Talk:Fuzzy string searching

We could use an article on this, instead of the plug for Agrep. Vicki Rosenzweig 02:36, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Use of fuzzy as a term is a misrepresentation. There are no such things as fuzzy matches. The term itself is probably just an invention of a commercial interest and is not a true scientific or technological term at all. A quick view of a dictionary will make one aware that the term fuzzy means something that is unclear or undefined. This cannot apply to approximate or inexact matching as performed on strings, since it is quite usual that a string returned as a match can be completely clear and defined even though it does not fit the exact search/query it is returned for.

The only place it would be fuzzy is in a person's head, but that is not of any possible consequence to the underlying technology. Therefore, the term cannot apply merely because people cannot understand what they are looking at.

It is quite funny the kinds of terms that industry will just invent that have no relevance to logic and proper language usage when examined. And those that are just willing to accept any old terminology thrown at them by industry are even funnier characters.

The field of computational biology, where most string matching has emerged from never uses the term "fuzzy match". Please check the history of string matching before claiming this term as legitimate. It may exist, but where is the information in this Wikipedia entry about where it came from? It is not part of the greater body of literature on string matching. It is a fabrication by some software vendor or similar that sells associated tools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.252.85.155 (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed... Google shows 209,000 results for fuzzy text matching, so at the very least the term should redirect and the page can be renamed. I was interested in learning a bit about the topic, and I found this entry via a search on the term that in my mind seemed to be a pretty obvious description of what I was interested in. If there are reasons why it's not technically accurate, too bad, because I wouldn't have thought of the technically accurate term while doing the search. 24.39.171.226 (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the term Approximate string matching is more often used in the literature. Since we already have an article for that, perhaps we should merge these two articles? Offliner (talk) 10:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger[edit]

Since there have been no objections to my mergel proposal, I have now completed moving all such material from this page to Approximate string matching that wasn't there already, and created a redirect. Offliner (talk) 07:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]