Talk:Google/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

History/Controversy-Related Talk

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

controvsey is listed in the wiki's main page of most major companies, but ommitted in google's main page---there's no reference to the constrovsy in history of google, nor a summary of it. i suggest to revive a section on summarizing controvsey in the main page. After all, wiki is not a fan's page. Yau-- 1 May 2006

There is a 'see also' link in the history section to the 'recent criticisms and controversies'. This is sufficient. Previously, all of the controversies were listed in the main article, and these were getting WAY TOO LONG as every conspiracy theorist on the planet started adding their crap here, so they were moved to the History of Google article. Please do not add this back in. Thanks! Dr. Cash 00:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Acquisitions

Anyone interested in seeing a list of acquisitions made by Google?

posted by 24.84.130.194, Jun 9,2005

I would --Hoovernj 1 July 2005 17:41 (UTC)

I came, I saw, and I added! --Phileo 18:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

To shorten the page a little bit, and to provide for better organization, I moved this list to List of Acquisitions by Google, which is linked to under the 'See also' subheading. Dr. Cash 21:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

New page

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)

I think it would make more sense to have this at Google Inc. or Google Incorporated than Google (company), but it looks like a lot of things link to it here so I'm not going to move it myself (yet). Any objections to such a move? ~leif ☺ _HELO 09:06, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

no...I was going to do it myself at some point...I Only realised I named it poorly after the links had been moved. BrokenSegue

I agree, move it to Google Inc.. - Jerryseinfeld 23:22, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Evil?

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)

Here is quote from http://www.google.com/governance/conduct.html

"Our informal corporate motto is "Don't be evil." We Googlers generally relate those words to the way we serve our users – as well we should. But being "a different kind of company" means more than the products we make and the business we're building; it means making sure that our core values inform our conduct in all aspects of our lives as Google employees."

The phrase "You can make money without doing evil." is repeated in Google's in Google's ten things they found to be true [1] BrokenSegue 20:36, 25 Oct 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?

Hm...depends on just how many people actually put that idea forth. I think a more immediate problem right now we can flesh out in further detail is the criticism surrounding their caving-in to Chinese censorship. I can tell people are pretty upset by that.

rv. infobox removal

TakuyaMurata:

Replacing the infobox with an HTML table is nonsensical considering that all that needless code is precisely the reason why templates exist. If you're going to make nonsensical edits, you'll have to edit every article that uses a template and attempt your replacement. Go ahead. Try it. I dare you. Start with Harvard University. Let's see how far you get. Adraeus 01:11, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It actually has some point. The beauty of wiki is that you don't have to learn how to write a page. With the template, you first need to learn what parameters are and how they would be renderred. With a wiki-table (not that was not HTML one by the way), it is easy to see for newbies how the table is made. Anyway this is an explanation why I replaced the template by a table, I am not going to to convince you since I can now see a trend of an infobox. Incidentaly, fixing errors is always the way to go, regardless of whether it is hard to do or not. -- 18:12, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

John D

Systems

253,088 GHz of processing power

Where does this number come from?--Jerryseinfeld 22:45, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would say the same. Where does this come from? How did you find out?

Conference calls

I kind of want this one next to "management" and "analysts".--Jerryseinfeld 11:08, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if we should even be listing analysts. The conference calls seem to be extra information so I would think they should go at the end. BrokenSegue 22:52, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Analysts

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

• Mark Mahaney (Citigroup Investment Research)
• John Tinker (Thinkequity Partners)
• Michael Gallant (CIBC World Markets)
• Steve Weinstein (Pacific Crest Securities)
• Imran Khan (J.P. Morgan Chase)
• Heath Terry (Credit Suisse First Boston)
• Marianne Wolk (Susquehanna Financial Group)
• Nafi Bekteshi (SOS Group)

Mixed units

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.

posted by 131.111.243.37

i can't find that sentence anywhere in the article. Nor can I find the word foot or meter. What are you talking about? BrokenSegue 23:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This post was probably in reference to the discussion of Keyhole which has been moved to List of Google services and tools.

Google's innovativeness and sense of humour

Google has a couple of innovations

• Uncluttered interface at a time when sites wanted to add more links and more features, thus cluttering their webpages.
• Built in calculator
• Modifying the Google logo to signify certain events
• I'm feeling lucky

Sense of humour

• PigeonRank
• Recruiting on the moon
• GMail news released on Apr 1 was thought to be a joke
• The link to lunar.google.com has been removed - it should be added in again (as it is pretty funny when you zoom all the way in to the surface)

-NOTE: This page is now situated at moon.google.com

These might be included in the article.

