![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
In the distinction made for "multiple classifications" vs. a "single, pre-determined, taxonomic order," I'm not sure that "taxonomic" should be used to describe a hierarchical type of organization, since taxonomies are not generally required to be "single" or "pre-determined" or hierarchical as is implied here. 69.91.164.31 ( talk) 19:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
razorbase as a faceted browser —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.73.133.188 ( talk) 15:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Regarding the addition of razorbase.com to the list, the article says that FBs "allow users to explore by filtering available information". Go to the home page, type "Bill Clinton", and clicked the 'named' linked, then choose 'connected to'. Now in the resulting page, click the Categories tab, then click one of the blue right arrows. Now you have a list of things related to Bill Clinton that only belong in that category. You got to this by filtering based on Category (you can also do it based on information via the 'About' tab). Click the 'Your query' link to view the filters, the controls there allow you to remove and add filters.
I talked with Sherman Monroe (who wrote the previous comment) about the razorbase.com link. I still am not convinced either that it is a faceted browser or that, even if it were, it would be an appropriate external link. We've moved our private dialogue into the talk page to promote public discussion. Dtunkelang ( talk) 15:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks like I'm having a little reversion war with 78.105.108.216 over the inclusion of the following sentence: "Newer solutions employing faceted search are increasingly being offered to retailers by companies such as PrismaStar. Such solutions can enable faceted search results to be ordered based on their relevance, rather than simply filtered in or out entirely." I think it's spammy, and that PrismaStar, which is marked as an orphan, isn't notable enough for inclusion. I'm being accused of WP:CONFLICT because of my past affiliation with Endeca and my present one with Google. Perhaps others without any real or perceived conflicts of interest can chime in. Dtunkelang ( talk) 14:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems that a recurring issue on all Wikipedia entries related to search is that companies want to be mentioned in the entry (see the previous two sections as examples). I've included only a handful of companies in this entry that are not only notable enough to have Wikipedia entries, but have established associations with faceted search. Since I have a past affiliation with Endeca, I could be accused of bias, but I count on others to keep the entry honest.
Nonetheless, I refuse to let this entry become overrun with mentions from companies that don't meet the above criteria--that quickly devolves into spam. I'd sooner remove all company mentions--and even mentions of open-source software if those are controversial too. I've been maintaining this page with something of an iron fist, but I'm open to discussion here if anyone disagrees with my approach. Dtunkelang ( talk) 16:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
That does it. I've eliminated all references to companies, including ones I feel are worth including. Hopefully everyone can live with this as a fair solution. I refuse to let this entry become a cesspool of spam. Dtunkelang ( talk) 01:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm concerned that any site that is an "example of faceted search" might show up in the external links. Can we agree on a standard of notability and/or content type? Dtunkelang ( talk) 18:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to start taking a hard line on external links: no links to pages that are just example applications, and no purely commercial links. Links should either be to free, open-source software or to educational materials. Wikipedia is not a sales and marketing tool. Dtunkelang ( talk) 13:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Over half the citations and a big gob of the text are devoted to the work of one researcher, plus colleagues. One of the cites might be to self-published work. Yakushima ( talk) 12:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
The wording of this article is recursive, which is very poor English. First, the article needs to begin with a simple definition of faceted search. "Faceted search, also called faceted navigation or faceted browsing, is a technique for accessing information organized according to a faceted classification system..." This clause "according to a faceted classification system" is using "faceted" to described a "faceted search", which is horrible English because you have not defined the term "faceted". When using technical terms, you need to define what they mean, otherwise you lose all the people who want to read this article, but do not have the technical background relating specifically to this topic.
An introduction should be simple, not delving deep into the topic. That should be saved for the following paragraphs.
Wikipedia is going to lose its interest to a wide variety of stakeholders if the articles become too academic with nothing for the lay person to read and understand. Save the heavy academic writing for later in the article.
It is truly shameful that a person can't look at this article and grasp in the first two sentences what "faceted browsing" or "faceted searching" or "faceted navigation" means in simple terms. I consider that a real laziness on the part of the author.
IT personnel have been accused for decades of not being able to communicate well. This article is a clear example of that.
