Talk:Deep web/Archive 1

Archive 1

HTTP no-cache / no-store directive doubtful

It is true HTTP requires caches to honour no-cache or no-store, but this doesn't as a matter of standards-compliance impact the actual user agent or end client. It would be good to replace or annotate that part of the content with references to evidence that real web crawlers such as search engines and archives are using specific directives as guidance not to store HTTP responses. --FuzzyBSc (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Different interpretations of "Deep Web"

Hello,

After researching the subject, I see that people use the term "Deep Web" with vastly different interpretations: 1) The interpretation used in this wiki article is that deep web is web content NOT indexed by web search engines (for whatever reason). 2) People on various fora discuss the subject with the term "Deep web" meaning the web content accessible only through Tor (or freenet).

The meanings are obviously quite different. Can someone clear this up for me? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.173.253 (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Agreed. However, as it stands the 2001 content is fairly-well cited, whereas the brief comment about onion/Tor content is uncited and completely at odds to the rest of the page. It seems that these should be covered as two separate topics, mentioning that the terminology is inconsistent and overlapping. AndrewBolt (talk) 07:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Point two by user 88.218.173.253: Seems to me un-indexed search results can be from TOR, non-TOR...databases with restricted permissions...there are Multiple ways that search engines won't see the entire internet. TOR is another way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.34 (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I am planning to input more sources for the Deep Web page on Wikipedia, I found a neat scholarly article off Google Scholar to back up a lot of information for updating the page, I will work on it and see how it goes. I have created a sandbox entry with my edit. https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User:Masinich/sandbox&action=edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masinich (talk • contribs) 01:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Deep Web/Dark Internet/Darknet all have different entries but none of them really seem to cover non-html material that is still accessible on the internet (i.e. everything that was on the Internet before web concepts began to be applied and is still available). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.213.110.4 (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)  There is a mention in the Methods section

It says that deep web is www content that is not part of the Surface Web. .Onion (TOR) sites also are part of deep web. But, are they part of www? I think they are not. So the opening statement of this article seems to be wrong. Please correct me if I am saying rabid nonsense! [User:saintthomas] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saintthomas (talk • contribs) 13:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

This is winding me up. As much as I've tried to split off Dark Web from this page, the fact remains that loads of places uses Deep Web as their definition, no matter what Bright Planet says. When there's more content on Dark Web I might merge it back in, but I'm not sure :/ Deku-shrub (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is now about search indexing

Please leave this as Deep Web (search indexing) rather than Deep Web so visitors know at a glance this is about search only. The broader Dark net / dark web is in Darknet (networking) Deku-shrub (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Deku-shrub: If "Deep Web" is about search indexing and the use of "Deep Web" to mean "Dark Web" is inaccurate, there should be no parenthetical. It should just be Deep Web and make clear what the subject is in a hatnote (like the one I just added) and via a clear lead. A sure-fire way to note a naming issue is if the page name without a parenthetical redirects to one with a parenthetical that is not also a disambiguation. In other words, parenthetical are to distinguish separate topics of the same name. If, on the other hand, Deep Web redirected to Darknet (networking) because that were the most common use of "Deep Web", it would make sense to have a parenthetical here. But that's not the case, as far as I know.

The Darknet (networking) parenthetical makes sense because Darknet is a disambiguation that points to multiple subjects with that name. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

As per my comment, I want to make Darknet the most prominent article. The problem is actually this (See image):

I don't claim to have solved the problem, also I recommend this wonderful blog from dictionary.com who are equally as confused about the situation. Deku-shrub (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

As far as "Deep Web" vs. "Dark Web", the distinction the articles currently reflect seems to be inline with the sources I'm seeing. Yes, there are many that use the terms interchangeably, but roughly 1/2 to 2/3 of the hits for "'deep web' 'dark web'" I found did distinguish them, and none reversed the definitions. For example:

• Popular Science - "the Deep Web contains a further hidden world...the Dark Web"
• PC Advisor - "The 'Deep Web' refers to all web pages that search engines cannot find. Thus the 'Deep Web' includes the 'Dark Web', but also includes all user databases, webmail pages, registration-required web forums, and pages behind paywalls."
• Wired - "When news sites mistakenly describe the Dark Web as accounting for 90% of the Internet, they’re confusing it with the so-called Deep Web, the collection of all sites on the web that aren’t reachable by a search engine."
• Vox - "Is the dark web the same thing as the deep web? No, the deep web is a broader concept. It refers to all online content that's not accessible to search engines."
• Online Information Review doi:10.1108/14684521211287981 - "The invisible web, also known as the deep web, which includes these dark web fora..."

