Talk:Index term: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
m added comment |
No edit summary |
||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:I agree that ''internet search'' keywords is too limited in scope but keywords in general are a pretty important concept so I think we do need a separate article on it. I propose it should be "Keyword (search)" i.e. not limited to web searches, and should be expanded to cover the various uses in other places including indexes, databases, library catalogs, etc. As it is now the [[information retrieval]] article doesn't even have the word "keyword" in it anywhere (boggles the mind...) --[[User:Bookgrrl|Bookgrrl]] 04:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC) |
:I agree that ''internet search'' keywords is too limited in scope but keywords in general are a pretty important concept so I think we do need a separate article on it. I propose it should be "Keyword (search)" i.e. not limited to web searches, and should be expanded to cover the various uses in other places including indexes, databases, library catalogs, etc. As it is now the [[information retrieval]] article doesn't even have the word "keyword" in it anywhere (boggles the mind...) --[[User:Bookgrrl|Bookgrrl]] 04:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
::Good point, I agree. The concept behind a 'keyword' does seem deserving of its own article. And the article should not be restricted to within the context of the Internet. While I am not an AOL user, I recall when AOL introduced the 'keyword' based access to content within their service, which is related to this. But yes, I also understand the difference between a keyword versus a functional word (a noise word or a stopword). That, or a generalized concept like those found in [[concept mining]]. So yeah, I guess, this should be its own article, but it still is too highly independent of the closely related articles. [[User:Jfroelich|Josh Froelich]] 18:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC) |
::Good point, I agree. The concept behind a 'keyword' does seem deserving of its own article. And the article should not be restricted to within the context of the Internet. While I am not an AOL user, I recall when AOL introduced the 'keyword' based access to content within their service, which is related to this. But yes, I also understand the difference between a keyword versus a functional word (a noise word or a stopword). That, or a generalized concept like those found in [[concept mining]]. So yeah, I guess, this should be its own article, but it still is too highly independent of the closely related articles. [[User:Jfroelich|Josh Froelich]] 18:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
* there seem to be a few too many external links here, and some of them sound very advertismentish. |
Revision as of 03:48, 13 April 2007
- this should be harmonized with all the other articles related to information retrieval and searching and search engines. i am not totally convinced it should be its own article Josh Froelich 04:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that internet search keywords is too limited in scope but keywords in general are a pretty important concept so I think we do need a separate article on it. I propose it should be "Keyword (search)" i.e. not limited to web searches, and should be expanded to cover the various uses in other places including indexes, databases, library catalogs, etc. As it is now the information retrieval article doesn't even have the word "keyword" in it anywhere (boggles the mind...) --Bookgrrl 04:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Good point, I agree. The concept behind a 'keyword' does seem deserving of its own article. And the article should not be restricted to within the context of the Internet. While I am not an AOL user, I recall when AOL introduced the 'keyword' based access to content within their service, which is related to this. But yes, I also understand the difference between a keyword versus a functional word (a noise word or a stopword). That, or a generalized concept like those found in concept mining. So yeah, I guess, this should be its own article, but it still is too highly independent of the closely related articles. Josh Froelich 18:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- there seem to be a few too many external links here, and some of them sound very advertismentish.