Talk:ALIWEB

the information on this page disagrees with info on the page 'search engine' - which page is correct ? tommylommykins 14:59, August 9, 2005 (UTC) Aliweb searched for idx files and those files could be changed by their owners. It did not spider html pages but did spider idx files but only after owners notified Aliweb of their presence. It was a very unintrusive way of gathering information compared to wandex which it was an answer to as wandex killed bandwidth on servers and did so without permission.

I've done a little cleanup of this stub, including removing the link to aliweb.com, which is not related to the original ALIWEB in any way other than by name.Bill Slawski 23:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Aliweb.com is very related to the original Aliweb. It has the update of the original database and still uses the same code as was used originally with some fixes.

Restored article to edit before Bill Slawski changed it back to the wrong information.

I am currently the lead programmer working on Aliweb - and I have edited some of the current article. I would appreciate Mr. Slawski not deleting any more sections from it.

As far as anyone can tell, you are an anonymous user of wikipedia. You don't need to sign in to make edits here, but they are prone to being edited. Perhaps some citations that can be referenced to back your statements would be helpful. The only statement that I see about ALIWEB is on the original developer's site which says that the present day pages are unrelated to the original site. As it stands now, this entry in the wikipedia is promotional rather than informational. Help it become something that won't be edited away. Bill Slawski 20:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I really can't understand this logic. If I work for Aliweb then it should follow that I know a little about the subject. Can you point to anything that is NOT factual about the current article? Further - since the current site states it is the web's first search engine, and gives the date that it first started in the title, and has the same name, I think it would be quite obvious that the original Aliweb, and the current Aliweb are one in the same and of course have something more than just the name in common. Obviously Mr. Koster is no longer involved with the Aliweb project, and his personal web page is not very complimentary of the current web site or owners. He is certainly entitled to his opinion. I have no animosity towards Mr. Koster and have not deleted nor intend to delete any of the references to him or his achievements as they relate to Aliweb. His contributions to the web speak for themselves.

As for being promotional, nothing stated is not factual to my knowledge. It just seems rather odd to delete a url to a page that states to have substantial ties to the subject matter, I state otherwise and then when you are corrected, to then delete the url again. I would suspect that at least a negative disparaging factual statement that aliweb.com with a link is not related to the original aliweb would be in order if you believe that the current site is not related and certainly would be more accurate than simply deleting it entirely.

The bottom line is I am the lead programmer for Aliweb, and I have done extensive research into the history of Aliweb. I know this subject, backwards, forwards, inside out. So please, please, unless you have a real factual inaccurate mistake to fix or something factual to add to the article, stop deleting my additions to it (I'll just repost them anyway).

I'm not trying to argue with you. Make it easy for people to verify your statements, who your are, etc. Use some citations, create a user name, expand upon some of that history here that you know so well.Bill Slawski 14:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Alksub - What exactly is the point of deleting the links to Aliweb throughout the article?

It is unnecessary to link over and over again to the same site. One link in the most appropriate place in the text is the normal Wikipedia practice. In this case the most appropriate place seems to be the paragraph about the current site. I also agree with Bill that citations are required. --Genie 18:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)