This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Can we add a reference to the Twitter search tool "Tweetscan" ? dave evans ( talk) 03:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Could you add a category for "green search engines" like http://www.gofinditnow.com and http://www.blackle.com Green search engines, some based Google use a black background to cut power use on a CRT monitor. Most offset hosting energy by renewable energy credits.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.120.172.185 ( talk) 03:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
So looks like you forgot the following Google based search engine : http://www.mozbot.fr probably only in French, but it got international search options, and it really adds some services to Google! Yes seems to be possible! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.228.137.82 ( talk • contribs).
Please consider listing Search Engine Colossus: International Directory of Search Engines http://www.searchenginecolossus.com] in the External links section...although I do not regard anyone as "lazy" :> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BryanStrome ( talk • contribs).
How come no 1banana.com? 98.196.117.157 ( talk) 01:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Has it occurred to anyone how often anonymous users try to linkspam this page? Isn't that a problem? Maybe this list wasn't such a good idea. -- Ardonik 03:46, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
It's happening again. The number of red links and article-less external links on this page are starting to rise. I plan to delete every search engine referenced on this page that does not have its own article--even engines that might potentially be notable (if they truly are, a dedicated contributor will add them later.) In some cases, entire categories of links will be eliminated. -- Ardonik. talk() * July 3, 2005 05:35 (UTC)
Ixquick.com calls itself a "metasearch engine" and has been around for several years - I think it needs to be added to the "List of search engines"
- A metasearch engine should be listed as such. Just because it has been around for a long time it should not be assumed to be something it is not. - Anaras 11:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The article's title says Internet search engines, but inside the article, WWW search engines. Not the same think you know. :) Should this article be renamed, or <blank>? Newmanbe 02:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
The article shouldn't be renamed -- rather, the listings should conform to a higher standard. There is plenty of stuff in here which is either a simple directory or a very basic commercial listing page, rather than a search engine.
The term search engine refers to a website with several characteristics including:
Suggestion: edit the list and remove all non-search engine sites, OR split the list into separate pages for search engines, directories, and other listing sites. My preference would be to just list search engines, however to be clear i work for one (SimplyHired.com) so my opinion is biased. dave 07:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I disagree, a search engine is not limited the World Wide Web, for example Jughead (computer), Archie search engine, and Veronica (computer). There are still servers running those search engines (Jughead and Veronica at least). If the title does not to be changed, then the introduction does. Newmanbe 16:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm... well i think the usefulness of non-WWW internet search engines is rather limited for most mortals, but if we need to expand the suggestion to include those fine with me. My comment was more about removing or moving the sites with limited search functionality, or those with overly-narrow scope that look more like directories or simple compilations. dave 20:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I am not saying that that is what the list should be. I am simply saying that there is an inconsistency in the introduction and the title. You said that the title should not be changed, so it would follow that that the introduction does. Newmanbe 20:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
ok, i think i understand what you're saying now. i think the difference between 'Internet' and strictly 'Web' search engines is relatively minor, but i won't quibble there. my point was more about the 'search engine' part, in that right now the list of items includes a number of sites which are not search engines, even if you stretched the meaning of the term quite a bit. so perhaps if you'd like we could even just drop the 'Internet' qualifier, and call it a 'List of Search Engines'? i think that will resolve your issue, although i believe the list would still have to be cleaned up to meet a more rigorous definition of 'search engine'. dave 01:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'd rather drop the Web search engine part, but if what you said is what people want, so be it. Benn Newman 16:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
i'm still a Wikipedia newbie, and i'm a little hesitant to be so be bold as to jump in and change the title of a pretty big article like this in my first few days of editing... however, i feel pretty strongly this page should be about search engines, rather than directories. there are perhaps 50-200 relevant web-based specialty search engines that would make sense to list here, but if the title is loosely interpreted to include directories & listing sites, the number would easily be in the thousands.
