![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
In an effort to shorten this page a bit, the talk related to the history & controversy has been moved to Talk:History of Google. Dr. Cash 17:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Please note that MSN search and windows live search are still two seperate search engines. www.msn.com and www.live.com Sargontfo 10:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Sargontfo
Anyone interested in seeing a list of acquisitions made by Google?
I made this page to help shorten the Google page. The data on this page currently replicates that on the google page. Once this page is done some links (refering to the company not the site) will be redirected and the extra info on Google wil be deleted. BrokenSegue 23:23, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This article states that the company code of conduct is "Don't be evil." I'm fairly certain it is actually "Do no evil." However, I can't find any online evidence for this (or the other one). Does anyone know the correct code of conduct? It seems like Google would have this posted somehwere... — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:23, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, that's the kind of info I was looking for. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:29, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
Is the conspiracy theory that Google is a front/in cahoots with the NSA still considered too whacko for inclusion amongst the criticisms and controversies section?
TakuyaMurata:
John D
253,088 GHz of processing power
I would say the same. Where does this come from? How did you find out?
I kind of want this one next to "management" and "analysts".-- Jerryseinfeld 11:08, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've removed the following listing of Research Analysts from the article. I cannot see why this is important to the company. None of these people actually work for google. If we add all the people that work for financial companies researching every corporation out there, wikipedia would quickly add a lot of useless information. The link to Imran Khan also did not even go to a financial analyst's page - the page says he's a cricket player. Dr. Cash 20:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Research analysts covering Google Inc. See also GOOG: Star Analysts for GOOGLE - Yahoo! Finance
The image resolution ranges from one foot to two meters
Metric or imperial, make up your mind! :) The mixing of units here looks terrible in my opinion.
Google has a couple of innovations
Sense of humour
-NOTE: This page is now situated at moon.google.com
These might be included in the article.
14-sep-2011: Is this date relevant information for somewhere in the article? -- user:zanimum
I love Google's sense of humour -- dg 19:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
yeah, i agree. 128.175.226.50 16:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Sysadmins at Google make $33K a year? You've gotta be kidding. You couldn't hire a cleaner in the Bay Area for that salary.
... that number may have been true when stock options were worth bundles of money, but nowadays it's totally bogus I think.
I heard the founders of Google
reduced their salaries to $1 per year. --
Cuervo 22:49, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
They include a 'Reference' link at the end, but they just copied the text, I think: [ JuiceNewsDaily]
Looking at the Google site, it doesn't seem that Leet is offered any longer as a language. For another joke language, Google currently offers Elmer Fudd ("I'm Feewing Wucky!").
I had added the story about the check being made out to 'Google, Inc.' back when they were looking for investors, and that is how the misspelling is now the name of the company. The story was deleted a few days later, saying it was false. I found the source so I'll be putting it back in...
"Unable to interest the major portal players of the day, Larry and Sergey decided to make a go of it on their own. All they needed was a little cash to move out of the dorm — and to pay off the credit cards they had maxed out buying a terabyte of memory. So they wrote up a business plan, put their Ph.D. plans on hold, and went looking for an angel investor. Their first visit was with a friend of a faculty member.
Andy Bechtolsheim, one of the founders of Sun Microsystems, was used to taking the long view. One look at their demo and he knew Google had potential — a lot of potential. But though his interest had been piqued, he was pressed for time. As Sergey tells it, "We met him very early one morning on the porch of a Stanford faculty member's home in Palo Alto. We gave him a quick demo. He had to run off somewhere, so he said, 'Instead of us discussing all the details, why don't I just write you a check?' It was made out to Google Inc. and was for $100,000."
The investment created a small dilemma. Since there was no legal entity known as "Google Inc.," there was no way to deposit the check. It sat in Larry's desk drawer for a couple of weeks while he and Sergey scrambled to set up a corporation and locate other funders among family, friends, and acquaintances. Ultimately they brought in a total initial investment of almost $1 million."
source: [2]
A play on words by definition needs two sides to it. Despite what Google says, I don't see any play on words in the name Google -- it's just a misspelling. I haven't changed anything yet, but I think if we are to keep this 'etymology', it must be explained what the play on words is. JudahH 01:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be appropriate to rename the April Fool's Day Jokes section of the article to Jokes by Google (or something like that). Why you ask? Becuase not all of the jokes that Google have done are on April Fools day - take today for example if you click here and zoom all the way in it shows "cheese". Also related to google moon are this, a FAQ about Google moon, and this a site about a new center Google is "building" on the moon. AfterSpencer 16:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
12:22, 27 July 2005 208.58.74.167 (Rewrite to clarify - not add to - original text.) by Kyle Andrew Brown Kyle Andrew Brown 12:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
07:20, 29 July 2005 entry states "recent". This needs to be factual date for an enclycopedia. Kyle Andrew Brown 12:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
the phrase "it is estimated that less than one job offer is made per thousand resumes submitted" reads more like a magazine article than an encylopedia. I suggest it be deleted. Kyle Andrew Brown 21:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
After the External links is a magazine like history followed with what look like are copies of Google produced newsletters. I dont think I get it. Why would an encylclopedia have a company's newsletter and why would an encyclopedia entry evolve into a "user manual"? Kyle Andrew Brown 20:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Some material on this page was merged in from "Google community", per Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Google community. -- BD2412 talk 03:22, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Heres why I think so, I did a search for; career and the least desired results is what I got.
1. 268,000,000- 271,000,000 results found
2. The first results on the first page was dispointing mostly big company based websites.. and i'm not very enthuastic to find a job through those sites.
After skipping forward about 98+ pages it reverted to 86 pages and the list was ommited with only 851 - 860 results shown. with 268,000,000 found.
The second time after ommited results were accepted It stopped at 100 with only 991 - 993 results shown. with 271,000,000 found.
So the about 271,000,000 million other pages were never shown. and quite frankly(I don't normally say that) I think google isn't as big as what they claim. I dont really know if more results is benificial or less is. Just a little obversation from using google daily
The article states that there are 4000 people working for google, whereas the factbox states that there are only 3000. Maybe this could be investigated further.
Googol says the spelling of Google was a spelling mistake, and has a quote. However, this entry claims the spelling was a "play" on the word, implying that it was intentional. Which is right?
I heard somewhere that, when the two founders of Google were trying to invent a name for their new search service, they struck on the word Googol, but misspelled it. When this was pointed out to them, they decided to keep the original (incorrect,) spelling, rather than change it to the less 'trendy' (i.e. slightly awkward,) Googol. In true Google fashion, spelling doesn't get in the way of anything!
What is the "I'm feeling lucky!" thing about?-Darkmewham
I added some additional information about the original hardware Google used. It may be incorrect as I was going off this site: http://web.archive.org/web/19990209043945/google.stanford.edu/googlehardware.html (which was the original google site)... however the images won't load.
If anyone knows the exact hardware they used, it would be interesting to note.
I also added the Google logos. If anyone knows of any other official logos and also year dates for the cutrrent logos, please add them.
I removed the logos which were added above because when I looked at googles site they had the said logos listed under "fan logos" so it seemed it was misleading to list them as previous versions of the official logo. In it's place there is now a link to the Google holiday logos. It feels an awkward place for it so it should probably be moved someplace else. Cheers, flyer_13 talk 03:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
The logos I have had to add twice now because people have been removing them are actually the official logos which Google had used since their beginnings. Yes google has them listed under fan logos, but if you actually read the text, it says: Finally, here are progressively older versions of our logo, dating back to the days before we were Google... For God's Sake!
Logo's put back again, hopefully for the last time.
stanford... I suggest you learn your google history
http://www.google.com/reader/lens/
if anyone feels like writing about it ...
70.80.66.115 04:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC) --martin
Google is about to reach a US$100 Billion value. Worth more than the Coca Cola Co. Wow.
anybody adding Google Analytics here? 59.93.130.58 09:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
How many wikipedia.org pages on Google? 120 million? [4] -- Henrygb 18:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I've removed the following links to news articles from the external links section. For one, this is not a complete list of all news articles that mention google. Secondly, the purpose of an encyclopedia article is not to provide such a list - there are plenty of news sites out there that provide these services. If we were to keep adding news article links to every article on the net that mentioned google, this article would be way too long! I have kept the links here and provided them, as some of the information could be used by editors in referencing various info in the article. Dr. Cash 21:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Why are there links to every google subdomain for every google project in the external links section. Since we already mention the various google projects elsewhere in the article, with a list of the projects and links to them, I see no reason why we need a huge linkfarm to every google project under the external links section. All that I can really see here are providing a link to the main google search page and perhaps the google.org philanthropy page. Dr. Cash 21:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I think Google Blogoscoped might be relevant within the external link sections, but don't want to enter it as creator. -- Philwiki 22:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
( 82.111.205.42 18:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)) Maybe add 'Google News' External links, possible suggestions would include: http://www.ameinfo.com/news/Company_News/G/Google/index.html, http://www.arcon5.com/news.aspx?company=goog
"BERLIN Germany and France are negotiating on plans to inject E1 billion to E2 billion over five years into a public-private initiative to develop a series of sophisticated digital tools including a next-generation Internet search engine, a project organizer said. " CaribDigita 06:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Can someone include details of the google shuttle? How many busses, maybe some details of the routes, etc? Wireless internet onboard...
