Jump to content

Talk:List of search engines

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kizikky (talk | contribs) at 00:18, 30 May 2012 (→‎Edit request from Kizikky, 30 May 2012: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Page has spam

Black Google Mobile reference added by account which was created to promote website. Black Google Mobile wikipedia page is promoting a website (bgoog.com) and is not a real article about any Google website but a page used for SEO. Request that reference is removed. See history of accounts who wrote the article Black Google mobile to see that several accounts were created just to edit that page and get internal wikipedia link for SEO purposes so that the Wikipedia entry would rank high in Google to promote the website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.188 (talk) 10:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Startpage ( http://www.startpage.com )

This is a newer search engine that bills itself as being "the world's most private search engine." Startpage doesn't record your IP address. It's results are very comprehensive and accurate. It really needs added to the list of search engines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.129.229.25 (talk) 03:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Provaat ( http://www.provaat.com )

The first Bangladeshi Search Engine in the Web. The largest educational search engine and specially have a better search option for the students —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.211.7.12 (talk) 05:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AAfter Search ( http://aafter.com )

It is a general search engine that combines search with applications. It has been around over 5 years, and has plenty of references on the web. Can you add it?

no Whoosh yet?

There is no wikipedia entry on Whoosh but... how is it non notable? I can site literally thousands of example of pop culture trivia being on wikipedia, and dont understand the consistency here. Whoosh is one of the only pure python search engines Decora (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability criteria are described here - WP:N and WP:NSOFT. A unique feature doesn't make some software notable. There must exist several published sources about the subject. For example, Apache Lucene is notable 'cos there are books about it. -- X7q (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

iGlue

iGlue is a new semantic search engine and annotation tool. http://iglue.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triptonemeister (talk • contribs) 11:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Angle Theory Search Engine

First Technology in computer world, which allows internet surfing to non English and illiterates also. 75% population in this world can not identify English alphabets. But by cyber law a website's name could be register in English language only. Atoall.com solve this problem Angle Theory Search Engine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.253.217.166 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 19 March 2009

Map Search: RandMcNally.com

I think the Maps section should include (http://www.RandMcNally.com). It does have it's own Wikipedia page which states; "Rand McNally is the preeminent American publisher of maps, atlases, and globes for travel, reference, commercial, and educational uses." Hard to believe it's not on the list already. The mmost generic map search they have is at: (http://www.randmcnally.com/rmc/directions/dirGetMapInput.jsp?cmty=0) Maureen32RR

I think it would be appropriate to add Zuula.com under the metasearch category. There is short Wikipedia article about Zuula at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuula, but it has few/no links to it. Full disclosure: I am from Zuula. Timwhunt (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your disclosure. After some research, I am of the opinion that Zuula may not yet be notable enough for encyclopedia coverage, and as such I have nominated it for deletion. If this leads to consensus to keep the article (usually after one week), we should list it here. Haakon (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I do not appreciate your criteria for selection: popularity is not necessarily a sign of value, on the contrary. You are just pushing in the way where electronic writing and communication offers the lowest human interest and is close to bring all users to cyberdiabete and cyberasphyxia! Zuula is a very seriously managed tool that offers freedom in consultation, just helping you to jump quickly from one search engine to another to take some distance with the various pertinency algorithmes used by the various engines. Freedom of choice is a quality and Zuula is almost as good as many metasearch engines listed in the LIST OF METASEARCH ENGINES of Wikipedia. Thank you to use "objective" criteria; statistics do not give an "objective" argument unless they are proposed with an appropriate commentary. This is a question of quality versus quantity!

