Talk:Search engine

OpenText Corp., an enterprise content management company based in Waterloo, Ontario, claims to have invented the first search engine technology. The company, co-founded by Tim Bray, grew out of a research project at the University of Waterloo begun in the late 1980s to digitize the Oxford English Dictionary. Out of that, the company claims, came the "first search engine technology" which Bray sought to commercialize by incorporating OpenText in 1991. OpenText's search engine was eventually adopted by Yahoo!, one of the company's early customers.^{[1] [2] [3]} Anthony reinhart (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC) In this YouTube video, the people involved with the University of Waterloo/Oxford Dictionary project discuss the birth of what they call the first search engine. ^[4]

Interesting - I see that there is no mention of Blippex on here despite claims in a number of places on the web that it is the new google. Accepting that those sort of claims are usually rubbish it still seems an important development. I'm not used to googling something and not finding a Wiki page! Cheers --146.90.197.165 (talk) 09:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Altavista's albeit brief attempt to take on Google in 2000 deserves a mention.

• "AltaVista is Raging"
• "AltaVista Says Its New Search Engine 20% Faster Than Rivals'"
• "Raging Search Gone Too"
• "The Free Search"

--В²C ☎ 01:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

This article's lede image File:Internet_Key_Layers.png has been added to several pages by its creator - is it original research? It's neither sourced nor summarising sourced material in the article: the article doesn't use the word "layers", and with its vague talk of "breakthroughs" the list implies that search engines were invented by Google in 1998. Should it be reworked or removed? --McGeddon (talk) 13:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I am the person who posted the image in question. It presents very basic info. In response to the question about references, I posted a link at the bottom of the image's Description section. It links to a graphic that is perfectly in line with this new image. Nothing earth shattering here, as far as I see.--Concord hioz (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

It links to a diagram of the layers of the OSI model, a model which explicitly uses the term "layers". Are you basing this diagram on a similar pre-existing model, or deciding on your own initiative to adopt the same terminology and apply it to what you think of as the six "key layers" of the internet, in a particular (chronological?) sequence? --McGeddon (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

This diagram is not saying that these are the six layers of the internet. It is merely highlighting six. It is not saying that there are not any more, nor is it saying that it could not be understood as having less. If a criticism is that it needs to show seven layers, then I would agree. Image has now been revised to include the content layer as well. There are many various descriptions that have been made, of which the OSI model is only one. And while there are many models, every single one of these models correlate to each other, because they are all modeling the same thing - the Internet. All of them are factually accurate, or they would be discarded as inaccurate. Each have their own utility for their audience. Many are at a level that would require membership in IEEE in order to understand them. For the ordinary person, much confusion abounds. Most people don't know the distinction between the Internet and the WWW. In a simple glance at this one, readers can gain an accurate understanding.

As for the dates and names on the sides, it is not ordered chronologically. Take, for example, the fact that the Apple I came after Ethernet. The side info is included so as to provide context. Also added to the current revision are headers to that side info, to clearly label these dates and people as milestones, and not necessarily points of invention.--Concord hioz (talk) 03:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I should also add that absolutely no implication of invention is intended. It is not saying that Conrad Zuse invented the computer, for example. All technologies listed in the image were accomplished by a complex series of inventions. Clearly Brin & Page did *not* invent internet search. What the image is intending to highlight is that 1998 was a pivotal year regarding that technology.--Concord hioz (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I share McGeddon's concerns. ARK (talk) 12:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, one concern is completeness. There are models that list seven layers. If a criticism of the diagram is that it was not complete, then my response is that I agree. I have revised the diagram so that it shows the 'content' layer, which previously had only been implied. Surely it is better to explicitly show this layer. So that issue is now fixed. If anyone has a concern regarding factual accuracy, that can be identified and fixed as well.--Concord hioz (talk) 03:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Other search engines like Duckduckgo.com should be included in the ranking in the paragraph "market share". Indeed I can see that Lycos is still there in this small list and that more popular search engines like Duckduckgo.com is absent. I do not know the other one but they surely exists Miladioudediou (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The source article does not have any references and thus does not claim NOTABILITY for it to be in its own article. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I suggest not to merge the two articles because of the following two key reasons:

1. The article "Search Engine Submission" does have many reliable references, but it seems nobody add them. For example: when we submit to the search engine Baidu.com, we use the official submission link Baidu provides: http://zhanzhang.baidu.com/linksubmit/url Let's add them later.

2. The two articles target different visitors: the article "web search engines" is for beginners or for those who want to know search engine history, while the article "search engine submission" is for those who want to promote their websites or business worldwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.196.149.163 (talk) 08:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Clearly search engine submission should be merged here, though frankly most of it has no place anywhere and should just be deleted. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I plan to boldly perform this merge at the weekend unless I see any serious opposition. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

    This article does not distinguish the terms "web browser" and "search engine" although it does distinguish the terms "search engine" and web directory. My computing knowledge is not good enough to allow me to work out how a web browser is different to a search engine, so can I make a plea that a knowledgeable editor can distinguish these terms. Thank youVorbee (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

They're completely different things. A web browser is an application you use to receive information from the web. A search engine is a service that guides you to that information. It's like the difference between a telephone and the Yellow Pages. Largoplazo (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