So the Internet thing might be relevant, but I don't see why the number of buses is interesting...
A person hiding under different IP addresses which start with 59.92 has been tampering with the links randomly for quite a while now, something if at all possible needs to be done about this issue
I'm sure I heard the word "google" as a verb, meaning "to look at" before the search engine company came about. And, no, I'm not thinking of "to goggle". -- Urbane legend 13:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I believe you are talking about "ogle" -
I moved the 'etymology' section (previously under history) back to the opening paragraph. I believe that this information is important enough to warrant being mentioned up front. I also do not think it belongs as a sub-section under 'history' because, while it can be considered a part of the history of the company, it does not seem to fit in with the order of the story being told in that section.
Also, for some reason, the anonymous user 195.93.21.37 deleted this text from the opening paragraph with no explanation. I am not sure why? Dr. Cash 05:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The "Other Versions" section does mention Froogle, which is definitely real, but it also mentions "Elgoog" and "Googirl". I cannot find "www.elgoog.com" and "www.googirl.com" is a porn site. If in fact either of these does exist as a legitimate site, the name should have a link with the correct URL so that users are not sent to inappropriate material. Until this is added, I am removing Googirl and suggest Elgoog be removed as well. - Ian Burnet 1/25/06
I realize that the subject is a big subject, however does anyone else other than me think that this article is a bit too long? Whispering 00:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I was reading an article today that said "...Google, which was founded in 1997 and is now worth $129 billion (£72 billion), making it the fastest growing company in the history of the world." [5] I think this is noteworty enough to warrent mention in the article, but I am not sure where. Cacophony 20:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
It reads "Google Inc. Monstrous evil facist empire" on the sidebar describing Google. There is also the word "swastika" next to the Google logo. What up with this?
After using Google for a while, I remembered the cartoon title "Barney Google and Snuffy Smith", which is usually shortened to "Snuffy Smith." Google "Barney Google" and a few web pages about the cartoon and derivative media (TV, movie, song) show up.
I just finished a major clean-up of this article. The history section has been shorted, and much content has been moved to a new History of Google article. I also moved the entire controversy section over to the history of google article as well (after all, today's controversy is tomorrow's history, eh?).
The external links have also been cleaned up greatly, removing much of the linkspam, and moving many of the links to news articles to references within the text. The article now makes use of Wikipedia:Footnotes, so future news article references should now make use of that format. Any external links inserted without the footnote formatting should ideally be converted to this format. The primary reason for this is that, if we insert the author, title, publication, and date information into the reference, instead of just the link, if the site is later removed by the original publisher, we still have information regarding where the citation came from and can still track it down. Dr. Cash 03:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Some dollar signs are links and some aren't. Should I remove the links or add them to all dollar signs? Maybe this should be asked in a more general area because it applies to all articles, but I don't want to go searching for the right one, and I haven't seen an inconsistency problem involving this anywhere else. -Barry- 02:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Should there be some kind of formalized link to the "criticisms/controversies" section on the History of Google page? If a user comes to the main Google page looking for such information, there's nothing mentioned at all here about the various controversies, and its not really very obvious that the History page would be the place to go looking for it. (Also, I deleted Striver's incomplete entry about censorship; if that link is important, it should go on in the controversy section on the history page). -- mtz206 16:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
As I noted above, the section Striver is adding is incomplete and mentions an isolated event regarding alleged actions by Google. If this even deserves mention, it should be added to the criticism and controversy section of the History of Google page. (also, it should have a complete heading title, not whatever the abbreviated "censur" is meant to represent. -- mtz206 02:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The article says that the patent for Pagerank was assigned to Stanford U- but doesn't that mean they control it? If so, doesn't that mean Google would've needed to license it from Stanford? If so, for how much, and how? -- maru (talk) contribs 05:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I think we need to arrive at some kind of consensus as to what kind of links belong in the "Other links" subsection of "External links." Should these be non-Google sites about Google? Sites offering deeper understanding of Google? Sites offfering critical views on Google? What kind of Other links would add value to an encyclopedic article about Google? Thoughts?
Meanwhile, there has been a minor revert war on whether www.google-watch.org or www.scroogle.org should be there. Often when these are deleted, the link to Google.vc (for "very cool") remains. IMO, if any of these should remain it would be Google Watch, with some kind of description like "site critical of Google." A link to Scroogle seems perhaps more appropriate for the Google and privacy issues article, although I'm not even sure about that. The Google.vc link seems entirely superfluous to an encyclopedic article about Google. -- mtz206 20:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I was also thinking that it might be a good spot to put a link to Google X Directory which is being archived Google X Directory It is a google portal and just as relative if not more than the Google Watch or Scroogle links.
I just looked at google-x, and I think I'm missing the point. The only relationship I can see with Google is that it uses Blogspot and Google's search engine results to sell advertising space. From what I've seen, I really don't think it belongs. As for other links, I agree completely with mtz206. -- Straif 19:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
So that it is clear what I've done (and to hopefully prevent future revert wars), I removed the link to Google.vc entirely; it didn't belong. There are wiki articles for Google Watch and Scroogle. As internal links are always preferable to external, I added them to the overly long See also: list, and removed the external links. -- Straif 19:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I know this article was recently 'cleaned' up, but I wonder why the section "Specific searches" (see [ Feb. 18th version) is missing. There are now no links whatsoever from this article to Google Maps, Google Earth, and other google products. Seems to me, the brief section on google searches (products) should be readded, so those links are present in the article. - Aude ( talk | contribs) 00:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I wrote an article about a related topic, Google Groups. As a new Wikipedia writer, I would appreciate any feedback on my article. Please help me by posting your feedback at the Wikipedia:Article Feedback Desk. If you wrote an article and are seeking feedback on it, please post your article at the Article Feedback Desk as well. If you could suggest better ways for me to seek feedback on my article, do leave a note at my talk page. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Following a suggestion from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam, I added the following comment to the external links section:
Openly discussing the merits of a particular link is a good thing. -- Straif 15:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Googleplex seems to make out Google is a great place to work. POV. 212.135.1.49 08:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
There's a problem with the template for Google that appears on the bottom of many Google products - it lists many programs and services that were not created by Google - some in fact violate Google's terms of use.
I suggest taking out all non-Google pages from that template and keeping only articles on subjects which are directly related to Google.
Kungming2 23:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I am conducting a poll of Wikipedians to see whether this particular template, Template:Google Inc. should be nominated for deletion. Please note that the navigational functions it provides have been superseded by Template:Google_services and that the template itself provides links to unnecessary information - for example, the links to the Google Hacks book and the miserable failure article, which have nothing to do with the company itself. So vote - should it be nominated for deletion? –- kungming· 2 (Talk) 05:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The article is biased in that it does not contain any reference to the contoversy to do with google china. Also, it does read like it's an advert for google ltd.
Should the entry contain an external link to Google's conference call transcripts? Google's quarterly conference calls and analyst day are the only occasions when the company discusses its own business and answers analysts questions about its business and strategy. The transcripts are now available for free here: http://seekingalpha.com/transcripts/for/goog
Arguably, there should also be a link to Google's SEC filings.
In the history section of the page, every occurence of the word Google has been replaced with "Boob Hull."
Now it seems okay. Check it anyway. Feanor981 16:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I am building a minimalistic but comprehensive list of Google products and services (intended to be more complete than the specific article). It can be found at User:Tacvek/Google. While I will try to keep it up to date, I would appricate having others look over that page, and updating it as nessisary. Please do read the notes at the top of the page before editing. Thanks. Tacvek 22:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I stumbled upon a website that said Google donated bandwidth and servers to the Wikipedia. [6] There is a lot of speculation from the announcement, but I couldn't find what was actually donated. Does anyone know of a reference? Might be a good thing to add to the partnerships section. I found it interesting, but maybe it's not really notable. Mattedm 23:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Google has employed a lot of people in Australia google. The stages are difficult. But the payment is good.
http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~xji/xiaonanji.html
What's 117.16 bil mean? Dollars? Reletive size? I have no idea what exactly it does mean. Can anyone who has a clue fix it (btw. I don't think their market capitalisation is actually anywhere near $117b atm) -- drrngrvy tlk @ 00:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The article does briefly mention that employees are supposed to spend 20% of their time on other projects, but it doesn't mention the rest of the time breakdown (70% on main work, 20% on relevant but tangential stuff, and 10% for fun random stuff that might work out to be something important). The way it's written, actually, it seems like that 20% is referring to the 10% fun stuff. Delta Echo Romeo 17:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC) Delechrom
It is allowed to have one fansite per page. I would like to add http://googlefansite.com at google external link page. Lowe Gray 09:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Regarding googlefansite.com , here is the rule for listing fansite : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links . Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. Thanks. Since im an avid google fan we have made a site for google fans. Lowe Gray 05:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Its true that its not yet a major fansite, but since there are no fansite for google, then http://www.googlefansite.com can be the default, if there are other major fansite for google in the future then it can easily be replaced. Lowe Gray 05:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The links are all blogs, which is very different from a fansite see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fansite . A fansite normally have boards, news, polls, pictures taken from various sources, media downloads, links to other, similar fansites, and the chance to talk to other fans. Lowe Gray 00:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Well can I seek your help to kindly include the Google fansite http://googlefansite.com as one of the external link. Thanks you for any help. Lowe Gray 09:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Can any of you answer this question? If you do not have a "gmail" account may you still upload videos onto www.video.google.com? Please respond if you know the answer to my question, much appreciated Max.pwnage 22:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Isn't 10 to the power of one hundred ten with 101 zeroes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.99.99 ( talk • contribs)
http://www.forbes.com/2006/06/09/google-0609markets09_print.html -- SkyWalker 15:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
From the article:
Did Google have any advertising revenue before then? If not, this needs to be reworded (e.g. "establshing a revenue stream").-- Eloquence * 05:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
A question about google company: since google is mainly a search website, and when people (like me) search a certain word in the box of google homepage, there is no charge at all, then how can google company get a profit to feed their staff?