if others agree, i'd like to suggest we keep the title as is (or tighten to WWW internet search engines if you'd prefer, though i don't think that's necessary). furthermore, i'd suggest we take a more strict view of the definition of search engine, and reduce the # of sites listed on this page by around 2/3. since i also work for a job search engine i feel that my perspective is biased, but with just job search alone there are easily over 1,000 sources for job listings -- of which perhaps less than 10 truly qualify as search engines.
since you appear to have more experience here, can you suggest an approach to resolve title? should a separate page be created for directories and such? other thoughts? dave 21:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone else have anything to say about this? Benn Newman 12:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the [[hakia]] entry - according to the Hakia page - it is a beta version. I readded hakia before reading this. I removed the red link to WinSrev since there is not even a stub page for this topic, and http://www.winsrev.com seems non-functional. From the google cache of the page it looks like somebody's amateur attempt at a search engine ("Searching 182,725 web pages!") and a little more google searching shows that it is quite a joke indeed. -- Rhomboid 07:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I propose a link of a search engines directory (like search engines colossus) : http://www.searchenginesdir.com - Ababou, 21 February 2006
It seems that there is only one search engines directory that has the right to be on Wikipedia : Search Engine Colossus, and no others. Any reason for that ? - 07 March 2006
I added a few external links to some XDCC and IRC search engines, and seperated the two sections. This is NOT linkspam, I'm simply too lazy to create a wikipedia entry for every single site. If someone wants to do so, by my guest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.132.180 ( talk • contribs)
I must point out that many of the websites mentioned in this article are not in fact search engines, but instead content-providing websites. The articles that these search engines are linked to do NOT define them as search engines, thus should not be posted as such. The following articles are examples of this:
Just because a website has a search capability does not make it a search engine. I suggest that these articles be removed, and a specific criteria for addition of search engines be defined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.132.180 ( talk • contribs)
Ask.com is number three or four in search engines after Google, Yahoo and possibly MSN. I guess this should give it the right of an entry in this list. But where is it? Missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.158.181.247 ( talk • contribs)
It wasn't there because nobody has added it. I added it now (and you could have, too). Haakon 21:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I added Kolai [1] to regional search engines. It is a search engine from Turkey.
amazon.com and some of the others questioned above are collections of programs, some of which are search engines in the sense of programs used to search a database-- amazon's database --or mshould we say collection of databases-- etc. can be searched with their own search engine, which is described on the Amazon.com page, or by external engines. Similarly, google etc maintain large internal databases and are more than a search engine. Dialog is a database aggregator, but also comprises several search engines, & I am not sure what part is the most important.
I have not encountered any adequate term to describe such systems. The term search engine, is defined in that article as "A search engine or search service is a program designed to help find information stored on a computer system", which is about as nonspecific as you can get., I'm not arguing any point, but hoping for information. DGG 05:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I have removed a load of non search engines including Amazon and ridiculous ones like YouTube which is a video clip service. It has a search engine to search its vast content but that doesnt make it a search engine and I amn baffled as to how anyone can define it as search. I strongly suspect the page the page needs further culling. IMO all the examples here should include the search engine link within the first sentence of their respective articles, surely that should be the make or break test of inclusion here. Otherwise you could include any and all websites with an internal search facility, BBC has such a facility but we cant call the BBC a search engine and it would dilute the term as to make it meaningless and this article on of the largest on wikipedia. While Google image, etc are sub search engines of google they need to have their own article to be notable here, I believe, SqueakBox 18:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Or are I'm wrong?