80.200.9.243 (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)([user R.-F. Poswick]) 10:15, 19 august 2010 (Belgium)80.200.9.243 (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't added these yet, but here are some external links which I think belong at the bottom of the page:

--Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 23:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like those links. The side-by-side test I found interesting. I tried a couple of searches for my name and turned up Yahoo looked the best both times, Bing the worst. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Atta1983, 17 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} add http://buuzo.com [metasearch engine]

Atta1983 (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: this search engine does not yet seem to be notable enough for its own Wikipedia article. It can be added once it is. Tim Pierce (talk) 01:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two search engine missing

http://www.topsite.com/ - a general search engine (Alexa rank 33000 +-) http://www.similarsites.com/ - similarity search engine (Alexa rank 6500 +-)

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.0.106.165 (talk) 10:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are missing because they don't have articles on Wikipedia. Notice that every search engine listed in the article is not an external link, but an internal Wikilink to a Wikipedia article about that search engine. If the two you identify are sufficiently notable to merit their own stand-alone articles on Wikipedia, then write the articles and add them to this list. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is another one "Spectate Swamp Desktop Search" --zzo38(✉) 16:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it meets Wikipedia notability guidelines (which I doubt), then you could write an article about it, and add to this list. -- X7q (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not write that program and don't know much about it. What I do know is that it is written in VB5 and the codes is public domain. It stores all search data in a single plain-text file. I also know it can play videos (including in slow-motion "golf" mode), and it can apparently play a random audio file starting from a random position in the file for a random amount of time. I think it even has a screen-saver mode. The author of this program is commonly believed to be insane by some people. --zzo38(✉) 22:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Search engines in indian languages

Please list the search engine in indian languages. 1. http://searchko.in 2. http://www.guruji.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.165.25.137 (talk • contribs) September 9, 2010

Guruji.com is already listed. There's no article about your other site, so it shouldn't be added to the list. -- X7q (talk) 09:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Aribera78, 3 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Extended content

Metasearch engines =

See also: Metasearch engine

Aribera78 (talk) 10:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What change did you make? The list appears to be exactly the same. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 10:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another Meta Search Engines that can be added

http://www.megasearches.com/default.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.134.34.136 (talk) 01:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: this search engine does not yet seem to be notable enough for its own Wikipedia article. It can be added once it is. DMacks (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands of users including me using this meta search engine from more than 25 countries. I believe it is notable enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.134.34.136 (talk) 02:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The standard to be listed in a "List of..." wikipedia page is for something to have its own wikipedia page (this is an encyclopedia-articles table of contents, not a website/business directory). The standard for a page about a specific website is WP:WEB. DMacks (talk) 02:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shodan

I would like to list Shodan (http://www.shodanhq.com) as a search engine, but I'm uncertain which category would fit it best. A 'Security' category would be optimal, but that doesn't seem to exist. Since it's a totally different kind of search engine than anything else on the internet, and it's been covered by major news outlets (http://www.heise.de/security/meldung/Angreifer-nehmen-Industriesteuerungen-im-Internet-aufs-Korn-1129657.html, http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/shodan-search-exposes-insecure-scada-systems/7611, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/02/scada_search_engine_warning/, ), I think it would be worthwhile listing. When it launched a year ago it also got press coverage in various smaller news outlets and security columns. Let me know how best to proceed and whether this is something that can be put on Wikipedia. Thanks. Achillean (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem interesting and novel; I heard about it today and immediately looked for a corresponding Wiki article, and was surprised to find nothing. Maybe the fact that it requires registration has decreased visibility of the tool? Destynova (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Rcollamore, 7 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Real estate / property

Rcollamore (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Dabomb87 (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Web Wiki

I'd like to suggest the Deep Web Wiki search engine. In particular, its Health & Medicine (http://www.deepwebwiki.com/medicine/medicine_index.php) and Technology (http://www.deepwebwiki.com/technology/technology_index.php) groups of vertical search engines use screened lists of sites to produce more focused/relevant search results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 52vermont20 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Solr

Under open source engines, Solr should be added--perhaps on the same line as Lucene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.236.128.43 (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ask.com-MUST READ URGENT

As many of you may have heard, Ask.com is no longer it's own search engine (Google it), as it has abandoned its ventures in the search business. It's algorithm is taken from another search engine (Ask won't say who), and therefore, I think it should be taken off the list as a general search engine-it is now a question and answer service and should be placed in the same category as wiki answers and yahoo answers. I hope to see this change implemented soon. Thank You. Additionally, if one was to go to Ask.com's wiki page it is started off by saying that Ask.com WAS a search engine...In late 2010, the company ABANDONED its search engine roots.Theguythatisaguy (talk) 02:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC) why isnt amypne commenting on this im pissed[reply]