In other words, what are the sources for google company to get income and profit?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Korenzhang2244 ( talk • contribs)
Are there any (or, does anyone knows that) lawsuit prosecuting the individual sellers for their selling counterfeit brand-named shoes (e.g. PRADA, Gucci, BAPE) on the ebay? Or, the shoe companies just prosecute the ebay company as supplying a platform for people to sell fake/counterfeit PRADA, Gucci shoes through ebay?
Are there any laws set up in the USA, Uk and other European countries against the counterfeit Gucci/PRADA shoes on ebay? Or, those genuine companies are just not aware of this yet?
But, will it be reasonable and right to ban for selling the fake shoes on Ebay, as a online e-commerce platform? Would it be practically possible to supervise the listings on ebay, and suppose one really get genuine brand-name shoes, and want to re-sell it on Ebay, what type of proves do they need to put on the listings on ebay? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Korenzhang2244 ( talk • contribs) 13:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC).
No, this is not a rhetorical question. Really would like to discuss about this e-commerce thing. It is just purely from an academic point of view to study human behaviuos, psychology, and the e-business, also have an interest in the legal activity relating to this new emerged online business, and how this will change and reform our conventional concepts. Thank you.
in addition, I think, in some way, Google is the same kind of company as ebay. They are both very successful and growing rapidly and going to overthrow the monopoly of Microsoft and take over the business format in the world. In the next decade, I think the trend of the business across the world would be on the hand of e-business, which inherite the advantage of fast comunication, fast payment, and fast advertising! Don't you think so?
Thank you, Road Wizard. Could you please give me some good worldwide forums websites, which people mainly discuss about the legilation and e-commerce and human behavious? I am new in researching in these areas and very interested in these areas. By the way, is there a part-time business management course in Manchester, or any on-line e-courses? (will be grateful if you could help me with these questions, Thanks!)
All around Wikipedia, there has been much discussion of what could from a collaboration between Wikipedia & Google, listing lots of possible pros and cons, and how it could benefit both companies. While a partnership is all up to executives of the Wikimedia Foundation & Google Inc., I propose the creation of an article where Wikipedians could explore the issue. There are dozens of articles dedicated to defining different parts of both internet companies, and lots of talk about their relationship, so a entire article dedicated to the possibilities might be beneficial. I could create the article myself, but I would like feedback to see if its appropriate or not. I'm not positive if it fits into Wikipedia's policies, so I step cautiously. I don't want anyone to shoot me down for this proposal, even if it turns out to be a bad one, I just want to explore an idea.-- Wikiphilia 22:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I have added the Merriem Webster info today. Great news that it's FINALLY a verb, and I don't get people correcting me "oh, "google it" isn't proper english". AllanVS 22:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
For some weird reason the article tells me that I have to discuss a external link here before I add it. So here is my external link candidate: How Google Works. This article gives a lot of extra information about google that I don't find anywhere else. After adding this article as external link we can use this information to improve the wikipedia-article and then use the article as a reference instead of a external link. Opions please. -- Garo 09:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed this text from the article. A single job posting that makes vague references to 'collaborative efforts with the Mozilla Foundation' that is still posted on the site and unchanged after a year is not really evidence of a notable collaborative effort. While putting Firefox in their Google Pack (software) might be more notable, how many companies include firefox in their software?! I think Google may only be interested as far as the fact that it's a freely available web browser that they can bundle with some of their other products and offer a value, in much the same way Dell might offer it on their computers that they sell. But there is virtually no evidence that Google engineers are partnering with the Mozilla Foundation to further develop new features and functionality in the Firefox browser itself, which is what this text in a way suggests, and why I see it as misleading. Dr. Cash 18:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
There's a little edit war whether Google is a play on words or a misspelling. While Google's official history say it's a play on words [11], apparently that's a PR move and it really was a misspelling [12] Stev0 20:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The article told me that I should discuss a external link here before I can add it. So here is my external link candidate:
70.225.75.58 20:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
"Non-notable" - perhaps (However, typing "Google Your Race" into Google shows that it is very popular and has generated many lively debates.) But, before you assume that the webmaster is a racist - you should read the website's F.A.Q. page: http://www.orcmagazine.com/Google_Your_Race/FAQ.html
I performed this revert [13] because mention of Google's censorship in China is not appropriate in a lead section paragraph describing the etymology of its name. -- MichaelZimmer ( talk) 00:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
-- Spet1363 16:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC) Apologies if I came across as rude, I do appretiate everybody's efforts. I would agree if there was a brief mention in the introduction (something along the lines of 'which came along with controversy regarding censorship' appended to the 'new Chinese name' sentence, which seems to me the more logical location), linked to the relevant 'controversy' or 'History' section. This way different issues will not get mixed up and, at the same time, all aspects will receive the fair attention they deserve and all users wanting to consult this important aspect of the company can do so without impediments. -- Spet1363 16:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed the google censorship information from the paragraph that deals with discussion on the naming of the company, since these are TWO TOTALLY UNRELATED TOPICS, and the BBC News reference that was used to cite this does not even suggest that they are related. It's not correct to even try and tie these together! I don't think we're brushing the censorship issue under the rug at all, since it is covered in great detail in the History of Google article. But we also don't want the article to become a haven for all the conspiracy theorists trying to make stuff up, either! Dr. Cash 22:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, referring to Google's censorship in China as a conspiracy theory is pretty bold. The reason I believe this important aspect of the company's history belongs where it is now (i.e. in the first chapter) is because that is obviously NOT simply a chapter about the company's name, as you well know-- that is the introduction, where the principal issues are outlined before more in-depth aspects are addressed in the main body. The reason the phrase is appended to the company's Chinese name is because it is a perfectly logical flow from one connected point to another.
As expressed ad nauseam by me and many, MANY other wikipedia users (whose contributions and their result are plain to see from the page's history), Google's censorship in China is a very imporant issue that people want to read and write about. The issue deserves a predominant location rather than being hidden into some obscure section, four clicks away, in purposely ambiguous wording. As I said in my last post (hoping to get somewhere), I understand some contributors might be concerned about keeping the article concice and to the point; that is why I would be happy to append a short comment to the 'Chinese name' phrase and link that (directly) to a relevant section of the page where the details are objectively laid out more in-depth. -- Spet1363 23:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I am ready to accept that the location of the insertion might not be the best. I am not ready to accept that Google's celf-censorship in China is anything but VERY important though. I believe that information deserves to be added to the introduction, in acknowledgement of its relevance and the interest expressed by many Wikipedia users. I would be happy to include it in a different form in a different location, as long as it features in the introduction, where the principal relevant points are outlined. Maybe a few lines could be added between the 'Chinese name' and the 'Server farm' paragraphs (as a new paragraph)? -- Spet1363 23:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
spet1363 is right. check out all the china edits in the last month- 17:35, 14 July, 14:42, 11 July 2006, 14:36, 11 July 2006, 14:35, 11 July 2006, 03:08, 11 July 2006, 03:08, 11 July 2006, 12:47, 8 July 2006, 12:45, 8 July 2006, 12:42, 8 July 2006, 09:17, 25 June 2006. their all deleted by Derek cashman --
Igloolily
16:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Igoolily is one of my students at university. She opened her account ex profeso to submit a comment. We have been debating the issue in our Media Studies class. --
129.67.89.102
17:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
We are not making much progress in working towards consensus, are we. May I remind you Wikipedia is not your personal space either, despite what your actions for the last few months appear to suggest. Google's shares plummeted at the time (there is no denying that [16]-- the fact they have recovered six months later is inconsequential; the US recovered after the Great Depression and that does not imply it was irrelevant or did not exist), there was enormous media coverage at the time (exemplified by the BBC article I keep adding and you keep deleting under the false pretense of believing someone is attempting to make a reference to some etymological issue), and, as Igloolily pointed out, MANY Wikipedia users believe it is an important issue that deserves mention. You obviously found a good reason to delete their contributions in pretty much every single occasion. I am reverting your deletion, once again hopeful of receiving some sort of constructive feedback that will lead to an agreement.
P.S. I hope you will excuse the fact I am not a native English speaker.
