January 16 2007

Wikipedia Search Engine WikiSeek Launches

Michael Arrington

68 comments »

Palo Alto based startup SearchMe has kept a low profile since being founded in March 2005. The company, which has 17 employees and raised $5 million from Sequoia Capital over two rounds, will launch a number of what founder Randy Adams calls “long tail search engines” in the near future. The first product they are launching is WikiSeek, which went live about an hour ago and will be officially announced on Wednesday.

WikiSeek is a search engine that has indexed only Wikipedia sites, plus sites that are linked to from Wikipedia. It serves two purposes. First, it is a much better Wikipedia search engine than the one on Wikipedia (and has been built with Wikipedia’s assistance and permission). Second, the fact that it also indexes sites that are linked to from Wikipedia means that, presumably, it will return only very high quality results and very little spam. It won’t show every relevant result to a query, but it will certainly give a good overview of a subject without all the mess.

The search results also include a tag cloud which contains Wikipedia categories containing the search term. Results can be quickly filtered by clicking on one of those categories (see screen shot, click for larger view). The first three results of a query are always Wikipedia content (unless there are not three results) and are shaded blue. The remaining results are below the shaded area.

In addition to the search engine, WikiSeek has two additional tools - a search plugin for FireFox, IE7 and Opera, and a really useful greasemonkey-like Firefox extension that will change the way Wikipedia looks on that browser by adding a “WikiSearch” button to the search box (see screen shot below). Click that button and see WikiSeek’s Wikipedia-only results. It’s faster and better than the results Wikipedia returns through its native search feature.

SearchMe is donating “the majority” of revenue generated from advertising on WikiSeek to the Wikimedia Foundation. Adams told me earlier this evening that WikiSearch is a showcase product for their technology, and they are happy to help the Wikipedia community as much as possible by donating those revenues.

Confusion with Wikiasari

WikiSeek will undoubtedly be confused with the much discussed Wikiasari search engine that was announced by Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales last month. In fact, in our original post on Wikiasari, we included a screenshot that we later learned was not a prototype of Wikiasari. We corrected that post, and asked “the Wikisearch Screenshot Isn’t Wikiasari, So What Is It?” It was actually an early WikiSeek prototype, then called WikiSearch. Question answered.


Trackbacks/Pings (Trackback URL)

  1. Your Group of Web AddiCT(s);
  2. Nodalities
  3. Search Marketing Gurus | Search Marketing Tips, Advice, Strategies
  4. Uncommon Knowledge.
  5. ResourceShelf » Let’s Talk Wikiseek and Wazap; Don’t Forget the Intute Harvester
  6. Lies, Damned Lies...
  7. Murali's Arena
  8. Web-Sites of the Month: The Best of January 2007 | Smashing Magazine
  9. Uncommon Knowledge. » Wikiseek makes Wikipedia easier to search.
  10. Codescheme.Net
  11. The Mysterious Wikiwix: Affiliated With Wikipedia?
  12. WikiSeek, motor de pesquisa para wikis » Gattune!
  13. Good websites that you shouldn’t have missed | TechBlogy

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. Tyler

    Nice Mike. I love it already! Really fast and looks pretty too. :)

  2. Juuso - Game Producer

    So they finally found a way to monetize wikipedia. The right side menu is filled with sponsored links. I think this is great addition to Wiki and hopefully brings them loads of $$$ so they can manage the big bandwidth costs.

    Very nice.

  3. John

    Why build a search engine to search Wikipedia, when its already available?

    For example, Resultr.com has been searching all of Wikipedia for a long time now. See this search for “techcrunch”:

    http://www.resultr.com/results.....ch&t=6

    That site is build by kids age 15 and 16.

  4. Tyler

    I tired various search terms, I don’t any results from Wikipedia! Just Google Ads acting like results. So Resultr.com 0 and Wikiseek.com 10!

  5. AndrewB

    Euggh, Resultr hurts my eyes!

  6. Rafiq Phillips

    Dont you just hate it when site owners try and confuse the sh*t out of users to get people to click on the ads?

  7. Michael Arrington

    Rafiq, I don’t see that at all with WikiSeek. The ads are all placed on the right hand side. Given that they are donating the bulk of ad revenue to Wikipedia, they have no real incentive to trick users into clicking ads.

  8. Andreas Gohr

    Hmm… nice idea but have you tried searching for “wiki”?

    http://www.wikiseek.com/results.php?q=wiki

    The tag cloud looks more like a cloud about various native religions. The results are far from good. The third result looks pretty spammy to me.

  9. Rafiq Phillips

    TYFYC Michael - I was referring to resultr, not wikiseek & ads disguised as SERPs.

  10. Michael Arrington

    Ah ok. What does TYFYC mean?

  11. Tyler

    Thank You For Your Comment :)

  12. Michael Arrington

    :-) Ok. I just wanted to make sure you weren’t insulting my ancestors or something.