So I don't think it's controversial to be definitive while also explaining that the terms are often used imprecisely.

As for where Darknet fits in:

• the Popular Science source above gives it as a synonym for "Dark Web"
• Ibtimes - "Within the larger Deep Web exists the Darknet, a loosely affiliated community of forums where..."\
• PC World - "Darknets are small niches of the “Deep Web,” which is itself a catch-all term for the assorted Net-connected stuff that isn’t discoverable by the major search engines." (PC World also suggests BrightPlanet's information, which is in line with what we have)
• The Guardian - "While a "darknet" is an online network such as Freenet that is concealed from non-users, with all the potential for transgressive behaviour that implies, much of "the deep web", spooky as it sounds, consists of unremarkable consumer and research data that is beyond the reach of search engines."

There are still those that use all of these interchangeably, but I'm confident we should move forward with the articles as they're currently organized but move this article to Deep Web for lack of another article vying for that title. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Well I want Deep Web to redirect to Dark Web or Darknet (networking) but this should be hashed out before that happens. I must note that Bright Planet's insistence of their Deep web definition, which as you've quoted is referenced in many major publications, is incorrectly used by the media, and Bright Planet acknowledges this! I really want to avoid having to duplicate the work I'm doing on Darknet (networking). I mean I could use an include, but isn't it better for a reader to read about a topic in once place and one major context? Deku-shrub (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Wait why would you want Deep Web to redirect to Dark Web or Darknet?? Are you saying there should be one article about all three topics? If so I have to disagree. The Deep Web is a bigger subject both by definition and in terms of what can be written in an encyclopedia article. I think Dark Web and Darknet sharing an article makes perfect sense, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I want Deep Web to redirect to Dark Web and for Deep Web (search indexing) to remain in its current state Deku-shrub (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

This is because they're so commonly used interchangeably, right? I do understand that, but it just doesn't fly with article naming conventions. It would be fine if there weren't a viable "Deep Web" topic, but there is. We can't relegate a subject to the secondary article (via parenthetical) in order to redirect a malapropism. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Can't we? Exhibit A: Decimation. Has a separate article for Decimation (Roman army) despite it's more colloquial use. Doesn't attempt to combine two articles into one. It's recommend to avoid skunked terms Anyhow, I'm going to write the disambiguation page now and see how well it's received. Deku-shrub (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Done! Deku-shrub (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Please slow down. You just did this despite having no support from anyone and two people opposing it. Please undo until consensus emerges. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how Decimation is similar, by the way. We have multiple articles on different concepts called "Decimation". Unlike the other use of Deep Web, they aren't based on incorrect usage. Decimation is more similar to Darknet as a disambiguation page. Also, a disambiguation page is only supposed to be created when there are only two articles if there isn't a single "main" article. In this case, there is. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah I got my wires crossed and thought you moved Deep Web in order to create the disambig. Forgot it was just a redirect, sorry. Still, that's where Deep Web (networking) should live. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Well I want Deep Web to redirect to Dark Web or Darknet (networking) but this should be hashed out before that happens.

