Talk:Search engine (computing)

Cost of Search Engines

"500 GB HDDs at $100 each"? According to New Egg, the cheapest 500 GB HDD is $342. Correct me if I'm wrong. --Laneb2005

I agree that costs, in general, are highly questionable, so I added editorial note:

"[ Costs here are questionable/dated: see Discussion-Tab...]" at Storage Costs 05-May-2006.

Years should be added to prices to remain accurate, just as most issues about

search-engines are fast-paced, time-sensitive, rapidly changing. --sbs May-2006

Researchers at NEC Research Institute have improved upon Google's patented PageRank technology by using web crawlers to find "communities" of websites. Instead of simply ranking pages, this technology uses an algorithm that follows links on a webpage to find other pages that link back to the first one and so on from page to page. The algorithm "remembers" where it has been and indexes the number of cross-links and relates these into groupings. In this way virtual communities of webpages are found. [1]

This sounds like an ad. Anyone want to extract the good stuff? -- Stephen Gilbert 17:12 Oct 27, 2002 (UTC)

Done. I NPOVd it. --mav

Why can we have a "list of search engines" but not a list of "open-source search engines" that people keep deleting?
Isn't it just because it's open-source?

We all love open source. Wikipedia has the exactly same sprit of copyleft, freedom of software as open-source. The reason articles like open-source search engines or list of them keep redirected to here is there is no need to have a sparate article about open-source search engines yet. For the sake of readers, we favor to have an article with the moderate length over having too small articles. Also, wikipedia is not a web directory, which means we don't just list websites. Even throwing some extra information to a list of websites still doesn't make it good because we are writing an encyclopedia meaning we basically prefer proses but not lists. Everyone including me is certainly welcome to discuss open-source engines more in this article.

-- Taku 17:14, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

I was planning to ad two or three paragraphs about underlying math of search engines and their indexing technologies. Do you think this article is a good place? It will be more like CS stuff. Alternatively there is full text search article, which is definitely too small for the topic. What do you think is a better place? Exceeder 21:50, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Google has updated the presentation of its content. Can we have a new screen shot in order to reflect an up-to-date example? Constafrequent, infrequently constant 16:41, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Done. I'm curious why that previous rather rediculous screenshot hadn't been removed earlier. Submitted had chosen a query that returned his userpage on Wikipedia as first hit. Maroux 14:29, 2004 May 12 (UTC)

Add Hotbot to timeline?

Shouldn't Hotbot be in the timeline of search engines? --66.229.183.101 15:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open Source & Free software POV

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)[reply]

Orase "real time search engine"

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)

Suggested changes regarding MSN Search and others

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).
Talk about MSN Search more under the end of "History" (or after "Google" section).

I haven't done this myself, since I don't remember the relevant dates for things (like when the beta rolled out). It's a little hard/confusing getting the dates straight, since most people (even reporters) don't distinguish between the "MSN Search portal", and the actual Microsoft-powered search engine (with msnbot crawler). Unless a company produced a new search engine, with it's own algorithm and crawler, it proably shouldn't be on this page. If it's worthy of being on this page, it's definately worthy of having it's own article. --rob 11:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph about Ask.com seems a little like an advertisement. Should it be pruned? Jennifer Brooks 00:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Search Engine Relevancy Test

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)[reply]

I wonder if there would be value to discussing search engine bias either on this page or in its own separate entry.

Blorby-Advertisement?

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)[reply]

Conferences, trade rags?

How about adding external links to major conferences with a Search Engine focus and to trade publications such as http://searchenginewatch.com?

Cross-ref to freebies?

At the very least Lucene should be mentioned, if for no other reason that Wikipedia uses it...

Case sensitive search engines?

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) world cup[reply]

Question on section titled: Storage costs and crawling time

Could someone tell me what 10B and 10TB stand for? I really would like to know because I find this whole article interesting.

Schmoogle

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Web-words

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)[reply]

Donald Knuth's views on "email"[2] support you. Jason Godesky 16:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]