Talk:Wikiseek

This article was nominated for deletion on March 7, 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on June 21, 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Wikipedia Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Internet Low‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet 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.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Neutrality Dispute

This article provides a sustained argument over the quality of the search service Wikisearch. However I feel that initially it should provide an uncritical explanation of what Wikisearch is and does, as well as its aims. Then a designated 'criticism' section could evaluate the effectiveness and deal with some of the bad points of the service. Jpolchar 22:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the neutrality point, and that mightbe an issue, but i think in this case the section sucks because it is complete and utter original research. It is not that it doesn't cite sources, it is that it reads like an empirical experiment by someone. For this reason I am removing that until a reliably sourced criticism of the Wikiseek (which sucks, BTW). Then we can get into the neutrality argument.--Cerejota 03:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did minor changes to neutralize. The review under external links reads like an advertisement, but I can't find a better one yet. And Wikiseek sucks by the way, I've never seen such irrelevant results. $20 says it bombs, any takers? --Harlequence 08:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, it's been a while, but thanks for your help guys. The article is now miles better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpolchar (talk • contribs) 20:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We’ve decided to take Wikiseek offline. Thank you so much for using it.

http://www.wikiseek.com/ --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 09:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Permission

Why is it notable to mention that Wikiseek was "granted permission by the Wikimedia Foundation to index the Wikipedia website"? Anyone can index Wikipedia by downloading the dumps and because it's free content. --Nezek (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

site is dead

http://wikiseek.com/ is dead. Benvewikilerim (talk) 08:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]