It is defned as a search engine so it should go in, SqueakBox 01:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The cleanup tag was put here by EurekaLott in November 2005. [2]. His comment was "Article is full of linkspam. Adding cleanup tag." Since all surviving entries in today's file are Wikipedia articles, can we conclude there is no more linkspam? If that's the case, the tag should be removed, since there is nothing to clean up. EdJohnston 05:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The improvement in this page is well under way, and it is ironic that these comments should have been made just as it was starting. My intention, at any rate, is to rename this page List of academic databases and search engines, and have catregroized asnd alphabetical lists--alongwith liikns to pages aboutthe various types, and about the concept. Please check the current definition of search engine--it is now being used as much more inclusive than a program to search a database.: a search engine or search service is a document retrieval system designed to help find information stored on a computer system, such as on the World Wide Web, inside a corporate or proprietary network, or in a personal computer If the page is going to disappear it will be replaced by a page planned properly from the start, but it might be better to work with this. WP is not a list, means wp is not only a list. There are many hundred lists in WP, some with annotation, it can serve as a very useful index to the material. People use lists as finding aids: "I'm not sure what its called exactly, but if I can look at a list I'll pick it out" This takes more than a few days; I will try to upgrade this as qquickly as possible. I can understand the feeling about it as it now stands. DGG 22:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
if annotated a little it can do more: see the "
list of librarians for the sort of thing I've done, and I'd do--
gives enough bio in a word to two to place the person, separates out what might well be separate pages once we get enough data, and puts the problems in places where people will see them.
This can be done in a more complicated way with categories, but this may be overkill for this subject.
I invite your help about terminology. -- and about useful material. -- and about the right name for the page.
Should everything in WP that can possibly be seen as a search engine be included?
DGG 05:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
While there is an article Aliweb, and there is a web site at www.aliweb.com, the latter seems (at first glance) entirely promotional and unlikely to be of genuine value to most Wikipedia readers. A genuine project called Aliweb, descended from Archie and documented (somewhat) in the early 90's, did exist but may no longer have any real connection to aliweb.com, at least, none that is visible to users of the present-day site. The search engine which is provided at aliweb.com is unable to find 'wikipedia' or 'google'. I put forward this opinion at Talk:Aliweb though User:Bill Slawski had previously made similar comments on Talk:Aliweb. The only defender of the link to aliweb.com is an anonymous contributor. One possible remedy is to stubbify the Aliweb article, since at present it has no reliable sources. Removing Aliweb from List of search engines is of course an option. Please respond here if you have ideas for how to address the problem. EdJohnston 20:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The Aliweb article should stay. A good analogy would be deleting references to the Altair 8800 as the first personal computer because it doesn't have a mouse or a graphical user interface so therefore its not a "bona fide" peronal computer. Then if Ed Roberts sold the company to someone else or gave it to them . . . well that would mean they have nothing to do with the original Altair company MITS -- "no real connection". And of course, that would mean we would need to stubbify the article. Of course if these people that were given or bought the company and knew something about the subject were to offer any factual information, they would be ignored and could not possibly be credible.
If Wozniak and Jobs describe the orgins of Apple personal computers in an article on wikipedia, would anyone believe what they say? Do they need to have references? I mean, this is ridiculous. It is very common knowledge that Aliweb is the web's first search engine as well as it is common knowledge how Woz and Jobs created the first Apple I computer. Believe it or not, the Earth travels in an orbit around the Sun, there is a big store called Wal-Mart that you can buy toothpaste from, the Spruce Goose could fly, a flying machine powered by two 180 horse power steam engines, 17 foot propellers, and a wing area of 4000 square feet, flew 200 feet before crashing in 1894, and there is a popular magazine currently available called "Maxim".
You should really do some research. aliweb 11:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I would hope that the "editors" would find my argument which is the equivalent of "the sun is hot" convincing (and obvious). "Aliweb apparently has a 1993 version of the web" again you need to do some research. I guess visitors to the Smithsonian derive no benefit from their visit because of all the OLD things there. Aliweb is referenced in print publications as well as many places on the web (again do some research). Lets see, the site aliweb.com exists. If I put a link to it and I am the grand potentate high master of aliweb.com or I hate the web site's name being mentioned, its not going to change the fact that aliweb.com exists. Nor will it change any other facts concerning the service or its history. Again, I'm not seeing the problem here other than you not wanting to do research and contribute positively to the article, and wanting instead to discredit everything concerning it. That's why I question your motives here. You would think I was trying to convince you that there is a bridge in New York you can buy from me and charge tolls and get rich rather than asking you if the water was wet and you saying nope feels like sun heated sand. aliweb 09:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I think this article needs to be more encyclopaedic. It should have references for each entry, a very clear definition of why or why not services are listed, introductory content, and it should have definitions for each category. I propose, therefore, a classification scheme. Basically, present this information as a table. Each row is a specific service. Each column represents a different attribute or way of splitting up the various services. This also lets people focus on only certain services by looking at only specific values. Of note would be there should not be any subjective preference to the order in which the services are listed, or the order of the features, or the level of detail. I know some of these very minor features are huge to smaller services as that is what they consider to be their competitive advantage in the market.