  13. David

    Hm, the old search is enough, imho. Don’t see, why I have to get all the sites linked from wiki. It takes you much longer to find the information you were looking for.

  14. Rafiq Phillips

    TYFYC again Mike. I ran an Experiment for BarCamp Cape Town: How to get something into define: searches in Google. TYFYC is an acronym I thumbsucked, Thank You For Your Comment.

    Read more about TYFYC here

  15. Kevin

    Is it a requirement for all new search engines to use google’s color scheme for displaying search results? :-)

    I would think they’d want a little branding of their own.

  16. SearcH EngineS WeB

    Perhaps THIS project - when it;s completed - should also be added. :-)

    http://www.citizendium.org/

  17. Thoughtplay

    This might be good if it actually worked better than Wikipedia’s own site (our test here). And if it is so great, shouldn’t it be available directly at Wikipedia?

  18. Jason Hammond

    Any Wikipedia-specific search engine still needs to correct for typos like Google does (”Did you mean…”) for it to be truly useful. “TechCrunch” finds what you would expect but things like “TechCrnch” and “techcurnch” don’t even provide a clue. This isn’t a huge problem when the typo is obvious but what happens when you’re searching for a term that you’re not sure of the spelling? Then you’re hitting Google anyhow most likely.

  19. julian

    I just testing the results on wikiseek and they look poor. I searched for “dialaphone”, it did find the dialaphone page on wikipedia but the other results it produced are poor. The title for the Dialaphone.co.uk homepage was changed about 2 weeks ago, so it doesn’t look like wikiseek is spidering sites as often google, which shows the correct title for the dialaphone homepage. Also for some strange reason wikiseek lists several pages from itv.com which do not include dialaphone on their pages, strange.

    If i was Sequoia Capital i would asking for my $5 million back.

  20. Martha

    I would ask for money back too. I made a simple query http://www.wikiseek.com/results.php?q=quintura and Wikiseek did not return the entire information available. How old is the their Wikipedia index? they don’t have to crawl the site and simply download its archive.

  21. james

    With the advent of google coop, which lets anyone create a targetted search engine in no time flat, is’nt large funding into things like this a thing of the past ?

    kosmix raised $7million, seems far from successful, and things like directhealthsearch (http://www.directhealthsearch.com) and do “basically” the same thing, but probably took weeks to do instead of years.

    Anyone could create a google coop powered search site just for wikipedia and its friends, and the hardest part would be gathering the URLs to tell google to include in search scope.

    Am I missing something ?

    Unless you add something (like medstory does a little bit with there nice little bars), creating your own topic/category search site by yourself seems dumb these days.

  22. HJ

    James,
    You are right, and there is just such a simple Wiki search engine based on Google at WikiStartpage.org along with just some simple links to the major Wikis.

    http://www.wikistartpage.org

  23. Mong

    Wow its very nice … showing some face on to Google.

  24. DTSL Williams

    You want to see how bad this search engine is, type in “orlando pest control” and all it returns is pretty much spam from a guy that spammed a few dozen articles in the wikipedia with his business.

    If I want piss-poor results, I’ll just go back to using infoseek.

  25. Mano70

    I noticed that the site file22.com is skimming articles from different sources, including TechCrunch and this article:
    file22.com/?p=114

    Without too much investigation I would think that this person is using Digg.com as the source for skimming articles. This because I saw other articles that have had many votes on Digg (or been on the front page). And then the person tries to promote the copied articles using reddit it seems like:
    http://reddit.com/user/alessliber/

  26. Motorcycle Guy

    I think things like this are bad for wiki, as it just gives spammers more incentive.

  27. Erik Kalviainen

    Instead of wikiseek, just do what everybody is already doing; type your search term + either “wiki” or “wikipedia” into Google. Why do you think that both wiki and wikipedia were in the top 10 Google searches for 2006?

    http://www.google.com/intl/en/.....t2006.html

  28. SearchTheWeb2

    WikiSeek can be created in five minutes by using Google Custom Search Engine, Co-op. Of course, category refinements are also included. http://www.SearchTheWeb2.com is designed for long tail search.

  29. steve

    Spam might also be a problem.

    “Remember anybody can edit Wikipedia entries - including adding related links - so if Wikiseek becomes a good source of traffic for sites that show up in its search results, then spam will likely become an increasing problem.”

  30. John Handelaar

    Here you go. That’ll be five million dollars, please.

  31. Anonymous

    Due to the recent discussions online about Wikipedia’s efforts to thwart spam, I have to question whether a wikipedia specific search engine will be useful. Yes, it may provide some very useful results. However, if Wikipedia starts limiting contributions and becomes too restrictive in its collection of data, then the search engine may become biased as well. [for an example of a possible debate about wikipedia content: http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-6149264.html

  32. Anonymous

    here’s the link (the bracket was causing trouble) http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-6149264.html

  33. Rocky Agrawal

    Odd that they put the Wikipedia results in a blue box above the other results. I scrolled right past them thinking they were ads.

