Talk:Human search engine
|This article is/was the subject of an educational assignment in Fall 2015. Further details are available on the course page.|
|WikiProject Computing / Software||(Rated Stub-class)|
|This page was nominated for deletion on November 21, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep without consensus.|
- 1 Strong objection to the deletion of this article
- 2 Specific/distinct meaning?
- 3 Search Amigo
- 4 Human Search Engine
- 5 Irony
- 6 Non-notable Websites?
- 7 Delete this page if you want, but it is becoming clear why
- 8 Wider debate about deleting this page
- 9 Regarding the Merge with article 'orgranic search'
- 10 Rajendra singh inda
Strong objection to the deletion of this article
Sources have been cited below that prove without a doubt that Human Search Engine is indeed commonly used. If Wikipedia wants to delete everything THEY refer to as a neologism, then there are A LOT of articles that need to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk)
Search Amigo is relevant and should have an article no matter where it is listed.
Human Search Engine
The term Human Search Engine has been used since the year 2000. So the real question is, how is Social Search any different from a Human Search Engine? Not the other way around.
Some journalists are saying Wikipedia itself is going to launch a "human search engine", yet Wikipedia wants to delete the entry. Wow. Is there more to all this?
- There's nothing hidden here: all that matters is whether the wikipedia article actually mentions and cites these things. If nobody bothers to add cites to the article, it's not much better than if no cites actually exist at all. If two things are described indistinguishably from each other, then there's no evidence that they aren't the same thing. So if they are different, we need some writing the article explaining the special characteristics. If they're essentially synonymous, then they don't need separate articles: one article can mention both terms as being used to identify this thing. DMacks (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
ChaCha, Mahalo, and Wikia Search are all notable, and all have their own Wikipedia page.
MyShopPal and Search Amigo are new (but legitimate), and are only non-notable because Wikipedia keeps failing to give them a Wikipedia page.
- The phrase 'human search engine' is not found in any of ChaCha (search engine), Mahalo.com, or Wikia. EdJohnston (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- That's because you just added it to them, though, isn't it? --Maxamegalon2000 21:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The term has been added and deleted 100's of times in the past few months as Wikia becomes closer to being finished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete this page if you want, but it is becoming clear why
I feel it is a conflict of interest issue. Wikipedia and Wikia Search are related, but Wikia Search is "for profit". I believe Wikipedia wants to delete the human search engine page, because they do not want any of the Wikia Search's competition listed on their site. It is all becoming clear to me.
Wider debate about deleting this page
Since this is a discussion about the deletion of the article, I've started a formal Articles for Deletion discussion about it. Please consider commenting there, remembering to assume good faith about editors' motives, etc. DMacks (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the Merge with article 'orgranic search'
Well , For my part i don't think that the 'organic search' article carries much or any scientific or encyclopedic knowledge and as already stated there , it lacks references and/or citations.
moreoever , there are a couple of things in that particular article that sound pretty much funny.
for example I quote : A search query submitted to an organic search engine is analysed by a human operator who researches the query then formats the response to the user. End of Quote
To be honest , this doesn't make any sense what so ever. an 'organic search engine' regardless of what that could be , will mostly likely not rely on a human operator to return a valid answer.
If you ask me that article is pretty much vague and yes it appears to be original research or psuedo-research thereof.
another important thing is that the article mentions certain sms query services as valid real life examples of this elusive organic search model. which btw is a fallacy because search engines are understood to be automated index based services that have little to do with those mentioned services .
it's clear that the article has some serious errors and misconceptions.
considering that i'm against merging .
- Renewing discussion - In addition to stating whether the pages should be merged, should the final merged versions be at Hunan search engine or Organic search engine? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Rajendra singh inda
Rajendra singh inda hii m from jodhpur rajasthan
mostly like hacking stuffs..
now a mariner.. form merchant navy MSC mediterranean shipping company , hongkong