Talk:Human search engine

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Fall 2015. Further details were available on the "Education Program:University College London/MSIN1003 Information World (Autumn 2015)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

This article was nominated for deletion on November 21, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep without consensus.

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Software

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

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 68.163.97.74 (talk)

Specific/distinct meaning?

How is this different from Social search? -- DMacks (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Search Amigo

Search Amigo is relevant and should have an article no matter where it is listed.

Source:

[[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.97.74 (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-63611892.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.97.74 (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irony

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?

http://www.editorsweblog.org/news/2007/09/wikipedia_to_launch_human_search_engine.php

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)[reply]

Non-notable Websites?

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.

I don't see where the "so many non-notable web sites in one article" comes from. There are only 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.97.74 (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The phrase 'human search engine' is found in ChaCha (search engine) and Mahalo .

The phrase also appears under Search Engine and List of search engines—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.97.74 (talk)

That's because you just added it to them, though, isn't it? --Maxa megalon 2000 21:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 68.163.97.74 (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The above is my opinion, but is the only reasonable conclusion I can come to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.97.74 (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 .

thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowmadness (talk • contribs) 12:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.254.49.97 (talk) 09:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human search engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081012120901/http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2007/11/14/human-powered-search-engine-chacha-gets-10-million to http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2007/11/14/human-powered-search-engine-chacha-gets-10-million

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]