-- 129.67.89.102 20:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Spet1363, I believe the logic in your edit summary here [18] is invalid. If there is a dispute over whether or not new content should be included in an article, the burden is on the building of consensus to include it. Therefore, it should remain out of the article until such consensus is (if ever) made. -- MichaelZimmer ( talk) 22:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
So, if censorship in China is so important to be included in opening paragraph of the article, then why isn't censorship of nazi and arian related sites by Germany and France not included here? Even Yahoo! has had to deal with criticisms like this, but the fact is, that Germany and France have very strict rules regarding this type of material, and if you want to do business there, you have to follow those rules. Of course, China is no different in this case -- they just appear that way because they're a communist country and the communist regime is under criticism here (in the same way Germany and France have been criticized). Google (and Yahoo) just want to do business in these areas, so they got to follow the rules. So is this really a google controversy, or is this really more a controversy with the governments? Dr. Cash 22:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
This edit war has reached the point of uselessness. Can one of the powers that be lock the article until every has cooled their heads? Stev0 00:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I have added a brief Controversy subsection within the History section: [19], which makes general mention of some of Google's controversies, and points users to the articles that provide more detail. Whether we should specifically mention China here, I'll leave up for discussion. (I have not removed any other content from the article that might now be redundant if this new section remains). -- MichaelZimmer ( talk) 20:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you , Michael. I have removed the link to The Independent news (as it is true it does not explictly mention the Chinese censorship) and added an internal link to your subsection. --
129.67.89.102
21:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the controversy subsection. We actually had this before, and all it did was increase the size of the article as every conspiracy theorist out there started inserted junk; the article was at least 2-3 times longer than it is now. The link is sufficient here. Contrary to popular belief, the chinese censorship issue is much less important than it appears to be. Dr. Cash 22:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I have expanded this section to provide more context and include embedded links to other Google-specific articles with more information. See now Google#Controversies. -- MichaelZimmer ( talk) 15:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It appears to me that there may be a case of gaming the system by using both a logged-on identity and an anonymous IP to reinsert the same material; I am not convinced that Spet1363 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 129.67.89.102 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are different people. Multiple times the reverter has changed just in time to avoid that 4th revert. However, I don't think it's time to bother the checkuser folks with it just yet.
Also consider this a reminder to all involved parties that:
I'll try to slow down the blind reverting if everyone else will too, although it remains my position that consensus strongly favors not including this piece of information in the introduction. ( ESkog)( Talk) 23:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Point taken. Now, where is the constructive feedback? Where do we go from here? What about the 'Controversies' subsection? --
Spet1363
23:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
All editors would be wise to consider the one revert guidline. The activity is clearly a lame edit war and Gaming the 3RR is just a symptom. This talk page is the place to battle out consensus - not on the article - Peripitus (Talk) 10:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Not much inspiration since last night? I am appending the original phrase to encourage brain storming. -- 129.67.89.102 12:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Let's try a straw poll to help arrive at consensus.
Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, preferably adding a brief comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed.
Question: Should the introductory section include specific mention of Google's censorship of results in China in relation the naming of its Chinese search product?
Discussion resulting from the survey should go here.
The issue WAS whether it belonged in the intro or not, but, as I have repeatd ad nauseam, I am willing to compromise. The creation of a subsection about controversies was a great start, but that was unilaterally removed under the justification that 'contrary to popular believe it is not important' and 'it will invite conspiracy theorists to write junk'. Not a positive attitude! As ever, I am still waiting for constructive feedback that will lead to the establishment of a consensual middle ground. 'Shut up and leave our article the way it was' is not a consensual middle ground. People need to be able to find the Chinese censorship issue easily, read and write about it without the impediments created by a few users. -- Spet1363 15:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed the link references from the introductory section, since the BBC article link was made in the sentence referring to the 'pin yin' name, and the reference itself made no mention of that name whatsoever, so is actually misleading. With regards to the other external link reference, that was actually used inappropriately, since it was not really an external link but in fact, an internal link to another part of the article. I removed it also for the reason that I strongly disagree that the china controversy should be mentioned in the opening paragraph, which I think based on the 'straw poll' above, most everyone agrees with that. As far as the 'controversies' section itself, I can live with that section, though I am still a bit cautious as I think it's really just going to be a big red target for conspiracy theorists to add junk and vandalize. We're going to have to watch that very carefully. Dr. Cash 18:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
As a Google fan, I've watched this conflict unfold for several days, but have not participated because I was considering leaving Wikipedia. Since I've decided not to leave, and am looking for WikiProjects and more ways to participate and contribute information, I feel compelled to give my input.
The introductory paragraphs are meant to be a summary of Google. They should describe the most notable information on Google. Google is notable for its innovative, clean products and impact on online culture. However, is Google notable for going into China and its censorship? No. Why? When I say "Google", people will be more likely to think about the former, not the censorship.
Therefore, I don't think Google's Chinese name even deserves mention in the introduction. It's not something notable about Google. If the Chinese name was not in the introduction, I suspect this conflict would have never started.
I think the censorship issue and Chinese name definitely deserve mention, but not in the introductory section. It can surely fit into another section of the article. I generally have a tendency to assume bad faith about anonymous editors, but if he persists, I suggest the following compromise in the introduction.
"Google has become well known for its innovative, clean products, and has a major impact on online culture. However, the corporation has been criticized for privacy concerns and its censorship of searches in various countries."
P.S. MSN, AOL, Lycos, Yahoo! and most other search engines, including Baidu, also censor search results in China. Why is Google blamed the most? Because it's the largest search engine, or because it does no evil? Please mention the fact that other search engines also censor searches, That is a fact that many overlook, and should be included in the article.
-- J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I have made an article on how webdesigners and other Internet related people can imporve their Google Page rang using Accessible design.
Please note that this article really has nothing with "real" cheating.
Please review it:-) Hope you'll like it!
Borislav Dopudja 11:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Hm.. This article is not really SEO, but rather guide how to make quality web site that afterwards acheives good recults with Google (and other Search engines). What you suggest? Should I post link request to a SEO talk? Borislav Dopudja 23:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I can't figure out what this means:
"It registers about a billion requests per day, which it records with no time-limit "to improve its search engines."[6]"
"...records with no time-limit..." ?? Leotohill 21:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure about this. But the name given in the article seems random? The one used on Chinese Wikipedia seems to be 公司 so someone might want to check these details. -- 203.130.124.42 02:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
This video seems to keep being inserted as a reference for the statement about 50% of new product launches coming from 20% time:
The problem I have with it is, is that it's allegedly a video of a course lecture at stanford university and not published in any professional media sources. The video link alone is not acceptable, as stanford is likely to delete the video soon after the course completes, and then we're stuck with a link to something that doesn't exist. So I think we really need to find a more acceptable source here. Something that is also a text-based source that we can read, and don't have to depend on our PCs ability to play windows media player files to verify the source. Dr. Cash 16:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Best non-video reference I can find is a BusinessWeek online page talking about Marissa Mayer's 9 Notions of Innovation. There's a slide show linked to the article. Notion #4 is "Employees get a "free" day a week. Half of new launches come from this "20% time"... [23] -- Onorem 15:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The article has gone through a good deal of revisions since its rejection from FAC, as well as it's last peer review. I was wondering what editors feel still needs to be done before renomination for FAC? Dr. Cash 18:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone recently added a screenshot of google's personalized homepage to the 'History/Growth' section of the article. The screenshot is a little wide, and at 400 px wide might make the section look a little odd to someone viewing the article at 800x600 screen resolution. The real question, though, is, does this really add anything to the article, and specifically the section in which it was added? We've already got a screenshot of the main page earlier in the article, and what does this specific image have to do with the 'growth' of google? I'm not so sure this is necessary. Dr. Cash 22:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Can somebody tell me where should the Google's Chinese name writing? Aleen f1 09:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
this should go somewere. -- Striver 03:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
How many billion pages does the Google index now contain, and should this be mentioned in the article? Where is this information available? Does Google publish these figures anymore? -- -Majestic- 09:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Google just anounced a new product [Google Apps for your Domain]. I don't know much about it my self, but we should try to get some information up about it as soon as possible
I deleted the text "Google has also been criticised for censoring material on its Chinese service, including sites on Falun Gong, human rights abuses in Tibet and the Tiananmen Square Massacre" since it's covered in the paragraph in the sentence "Google's cooperation with the governments of China, France and Germany to filter search results in accordance to regional laws and regulations has led to claims of censorship." Note the link to the article Google censorship which has all that information and more. Stev0 15:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
It appears that Google has the star in the top right corner indicating it's a featured article. However, the discussion page does not state that Google is a featured article, and it does not appear in the featured articles list. So is Google a featured article or not? If not, please remove the star. Thanks. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Today on my time GMT+100, Google said it was the 8th anniversary. So does this mean that Google was founded on Sept 27 1998?
Well... google tells it has birthday today (and in the calender of wiki this also is noted) but on the page: nothing... only 7 september... Missing 2? Or just missing data?
Google does have an exact date when google was founded, just September, 1998. They pick a date when everyone wants cake =D-- jonphamta 12:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
“ | When is Google's birthday?
Google opened its doors in September 1998. The exact date when we celebrate our birthday has moved around over the years, depending on when people feel like having cake.. |
” |
-- jonphamta 12:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Have you ever googled Google? Don't go do it...just reflect on the mystery of it all. Ponder these things. Holy Crap!! Why is there so much discussion going on here about a search engine?? You guys need to get a job, or something. User:hxc ryan
True, true. The pressure's on, Google people!! User:hxc ryan
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
In an effort to shorten this page a bit, the talk related to the history & controversy has been moved to Talk:History of Google. Dr. Cash 17:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Please note that MSN search and windows live search are still two seperate search engines. www.msn.com and www.live.com Sargontfo 10:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Sargontfo
Anyone interested in seeing a list of acquisitions made by Google?
