Interesting, only listing sites linked to already from Wikipedia. Could this be the search engine of the future - authority site or be damned!
Authority? Non-profit? People are just so gullible.
I have worked with many charities in the UK, how would you feel about an employee of a "charity" being paid a salary of 1m sterling per annum? It happens at one of the UK's largest charities.
I'm not Google's greatest fan, but at least they are honest. The Wikifoundation I don't trust an inch. This stinks of "world domination" to me.
Just so you know, Wikiseek is from SearchMe and they are donating profits to Wikipedia Foundation.
Search Wikia [search.wikia.com] is the home page discussing Wikipedia's search engine.
I like the results for my terms better than Google's current results (I guess that's just because my results are high as links to the on topic Wiki articles aren't appearing at #1). Seems to be a little shaky on some searches (non specific searches for example).
Suppose it will encourage more people to mess around with the links on wikipedia though but it is refreshing to see search results without the spam esq clutter that follows other search engine results.
[edited by: Idris at 3:55 pm (utc) on Jan. 16, 2007]
Who is there PPC partner?
Well, for my testings, their results are highly laughable.
I agree with Matt.
I knew eventually wiki would be monetized in one way or another. Their 'volunteers' are suckers.
looking at the page source they use google. This search engine is destined to mediocrity. Can't claim to be better than someone and rely upon them for your source of revenue.
They should take feeds from all major players and consolidate them for PPC.. be agnostic if you may
Not very good SERPS at all.
I am sure it will get lots of traffic from wikipedia though.
So far completely useless. Looks like a long way to go and much to early too call it even beta ...
Well, I expect this restriction to Wikipedia, is just a temporary situation for testing, as the intent of Wikiseek, is a directory based on human based inclusion, like DMOZ, but with welcoming arms for new editors.
Wikiseek passed its first test with me. For the subject I'm currently looking into, it produced 2 (but only two) good results I hadn't seen searching in Google or Yahoo.
I'm glad to see someone coming at search from a new direction. The results are bound to look very different than Google, instead of just looking like a (usually inferior) copy of them.
total idiocy. Goog does the same more or less already: site:wikipedia.com "search term"
those "trusted" sites are used over and over on the wiki site anyway, meaning what what you're looking for is probably somewhere on the wikipedia site.
Is it just me, or is this a glorified Adsense website?
"glorified Adsense website? "
This is what it is..
Organic results are laughable for my sector.. so one has to try the right hand corner.
Something like a few discussions we have had on WW..
Bad site = More adSense revenue.
> Message from "engine":
> Just so you know, Wikiseek is from SearchMe and
> they are donating profits to Wikipedia Foundation.
Yeah, and they use "patented technology and proprietary vertical search engines"... There is even a "tm", on the search button...
> Message from "lgn1":
> Well, I expect this restriction to Wikipedia,
> is just a temporary situation for testing
It does not seem so. The original post is a copy of the about page of Wikiseek... If this was only temporary, they would certainly mention it, as it seems to be a huge restriction (well, it does not mean they won't change this in the future, though).
> Message from "walkman":
> Goog does the same more or less already:
> site:wikipedia.com "search term"
No, Wikiseek also indexes all websites which are linked from WP, not just pages from WP...
[edited by: Mathieu_Bonnet at 5:02 pm (utc) on Jan. 16, 2007]
Pretty weak so this will make spammers even more to get a link into wiki.
Ouch, not good at all right now. Clearly a lot of work to do.
"Pretty weak so this will make spammers even more to get a link into wiki."
Yep! I don't think I would be very happy about this if I was a W editor. People are going to be drawing dotted lines from WikiSeek to Wikipedia and back to Google rankings and going, "Oh, I see."
And on the other hand, Wiki anything with sponsored links is just weird.
Also, I've only looked at this a little but it seems like the results are weighted from W data. How does that balance out considering that there are a lot of companies with good info out there who also just happen to be commercial and ipso facto "sort of banned" from being in the W data. But, looking at the results it actually looks sort of OK. How do they do that?
Danny Sullivan slammed it over at searchengineland.
Looks like it's not up to par when it comes to quality.
I like the idea behind how it works, and hope they can bring it around to have the quality I expected it could have.
STOP THE PRESSES. I think everybody is confused.
The new wiki search engine anounced in December to compete with Google and the likes is searchwiki
NOT wikiseek, which is an internal search engine to Wikipedia
I think the two similiar names are adding to the confusion
|NOT wikiseek, which is an internal search engine to Wikipedia |
Wikipedia already has its own internal search engine (if somewhat flaky).
This "Wikiseek" appears to be entirely unconnected with Wikipedia; it just uses the data.
try to search for [ipod]
What a joke. Complete load of #*$!.
I see hungry lawyers in the future for this one.
im not going to let this replace my firefox plugin that seeks right inside wikipedia. but yes, this is not the community driven search engine jimmy wales was talking about previously is it
I tried one search for a term I follow (not even that competitive). Well, I can tell you the results sucked profoundly and you're better off just searching wikipedia or google.
For the non-Wikipedia search results, a "where does this link appear in Wikipedia" button would be useful.
|how would you feel about an employee of a "charity" being paid a salary of 1m sterling per annum? |
How much an employee of a charity is paid is of no consequence. It is how much money they can raise for the charity minus the cost of hiring them that is of importance to the charity.
If the charity can raise an extra five million (they wouldn't otherwise be able to raise) by hiring someone for a million and they can't get that person to join them if they pay any less, why wouldn't the charity do so?
Wikiseek sounds like it might have the potential to be like the Google of 1998. (Remember that?!)
On the other hand, it might be the final nail in Wikipedia's coffin.
| This 46 message thread spans 2 pages: 46 (  2 ) > > |