I reverted the comment by an IP which removed this from this page; however, after looking into the matter I've made the change. As a side note, if you want to get someone's attention who can edit the page, what you should do is include {{edit semi-protected}} in your post, which adds this page to a special category that gets checked for people wanting to make changes to semi-protected pages like this one. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from S2009qw, 2 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please add Yometa.com to the Meta Search engine list, as it is a significant meta search engine being the only visual meta search engine that allows users to see multiple search engine results in a venn diagram

S2009qw (talk) 11:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Yometa does not have a Wikipedia which is required to add a website on the list. Baseball Watcher 17:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weVICTORY

A new search engine called weVICTORY is also claiming to be better than Google. It tries to eliminate small websites that spam search engines with many backlinks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by China9 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Sherrycom, 15 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Could you add to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_search_engines#Metasearch_engines this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babieca.com with the title Babieca.com .This article is an orphan, as few or no other articles link to it. Thanks in advance.

Sherrycom (talk) 08:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: Let's wait and see if the article survives deletion, as I've just nominated it since it doesn't appear to meet our notability criteria (general or website specific). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List Of Search Engines

i like the way the "List Of Search Engines, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_search_engines) was written but i believe it is incomplete at least for one catagory, "Religious". there are several links i would like to see added under a Religious catagory like: http://seekfind.org/ , http://www.theislamicsearch.com/ , http://www.jewogle.com/ etc.. i am not good at editting wiki pages but i would like to see someone add a new catagory for Religious search engines please. EarthTrex (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This list can only contain search engines that are notable enough for their own wikipage. If any of those sites meet the notability guidelines for internet content, it may be possible to create pages about them and then link them here. Note that the main criteria for determining if subjects are notable enough for an article is whether or not there are multiple, independent reliable sources that talk about that subject in substantial detail. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

search engine missing

Hi a general search that should be included is My Safe Search http://www.mysafesearch.co.uk 22-02-20011 90.215.26.53 (talk) 12:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page only lists search engines that have their own wikipedia article. If My Safe Search is notable for its own article, and one is created in the future, then it can be added to this list. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

enterprise search engine

Hello, thought I should mention another enterprise search product: Coveo. In fact, it is the company name which produces at least 2 enterprise search products and have received many awards.

Sherlock Holmes search engine

Hello, The developers of this search engine are not making a noise about it, but I found it a very good replacement for my old and faithful 1996 Harvest search engine for Linux. It's GPL/LGPL. http://www.ucw.cz/holmes/. I'm not an expert wikipedia user but if you create a page for it, I'll fill it with content. I've been configuring it as a personal search engine + resource spider and it's very good. I am not affiliated with the developers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.48.133.202 (talk) 07:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Bkqc (talk) 13:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zanran[1] is for Data Search - it's for finding data and statistics. Specifically, it looks for graphs, charts and tables - and has been live (in beta) since 1st April 2011.

It doesn't really fit into the existing classification of search engines. Can we create a new one for 'Data Search'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonZanran (talk • contribs) 08:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC) JonZanran (talk) 08:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This list only contains sites that already have their own Wikipedia pages (i.e., that have already been found to be notable). If such a page is created (which will need to show that zanran has been the subject of detailed discussion in multiple, independent, reliable sources), then we can figure out where to add it here. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Archewizard, 20 April 2011 --request to add ovi map to geo search item.

I want to add ovi map to the geog search item. thanks.