The table should list the services alphabetically, by the corporate name (not parent corporate, not url). The features should be listed alphabetically, or by some well-defined order of importance, perhaps by how much each attribute differentiates each service.
This would also solve the problem that some of these services support many of these categories, maybe some more than others, but it leaves out information. Perhaps add content and offer it as a way for an article reader to be guided to which service he wants to learn about, objectively. By getting more objective, with references, descriptions, and logical organization, it will add some support to this currently poorly structured article.
Some of the attributes I am considering:
What do you guys think? Of course there may be a better classification of the services, but hopefully this would allow others to actually deem this somewhat appropriate, as this page really falls short of the standards. Josh Froelich 00:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I suggest opening a category named "Search Engines for Kids". It's time to group Yahoo! Kids, Ask for Kids and Quintura for Kids services. I have some content to fill it with. KevinLocker 12:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I was considering adding a brief description of each type of search engine to help readers understand the differences. Before I did anything to the article I thought I would propose the content here.
I know the definitions can be improved, but what do you think about the idea? Josh Froelich 23:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought this would be interested for someone to comment upon. Sorry if it is not applicable, but I think it can be used as support for various arguments. The list came from a Google search. Josh Froelich 01:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I have not visited all these sources, but it serves as a good starting point. Let's say that if it does not meet at least one of these definitions, it should not be so easy to consider it a search engine?
First Technology in computer world, which allows internet surfing to non English and illiterates also. 75% population in this world can not identify English alphabets. But by cyber law a website's name could be register in English language only. Atoall.com solve this problem Angle Theory Search Engine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.253.217.166 ( talk • contribs) 08:06, 19 March 2009
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Can we add a reference to the Twitter search tool "Tweetscan" ? dave evans ( talk) 03:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Could you add a category for "green search engines" like http://www.gofinditnow.com and http://www.blackle.com Green search engines, some based Google use a black background to cut power use on a CRT monitor. Most offset hosting energy by renewable energy credits.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.120.172.185 ( talk) 03:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
So looks like you forgot the following Google based search engine : http://www.mozbot.fr probably only in French, but it got international search options, and it really adds some services to Google! Yes seems to be possible! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.228.137.82 ( talk • contribs).
Please consider listing Search Engine Colossus: International Directory of Search Engines http://www.searchenginecolossus.com] in the External links section...although I do not regard anyone as "lazy" :> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BryanStrome ( talk • contribs).
How come no 1banana.com? 98.196.117.157 ( talk) 01:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Has it occurred to anyone how often anonymous users try to linkspam this page? Isn't that a problem? Maybe this list wasn't such a good idea. -- Ardonik 03:46, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
It's happening again. The number of red links and article-less external links on this page are starting to rise. I plan to delete every search engine referenced on this page that does not have its own article--even engines that might potentially be notable (if they truly are, a dedicated contributor will add them later.) In some cases, entire categories of links will be eliminated. -- Ardonik. talk() * July 3, 2005 05:35 (UTC)
Ixquick.com calls itself a "metasearch engine" and has been around for several years - I think it needs to be added to the "List of search engines"
- A metasearch engine should be listed as such. Just because it has been around for a long time it should not be assumed to be something it is not. - Anaras 11:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The article's title says Internet search engines, but inside the article, WWW search engines. Not the same think you know. :) Should this article be renamed, or <blank>? Newmanbe 02:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
The article shouldn't be renamed -- rather, the listings should conform to a higher standard. There is plenty of stuff in here which is either a simple directory or a very basic commercial listing page, rather than a search engine.