As a software engineer and consultant with over 20 years experience, I have dealt with stakeholders from all walks of life - from secretaries to CEO's, managers, factory floor assembly workers and engineers, etc. Those are the people Wikipedia needs to reach and this article surely does not communicate to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.63.85 ( talk • contribs) 06:10, 31 December 2014
I disagree with the statement that faceted search is search against data organized with a faceted classification. There are very very few actual faceted classifications in use, and most online sites with facets are simply using regular metadata attributes to provide limits. So this article either needs to limit itself to data that for which faceted classification has been applied, or it needs to drop the part about mass market search, since that is merely about offering useful limiters on the page. Also, there's nothing faceted about WorldCat AFAIK, other than their use of FAST, but because FAST does not link the facets it is actually a removal of facets rather than an application of them. In other words, I think this article is highly problematic, at best. Even the references are poor. I seriously doubt the information presented here. LaMona ( talk) 20:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
These database concepts are ancient. Why does this new terminology exist?
The language is abstract and ambiguous:
"A faceted classification system classifies each information element along multiple explicit dimensions, called facets, enabling the classifications to be accessed and ordered in multiple ways rather than in a single, pre-determined, taxonomic order.[1]"
So what is:
Do facets only apply to information elements stored in a predefined order? (implied as part of the definition here)
This is a classic example of computer science trying to be excessively abstract to prove sophistication and just muddling up a simple concept. Just say "search attributes" like they did in the 1980's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenjaminGSlade ( talk • contribs) 11:31, September 20, 2021 (UTC)
This page was long ago moved from the title Faceted browser, but all of the information regarding non-website applications appears to have since been removed.
A subsection titled Faceted browsers or Faceted semantic browsers should probably be re-added to the current article. Does anyone know of a good reason why that information was removed and therefore why it should not be restored in some fashion?
Over time, many academic references, descriptions, and other ‘non-spammy’ details were removed over the years, e.g.:
Finally, there was also a separate article titled Informative Faceted Searching (see last revision prior to blanking and redirect ) that was redirected here - it is not clear how much of that article’s content was actually migrated, however.
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
In the distinction made for "multiple classifications" vs. a "single, pre-determined, taxonomic order," I'm not sure that "taxonomic" should be used to describe a hierarchical type of organization, since taxonomies are not generally required to be "single" or "pre-determined" or hierarchical as is implied here. 69.91.164.31 ( talk) 19:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
razorbase as a faceted browser —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.73.133.188 ( talk) 15:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Regarding the addition of razorbase.com to the list, the article says that FBs "allow users to explore by filtering available information". Go to the home page, type "Bill Clinton", and clicked the 'named' linked, then choose 'connected to'. Now in the resulting page, click the Categories tab, then click one of the blue right arrows. Now you have a list of things related to Bill Clinton that only belong in that category. You got to this by filtering based on Category (you can also do it based on information via the 'About' tab). Click the 'Your query' link to view the filters, the controls there allow you to remove and add filters.
I talked with Sherman Monroe (who wrote the previous comment) about the razorbase.com link. I still am not convinced either that it is a faceted browser or that, even if it were, it would be an appropriate external link. We've moved our private dialogue into the talk page to promote public discussion. Dtunkelang ( talk) 15:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks like I'm having a little reversion war with 78.105.108.216 over the inclusion of the following sentence: "Newer solutions employing faceted search are increasingly being offered to retailers by companies such as PrismaStar. Such solutions can enable faceted search results to be ordered based on their relevance, rather than simply filtered in or out entirely." I think it's spammy, and that PrismaStar, which is marked as an orphan, isn't notable enough for inclusion. I'm being accused of WP:CONFLICT because of my past affiliation with Endeca and my present one with Google. Perhaps others without any real or perceived conflicts of interest can chime in. Dtunkelang ( talk) 14:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems that a recurring issue on all Wikipedia entries related to search is that companies want to be mentioned in the entry (see the previous two sections as examples). I've included only a handful of companies in this entry that are not only notable enough to have Wikipedia entries, but have established associations with faceted search. Since I have a past affiliation with Endeca, I could be accused of bias, but I count on others to keep the entry honest.
