Talk:Concept Searching Limited

Suspicious article

This article is part of a series of page which significance are suspicioous see Concept search and Compound term processing i⋅am⋅amz3 (talk) 00:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Importance of company

The new article about conceptsearching lists some basic informaiton about Concept Searching Limited and its products.

BUT, the main reason that this article deserves a place on Wikipedia is because this company was the first to introduce compound term processing (aka phrase based indexing) to Enterprise Search. The published article (Lateral Thinking in Information retrieval, August 2003) is important because of the current interest generally about multi-word processing in Enterprise Search.

There are a number of patents (right acquired by Google) that attempt to patent these ideas - but conceptsearching pre-dates the patent applications. See for example US Patent Application number: 20060018551.

So, this article has real importance to Google (who would like to claim invention of these ideas) and also to Microsoft, Oracle, Autonomy, etc who will at some point want to add compound term processing to their engines - and need to know that conceptsearching potentially invalidates certain aspects of the Google patents.

The timing of the published article (which has a British Library catalog entry) is most significant because it pre-dates the relevant patent applications (see above).

213.208.123.16 (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

While it is valid to point out that Concept Searching Ltd. may be the first company to introduce the notion of "compound term processing" to enterprise search, they are hardly the first providers of concept search. The LSA patents (which include concept search among other capabilities) date back to the 1980's. Also, the very existence of such an old patent (along with others from companies like Content Analyst Company, Kroll On-Track/Engenium, and Autonomy, to name just a few) would seem to indicate that any expectation that a Wikipedia publication or even a British Library catalog entry is aprioristic when it comes to such intellectual property.

RONZ has questioned the notability of this article. In response I would like to point out:

- With Compound Term Processing, Concept Searching has unique technology - not another me-too search vendor.
- The company has over 100 major installations (see Customer list).
- The US Air Force Medical Service is a major user and a detailed presentation by them is referenced from the article.
This independent presentation clearly articulates the benefits Concept Searching's products.
This paper was presented at the 20th International Conference on Systems Research, Informatics & Cybernetics, Intelligent Software Tools and Services
at Baden-Baden, Germany in July 2008 by the U.S. Air Force Medical Service. 
- Bird and Bird (one of the largest law firms in the UK) is a major user and they won
an international legal industry award for their implementation of Concept Searching and this is also referenced from the article.
- The customer list includes dozens of major government and Fortune 500 organizations.
- The customer list includes many of the most prestigious Microsoft Gold Partners.
- The company is an accredited Microsoft Search ISV.

Many of the other companies listed in the article "List of enterprise search vendors" (and elsewhere in Wikipedia) cannot make such significant claims.

Johnchallis (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's get some independent, reliable sources to back these claims. --Ronz (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The US Air Force Medical Service is about as independent and reliable an organization as it is possible to imagine. Their presentation is detailed. ditto Bird and Bird - a major UK law firm.

213.208.123.16 (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That's only one link. We need multiple such links. See WP:CORP. --Ronz (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, with Bird and Bird, I think its two. I will work to get more independent and relaible references added ASAP. As I said above: Many of the other companies listed in the article "List of enterprise search vendors" (and elsewhere in Wikipedia) cannot make such significant claims as those stated above. Why not start by adding tags to the many other companies whose articles cannot cite references nearly as good as these? The independence of this reviewer is questioned.

Johnchallis (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Problems in other articles do not justify problems here. While you're questioning my independence, you should read your talk page as well as WP:NPA. --Ronz (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability of this company easily established by searching for "concept searching" in Google - I have added a couple that are near the top. Moderngirllive (talk) 09:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

See WP:CORP. If we cannot find multiple independent, reliable sources to demonstrated that WP:CORP has been met, the article can be deleted to reduced to a few sentences. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Moved to talk for discussion: Air Force Medical Service

The article is here: http://www.conceptsearching.com/web/userfiles/file/InterSymp%202008%20AFMS.pdf

As presented, this nothing more than a promotional external link, verifying nothing other than its own citation information:

See the detailed U.S. Air Force Medical Service case study here: . This paper was presented at the 20th International Conference on Systems Research, Informatics & Cybernetics, Intelligent Software Tools and Servcies at Baden-Baden, Germany in July 2008 by the U.S. Air Force Medical Service.

What about this research do editors feel is worth addressing in the article, if anything? --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that the US Air Force case study is useful. I am reinstating the link to the US Air Force presentation at InterSymp 2008, but not the PDF about it from the company website. MarioBoglietti (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

But you haven't addressed my concerns. Why is this worth mentioning? What specifically from this paper is relevant to Concept Searching Limited and is worth including in this article? --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have now used the Air Force case study to verify the statements about Compound Term Processing. The case study specifically shows how semantic metadata is automatically applied to documents and then provides search examples in a SharePoint environment that demonstrate how this metadata can be used to enhance the search experience. I hope that I have done this correctly. MarioBoglietti (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

References

Reduced to stub article

This article has been reduced to a stub to remove all non verifyable information and to eliminate the potential for a conflict of interest. However, the genuine concerns raised by Ronz should not lead to the removal of this article which describes one of the more interesting companies to emerge in the Enterprise Search space in recent years. So, we need editors to add verifyable content. I think that the US Air Force Medical Service case study (presented at InterSymp in 2008 and published on the airforcemedicine.afms.mil website qualifies as a useful independent verifyable reference. What others are there ? MarioBoglietti (talk) 15:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of COI tag added by Skier Dude

A COI tag was added to this article following my recent edit. It is true that I have a potential COI, but my only contribution was to add the company logo to the article. As an executive of the company I am in a position to release this image for use on Wikipedia under a GPL license. Following guidance from RONZ earlier this year I have deliberately not been involved in the content of this article. My original content was removed in January 2009 and I have made no attempt to contribute since that time. Hopefully, Skier Dude will agree that there is no COI in my adding a logo to this article. Johnchallis (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Concept Searching Limited. 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/20090126204011/http://airforcemedicine.afms.mil/711hswom/InterSymp2008/AFMS%20-%20InterSymp%202008.html to http://airforcemedicine.afms.mil/711hswom/InterSymp2008/AFMS%20-%20InterSymp%202008.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129024546/http://www.aiim.org/About/News/CS-NASA-Safety to http://www.aiim.org/About/News/CS-NASA-Safety

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) 22:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)