Archewizard (talk) 06:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: looking at Ovi Maps, that doesn't appear to be a search engine--it's a mapping product found on Nokia phones. That's not quite the same thing. Just because it has a search function doesn't make it a search engine. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Jplehmann, 28 April 2011

I would add Quora.com as a search engine under human answers, in a parallel to StackOverflow.com.

jplehmann (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: this list is for Wikipedia articles and no article exists for that search engine. — Bility (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, now I've properly linked it: I would add Quora as a search engine under human answers, in a parallel to StackOverflow.com. --jplehmann (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also instead or in addition to Stack Overflow, Stack Exchange should be listed which is the set of websites of which Stack Overflow is one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jplehmann (talk • contribs) 19:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done since you found the articles. CTJF83 20:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Akobylinski55, 17 May 2011

Please add Healthline to the list of search engines under medical.

Akobylinski55 (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Baseball Watcher 00:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Kkireyev, 20 May 2011

We are working on a search engine for educational content called InstaGrok http://www.instagrok.com

I would like to see a new category "Education" and InstaGrok listed under it.

There are other engines like CiteSeer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CiteSeer) that may also go under "Education" or "Academic"

Thanks, Kirill

Kkireyev (talk) 00:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: By prior consensus, only search engines that have their own wikipage may appear on this list. If InstaGrok is notable (that is, has been discussed in detail in multiple, independent, reliable sources), you may consider creating a new Wikipage for them; the easiest way for a new user to do that is through WP:Articles for Creation. After such time as they have a viable article, they may be added to this list. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This 'answer' seems to address only the first part of the request, and ignores the general principle of the last sentence.
I suggest that the new category requested would be an unecessary duplication of List of academic databases and search engines, which includes CiteSeer.
—DIV (138.194.11.244 (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Why is "general" section not updated?

I notice that this Wikipage is highly monitored and for the right reasons (because it is sensitive to abuses by opportunists who want to sneak in and add their inadequate/fake search engine sites into it in order to attract traffic. But likewise the legit engines are evolving. And the authorized editors should accordingly update those relevant changes since otherwise Wikipedia gives the impression that it is being either incompetent or worse, deliberately misinforming.

Two of those changes are:

Ask.com ···> it is NO LONGER an independent search engine by it's OWN admission since late 2010 (already half a year ago!)
Kosmix.com ···> this one doesn't even exist anymore (replaced by a social media [twitter]service) this also happend months ago

Why are these changes not implemented? What are the authorized updaters of this page waiting for? Do they have a vested interest in allowing false information to remain on Wikipedia for weeks and weeks even AFTER others have told them of the change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loginnigol (talk • contribs) 09:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, please don't use such an accusatory tone. All work on Wikipedia is done by volunteers, so it's not fair to expect that all information is updated to match the real world instantaneously. On your specifics, Ask.com isn't listed as a search engine anymore, and was removed when someone requested it before. What we have are 3 sites allegedly "based on Ask.com". First, that may actually still be correct, but, if not, the question is, where should those engines go? I don't know enough about them to be able to tell. On Kosmix.com, no one her mentioned that there was a change, and, furthermore nothing on the Kosmix article indicates that they are not longer a search engine. Do you have a reliable source stating they no longer operate a search engine? Why would you assume that we would automatically be aware of this and then accuse us of having "vested interests"? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well first of all it's a bit baffling that a request to update a more than half-year outdated information is regarded as "real world instantaneous" matter. Anyways, as to the specifics, I don't know what you mean by "ask dot com is removed" I can see it still on the page, right above "Baidu" and right under the "GENERAL" section title. That particular GENERAL section is the only part I am inquiring about (not further down the page among the various search categories, where it might still be appropriate to list it). As to your question "where did those engines go" I don't see how this question is relevant to the GENERAL section. All that matters there is whether ask.com has it's own "in house" search-mechanism and the answer to that is 100% definite NO, This uncontested fact has already been announced by Ask.com itself (also reported widely the media). That is already enough reliable information to update the GENERAL section without knowing what else is going on with the site.
Regarding kosmix you claim that "nothing on there indicates they are no longer a search engine". But wait a minute who are "they"? You forgot that we are only talking about one website kosmix.com which Wikipedia is falsely regarding as a serach engine site while the site isn't even functioning as a destination site anymore. It now appears to be just a web-traffic redirect site. So when you said "THEY" you are refering to another thing with another address, not kosmix.com. So if you are convinced that that other thing is a search engine, then you should put THAT other thing on the list and remove kosmix from the GENERAL section. After all the website itself says that it doesn't exist! Also a few tech company sites report this disappearance, literally saying "goodbye kosmix hello @..."). The fact that a search engine site no longer exists at the original site is good enough reason to remove that original site from GENERAL section. --Loginnigol (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry on the ask.com; somehow I missed it in the general section. On Kosmix, I looked at our article, not the actual site; I now see that it is not an engine. I'll remove both now. By the way, it looks to me like you're probably an autoconfirmed user, so I think you can make such edits directly. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Hhh1200, 9 July 2011