Nonetheless, I refuse to let this entry become overrun with mentions from companies that don't meet the above criteria--that quickly devolves into spam. I'd sooner remove all company mentions--and even mentions of open-source software if those are controversial too. I've been maintaining this page with something of an iron fist, but I'm open to discussion here if anyone disagrees with my approach. Dtunkelang ( talk) 16:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
That does it. I've eliminated all references to companies, including ones I feel are worth including. Hopefully everyone can live with this as a fair solution. I refuse to let this entry become a cesspool of spam. Dtunkelang ( talk) 01:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm concerned that any site that is an "example of faceted search" might show up in the external links. Can we agree on a standard of notability and/or content type? Dtunkelang ( talk) 18:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to start taking a hard line on external links: no links to pages that are just example applications, and no purely commercial links. Links should either be to free, open-source software or to educational materials. Wikipedia is not a sales and marketing tool. Dtunkelang ( talk) 13:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Over half the citations and a big gob of the text are devoted to the work of one researcher, plus colleagues. One of the cites might be to self-published work. Yakushima ( talk) 12:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
The wording of this article is recursive, which is very poor English. First, the article needs to begin with a simple definition of faceted search. "Faceted search, also called faceted navigation or faceted browsing, is a technique for accessing information organized according to a faceted classification system..." This clause "according to a faceted classification system" is using "faceted" to described a "faceted search", which is horrible English because you have not defined the term "faceted". When using technical terms, you need to define what they mean, otherwise you lose all the people who want to read this article, but do not have the technical background relating specifically to this topic.
An introduction should be simple, not delving deep into the topic. That should be saved for the following paragraphs.
Wikipedia is going to lose its interest to a wide variety of stakeholders if the articles become too academic with nothing for the lay person to read and understand. Save the heavy academic writing for later in the article.
It is truly shameful that a person can't look at this article and grasp in the first two sentences what "faceted browsing" or "faceted searching" or "faceted navigation" means in simple terms. I consider that a real laziness on the part of the author.
IT personnel have been accused for decades of not being able to communicate well. This article is a clear example of that.
As a software engineer and consultant with over 20 years experience, I have dealt with stakeholders from all walks of life - from secretaries to CEO's, managers, factory floor assembly workers and engineers, etc. Those are the people Wikipedia needs to reach and this article surely does not communicate to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.63.85 ( talk • contribs) 06:10, 31 December 2014
I disagree with the statement that faceted search is search against data organized with a faceted classification. There are very very few actual faceted classifications in use, and most online sites with facets are simply using regular metadata attributes to provide limits. So this article either needs to limit itself to data that for which faceted classification has been applied, or it needs to drop the part about mass market search, since that is merely about offering useful limiters on the page. Also, there's nothing faceted about WorldCat AFAIK, other than their use of FAST, but because FAST does not link the facets it is actually a removal of facets rather than an application of them. In other words, I think this article is highly problematic, at best. Even the references are poor. I seriously doubt the information presented here. LaMona ( talk) 20:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
These database concepts are ancient. Why does this new terminology exist?
The language is abstract and ambiguous:
"A faceted classification system classifies each information element along multiple explicit dimensions, called facets, enabling the classifications to be accessed and ordered in multiple ways rather than in a single, pre-determined, taxonomic order.[1]"
So what is:
Do facets only apply to information elements stored in a predefined order? (implied as part of the definition here)
This is a classic example of computer science trying to be excessively abstract to prove sophistication and just muddling up a simple concept. Just say "search attributes" like they did in the 1980's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenjaminGSlade ( talk • contribs) 11:31, September 20, 2021 (UTC)
This page was long ago moved from the title Faceted browser, but all of the information regarding non-website applications appears to have since been removed.
A subsection titled Faceted browsers or Faceted semantic browsers should probably be re-added to the current article. Does anyone know of a good reason why that information was removed and therefore why it should not be restored in some fashion?
Over time, many academic references, descriptions, and other ‘non-spammy’ details were removed over the years, e.g.:
Finally, there was also a separate article titled Informative Faceted Searching (see last revision prior to blanking and redirect ) that was redirected here - it is not clear how much of that article’s content was actually migrated, however.