The term search engine refers to a website with several characteristics including:
Suggestion: edit the list and remove all non-search engine sites, OR split the list into separate pages for search engines, directories, and other listing sites. My preference would be to just list search engines, however to be clear i work for one (SimplyHired.com) so my opinion is biased. dave 07:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I disagree, a search engine is not limited the World Wide Web, for example Jughead (computer), Archie search engine, and Veronica (computer). There are still servers running those search engines (Jughead and Veronica at least). If the title does not to be changed, then the introduction does. Newmanbe 16:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm... well i think the usefulness of non-WWW internet search engines is rather limited for most mortals, but if we need to expand the suggestion to include those fine with me. My comment was more about removing or moving the sites with limited search functionality, or those with overly-narrow scope that look more like directories or simple compilations. dave 20:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I am not saying that that is what the list should be. I am simply saying that there is an inconsistency in the introduction and the title. You said that the title should not be changed, so it would follow that that the introduction does. Newmanbe 20:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
ok, i think i understand what you're saying now. i think the difference between 'Internet' and strictly 'Web' search engines is relatively minor, but i won't quibble there. my point was more about the 'search engine' part, in that right now the list of items includes a number of sites which are not search engines, even if you stretched the meaning of the term quite a bit. so perhaps if you'd like we could even just drop the 'Internet' qualifier, and call it a 'List of Search Engines'? i think that will resolve your issue, although i believe the list would still have to be cleaned up to meet a more rigorous definition of 'search engine'. dave 01:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'd rather drop the Web search engine part, but if what you said is what people want, so be it. Benn Newman 16:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
i'm still a Wikipedia newbie, and i'm a little hesitant to be so be bold as to jump in and change the title of a pretty big article like this in my first few days of editing... however, i feel pretty strongly this page should be about search engines, rather than directories. there are perhaps 50-200 relevant web-based specialty search engines that would make sense to list here, but if the title is loosely interpreted to include directories & listing sites, the number would easily be in the thousands.
if others agree, i'd like to suggest we keep the title as is (or tighten to WWW internet search engines if you'd prefer, though i don't think that's necessary). furthermore, i'd suggest we take a more strict view of the definition of search engine, and reduce the # of sites listed on this page by around 2/3. since i also work for a job search engine i feel that my perspective is biased, but with just job search alone there are easily over 1,000 sources for job listings -- of which perhaps less than 10 truly qualify as search engines.
since you appear to have more experience here, can you suggest an approach to resolve title? should a separate page be created for directories and such? other thoughts? dave 21:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone else have anything to say about this? Benn Newman 12:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the [[hakia]] entry - according to the Hakia page - it is a beta version. I readded hakia before reading this. I removed the red link to WinSrev since there is not even a stub page for this topic, and http://www.winsrev.com seems non-functional. From the google cache of the page it looks like somebody's amateur attempt at a search engine ("Searching 182,725 web pages!") and a little more google searching shows that it is quite a joke indeed. -- Rhomboid 07:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I propose a link of a search engines directory (like search engines colossus) : http://www.searchenginesdir.com - Ababou, 21 February 2006
It seems that there is only one search engines directory that has the right to be on Wikipedia : Search Engine Colossus, and no others. Any reason for that ? - 07 March 2006
I added a few external links to some XDCC and IRC search engines, and seperated the two sections. This is NOT linkspam, I'm simply too lazy to create a wikipedia entry for every single site. If someone wants to do so, by my guest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.132.180 ( talk • contribs)
I must point out that many of the websites mentioned in this article are not in fact search engines, but instead content-providing websites. The articles that these search engines are linked to do NOT define them as search engines, thus should not be posted as such. The following articles are examples of this:
Just because a website has a search capability does not make it a search engine. I suggest that these articles be removed, and a specific criteria for addition of search engines be defined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.132.180 ( talk • contribs)
Ask.com is number three or four in search engines after Google, Yahoo and possibly MSN. I guess this should give it the right of an entry in this list. But where is it? Missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.158.181.247 ( talk • contribs)
It wasn't there because nobody has added it. I added it now (and you could have, too). Haakon 21:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I added Kolai [1] to regional search engines. It is a search engine from Turkey.
amazon.com and some of the others questioned above are collections of programs, some of which are search engines in the sense of programs used to search a database-- amazon's database --or mshould we say collection of databases-- etc. can be searched with their own search engine, which is described on the Amazon.com page, or by external engines. Similarly, google etc maintain large internal databases and are more than a search engine. Dialog is a database aggregator, but also comprises several search engines, & I am not sure what part is the most important.