Hhh1200 (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the massive cut&paste of the article. Can you please simply state what change you'd like to propose? Kuru (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Their is also FrigginSearch.com

I use http://www.FrigginSearch.com. I didn't see that search engine listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.3.233.69 (talk) 04:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only search engines that have their own article in Wikipedia may be added to this list. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SearchTeam ( http://searchteam.com )

This is a new collaborative/social search engine whose slogan is "search alone no more". It calls itself the world's first real-time collaborative search and curation engine. Although it is new, it has gotten some good reviews and coverage from the blogosphere. Jtwall12 (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only search engines that have their own article in WP may be added to this list. Note, also, that getting coverage from the blogosphere won't be enough to create an article, as blogs aren't considerd to be reliable sources and thuse won't be sufficient to verify whether or not the engine is notable. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Content-based Natural Language Search Engine

New content-based Natural Language search engine available on Google's AppSpot:

http://c-t-search.appspot.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedude hmann (talk • contribs) 05:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only search engines that have their own article in WP may be added to this list. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should Wikia Search in social search engines be deleted? The search engine has shut down. Jtwall12 (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


It is also listed in Open-Source Search Engines. - River *<:@)

 Partly done, added note explaining how the website is now defunct. There is still an article and relevant information so I shan't remove the link altogether (for now, anyway). --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 18:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Abhinavwizkid, 12 August 2011

Request for addition of another search engine, "amseek" URL: www.amseek.com to the list of search engines. The mentioned site is a meta-search engine and steadily gaining a good reputation of giving good results and is comes after dogpile and mamma. [1] Abhinavwizkid (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Currently there is a consensus that only search engines about which a Wikipedia article exists should be added to the list. This is because a website has to satisfy certain minimum notability requirements for a Wikipedia article to be created about it. There is no article about your search engine, so it should not be added. I have only found a user page User:Amseek, which clearly appears to be promotional and so I have requested its speedy deletion. -- X7q (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 78.178.211.93, 17 September 2011

In "General" section, we should add a new search engine, which is Replaz. The URL is: http://www.replaz.com 78.178.211.93 (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As described many times above, only engines which have their own WP article may be included on this list. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Search Engines - Simplyhired.com in Job Search engines

Simply Hired.com is like the largest "jobs" related search engine in the world. It is not listed in the Jobs search engines section. Should Probably add it. It is 6 years old....

The article is also missing Gibiru.com in the "News" search engines section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coupmediagroup (talk • contribs) 20:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added Simply Hired, but we can't add Gibiru because they don't have their own Wikipedia page, and this list only covers those sites notable enough for their own page. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm going to remove Simply Hired. It's not a search engine--it's an employment site that aggregates content onto its own site and redistributes some of it to partner sites. That's fundamentally different from a search engine. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the name "Ht://dig"?

Section "By model", "Open source search engines": is it really named "Ht://dig"? --Mortense (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is "ht://Dig" (note the capitalisation - see http://www.htdig.org/) - needs correction in the list - River *<:@)
 Done - with this edit - Begoon talk 07:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sites addition.