I made this page to help shorten the Google page. The data on this page currently replicates that on the google page. Once this page is done some links (refering to the company not the site) will be redirected and the extra info on Google wil be deleted. BrokenSegue 23:23, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This article states that the company code of conduct is "Don't be evil." I'm fairly certain it is actually "Do no evil." However, I can't find any online evidence for this (or the other one). Does anyone know the correct code of conduct? It seems like Google would have this posted somehwere... — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:23, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, that's the kind of info I was looking for. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:29, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
Is the conspiracy theory that Google is a front/in cahoots with the NSA still considered too whacko for inclusion amongst the criticisms and controversies section?
TakuyaMurata:
John D
253,088 GHz of processing power
I would say the same. Where does this come from? How did you find out?
I kind of want this one next to "management" and "analysts".-- Jerryseinfeld 11:08, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've removed the following listing of Research Analysts from the article. I cannot see why this is important to the company. None of these people actually work for google. If we add all the people that work for financial companies researching every corporation out there, wikipedia would quickly add a lot of useless information. The link to Imran Khan also did not even go to a financial analyst's page - the page says he's a cricket player. Dr. Cash 20:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Research analysts covering Google Inc. See also GOOG: Star Analysts for GOOGLE - Yahoo! Finance
The image resolution ranges from one foot to two meters
Metric or imperial, make up your mind! :) The mixing of units here looks terrible in my opinion.
Google has a couple of innovations
Sense of humour
-NOTE: This page is now situated at moon.google.com
These might be included in the article.
14-sep-2011: Is this date relevant information for somewhere in the article? -- user:zanimum
I love Google's sense of humour -- dg 19:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
yeah, i agree. 128.175.226.50 16:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Sysadmins at Google make $33K a year? You've gotta be kidding. You couldn't hire a cleaner in the Bay Area for that salary.
... that number may have been true when stock options were worth bundles of money, but nowadays it's totally bogus I think.
I heard the founders of Google
reduced their salaries to $1 per year. --
Cuervo 22:49, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
They include a 'Reference' link at the end, but they just copied the text, I think: [ JuiceNewsDaily]
Looking at the Google site, it doesn't seem that Leet is offered any longer as a language. For another joke language, Google currently offers Elmer Fudd ("I'm Feewing Wucky!").
I had added the story about the check being made out to 'Google, Inc.' back when they were looking for investors, and that is how the misspelling is now the name of the company. The story was deleted a few days later, saying it was false. I found the source so I'll be putting it back in...
"Unable to interest the major portal players of the day, Larry and Sergey decided to make a go of it on their own. All they needed was a little cash to move out of the dorm — and to pay off the credit cards they had maxed out buying a terabyte of memory. So they wrote up a business plan, put their Ph.D. plans on hold, and went looking for an angel investor. Their first visit was with a friend of a faculty member.
Andy Bechtolsheim, one of the founders of Sun Microsystems, was used to taking the long view. One look at their demo and he knew Google had potential — a lot of potential. But though his interest had been piqued, he was pressed for time. As Sergey tells it, "We met him very early one morning on the porch of a Stanford faculty member's home in Palo Alto. We gave him a quick demo. He had to run off somewhere, so he said, 'Instead of us discussing all the details, why don't I just write you a check?' It was made out to Google Inc. and was for $100,000."
The investment created a small dilemma. Since there was no legal entity known as "Google Inc.," there was no way to deposit the check. It sat in Larry's desk drawer for a couple of weeks while he and Sergey scrambled to set up a corporation and locate other funders among family, friends, and acquaintances. Ultimately they brought in a total initial investment of almost $1 million."
source: [2]
A play on words by definition needs two sides to it. Despite what Google says, I don't see any play on words in the name Google -- it's just a misspelling. I haven't changed anything yet, but I think if we are to keep this 'etymology', it must be explained what the play on words is. JudahH 01:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be appropriate to rename the April Fool's Day Jokes section of the article to Jokes by Google (or something like that). Why you ask? Becuase not all of the jokes that Google have done are on April Fools day - take today for example if you click here and zoom all the way in it shows "cheese". Also related to google moon are this, a FAQ about Google moon, and this a site about a new center Google is "building" on the moon. AfterSpencer 16:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
12:22, 27 July 2005 208.58.74.167 (Rewrite to clarify - not add to - original text.) by Kyle Andrew Brown Kyle Andrew Brown 12:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
07:20, 29 July 2005 entry states "recent". This needs to be factual date for an enclycopedia. Kyle Andrew Brown 12:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
the phrase "it is estimated that less than one job offer is made per thousand resumes submitted" reads more like a magazine article than an encylopedia. I suggest it be deleted. Kyle Andrew Brown 21:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
After the External links is a magazine like history followed with what look like are copies of Google produced newsletters. I dont think I get it. Why would an encylclopedia have a company's newsletter and why would an encyclopedia entry evolve into a "user manual"? Kyle Andrew Brown 20:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Some material on this page was merged in from "Google community", per Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Google community. -- BD2412 talk 03:22, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Heres why I think so, I did a search for; career and the least desired results is what I got.
1. 268,000,000- 271,000,000 results found
2. The first results on the first page was dispointing mostly big company based websites.. and i'm not very enthuastic to find a job through those sites.
After skipping forward about 98+ pages it reverted to 86 pages and the list was ommited with only 851 - 860 results shown. with 268,000,000 found.
The second time after ommited results were accepted It stopped at 100 with only 991 - 993 results shown. with 271,000,000 found.
So the about 271,000,000 million other pages were never shown. and quite frankly(I don't normally say that) I think google isn't as big as what they claim. I dont really know if more results is benificial or less is. Just a little obversation from using google daily
The article states that there are 4000 people working for google, whereas the factbox states that there are only 3000. Maybe this could be investigated further.
Googol says the spelling of Google was a spelling mistake, and has a quote. However, this entry claims the spelling was a "play" on the word, implying that it was intentional. Which is right?
I heard somewhere that, when the two founders of Google were trying to invent a name for their new search service, they struck on the word Googol, but misspelled it. When this was pointed out to them, they decided to keep the original (incorrect,) spelling, rather than change it to the less 'trendy' (i.e. slightly awkward,) Googol. In true Google fashion, spelling doesn't get in the way of anything!
What is the "I'm feeling lucky!" thing about?-Darkmewham
I added some additional information about the original hardware Google used. It may be incorrect as I was going off this site: http://web.archive.org/web/19990209043945/google.stanford.edu/googlehardware.html (which was the original google site)... however the images won't load.
If anyone knows the exact hardware they used, it would be interesting to note.
I also added the Google logos. If anyone knows of any other official logos and also year dates for the cutrrent logos, please add them.
I removed the logos which were added above because when I looked at googles site they had the said logos listed under "fan logos" so it seemed it was misleading to list them as previous versions of the official logo. In it's place there is now a link to the Google holiday logos. It feels an awkward place for it so it should probably be moved someplace else. Cheers, flyer_13 talk 03:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
The logos I have had to add twice now because people have been removing them are actually the official logos which Google had used since their beginnings. Yes google has them listed under fan logos, but if you actually read the text, it says: Finally, here are progressively older versions of our logo, dating back to the days before we were Google... For God's Sake!
Logo's put back again, hopefully for the last time.
stanford... I suggest you learn your google history
http://www.google.com/reader/lens/
if anyone feels like writing about it ...
70.80.66.115 04:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC) --martin
Google is about to reach a US$100 Billion value. Worth more than the Coca Cola Co. Wow.
anybody adding Google Analytics here? 59.93.130.58 09:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
How many wikipedia.org pages on Google? 120 million? [4] -- Henrygb 18:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I've removed the following links to news articles from the external links section. For one, this is not a complete list of all news articles that mention google. Secondly, the purpose of an encyclopedia article is not to provide such a list - there are plenty of news sites out there that provide these services. If we were to keep adding news article links to every article on the net that mentioned google, this article would be way too long! I have kept the links here and provided them, as some of the information could be used by editors in referencing various info in the article. Dr. Cash 21:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Why are there links to every google subdomain for every google project in the external links section. Since we already mention the various google projects elsewhere in the article, with a list of the projects and links to them, I see no reason why we need a huge linkfarm to every google project under the external links section. All that I can really see here are providing a link to the main google search page and perhaps the google.org philanthropy page. Dr. Cash 21:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I think Google Blogoscoped might be relevant within the external link sections, but don't want to enter it as creator. -- Philwiki 22:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
( 82.111.205.42 18:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)) Maybe add 'Google News' External links, possible suggestions would include: http://www.ameinfo.com/news/Company_News/G/Google/index.html, http://www.arcon5.com/news.aspx?company=goog
"BERLIN Germany and France are negotiating on plans to inject E1 billion to E2 billion over five years into a public-private initiative to develop a series of sophisticated digital tools including a next-generation Internet search engine, a project organizer said. " CaribDigita 06:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Can someone include details of the google shuttle? How many busses, maybe some details of the routes, etc? Wireless internet onboard...
