|The content of social discovery was merged into Social search. That page now redirects here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see ; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.|
|The content of social discovery platform was merged into Social search. That page now redirects here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see ; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.|
This is an update to social searching which needed work achieve a better encyclopedia style and was marked as requiring cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. I also moved it from social searching to social search to be more parallel with similar terms such as search rather than 'searching' and search spam rather than 'search spamming'.
I tried to achieve a more NPV. To the previous editors, I hope you don't mind such a big change, but it really needed work. I tried to preserve most of the existing content but wrapped it in more defensible material and some references. Still needed: more history, more references, move the company links out of the article and into articles for the companies themselves if they have them. Mtanne 09:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks great so far. Glad to see that it remains an article. It did need a lot of work, thanks for your contributions! (Toritaiyo 17:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC))
I guess this is the non-technical definition relevance feedback, a technology that has been under research for decades before this commercially oriented and naive article says. I think it needs to be harmonized with the article on relevance feedback. Furthermore, the commercial references should be removed or at least moved to list of search engines. Josh Froelich 19:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree that this should be harmonized with relevance feedback, however a distinction should be maintained between human feedback, where the human could be editors, testers, etc. versus input from a large network of end users, which is a relatively newer phenomenon. e.g. large numbers of editors edited conventional encyclopedias, but wikipedia was still a new phenomenon worth describing since the editorial process is owned by the audience. Mtanne 11:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Social search is not emerging. Some of the claims in the current version imply that certain listed companies dominate a marketspace. This is market-speak and simply untrue. This article needs to be written with the proper context, that of relevance feedback, a concept in use for over a decade, contrary to the uncited claims in this current revision. Josh Froelich 01:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- I rephrased the intro sentence to indicate that those companies did not invent nor dominate social search, but that they were among the earliest companies where the new term was used to describe what they are doing. I removed the accuracy template, because what it states now is factual correct. Who came up with the term or definition is still unclear and requires research and valid references to proof it. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 00:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
"The term social search began to emerge between 2004 and 2005" Is there a source for this? Would be interesting to know.
Update to this article
The term social search has been co-opted by many in the tech industry to refer to the act of using social network contacts (twitter, FB) to help produce search results. Bing has just rolled out some features directly related to what I am saying. Does anyone disagree with taking the article in that direction? A. Ward (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)