Is http://www.scroogle.org/ notable enough for an addition? It's one of the more popular alternatives to Google and other sites due to its increased privacy settings. Or http://www.alltheinternet.com/ which is like a search engine aggregator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XIlluminatusx (talk • contribs) 07:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only sites that have their own Wikipedia article may be added (i.e., that meet our notability guidelines for websites). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 22 December 2011

I would like to suggest the addition of the GrepCode Java Source code search engine to the list of Search Engines under the "Source Code" Category. In support of this request, here are some links to notable sites:

http://xmlbeans.apache.org/index.html This XMLBeans Apache project names GrepCode as a way to search the project's source code. The Apache Foundation (which hosts this project) is a reputed organization that hosts notable projects.

http://www.jgrapht.org/ The JGraphT project is an open source project that suggests the use of GrepCode for searching the project's sources.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3874849/code-searching-browsing-cross-referenced-web-sites Stack Overflow is a popular site that allows users to ask programming related questions to be answered by other users. Independent users have recommended GrepCode for searching source code. There are currently 44 different Stack Overflow pages that mention Grep Code.

http://sziebert.net/posts/grepcode/ This is an independent blog that mentions the GrepCode Search Engine.

The GrepCode site is http://grepcode.com and the Wikipedia page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grepcode

Thanks.

Vinayak.borkar (talk) 03:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, does not appear to be notable, and I just speedy deleted the article for the same reason--Jac16888 Talk 04:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jac16888,

I would please urge you to reconsider your decision of deleting the page. I have below a link to the Google Code Search mailing list (maintained by Google) which mentions GrepCode as an alternative for users to use, now that Google has shut down their code search engine. Link: http://groups.google.com/group/google-code-search/browse_thread/thread/fa2e2908c47df068?pli=1.

Please let us know what more you would like to see in support of our notability.

Thanks, Vinayak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinayak.borkar (talk • contribs) 05:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to discuss the speedy deletion. In any event, though, one mention on Google itself is not sufficient to establish notability. If you wish to contest the deletion, take it to Jac's talk page, please. Until such time as it is undeleted or recreated, though, it cannot be in this article. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A new Google based search engine - SpoGo

I came across a great new way to search the web and thought it might be useful to add to this article.SpoGo (www.SpoGo.co) focuses on raising awareness for charities and non-profits, yet still provides the users with the same results they would expect from Google (I believe they use a Google Custom Search Engine). The best part is that every day someone uses it, they make a donation to each of the featured charities on their homepage! (there's 2 featured charities on there as of now...but it looks like they've featured 5 or 6 others as well so far).

Lettauc (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)Cody Lettau - January 19th, 2012[reply]

Cosmetic changes for consistencies sake...

Okay... it bugged me often enough that I created a list of the sites that have been listed our of alphabetical order (as per every other listing on the page). Below is listed the section heading with one or more arrows pointing to sites in their correct position with complete context given for their old and new positions. Some of these mistakes might be seen as bias unless the full range of mistakes was seen. I should note the reason for two choices being given in the change in the Business category is due to the engines limited geographical scope... should this be relevant in other categories? If so does the rest of the page need to be checked?

Geographically limited scope

  • Maktoob, Arab World
  • Miner.hu, Hungary
  • Najdi.si, Slovenia
  • Naver, Korea
  • Onkosh, Arab World <-
  • Rambler, Russia

Business

  • Business.com
  • GenieKnows (United States and Canada) <- OR
  • GlobalSpec
  • Nexis (Lexis Nexis)
  • GenieKnows (United States and Canada) <-
  • Thomasnet (United States)

Food/Recipes

  • RecipeBridge: vertical search engine for recipes
  • Yummly: semantic recipe search <-

Legal

  • Google Scholar <-
  • Lexis (Lexis Nexis)
  • Manupatra
  • Quicklaw <-
  • WestLaw <-

News

  • Bing News
  • Daylife <-
  • Google News
  • MagPortal

Blog

  • IceRocket
  • Regator <-
  • Technorati

Multimedia

  • ScienceStage
  • SeeqPod <-
  • Songza
  • TinEye <-
  • TV Genius
  • Veveo
  • Yahoo! Video

Price

  • BestPrice <-
  • Bing Shopping
  • Google Product Search (formerly Froogle)