What? Why?! It makes no sense to do this (the only reason to do so would be the faulty use of the term when actually the dark web is meant due to a poor state of knowledge on the subject by the general population including some journalists) and I'm opposing this... --Fixuture (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Web indexing vs Internet indexing

@Rhododendrites:It's my understanding that the deep web comprises the whole internet rather than just the hard to get bits of web. See Deep Web (search indexing)#Content types. Maybe a stronger source is needed on this? Deku-shrub (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Example, FTP inclusion

You know what, it looks like you're right, I will leave this Deku-shrub (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Style Question

This page occasionally uses "Deep Web" and at other times "deep Web." Which conforms to Wikipedia house style? It seems as if both or neither of the words should be capitalized. Scizzletizzle (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC) Scizzletizzle

Is "deep web" not also good? I have seen a lot of use of "deep Web" though which looks odd to me Deku-shrub (talk) 10:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Up to date?

This article seems to lean heavily on Bergman's 2001 paper, and some of the other references are also from 2001. Since the web has changed quite a bit since 2001, is the information here still accurate? In particular, in the lead the phrase "searching on the internet today" could be taken to imply that the statement was being applied to the current position in contrast to earlier versions of the internet, whereas in fact the source means "in 2001". Also, it would be good to have a more recent source for the relative sizes of the surface and deep webs, and the suggestion that the deep web consists of 7,500 terabytes is presumably not current and so should not be in the present tense.Havelock Jones (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that too. This page should be completely rewritten. --Ita140188 (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's a specific example of outdated information on this page:

"For example, these crawlers do not attempt to find dynamic pages that are the result of database queries due to the indeterminate number of queries that are possible."

From Google's official "webmaster" blog:

"...In the past few months we have been exploring some HTML forms to try to discover new web pages and URLs that we otherwise couldn't find and index for users who search on Google. Specifically, when we encounter a <FORM> element on a high-quality site, we might choose to do a small number of queries using the form..." http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2008/04/crawling-through-html-forms.html

64.105.94.114 (talk) 10:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Another example: The 2001 paper proposes the dark web has a size of 7.5 petabytes. That's just 7,500 1TB hard drives - hardly anything today. 97.91.254.54 (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

"Deep Web"

The usage and primary topic of Deep Web is under discussion, see talk:Dark Web -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Move to 'Deep web search'?

I think this is a more natural english term than the current one, but I'd be interested in hearing comments about this before I do so Deku-shrub (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm doing it anyhow! #yolo Deku-shrub (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The only relevant question is what most reliable sources call it. The parenthetical isn't part of the term, it's a Wikipedia disambiguation mechanism. I don't recall ever seeing "Deep Web search" which sounds like it's talking about search engines for the Deep Web. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Naming_the_specific_topic_articles

Natural disambiguation. When there is another term (such as Apartment instead of Flat) or more complete name (such as English language instead of English) that is unambiguous, commonly used in English (even without being the most common term), and equally clear, that term is typically the best to use.

I think this qualifies under those guidelines rather well. Deku-shrub (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Right. I should have worded my comment in a clearer way. What that policy you're quoting means is that if that there are synonyms for a concept or if there is a more complete name and a shorter version of the name that sources use, it's ok to choose the one that isn't the most common as long as it is common and as long as it's equally clear. "Deep web search" is not a longer name for "deep web" and it's not a common name for "deep web". It's also not synonymous (e.g. "Deep web search is the part of the world wide web not indexed..." doesn't make sense). It changes the subject to being about searching the deep web when the subject of the article as written is about the deep web. I appreciate taking the initiative with this stuff, I do, but please move slower with major changes like page moves/renaming, deletions, etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand a little copy editing is now needed in the intro section, it doesn't seem to tricky to do

"It changes the subject to being about searching the deep web when the subject of the article as written is about the deep web"