I have not encountered any adequate term to describe such systems. The term search engine, is defined in that article as "A search engine or search service is a program designed to help find information stored on a computer system", which is about as nonspecific as you can get., I'm not arguing any point, but hoping for information. DGG 05:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I have removed a load of non search engines including Amazon and ridiculous ones like YouTube which is a video clip service. It has a search engine to search its vast content but that doesnt make it a search engine and I amn baffled as to how anyone can define it as search. I strongly suspect the page the page needs further culling. IMO all the examples here should include the search engine link within the first sentence of their respective articles, surely that should be the make or break test of inclusion here. Otherwise you could include any and all websites with an internal search facility, BBC has such a facility but we cant call the BBC a search engine and it would dilute the term as to make it meaningless and this article on of the largest on wikipedia. While Google image, etc are sub search engines of google they need to have their own article to be notable here, I believe, SqueakBox 18:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Or are I'm wrong?
It is defned as a search engine so it should go in, SqueakBox 01:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The cleanup tag was put here by EurekaLott in November 2005. [2]. His comment was "Article is full of linkspam. Adding cleanup tag." Since all surviving entries in today's file are Wikipedia articles, can we conclude there is no more linkspam? If that's the case, the tag should be removed, since there is nothing to clean up. EdJohnston 05:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The improvement in this page is well under way, and it is ironic that these comments should have been made just as it was starting. My intention, at any rate, is to rename this page List of academic databases and search engines, and have catregroized asnd alphabetical lists--alongwith liikns to pages aboutthe various types, and about the concept. Please check the current definition of search engine--it is now being used as much more inclusive than a program to search a database.: a search engine or search service is a document retrieval system designed to help find information stored on a computer system, such as on the World Wide Web, inside a corporate or proprietary network, or in a personal computer If the page is going to disappear it will be replaced by a page planned properly from the start, but it might be better to work with this. WP is not a list, means wp is not only a list. There are many hundred lists in WP, some with annotation, it can serve as a very useful index to the material. People use lists as finding aids: "I'm not sure what its called exactly, but if I can look at a list I'll pick it out" This takes more than a few days; I will try to upgrade this as qquickly as possible. I can understand the feeling about it as it now stands. DGG 22:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
if annotated a little it can do more: see the "
list of librarians for the sort of thing I've done, and I'd do--
gives enough bio in a word to two to place the person, separates out what might well be separate pages once we get enough data, and puts the problems in places where people will see them.
This can be done in a more complicated way with categories, but this may be overkill for this subject.
I invite your help about terminology. -- and about useful material. -- and about the right name for the page.
Should everything in WP that can possibly be seen as a search engine be included?
DGG 05:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
While there is an article Aliweb, and there is a web site at www.aliweb.com, the latter seems (at first glance) entirely promotional and unlikely to be of genuine value to most Wikipedia readers. A genuine project called Aliweb, descended from Archie and documented (somewhat) in the early 90's, did exist but may no longer have any real connection to aliweb.com, at least, none that is visible to users of the present-day site. The search engine which is provided at aliweb.com is unable to find 'wikipedia' or 'google'. I put forward this opinion at Talk:Aliweb though User:Bill Slawski had previously made similar comments on Talk:Aliweb. The only defender of the link to aliweb.com is an anonymous contributor. One possible remedy is to stubbify the Aliweb article, since at present it has no reliable sources. Removing Aliweb from List of search engines is of course an option. Please respond here if you have ideas for how to address the problem. EdJohnston 20:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The Aliweb article should stay. A good analogy would be deleting references to the Altair 8800 as the first personal computer because it doesn't have a mouse or a graphical user interface so therefore its not a "bona fide" peronal computer. Then if Ed Roberts sold the company to someone else or gave it to them . . . well that would mean they have nothing to do with the original Altair company MITS -- "no real connection". And of course, that would mean we would need to stubbify the article. Of course if these people that were given or bought the company and knew something about the subject were to offer any factual information, they would be ignored and could not possibly be credible.