Human answers

  • Uclue
  • wikiHow <-
  • Yahoo! Answers

Open source search engines

  • Isearch
  • Lemur Toolkit & Indri Search Engine <-
  • Lucene
  • mnoGoSearch

BTW, I don't warrant I got the all! ;) -- River *<:@) (2012-02-10 8:06 UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sorry, I really don't understand, (is your English off or can I just not read today? haha). In simple terms, what do you need changing? Please re-open the edit request once you've answered. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 19:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Er... maybe I was too convoluted! Basically the entries marked with an arrow are not correctly listed in alphabetical order and should be moved. (I hope that is clearer... I'd normally have done this myself but can't for this page) - River *<:@) - 2012-02-11 03:57 (UTC)

 Done Celestra (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Substantially duplicate page

I don't know what the situation is with duplicate pages but this page and Outline of search engines are substantially the same, they could do with being merged, a redirect added and the talk page from List of search engines being retained for the final page due to a laundry list of pending edits since it is also a semi-protected page (unlike Outline of search engines at present) - River *<:@) - 2012-2-11 03:59 (UTC)

 Not done: This is outside the scope of an edit request. Please you generate consensus for combining the two. Celestra (talk) 02:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Edit request from Bluewhitebeaver, 14 February 2012

search2.net is a general search engine with an international index and with his own crawler. http://www.search2.net

Bluewhitebeaver (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only engines that have their own WP article appear on this list; to have an article, you'd need to prove that the engine is notable. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Search directory / Listings directory, TrueLocal.com.au

Under section 'Geographically limited scope', the site www.truelocal.com.au should be included, in a similar flavour as Ziplocal. This site pertains to extensive business listings specifically for Australia.

The company is part of News Corp and under the News Digital Media arm. TrueLocal has been around since 2005.

TrueLocal.com.au has over 1.1 million business listings across Australia and with over 4 million visits per month.

There is no article for TrueLocal.com.au

Suggestions on how to remedy this?

Thanks. Michaelowm (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC) michaelowm[reply]

To have an article, you would need to show that the search engine (not its parent company) is notable. To do this, you would need to find multiple, independent references that talk about the site. If you've never created an article before, it may be easiest to use WP:Articles for creation, which is a service where new users such as yourself create an article (there's some templates that will help you get started), and then an experienced Wikipedian will review it to see if it meets our minimum criteria for inclusion. Let me know if you have questions. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request for Jobs

I think it is also worth including in the Jobs the search engines run by Adzuna (Presently a UK centric search site, due to expand) which has over 500k listings across jobs. Currently, Adzuna already has its own wiki page. Adzuna's job search site is quite notable, and there are quite many references to the site from the national newspapers.

1.9 Job

Adzuna (UK)

Cmy 82 (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please include the Latino Search Engine Webeton.com on your search engine list

http://www.webeton.com is a specialized search engine for Latino users in the United States and Latin America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.61.42 (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no separate wikipedia article about it, it shouldn't be listed here. Create the article first. Please read notibility guidelines, and cite sources in your article to show that your search engine is indeed notable. Else the article would be deleted. -- X7q (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notice a couple redlinks to deleted articles that should be removed from this list: Turbo10 and Evri. Thanks! 173.48.120.161 (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for noticing this! -- X7q (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 10 April 2012

would like to add CBCJobs.com and AceTiger.com to job search engines in United States, thanks

Califmerchant2 (talk) 05:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The list appears to include search engines which are notable, in the sense that they qualify for a wikipedia article. Without sources, I'm not sure non-notable pages would qualify for inclusion. Feel free to re-enable the requested edit template once we have sources. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gamedipper - game search engine

With gamedipper.com it is possible to search for similar video game, if you enter one that you already like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zviedris (talk • contribs) 09:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Kizikky, 30 May 2012

In the General section of the By content/topic section, WireDoo is at the bottom of the list. As it is already done with most of the lists on this article, I believe it should be organized in alphabetical order. WireDoo should go between of Volunia and Yahoo!. --Kizikky (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ www.amseek.com
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_search_engines&oldid=495044161"