Talk:Federated search

	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.

Libraries Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries 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.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article should probably make some mention of Alpha, which is currently a federated search by Yahoo, currently in beta testsing.

Alpha can be found here: http://au.alpha.yahoo.com/

--TennBikeBerk 06:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And of [OpenSearch], a popular search federation format supported by IE7, Firefox, and quite some searchable sites/applications --Raboof 11:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added Sesat to the list of implementations. --> http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Federated_search&diff=205760004&oldid=193537898

Even though ZimZalaBim removed many of the implementations in the previous edit ( http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Federated_search&diff=193537898&oldid=193525054 )

i added Sesat to the list as it is an open sourced implementation, rather than just an existing federated search service available to the public to use. i think that this the "implementation" section should more clearly separated between implementations/platforms/typical-patterns and current federated search engines available. For example the references to metasearch and Google Scholar in the first paragraph of this section should also be removed.

Maybe a separate section "Examples" should be created to allow these services to be listed? Although i think this list would quickly become unwieldy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelsembwever (talk • contribs) 11:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graphic is a mess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.137.26 (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The graphic is unreadable

I came specifically to complain about the graphic on this page. I see someone made the same comment anonymously, but that was well over a year ago, so it is disheartening to realize how long this sloppy graphic has been allowed to remain uncorrected. It is simply illegible, at least to humans like me, and therefore its information value is substantially compromised. Can someone please correct or replace this graphic - and soon, not in a year or two? Natcolley (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The new graphic as of February 2011 looks fine, I think we can call it fixed. --Avirr (talk) 02:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Federated search. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]