. Unless there is an objection, I'll change the text to indicate that there was a manually maintained list. I'd prefer to remove the text altogether, though. The history of web-search is much more closely liked to other technologies for searching content - many of which existed on the Internet prior to "the web" - than it is to a manually maintained list of webservers. --Inas66 (talk) 05:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

/* How web search engines work */ Citations not appropriate, see discussion
The demand for citations presupposes a recognized elite that know stuff not known to ordinary mortals. The elite, in this case, are geeks, that is to say, an elite that is not recognized, and has no official membership, though one geek can tell if another is OK. The information presented in this section is available to observation - the final authority is the evidence of the senses, not official science.

The demand for sources tends to require an official source of official truth, which is not available for how search engines work. In this case, as in many others, one has to do what Wikipedia rules forbid - appeal to observation, and analysis of observation.

This leads to grave problems in areas, such as anthropogenic global warming or affirmative action, where the official truth of official science is disputed. This, however, is not such a case. There is no official truth, and no dispute, so no problem. This really should not be controversial, though no doubt it will be.

In principle, citations do not necessarily require official truth - one could produce dueling citations. In practice, in Wikipedia, official citations are deemed to supersede unofficial citations, and unofficial citations are apt to be deleted within 17 seconds. James A. Donald (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Natural language search points here
Natural language search has pointed to this article (Web search engine) for a few years, while Natural language search engine points to Natural language user interface. This article says virtually nothing about natural language search, while the "user interface" article at least gives the topic a shallow treatment. I'm tempted to go ahead and change the redirect for "search" over to "user interface", but first I will ask if anyone has plans for a section addressing the topic in this article? Maghnus (talk) 04:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Internet or Web
Regarding this edit. Sure there is more to searching than just the World Wide Web. There is more to the Internet than just the World Wide Web. But how can there be more to "web search", then the "world wide web"? Doesn't a "web search", by definition mean - searching the web? What does "searching the Internet", even mean? --Inas66 (talk) 05:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * See Also: Gopher (protocol), Veronica (computer), Archie search engine. The term in this page should remain "World Wide Web". -- Versa  geek  06:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

P2P engine
YaCy, faroo ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.146.55.207 (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Interred
I add the search engine "Interred" in the list. Articles about this search engine: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buscadores, http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_de_motores_de_b%C3%BAsqueda

The reason why Interred is not known here is because the searcher is from Argentina — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.250.176.101 (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Those articles are not about Interred, but about search engines in general. -- X7q (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I leave here some articles about "Interred":

http://www.ahorabolivia.com/2011/05/06/interred-buscador-educativo/

http://blogs.que.es/interred/2011/5/14/la-era-los-buscadores

Interred in wikipedia.en: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interred_educational_search_engine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.250.168.186 (talk) 03:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.232.255.8 (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

image in top left corner
it says that the three most used are google, yahoo, and bing, but in the article it says that bing is 4 and baidu is 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.20.139 (talk) 11:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Google is actually the one which (grabs and) finds
Even some newsgroups from Sumerian times are there, but what about an additional option for language results in com.country, non-English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.74.217.7 (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

"Specialist" in web pages
"The information may be a specialist in web pages, images, information and other types of files." Is it just me, or does "The information may be a specialist in" make no sense? How about "Search results can be ..."? --Carlos 24.108.5.0 (talk) 05:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

google
This article is written from the marketing department of google in the article is the word google 30 times and there are other search engines like bing. Please improve it by removing the google sections. --Funkenstern (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)