  34. ZF

    OK, so there are some UI issues, but I did some searches on travel-related terms, for which Google is just hopelessly stuffed with spammy sites. This thing did very well indeed.

    I’m not sure you could use Google custom search to duplicate this, because you would have to crawl the whole of Wikipedia first to construct the list of sites you wanted to allow.

    Of course, if this ever took off it might worsen Wikipedia’s spam problem (by raising the incentive to get spammy links into Wikipedia). Maybe that’s why the future will necessarily consist of lots of search resources rather than one dominant one - too many for the spammers to keep up with.

  35. Taz

    Who in the world searches wikipedia for anything other than the most general of terms? I don’t need anything other than google to do that. Geesh.

  36. Stefan Stanislawski

    I was reading this post while at the same time needing to check the new population of the EU (some more countries just joined) so I put the search term `european union population` into wikiseek and into wikipedia.

    wikipedia took me straight to what I wanted. wikiseek gave a load of garbage.

    I have no idea if this business idea has any merit but it seems to me that it simply does not work in any case. Users - do not waste your time.

  37. Len

    Futef (www.futef.com) has been doing this for a while

  38. Samir

    Interesting, indexing the linked sites is a great idea.

    I’ve been using http://www.wikiwax.com/ for a while to search Wikipedia, it uses an interesting auto complete feature that has all the terms in Wikipedia indexed (or most of them, I gather).

  39. Raquel

    I used to use another site, WikiWax (http://www.wikiwax.com), to search Wikipedia. It has the search-while-you-type feature, but it neglects to search the body of the articles and instead searches only the titles. It’s still nice, though, and it’s been out for a while.

  40. stokelake

    Wikiseek is now completely redundant now that there is google custom search engine.

    The staff at wikiseek my be worried that they are also reduntant. Oh well $5 million down the drain! I can’t believe Michael bothered to talk about this pointless site.

    Move alone now, nothing to see!

  41. derek

    for just wikipedia content http://futef.com - returns more relevant results - try searching for boston or bush and look at the first results. Also the Related Categories down the side seem better than the annoying tag cloud.

  42. Nader

    For me, this seems like a feature Wikipedia should incorporate in their massive MediaWiki system. As a stand-alone product it will have a hard time to survive.

    Thinking about Findory and not getting enough traction, I wonder where Wikiseek will be in a couple of months from now? Dead, eh, Acquired-Pool?

  43. Chris Moore

    Once this catches on as a search engine, I can see huge corporations with massive PR budgets dedicating staff just to maintaining their profiles on Wikipedia.

  44. Kieran

    Ok I get it the point of having a Wiki search engine that works well. But do you really see people going to WikiSeek.com instead of Wikipedia? No.

    Until there are numerous high profile Wiki’s, whats the point for a general online user that only knows Wikipedia?

  45. Billy

    I guess this is useful for the Wikipedia crowd. I’m wondering how Wikiasari will differentiate itself from this product, though.

  46. Rob

    I got this great idea to build a google search engine with all the wikis on the wiki start page upthread, but then I googled it and found qwicka which searches several thousand different wikis.

  47. Tom

    I can’t believe this company got $5 million in VC funding from Sequoia. Most of the functionality can be found in Google by appending searches with “site:en.wikipedia.org”, the only thing missing is the pages linked to from Wikipedia.

  48. jf.sellsius

    I tried wikiseek and didn’t think the results were comprehensive. I’m not likely to use it.

  49. Wilbur Feeblefitzer

    I think wikiseek’s corporate name is appropriate - “Searchme, Inc.” on many levels.

  50. Anton

    As per futef.com referenced above by Derek. I completely agree with you. As it stands futef could be to wikiseek what google is to msn.

    My main disapointment is that it is not multilingual. With 5 million there should have been a way to make it accessible to everybody.

  51. vincent

    can not support chinese, so I just use google to search in wikipedia.

  52. Silly Girl

    I can’t believe all the nitpicking that’s going on. It’s not multilingual? It just launched, duh!!! It’s not comprehensive? It’s supposed to be selective. And this
    “I can’t believe this company got $5 million in VC funding from Sequoia. Most of the functionality can be found in Google by appending searches with “site:en.wikipedia.org”, the only thing missing is the pages linked to from Wikipedia.” Searching through the pages linked to from Wikipedia IS what’s new about this engine.

  53. Sima

    It think Google list results faster. And still i think i will continue reading Wikipedia articles, and search the web by Google.

  54. Bart_l

    need another way to search the Wikipedia with Google, but without trowing in the rather complex syntax (site:ect….) ? Try http://www.wiki-search.eu, it use Google Co-op.

  55. JL

    How does someone start PPC advertising with the wikiseek site?