So the Internet thing might be relevant, but I don't see why the number of buses is interesting...
A person hiding under different IP addresses which start with 59.92 has been tampering with the links randomly for quite a while now, something if at all possible needs to be done about this issue
I'm sure I heard the word "google" as a verb, meaning "to look at" before the search engine company came about. And, no, I'm not thinking of "to goggle". -- Urbane legend 13:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I believe you are talking about "ogle" -
I moved the 'etymology' section (previously under history) back to the opening paragraph. I believe that this information is important enough to warrant being mentioned up front. I also do not think it belongs as a sub-section under 'history' because, while it can be considered a part of the history of the company, it does not seem to fit in with the order of the story being told in that section.
Also, for some reason, the anonymous user 195.93.21.37 deleted this text from the opening paragraph with no explanation. I am not sure why? Dr. Cash 05:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The "Other Versions" section does mention Froogle, which is definitely real, but it also mentions "Elgoog" and "Googirl". I cannot find "www.elgoog.com" and "www.googirl.com" is a porn site. If in fact either of these does exist as a legitimate site, the name should have a link with the correct URL so that users are not sent to inappropriate material. Until this is added, I am removing Googirl and suggest Elgoog be removed as well. - Ian Burnet 1/25/06
I realize that the subject is a big subject, however does anyone else other than me think that this article is a bit too long? Whispering 00:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I was reading an article today that said "...Google, which was founded in 1997 and is now worth $129 billion (£72 billion), making it the fastest growing company in the history of the world." [5] I think this is noteworty enough to warrent mention in the article, but I am not sure where. Cacophony 20:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
It reads "Google Inc. Monstrous evil facist empire" on the sidebar describing Google. There is also the word "swastika" next to the Google logo. What up with this?
After using Google for a while, I remembered the cartoon title "Barney Google and Snuffy Smith", which is usually shortened to "Snuffy Smith." Google "Barney Google" and a few web pages about the cartoon and derivative media (TV, movie, song) show up.
I just finished a major clean-up of this article. The history section has been shorted, and much content has been moved to a new History of Google article. I also moved the entire controversy section over to the history of google article as well (after all, today's controversy is tomorrow's history, eh?).
The external links have also been cleaned up greatly, removing much of the linkspam, and moving many of the links to news articles to references within the text. The article now makes use of Wikipedia:Footnotes, so future news article references should now make use of that format. Any external links inserted without the footnote formatting should ideally be converted to this format. The primary reason for this is that, if we insert the author, title, publication, and date information into the reference, instead of just the link, if the site is later removed by the original publisher, we still have information regarding where the citation came from and can still track it down. Dr. Cash 03:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Some dollar signs are links and some aren't. Should I remove the links or add them to all dollar signs? Maybe this should be asked in a more general area because it applies to all articles, but I don't want to go searching for the right one, and I haven't seen an inconsistency problem involving this anywhere else. -Barry- 02:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Should there be some kind of formalized link to the "criticisms/controversies" section on the History of Google page? If a user comes to the main Google page looking for such information, there's nothing mentioned at all here about the various controversies, and its not really very obvious that the History page would be the place to go looking for it. (Also, I deleted Striver's incomplete entry about censorship; if that link is important, it should go on in the controversy section on the history page). -- mtz206 16:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
As I noted above, the section Striver is adding is incomplete and mentions an isolated event regarding alleged actions by Google. If this even deserves mention, it should be added to the criticism and controversy section of the History of Google page. (also, it should have a complete heading title, not whatever the abbreviated "censur" is meant to represent. -- mtz206 02:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The article says that the patent for Pagerank was assigned to Stanford U- but doesn't that mean they control it? If so, doesn't that mean Google would've needed to license it from Stanford? If so, for how much, and how? -- maru (talk) contribs 05:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I think we need to arrive at some kind of consensus as to what kind of links belong in the "Other links" subsection of "External links." Should these be non-Google sites about Google? Sites offering deeper understanding of Google? Sites offfering critical views on Google? What kind of Other links would add value to an encyclopedic article about Google? Thoughts?
Meanwhile, there has been a minor revert war on whether www.google-watch.org or www.scroogle.org should be there. Often when these are deleted, the link to Google.vc (for "very cool") remains. IMO, if any of these should remain it would be Google Watch, with some kind of description like "site critical of Google." A link to Scroogle seems perhaps more appropriate for the Google and privacy issues article, although I'm not even sure about that. The Google.vc link seems entirely superfluous to an encyclopedic article about Google. -- mtz206 20:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I was also thinking that it might be a good spot to put a link to Google X Directory which is being archived Google X Directory It is a google portal and just as relative if not more than the Google Watch or Scroogle links.
I just looked at google-x, and I think I'm missing the point. The only relationship I can see with Google is that it uses Blogspot and Google's search engine results to sell advertising space. From what I've seen, I really don't think it belongs. As for other links, I agree completely with mtz206. -- Straif 19:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
So that it is clear what I've done (and to hopefully prevent future revert wars), I removed the link to Google.vc entirely; it didn't belong. There are wiki articles for Google Watch and Scroogle. As internal links are always preferable to external, I added them to the overly long See also: list, and removed the external links. -- Straif 19:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I know this article was recently 'cleaned' up, but I wonder why the section "Specific searches" (see [ Feb. 18th version) is missing. There are now no links whatsoever from this article to Google Maps, Google Earth, and other google products. Seems to me, the brief section on google searches (products) should be readded, so those links are present in the article. - Aude ( talk | contribs) 00:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I wrote an article about a related topic, Google Groups. As a new Wikipedia writer, I would appreciate any feedback on my article. Please help me by posting your feedback at the Wikipedia:Article Feedback Desk. If you wrote an article and are seeking feedback on it, please post your article at the Article Feedback Desk as well. If you could suggest better ways for me to seek feedback on my article, do leave a note at my talk page. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Following a suggestion from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam, I added the following comment to the external links section:
Openly discussing the merits of a particular link is a good thing. -- Straif 15:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Googleplex seems to make out Google is a great place to work. POV. 212.135.1.49 08:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
There's a problem with the template for Google that appears on the bottom of many Google products - it lists many programs and services that were not created by Google - some in fact violate Google's terms of use.
I suggest taking out all non-Google pages from that template and keeping only articles on subjects which are directly related to Google.
Kungming2 23:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I am conducting a poll of Wikipedians to see whether this particular template, Template:Google Inc. should be nominated for deletion. Please note that the navigational functions it provides have been superseded by Template:Google_services and that the template itself provides links to unnecessary information - for example, the links to the Google Hacks book and the miserable failure article, which have nothing to do with the company itself. So vote - should it be nominated for deletion? –- kungming· 2 (Talk) 05:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The article is biased in that it does not contain any reference to the contoversy to do with google china. Also, it does read like it's an advert for google ltd.
Should the entry contain an external link to Google's conference call transcripts? Google's quarterly conference calls and analyst day are the only occasions when the company discusses its own business and answers analysts questions about its business and strategy. The transcripts are now available for free here: http://seekingalpha.com/transcripts/for/goog
Arguably, there should also be a link to Google's SEC filings.
In the history section of the page, every occurence of the word Google has been replaced with "Boob Hull."
Now it seems okay. Check it anyway. Feanor981 16:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I am building a minimalistic but comprehensive list of Google products and services (intended to be more complete than the specific article). It can be found at User:Tacvek/Google. While I will try to keep it up to date, I would appricate having others look over that page, and updating it as nessisary. Please do read the notes at the top of the page before editing. Thanks. Tacvek 22:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I stumbled upon a website that said Google donated bandwidth and servers to the Wikipedia. [6] There is a lot of speculation from the announcement, but I couldn't find what was actually donated. Does anyone know of a reference? Might be a good thing to add to the partnerships section. I found it interesting, but maybe it's not really notable. Mattedm 23:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Google has employed a lot of people in Australia google. The stages are difficult. But the payment is good.
http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~xji/xiaonanji.html
What's 117.16 bil mean? Dollars? Reletive size? I have no idea what exactly it does mean. Can anyone who has a clue fix it (btw. I don't think their market capitalisation is actually anywhere near $117b atm) -- drrngrvy tlk @ 00:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The article does briefly mention that employees are supposed to spend 20% of their time on other projects, but it doesn't mention the rest of the time breakdown (70% on main work, 20% on relevant but tangential stuff, and 10% for fun random stuff that might work out to be something important). The way it's written, actually, it seems like that 20% is referring to the 10% fun stuff. Delta Echo Romeo 17:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC) Delechrom
It is allowed to have one fansite per page. I would like to add http://googlefansite.com at google external link page. Lowe Gray 09:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Regarding googlefansite.com , here is the rule for listing fansite : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links . Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. Thanks. Since im an avid google fan we have made a site for google fans. Lowe Gray 05:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Its true that its not yet a major fansite, but since there are no fansite for google, then http://www.googlefansite.com can be the default, if there are other major fansite for google in the future then it can easily be replaced. Lowe Gray 05:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The links are all blogs, which is very different from a fansite see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fansite . A fansite normally have boards, news, polls, pictures taken from various sources, media downloads, links to other, similar fansites, and the chance to talk to other fans. Lowe Gray 00:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Well can I seek your help to kindly include the Google fansite http://googlefansite.com as one of the external link. Thanks you for any help. Lowe Gray 09:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Can any of you answer this question? If you do not have a "gmail" account may you still upload videos onto www.video.google.com? Please respond if you know the answer to my question, much appreciated Max.pwnage 22:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Isn't 10 to the power of one hundred ten with 101 zeroes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.99.99 ( talk • contribs)
http://www.forbes.com/2006/06/09/google-0609markets09_print.html -- SkyWalker 15:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
From the article:
Did Google have any advertising revenue before then? If not, this needs to be reworded (e.g. "establshing a revenue stream").-- Eloquence * 05:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
A question about google company: since google is mainly a search website, and when people (like me) search a certain word in the box of google homepage, there is no charge at all, then how can google company get a profit to feed their staff?