What's the source for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_search_engine#Market_share? --orschiro (talk) 09:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The "Advanced Search" was deleted by Google and at present if the user defines the desired result by inputting "word1 word2 word3" Google will respond with results containing "word1" ONLY! or ANY combination of 1,rearely 2, never 3 in the output. This dishonest procedure is not the only dishonest action by Google geared now to be a money-making machine. If the net is cast wide, the chance that the user will hit some advert, is increased. The EU Comissioner fined Google for promoting its "shopping" but failed to notice that it skews the general search as well. The "advanced" feature and Boolean Search are most important for the user, not so much the technicalities mentioned in the article. Otherwise the author(s) ought to be complimented for listing all engines as they did. signed by Jan Stecki, retired prof in science. 89.67.88.163 (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I second the opinion of the user above. Where is the information about Search Syntax ? Why has it apparently totally disappeared from the pages of Wikipedia ? Darkman101 (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I have looked for the Jewgle out of curiosity, but I haven't found any working site that is not a joke. Inconexo (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

That's because it's called Jewogle.com. General Ization ^Talk 16:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but Inktomi doesn't look like it had a inktomi.com (archived) direct (global) web search page, it's more of a company with a search engine product. It doesn't fit the later items on the chronology table - all later items have/had web search page. MarMi wiki (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Lauraham8 Hi - I reverted your recent changes, partly because your edits were not consistent with the MOS, but also because they didn't appear to be taking a neutral point of view.

• You wrote some of the content in the second person ('...when you search...') - we don't address the reader directly in articles.
• More importantly, your editing seemed either to state the conclusions of this particular author as fact, in Wikipedia's voice. It may be possible to use the source you've used, with proper attribution, to add something to the article, but we should be using phrases like 'Noble has argued that the results of the survey indicate a range of sexist assumptions in society...' etc. Hope that makes sense, GirthSummit _(blether) 16:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

There are countless categories of specialized search engines, so I don't understand why there is a section here detailing "Religious search engines", but nothing else. I suggest either the section be renamed "Specialized search engines" and then provide a general list of representative platforms (and trim this text considerably), or fork the current content into a new article on Religous search engines. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I remember using a site that would submit my query to many search engines at once and aggregate the results, but I can't remember the name. Does anyone remember it? Shouldn't this be in the list? -- SpareSimian (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

There were many sites like this, and they exist also today. Depends if the site is significant. Pikavoom (talk) 04:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

https://searx.me/ @SpareSimian is this it? Mr.robto (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Someone has indeed replaced the page with an old poem. I have clicked on undo... it says it has to be done manually. I would appreciate if someone with better knowledge could fix it please. --Hypernator (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I fixed it. You can ask questions about things like this at WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey thanks for that. Kind of annoying when people do that kind of thing.--Hypernator (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Rublov: Not sure if you & the IP address are the same person, but the RM above failed. The long-standing intro ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Search_engine&oldid=1028190477 ) just calls it a "search engine" because, well, that's the term. Then you & the IP addresseses started trying to force in this needless disambiguation. It's just called a search engine, as can be shown by countless hits in the wild - you can disagree with that usage and think it's not specific enough and needs "web", but the rest of the world doesn't agree. Check out a Google News search for "Search Engine" and you'll see what I mean - people aren't attaching "Web" in front, they know what's meant in the same way that people don't specify that they mean a sailing ship not a starship when they say "ship". SnowFire (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

SnowFire, I think we should merge Search engine and Search engine (computing) so that it becomes a moot point. Then the lead can say something to the effect of A search engine is a software system that searches a collection of documents, most commonly web pages. Rublov (talk) 23:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd honestly be okay with just straight-up deleting Search engine (computing), or turning it into some sort of pseudo-disambiguation page. SnowFire (talk) 05:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps we could copy over the section "How search engines work" from Search engine (computing) to Search engine, add a brief "Non-web search engines" section, and then delete Search engine (computing)? Rublov (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

That would be fine by me. Also, to the IP addies who keep changing the lede back, discuss why you want it changed on the talk page. I'm not a mind reader. SnowFire (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Is it poor design of Wikipedia, or initiative of "vigilant" MrOllie watch? It Seems that any changes contributed by me being reverted by that person (Be welcoming to newcomers). Please advise. (Tatdig (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatdig (talk • contribs) 18:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You added an unsourced, non-notable search engine and user:MrOllie quite rightly undid the edit. It was your first edit ever, and so far your only edit to article space. MrOllie is not following you around and reverting your edits, and has done absolutely nothing wrong. Meters (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect People Search and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 23#People Search until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

The entire "Technology" section appears to have been copied verbatim from https://www.wiley.com/legacy/compbooks/sonnenreich/history.html. This source is also absolutely ancient relative to the subject matter. FChlo (talk) 01:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@Fgnievinski: Do you know anything about the history of this text? You added Search engine#Technology on 6 November 2022 in diff with edit summary "splitting apart Search engine technology". The link in that edit summary is now a redirect to Search engine (computing). The original Search engine technologySearch engine technology contained the text added in diff on 1 June 2014. The HTML source for the Wiley history includes a copyright claim from 1997. I spent a fair bit of time working this out and will leave it for the moment. At this stage, it appears the text was copied to Wikipedia from Wiley or possibly from an earlier page that existed before the Wiley page. Johnuniq (talk) 02:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

There is another source that contains this part almost verbatim: https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/115969125/5877-libre.pdf (Article from 2011). In any case, the article(s) from which the whole section seems to have been copied need(s) to be cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-16430-16 (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Can you please add one of the following to the Further Reading section:
Mining World Knowledge for Analysis of Search Engine Content - 63 citations
Search Engine Content Analysis - 2573 downloads
While the research is old, it is still highly relevant to the topic of search engines, having many practical applications including automatic classification, search engine comparison, user profiling, data mining and big data. The taxonomy can easily extended to cover in excess of ten thousand subjects. The paper and thesis have been cited and downloaded numerous times, showing their relevance and impact to the academic community. You can find the full citation information in Google Scholar, and the download statistics are available on the linked QUT pages, showing a significant continued interest over time. JohnDKing (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

This article needs to be updated with information about the use of AI in Internet searches. Kdammers (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2026 (UTC)