I disagree that these are actually different things Deku-shrub (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm baffled by that, which means I may be missing something or we may be miscommunicating. Did you mean to move it to Deep Web (search) where search is again for the purpose of disambiguating or otherwise a descriptor rather than part of the subject title? "Deep Web search" places "Deep Web" as a modifier or object of "search" -- a kind of search called/for "deep web" or the process of searching through the deep web. The notable topic is not a kind of search or searching of a particular object; it's part of the web. Specifically, the part of the web that not indexed by search engines, but it is not itself a kind/type of search. Copyediting isn't going to fix that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that the Deep web (in a search indexing context) is in fact a part of the web. I would argue it is an abstract concept to propose a solution to, the solution is always deep web search. I'll give you some analogous terms, let's say I wanted to described the 'personalised web' and the 'unpersonalised web'. Are these actual things you can define? I say no, they are only relevant in the content of how you access and search them. Deku-shrub (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what we're defining because what matters is what the sources are talking about, and they're talking about the deep web as part of a web. If it's framed as a problematic, that still doesn't justify renaming the article "deep web search" because the sources would also have to justify that as another possible name for the same thing, which they don't. Instead of us continuing to spin our wheels with nobody else around, I'm requesting that as there was no consensus to rename, please restore the previous version (or Deep Web (search) for something shorter) and open a request to move, which generally attracts other people to the discussion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Very much oppose renaming it to "Deep web search". This article is not about the activity of searching the deep web but about the deep web itself with searching it being a related activity/option which should and is also explained in the article (even though the section that's most relevant to it doesn't make it that clear with the name being "Indexing methodologies"). Glad it's been renamed to "Deep web (search)" now; not sure whether "(search)" or "(search indexing)" is more relevant here though...actually that's basically the same issue as with that section: is the deep web more about ways to index it or about ways to practically search it for endusers (is it "deep" because crawlers have trouble accessing/indexing it or because end-users have trouble accessing it)? --Fixuture (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Deep Peep

Deep Peep no longer exists, I read in a comment somewhere it closed due to lack of funding in 2012. But can't find a cite for that right now, in any case it doesn't work, page should say this, anyone got more info? Robert Walker (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It's mentioned on the talk page for DeepPeep that it no longer exists and closed in 2012: Talk:DeepPeep Robert Walker (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism

There are several instances of vandalism in this article. Someone more knowledgeable (than I am) needs to read through and fix. Thanks. 210.132.235.42 (talk) 04:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out—I've just looked at the page's edit history and removed the vandalism. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast. Thank you! 210.132.235.42 (talk) 04:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Title

Per WP:TITLE, the title should be sentence case: Deep web, not Deep Web. NE Ent 00:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 19 February 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. It was mentioned it was not the primary topic, but not demonstrated. (non-admin closure) © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 19:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

---

Deep web (search) → Deep web – This is a primary topic for "Deep web". TvojaStara (talk) 13:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose malformed. If this happened Deep web which is a dab page would have to move to Deep Web. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

If this happened, Deep web would be incorporated into Deep web (search)'s hatnote. TvojaStara (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no reason to have a large hatnote when a disambiguation page already exists -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

No reason to have disambiguation page when 1) Deep web (search) has an adequate hatnote already 2) the only other term really needing disambiguating is Deep Web (film) 3) rest of the disambiguation page content (people being mistaken about what Deep web stands for) is IMO best handled in the Deep web (search) page. TvojaStara (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

People at large call darknets and the dark web "deep web", so are appropriate listings in the dab page. If the topic people want is one of those, they should be easily accessible, instead of requiring them to read an entire article to find their particular subtopic and then click and go through. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 00:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Hatnote at Deep web would link to Dark web and Deep Web (film). Disambiguating Darknet can be done in "Not to be confused with" hatnote, same way that Internet links to World Wide Web. TvojaStara (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Not the primary topic Deku-shrub (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support this is the primary topic. The dark web is a subtopic of this topic; move the disambiguation page to "(disambiguation)" -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Are IP users allowed to vote? TvojaStara (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Technically speaking, there are few processes that IPs are not allowed to participate in. If there's reason to believe people are being canvassed, if there may be sock puppetry going on, etc. there may be cause to give an IP's opinion less weight (it's a tricky subject), but in general since these threads are actually votes but consensus-finding discussions that look like votes, yes no problem. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