In other words, what are the sources for google company to get income and profit?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Korenzhang2244 ( talk • contribs)
Are there any (or, does anyone knows that) lawsuit prosecuting the individual sellers for their selling counterfeit brand-named shoes (e.g. PRADA, Gucci, BAPE) on the ebay? Or, the shoe companies just prosecute the ebay company as supplying a platform for people to sell fake/counterfeit PRADA, Gucci shoes through ebay?
Are there any laws set up in the USA, Uk and other European countries against the counterfeit Gucci/PRADA shoes on ebay? Or, those genuine companies are just not aware of this yet?
But, will it be reasonable and right to ban for selling the fake shoes on Ebay, as a online e-commerce platform? Would it be practically possible to supervise the listings on ebay, and suppose one really get genuine brand-name shoes, and want to re-sell it on Ebay, what type of proves do they need to put on the listings on ebay? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Korenzhang2244 ( talk • contribs) 13:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC).
No, this is not a rhetorical question. Really would like to discuss about this e-commerce thing. It is just purely from an academic point of view to study human behaviuos, psychology, and the e-business, also have an interest in the legal activity relating to this new emerged online business, and how this will change and reform our conventional concepts. Thank you.
in addition, I think, in some way, Google is the same kind of company as ebay. They are both very successful and growing rapidly and going to overthrow the monopoly of Microsoft and take over the business format in the world. In the next decade, I think the trend of the business across the world would be on the hand of e-business, which inherite the advantage of fast comunication, fast payment, and fast advertising! Don't you think so?
Thank you, Road Wizard. Could you please give me some good worldwide forums websites, which people mainly discuss about the legilation and e-commerce and human behavious? I am new in researching in these areas and very interested in these areas. By the way, is there a part-time business management course in Manchester, or any on-line e-courses? (will be grateful if you could help me with these questions, Thanks!)
All around Wikipedia, there has been much discussion of what could from a collaboration between Wikipedia & Google, listing lots of possible pros and cons, and how it could benefit both companies. While a partnership is all up to executives of the Wikimedia Foundation & Google Inc., I propose the creation of an article where Wikipedians could explore the issue. There are dozens of articles dedicated to defining different parts of both internet companies, and lots of talk about their relationship, so a entire article dedicated to the possibilities might be beneficial. I could create the article myself, but I would like feedback to see if its appropriate or not. I'm not positive if it fits into Wikipedia's policies, so I step cautiously. I don't want anyone to shoot me down for this proposal, even if it turns out to be a bad one, I just want to explore an idea.-- Wikiphilia 22:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I have added the Merriem Webster info today. Great news that it's FINALLY a verb, and I don't get people correcting me "oh, "google it" isn't proper english". AllanVS 22:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
For some weird reason the article tells me that I have to discuss a external link here before I add it. So here is my external link candidate: How Google Works. This article gives a lot of extra information about google that I don't find anywhere else. After adding this article as external link we can use this information to improve the wikipedia-article and then use the article as a reference instead of a external link. Opions please. -- Garo 09:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed this text from the article. A single job posting that makes vague references to 'collaborative efforts with the Mozilla Foundation' that is still posted on the site and unchanged after a year is not really evidence of a notable collaborative effort. While putting Firefox in their Google Pack (software) might be more notable, how many companies include firefox in their software?! I think Google may only be interested as far as the fact that it's a freely available web browser that they can bundle with some of their other products and offer a value, in much the same way Dell might offer it on their computers that they sell. But there is virtually no evidence that Google engineers are partnering with the Mozilla Foundation to further develop new features and functionality in the Firefox browser itself, which is what this text in a way suggests, and why I see it as misleading. Dr. Cash 18:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
There's a little edit war whether Google is a play on words or a misspelling. While Google's official history say it's a play on words [11], apparently that's a PR move and it really was a misspelling [12] Stev0 20:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The article told me that I should discuss a external link here before I can add it. So here is my external link candidate:
70.225.75.58 20:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
"Non-notable" - perhaps (However, typing "Google Your Race" into Google shows that it is very popular and has generated many lively debates.) But, before you assume that the webmaster is a racist - you should read the website's F.A.Q. page: http://www.orcmagazine.com/Google_Your_Race/FAQ.html
I performed this revert [13] because mention of Google's censorship in China is not appropriate in a lead section paragraph describing the etymology of its name. -- MichaelZimmer ( talk) 00:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
-- Spet1363 16:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC) Apologies if I came across as rude, I do appretiate everybody's efforts. I would agree if there was a brief mention in the introduction (something along the lines of 'which came along with controversy regarding censorship' appended to the 'new Chinese name' sentence, which seems to me the more logical location), linked to the relevant 'controversy' or 'History' section. This way different issues will not get mixed up and, at the same time, all aspects will receive the fair attention they deserve and all users wanting to consult this important aspect of the company can do so without impediments. -- Spet1363 16:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed the google censorship information from the paragraph that deals with discussion on the naming of the company, since these are TWO TOTALLY UNRELATED TOPICS, and the BBC News reference that was used to cite this does not even suggest that they are related. It's not correct to even try and tie these together! I don't think we're brushing the censorship issue under the rug at all, since it is covered in great detail in the History of Google article. But we also don't want the article to become a haven for all the conspiracy theorists trying to make stuff up, either! Dr. Cash 22:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, referring to Google's censorship in China as a conspiracy theory is pretty bold. The reason I believe this important aspect of the company's history belongs where it is now (i.e. in the first chapter) is because that is obviously NOT simply a chapter about the company's name, as you well know-- that is the introduction, where the principal issues are outlined before more in-depth aspects are addressed in the main body. The reason the phrase is appended to the company's Chinese name is because it is a perfectly logical flow from one connected point to another.
As expressed ad nauseam by me and many, MANY other wikipedia users (whose contributions and their result are plain to see from the page's history), Google's censorship in China is a very imporant issue that people want to read and write about. The issue deserves a predominant location rather than being hidden into some obscure section, four clicks away, in purposely ambiguous wording. As I said in my last post (hoping to get somewhere), I understand some contributors might be concerned about keeping the article concice and to the point; that is why I would be happy to append a short comment to the 'Chinese name' phrase and link that (directly) to a relevant section of the page where the details are objectively laid out more in-depth. -- Spet1363 23:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I am ready to accept that the location of the insertion might not be the best. I am not ready to accept that Google's celf-censorship in China is anything but VERY important though. I believe that information deserves to be added to the introduction, in acknowledgement of its relevance and the interest expressed by many Wikipedia users. I would be happy to include it in a different form in a different location, as long as it features in the introduction, where the principal relevant points are outlined. Maybe a few lines could be added between the 'Chinese name' and the 'Server farm' paragraphs (as a new paragraph)? -- Spet1363 23:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
spet1363 is right. check out all the china edits in the last month- 17:35, 14 July, 14:42, 11 July 2006, 14:36, 11 July 2006, 14:35, 11 July 2006, 03:08, 11 July 2006, 03:08, 11 July 2006, 12:47, 8 July 2006, 12:45, 8 July 2006, 12:42, 8 July 2006, 09:17, 25 June 2006. their all deleted by Derek cashman --
Igloolily
16:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Igoolily is one of my students at university. She opened her account ex profeso to submit a comment. We have been debating the issue in our Media Studies class. --
129.67.89.102
17:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
We are not making much progress in working towards consensus, are we. May I remind you Wikipedia is not your personal space either, despite what your actions for the last few months appear to suggest. Google's shares plummeted at the time (there is no denying that [16]-- the fact they have recovered six months later is inconsequential; the US recovered after the Great Depression and that does not imply it was irrelevant or did not exist), there was enormous media coverage at the time (exemplified by the BBC article I keep adding and you keep deleting under the false pretense of believing someone is attempting to make a reference to some etymological issue), and, as Igloolily pointed out, MANY Wikipedia users believe it is an important issue that deserves mention. You obviously found a good reason to delete their contributions in pretty much every single occasion. I am reverting your deletion, once again hopeful of receiving some sort of constructive feedback that will lead to an agreement.
P.S. I hope you will excuse the fact I am not a native English speaker.