If Wozniak and Jobs describe the orgins of Apple personal computers in an article on wikipedia, would anyone believe what they say? Do they need to have references? I mean, this is ridiculous. It is very common knowledge that Aliweb is the web's first search engine as well as it is common knowledge how Woz and Jobs created the first Apple I computer. Believe it or not, the Earth travels in an orbit around the Sun, there is a big store called Wal-Mart that you can buy toothpaste from, the Spruce Goose could fly, a flying machine powered by two 180 horse power steam engines, 17 foot propellers, and a wing area of 4000 square feet, flew 200 feet before crashing in 1894, and there is a popular magazine currently available called "Maxim".
You should really do some research. aliweb 11:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I would hope that the "editors" would find my argument which is the equivalent of "the sun is hot" convincing (and obvious). "Aliweb apparently has a 1993 version of the web" again you need to do some research. I guess visitors to the Smithsonian derive no benefit from their visit because of all the OLD things there. Aliweb is referenced in print publications as well as many places on the web (again do some research). Lets see, the site aliweb.com exists. If I put a link to it and I am the grand potentate high master of aliweb.com or I hate the web site's name being mentioned, its not going to change the fact that aliweb.com exists. Nor will it change any other facts concerning the service or its history. Again, I'm not seeing the problem here other than you not wanting to do research and contribute positively to the article, and wanting instead to discredit everything concerning it. That's why I question your motives here. You would think I was trying to convince you that there is a bridge in New York you can buy from me and charge tolls and get rich rather than asking you if the water was wet and you saying nope feels like sun heated sand. aliweb 09:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I think this article needs to be more encyclopaedic. It should have references for each entry, a very clear definition of why or why not services are listed, introductory content, and it should have definitions for each category. I propose, therefore, a classification scheme. Basically, present this information as a table. Each row is a specific service. Each column represents a different attribute or way of splitting up the various services. This also lets people focus on only certain services by looking at only specific values. Of note would be there should not be any subjective preference to the order in which the services are listed, or the order of the features, or the level of detail. I know some of these very minor features are huge to smaller services as that is what they consider to be their competitive advantage in the market.
The table should list the services alphabetically, by the corporate name (not parent corporate, not url). The features should be listed alphabetically, or by some well-defined order of importance, perhaps by how much each attribute differentiates each service.
This would also solve the problem that some of these services support many of these categories, maybe some more than others, but it leaves out information. Perhaps add content and offer it as a way for an article reader to be guided to which service he wants to learn about, objectively. By getting more objective, with references, descriptions, and logical organization, it will add some support to this currently poorly structured article.
Some of the attributes I am considering:
What do you guys think? Of course there may be a better classification of the services, but hopefully this would allow others to actually deem this somewhat appropriate, as this page really falls short of the standards. Josh Froelich 00:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I suggest opening a category named "Search Engines for Kids". It's time to group Yahoo! Kids, Ask for Kids and Quintura for Kids services. I have some content to fill it with. KevinLocker 12:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I was considering adding a brief description of each type of search engine to help readers understand the differences. Before I did anything to the article I thought I would propose the content here.
I know the definitions can be improved, but what do you think about the idea? Josh Froelich 23:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought this would be interested for someone to comment upon. Sorry if it is not applicable, but I think it can be used as support for various arguments. The list came from a Google search. Josh Froelich 01:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I have not visited all these sources, but it serves as a good starting point. Let's say that if it does not meet at least one of these definitions, it should not be so easy to consider it a search engine?
First Technology in computer world, which allows internet surfing to non English and illiterates also. 75% population in this world can not identify English alphabets. But by cyber law a website's name could be register in English language only. Atoall.com solve this problem Angle Theory Search Engine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.253.217.166 ( talk • contribs) 08:06, 19 March 2009