"The dark web is a subtopic of this topic" - no it's not Deku-shrub (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support - It seems to me that this could all be handled by hatnotes pretty effectively. There are only two subjects called "Deep web", this article and Deep Web (film). Between those, this is certainly the main topic. The complication is that this term is often confused with or used interchangeably with Dark web. As they aren't synonymous, Dark web cannot be in competition with this article for main topic, but does make sense to include in a hatenote. If the only reason to create a disambiguation page is because of confused usage (as we wouldn't have a dab page for just the two deep web topics), and if it can easily be dealt with through hatnotes, why would we not do the latter? In other words, here's what makes sense to me:
  • Deep web (search) moved→ Deep web
    • Hatnote at [the new] deep web: "For the film, see Deep Web (film). For the part of the web that only exists on darknets, see Dark web."
  • [current] Deep web is deleted as unnecessary dab
  • Dark web already has an appropriate hatnote. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

"There are only two subjects called "Deep web"" - no, it's also a synonym for Dark web. It's a very ambiguous term. Deku-shrub (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

If it's a synonym, we shouldn't have separate articles about them. If, on the other hand, there's a technical distinction that justifies articles on separate topics but people sometimes use the terms interchangeably, that doesn't justify a disambiguation page rather than a hatnote. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

You misunderstand. Deep web is a synonym of dark web, but dark web is not a synonym of deep web. Deku-shrub (talk) 12:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support sensible setup proposed by nominator and refined by Rhododendrites. No such user (talk) 08:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• Note Darknet is treated the way I proposed in this move discussion, except that the disambiguation page was kept at Darknet (disambiguation). See Talk:Darknet#Move_to_Darknet.3F. TvojaStara (talk) 10:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 19 March 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved to Deep web. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

---

Deep web (search) → ? – Let's get all this about what is to be where, sorted out before making any more contradictory move requests. Move Deep web (search) to Deep web (unsearchable web areas) or similar? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• This was open for a month, why do we need a new and immediate RM if there was already a consensus to move it to Deep web? © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 18:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

There was no consensus Deku-shrub (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

According to what? Your opposition? I read the whole discussion, there was a consensus that "Deep web (search)" was the primary topic for "deep web" and the ambiguity with dark web could be handled by the hat note or the dab page. I'm suprised if Anthony doesn't know this, but if you don't the correct venue for this is WP:MRV, not reverting the move and reopening a new RM with a new destiny, that's disruptive. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 18:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• The deep web is not a searching device, as the name "Deep web (search)" seems to imply to me, but a way to avoid public searching. I have received 2 contradictory related move requests recently. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

help o no

help help

Deep Internet

A search on Google for the phrase in quotes "deep internet" brings up pages almost exclusively for "deep web" with this Wikipedia article being at the top of the search results, so Google considers it an alternative term. However, a search for "deep internet search" brings up results with the phrase meaning a very thorough search deeply into the Internet, pages that are indexed, but are not popular and not showing in the search results and can only be found by creatively using search terms. It is even a job description or service offered: "must have experience doing deep Internet research." I just wanted to note this, since the article says "deep web" only applies to non-indexed content. 5Q5 (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

"deep Internet research" = extensive internet research Deku-shrub (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

size overestimated

I think the size of the deep web has been seriously overestimated. Why I believe the size of the deep web is overestimated? Imagine that the deep web is 1,000 times larger than the surface web. Then we expect that : - People spend 1,000 times more time using the deep web than using the surface web. But most internet users spend plenty of time on the surface web but no time on the deep web. - People spend 1,000 times more time creating content for the deep web rather than the surface web. But most people who create content for the web create no content for the deep web. - The deep web requires 1,000 times more bandwidth than the surface web. But most bandwidth is used for the surface web. - The deep web requires 1,000 times more storage space than the surface web. Storage space costs money. So the cost for storing the content of the deep web would be prohibitively large. 213.113.112.240 (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Estimate of the relative sizes of the surface and deep webs?

I've recently read that the deep web makes up 96% of the Internet (http://www.ict-summit.jp/2012/pdf/pdf_Mr_jenkins_en.pdf, page 7), but this number is pretty outdated (2012). Is there a more recent estimate of the relative sizes of the surface and deep webs? MaigoAkisame (talk) 12:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Deep web. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.pls.com/news/pr961212_at1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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} 01:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I want to know how to hack and code

King knight (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

alarm

I am use for dep web but,How to new so I confusd setting and login session... Ahmed Riyadh10 (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

This Talk page is to be used only for the discussion of improvements to the Wikipedia article Deep web. If you would like information on accessing the deep web, you'll need to look elsewhere. General Ization ^Talk 02:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Should 'Deep net' still redirect here?