-- 129.67.89.102 20:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Spet1363, I believe the logic in your edit summary here [18] is invalid. If there is a dispute over whether or not new content should be included in an article, the burden is on the building of consensus to include it. Therefore, it should remain out of the article until such consensus is (if ever) made. -- MichaelZimmer ( talk) 22:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
So, if censorship in China is so important to be included in opening paragraph of the article, then why isn't censorship of nazi and arian related sites by Germany and France not included here? Even Yahoo! has had to deal with criticisms like this, but the fact is, that Germany and France have very strict rules regarding this type of material, and if you want to do business there, you have to follow those rules. Of course, China is no different in this case -- they just appear that way because they're a communist country and the communist regime is under criticism here (in the same way Germany and France have been criticized). Google (and Yahoo) just want to do business in these areas, so they got to follow the rules. So is this really a google controversy, or is this really more a controversy with the governments? Dr. Cash 22:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
This edit war has reached the point of uselessness. Can one of the powers that be lock the article until every has cooled their heads? Stev0 00:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I have added a brief Controversy subsection within the History section: [19], which makes general mention of some of Google's controversies, and points users to the articles that provide more detail. Whether we should specifically mention China here, I'll leave up for discussion. (I have not removed any other content from the article that might now be redundant if this new section remains). -- MichaelZimmer ( talk) 20:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you , Michael. I have removed the link to The Independent news (as it is true it does not explictly mention the Chinese censorship) and added an internal link to your subsection. --
129.67.89.102
21:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the controversy subsection. We actually had this before, and all it did was increase the size of the article as every conspiracy theorist out there started inserted junk; the article was at least 2-3 times longer than it is now. The link is sufficient here. Contrary to popular belief, the chinese censorship issue is much less important than it appears to be. Dr. Cash 22:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I have expanded this section to provide more context and include embedded links to other Google-specific articles with more information. See now Google#Controversies. -- MichaelZimmer ( talk) 15:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It appears to me that there may be a case of gaming the system by using both a logged-on identity and an anonymous IP to reinsert the same material; I am not convinced that Spet1363 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 129.67.89.102 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are different people. Multiple times the reverter has changed just in time to avoid that 4th revert. However, I don't think it's time to bother the checkuser folks with it just yet.
Also consider this a reminder to all involved parties that:
I'll try to slow down the blind reverting if everyone else will too, although it remains my position that consensus strongly favors not including this piece of information in the introduction. ( ESkog)( Talk) 23:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Point taken. Now, where is the constructive feedback? Where do we go from here? What about the 'Controversies' subsection? --
Spet1363
23:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
All editors would be wise to consider the one revert guidline. The activity is clearly a lame edit war and Gaming the 3RR is just a symptom. This talk page is the place to battle out consensus - not on the article - Peripitus (Talk) 10:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Not much inspiration since last night? I am appending the original phrase to encourage brain storming. -- 129.67.89.102 12:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Let's try a straw poll to help arrive at consensus.
Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, preferably adding a brief comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed.
Question: Should the introductory section include specific mention of Google's censorship of results in China in relation the naming of its Chinese search product?
Discussion resulting from the survey should go here.
The issue WAS whether it belonged in the intro or not, but, as I have repeatd ad nauseam, I am willing to compromise. The creation of a subsection about controversies was a great start, but that was unilaterally removed under the justification that 'contrary to popular believe it is not important' and 'it will invite conspiracy theorists to write junk'. Not a positive attitude! As ever, I am still waiting for constructive feedback that will lead to the establishment of a consensual middle ground. 'Shut up and leave our article the way it was' is not a consensual middle ground. People need to be able to find the Chinese censorship issue easily, read and write about it without the impediments created by a few users. -- Spet1363 15:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed the link references from the introductory section, since the BBC article link was made in the sentence referring to the 'pin yin' name, and the reference itself made no mention of that name whatsoever, so is actually misleading. With regards to the other external link reference, that was actually used inappropriately, since it was not really an external link but in fact, an internal link to another part of the article. I removed it also for the reason that I strongly disagree that the china controversy should be mentioned in the opening paragraph, which I think based on the 'straw poll' above, most everyone agrees with that. As far as the 'controversies' section itself, I can live with that section, though I am still a bit cautious as I think it's really just going to be a big red target for conspiracy theorists to add junk and vandalize. We're going to have to watch that very carefully. Dr. Cash 18:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
As a Google fan, I've watched this conflict unfold for several days, but have not participated because I was considering leaving Wikipedia. Since I've decided not to leave, and am looking for WikiProjects and more ways to participate and contribute information, I feel compelled to give my input.
The introductory paragraphs are meant to be a summary of Google. They should describe the most notable information on Google. Google is notable for its innovative, clean products and impact on online culture. However, is Google notable for going into China and its censorship? No. Why? When I say "Google", people will be more likely to think about the former, not the censorship.
Therefore, I don't think Google's Chinese name even deserves mention in the introduction. It's not something notable about Google. If the Chinese name was not in the introduction, I suspect this conflict would have never started.
I think the censorship issue and Chinese name definitely deserve mention, but not in the introductory section. It can surely fit into another section of the article. I generally have a tendency to assume bad faith about anonymous editors, but if he persists, I suggest the following compromise in the introduction.
"Google has become well known for its innovative, clean products, and has a major impact on online culture. However, the corporation has been criticized for privacy concerns and its censorship of searches in various countries."
P.S. MSN, AOL, Lycos, Yahoo! and most other search engines, including Baidu, also censor search results in China. Why is Google blamed the most? Because it's the largest search engine, or because it does no evil? Please mention the fact that other search engines also censor searches, That is a fact that many overlook, and should be included in the article.
-- J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I have made an article on how webdesigners and other Internet related people can imporve their Google Page rang using Accessible design.
Please note that this article really has nothing with "real" cheating.
Please review it:-) Hope you'll like it!
Borislav Dopudja 11:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Hm.. This article is not really SEO, but rather guide how to make quality web site that afterwards acheives good recults with Google (and other Search engines). What you suggest? Should I post link request to a SEO talk? Borislav Dopudja 23:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I can't figure out what this means:
"It registers about a billion requests per day, which it records with no time-limit "to improve its search engines."[6]"
"...records with no time-limit..." ?? Leotohill 21:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure about this. But the name given in the article seems random? The one used on Chinese Wikipedia seems to be 公司 so someone might want to check these details. -- 203.130.124.42 02:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
This video seems to keep being inserted as a reference for the statement about 50% of new product launches coming from 20% time:
The problem I have with it is, is that it's allegedly a video of a course lecture at stanford university and not published in any professional media sources. The video link alone is not acceptable, as stanford is likely to delete the video soon after the course completes, and then we're stuck with a link to something that doesn't exist. So I think we really need to find a more acceptable source here. Something that is also a text-based source that we can read, and don't have to depend on our PCs ability to play windows media player files to verify the source. Dr. Cash 16:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Best non-video reference I can find is a BusinessWeek online page talking about Marissa Mayer's 9 Notions of Innovation. There's a slide show linked to the article. Notion #4 is "Employees get a "free" day a week. Half of new launches come from this "20% time"... [23] -- Onorem 15:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The article has gone through a good deal of revisions since its rejection from FAC, as well as it's last peer review. I was wondering what editors feel still needs to be done before renomination for FAC? Dr. Cash 18:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone recently added a screenshot of google's personalized homepage to the 'History/Growth' section of the article. The screenshot is a little wide, and at 400 px wide might make the section look a little odd to someone viewing the article at 800x600 screen resolution. The real question, though, is, does this really add anything to the article, and specifically the section in which it was added? We've already got a screenshot of the main page earlier in the article, and what does this specific image have to do with the 'growth' of google? I'm not so sure this is necessary. Dr. Cash 22:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Can somebody tell me where should the Google's Chinese name writing? Aleen f1 09:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
this should go somewere. -- Striver 03:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
How many billion pages does the Google index now contain, and should this be mentioned in the article? Where is this information available? Does Google publish these figures anymore? -- -Majestic- 09:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Google just anounced a new product [Google Apps for your Domain]. I don't know much about it my self, but we should try to get some information up about it as soon as possible
I deleted the text "Google has also been criticised for censoring material on its Chinese service, including sites on Falun Gong, human rights abuses in Tibet and the Tiananmen Square Massacre" since it's covered in the paragraph in the sentence "Google's cooperation with the governments of China, France and Germany to filter search results in accordance to regional laws and regulations has led to claims of censorship." Note the link to the article Google censorship which has all that information and more. Stev0 15:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
It appears that Google has the star in the top right corner indicating it's a featured article. However, the discussion page does not state that Google is a featured article, and it does not appear in the featured articles list. So is Google a featured article or not? If not, please remove the star. Thanks. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Today on my time GMT+100, Google said it was the 8th anniversary. So does this mean that Google was founded on Sept 27 1998?
Well... google tells it has birthday today (and in the calender of wiki this also is noted) but on the page: nothing... only 7 september... Missing 2? Or just missing data?
Google does have an exact date when google was founded, just September, 1998. They pick a date when everyone wants cake =D-- jonphamta 12:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
“ | When is Google's birthday?
Google opened its doors in September 1998. The exact date when we celebrate our birthday has moved around over the years, depending on when people feel like having cake.. |
” |
-- jonphamta 12:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Have you ever googled Google? Don't go do it...just reflect on the mystery of it all. Ponder these things. Holy Crap!! Why is there so much discussion going on here about a search engine?? You guys need to get a job, or something. User:hxc ryan
True, true. The pressure's on, Google people!! User:hxc ryan