Talk:Vertical search

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This entire page feels like an outdated term paper written by a junior-college business student - it is simply awful and increasingly useless. Somehow it is also promotional, like it could be used in said business student's first proposal to an IT department.

Example:

Like consumers, businesses use the Internet for a variety of needs.

Seriously?

If the dentist performs a Google search on the keyword "ceramics",

I would think a dentist would be a bit more specific with searches, unless they actually want to find cermaics of all possible kinds.

This article is an embarassment to Wikipedia. I would completely revise it, but after reading the article, I actually feel I know less about this subject. As noted on this talk page I also have a sneaking suspicion that my edits would be reversed. --Elikser (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


Scottwrites (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC) I'm thinking this article is a bit dated. It mostly considers "vertical" search as a business function. What about Web vs. Blogs vs. Video vs. Forums, etc. These are all what most seem to consider vertical aspects of search. In this case, it's by multimedia type. Then there's things like local and other geographic search, not to mention more esoteric specialties like chemicals or other non-textual type searches. (I'd maybe refer to these as "Symbolic Search." (Yeah, I think I like that.)

Anyway, I'm thinking this whole article needs to be re-cast in light of how the term vertical search is being used. I'll wait and see if there's any discussion here before I consider a major revision.


Test Should search engines created with Google Coop be considered as vertical search sites? I don't think so, but maybe I'm wrong. (unsigned comment by Kiani 2006-12-05T23:15:59 )

Rupert Black (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC) I have been trying to post a link in the references section to a download of the "Vertical Search Survey 2008" and it keeps getting taken out by an editor - I find this quite annoying as the survey contains good information, and is similar to the download facility used by other contributors to this page. Rupert Black Rupert Black (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Its a Survey, not a resource about the subject. see Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox--Hu12 (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Tone[edit]

Not sure if that's possible, but this sounds like an advertisement. (of an entire business field) 64.231.203.116 18:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It is an advertisement. 90.135.216.19 (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I added in depth analysis of vertical search engine and broad base search engine, article is as follows, do not delete it.Any deletion for this is absolutely with no reason. I find the exciting content is very much towards towards advertising on LookSmart.

Other important factors why vertical search engines co-exist with general search are its in-depth description/profile of an advertiser. Examples are BaiDu is a general search engine in Chinese language. Alibaba.com is a vertical search engine for china import/export manufactures. User doing Baidu search can probably find advertisers of Alibaba.com, but because Aliaba.com provides more rating and in-depth service profile of the advertiser, it still co-exist with BaiDu and provides buyer with more valuable information. On US market, B to C side you can consider eBay.com as a vertical commerce site, because it has user ratings on merchants which are not available in Google. So does Yelp.com where rating is the differentiator of this site. Amazon.com is again a B to C vertical search site for books and now varieties of commerce with ratings. On B to B side, BuyerZone.com connects small business buyer and seller. RequestFill.com connects IT requester and IT service providers. Again all vertical search engines has overlapping area on advertisers with general search engine, but vertical search engine provides much more in-depth search process with advertiser’s service profile and rating in place and therefore gets more serious buyers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.121.31 (talk) 03:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

How can you possibly know the reasons people would have for editing Wikipedia? Everything has a reason. This information is not exciting, it is promotional. 90.135.216.19 (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This category description for Vertical Search is a complete mess - last external link in 2006????? A paragraph on Looksmart??? I tried posting two recent articles from ReadWriteWeb and SearchEngineLand giving a listing of vertical search sites and it was edited out..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.133.116.245 (talk) 02:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Starting from Scratch[edit]

I rewrote the entry as a stub. At least it's not an ad now. Dtunkelang (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)