Deep net is increasingly used to refer to 'deep neural network'. I'm not sure having 'Deep net' redirect to this Deep web article is still helpful. What's the view on this? Thanks for your consideration, Phil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.31.74 (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The pink diagram

Non Indexed Content

The pink diagram in the article - what is it supposed to mean? I understand that it's supposed to show that Wikipedia is not a website, but it comes from Google or Bing, which is possibly some special relay in the internet that connects websites and Facebook together... Or Bing is somehow that connects websites and Wikipedia? And... Onion protocol is a part of deep web because...? And social services which mostly don't appear in search engines is not a dark web, right?

However I try to understand it, it's so wrong. Even when I'm serious, it's clearly wrong and for people who want to learn about it... They will know less after analyzing it.

And if you need formal rule - it's unsourced and it contradicts sources present in article. 89.71.222.65 (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

It is nonsense Deku-shrub (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Deku-shrub: A statement of nonsense is point less. If you can explain why it is nonsense and suggest how to correct it is a creative way. Other wise we can believe that it is nonsense like god. -- Ranjithsiji (talk) 02:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ranjithsiji: It is nonsense because deep web is not the same idea as tor-enabled web. Nothing technically forbids search engines to index pages from .onion domain and in fact there are search engines for that. What deep web really is, according to definition, is data that cannot be easily indexed by search engines due to technical limitations (not necessarily behind Tor). In the diagram you show dark web, not deep web. --Wanted (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Terminology - first conflation.

"The first conflation of the terms "deep web" with "dark web" came about in 2009"
Apparently people were already conflating the terms in 2005 according to Wikipedia. https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Deep_web&oldid=9764070
"DropDeadGorgias (talk | contribs) at 19:51, 6 January 2005 (clarify difference from dark web)."

194.207.86.26 (talk) 09:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Deepweb graphical representation.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

See my attempt at BRD at Talk:Clearnet (networking)#File:Deepweb graphical representation.svg. Item was added by Lotje 05:10, 11 August 2019 (diff=910310461&oldid=910301037). X1\ (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

←what is this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.145.225.242 (talk) 07:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

hacking gaming id jk;uhjoorpnkjh;sdkfggoijgri kj;klkogaklpop[tpoiokp[ppotiokjurtopa ogta viditkjag

hacking genaBold textrator — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.152.55.253 (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal

@Saturnalia0, MisterSanderson, and Luan: I propose to merge the deep web (this article) and surface web articles into a new article called deep web and surface web (like on the Portuguese Wikipedia; see the previous discussion here) because I think these articles are currently too small to be kept separate at the moment and because only 54 articles currently link to the former article, and only 16 to the latter. -- PK2 (talk) 06:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

"Surface web" really is very short, but "deep web" is not. If you merge, why don't you call it "web depth", so the title becomes shorter?--MisterSanderson (talk) 11:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@PK2: Eu não sei se existe a expressão "web depth". Mas convocar wikipedistas da versão em português para discutir uma fusão de artigos da versão em inglês não é o mais adequado. Além disso, não vi qualquer marcação nos referidos artigos indicando uma proposta de fusão. --Luan (discussão) 23:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Iceberg chart

Seriously? High importance article, level-5 vital article in technology and it includes a poorly made highly scientific "iceberg chart". It adds no value whatsoever to the article and simplifies the subject to such extent that its incorrect. 80.98.26.97 (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I was just about to make the same point. A better alternative would be something that explains how web crawlers or web spiders work. What do you think? MystikMakr (talk) 13:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

In particular, it makes the common mistake of conflating the deep web and the dark web, something the article itself addresses. Messelastur (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the image as it's seriously misleading. Having a diagram on the page would still be helpful though, but I'll let someone else decide what that should be. DigammaOrGamma (talk) 09:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)