This list of features are things that someone may want to add to a relevant section of the article or a spinoff article. However, the phrase 'Goggle is well known for its innovative, clean products' is, on its own, vague and a matter of personal opinion. It also uses weasely wording ('known for'). --129.67.89.102 12:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Whois says this is the expiry date on Google

14-sep-2011: Is this date relevant information for somewhere in the article? -- user:zanimum

No, that is just the date when they will have to re-subscribe for the google.com domain...

All commercial domains have to be renewed from time to time. This is no big deal. I have heard some funny stories about certain Fortune 100 companies forgetting to renew their domains because the person in charge of that left the company and neglected to ensure that someone else took over that particular responsibility. Fortunately, that's never happened to Google. --Coolcaesar 04:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I love Google's sense of humour --dg 19:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Salaries

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)

Guess this info is already in there. That's what I get for getting news from Slashdot. :-) --Cuervo 04:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

They include a 'Reference' link at the end, but they just copied the text, I think: [JuiceNewsDaily]

If you mean that some other site is copying Wikipedia's content then...

.. big whup, they're allowed to do that. PeteVerdon 00:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

languages: Leet

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!").

'Googol' vs. 'Google'

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]

Why did you insert this story in the Etymology section of the article? Larry and his officemates already had come up with the name (and spelling) Google by mid-September 1997, prior to the visit with Bechtolsheim. Thus, this story has nothing to do with the etymology of the name Google.

I think there's been a misunderstanding of the point of the quoted passage - the non-existence of anything called "Google Inc" was not because that wasn't its name, but simply because it didn't exist yet. The section just above that quoted already mentions "Google, as it was now known" but the meeting with Bechtolsheim was to show their business plan and demo - not to ask for investment in a pre-existing company - so there was simply no account to pay a cheque into yet. Google was already the name of their project, but you can't pay a cheque into a project. [I'll fix the article in a sec] - IMSoP 17:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

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 compromised by changing "a play on words" to "a reference to", which is true either way.JudahH 15:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Rename the April Fools section?

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)

Also if you search for "Paris Hilton isnt a whore", it returns a "Did you mean: Paris Hilton is a whore" Ablaze 20:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

That also works, for example, if you use "cheese isnt a wine". But if you use the apostrophe in "isnt", the results are as one would normaly expect. Andy Mabbett 20:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I think its will work with just about anything, so the google servers don't reconise inst as a word without the apostrophe. Like if you searched for "George W. Bush isnt a Bad President" Ablaze 12:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Edit

12:22, 27 July 2005 208.58.74.167 (Rewrite to clarify - not add to - original text.) by Kyle Andrew BrownKyle Andrew Brown 12:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

be more specific

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)

Salaries

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)

Content Query

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)

Ok, you've made four comments now. You do realize that you can edit this page now, don't you? — David Remahl 03:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The changes were reverted long before your comment by an editor that correctly identified the content as vandalism. And it's common sense to ask the community's opinion before doing an edit. That's what my query was all about. I see you were out of the loop.Kyle Andrew Brown 13:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Attribution

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)

anyone think the search results are biased?

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

I think this bias is an inherent part of PageRank itself. To get answers to some of your queries regarding the comprehensiveness, I can ask you to read this. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:41, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Number of employees

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.

Well, if I remember right, one of the founders themselves wasn't too shure about the # of Googlers. --Jason McHuff 07:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Spelling mistake?

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?

This [3] link at google's website says its a play on the phrase, but that may be an oversimplification or a cover up since there is some evidence that it was a mistkae. This link is Broken 01:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

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!

I'm feeling lucky!(but am not.)

What is the "I'm feeling lucky!" thing about?-Darkmewham

it takes you directly to the first result. With some luck hopefully the first result will be what you wan't hence the i'm feeling lucky button title ;) Plugwash 01:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Hardware

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.

Logo

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)

Logo's are Official Logos!

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.

As you quoted these logos are simple tests did before the company even existed (they cannot therefore be offical logos). I really don't think that they have to mentioned since they are not notable. Matteo 08:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Internet Archive Wayback Machine: google.stanford.edu and Internet Archive Wayback Machine: www.google.com !! ... yes the logos were before the company was created, but it was still their logos back when they were developing the Google search engine at

stanford... I suggest you learn your google history

I don't say that they never designed them. The Google company never used it and even it had they are not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedic articleMatteo 08:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

hmmm, I thought the whole point of an encyclopedia is to provide all the information. (sarcasm) These logos are very interesting and are definately a part of Google's history and development into what they are now. Removing the logos will be a great disadvantage to this article.

Yes these do seem to deserve their place on the page as per Googles statement "Finally, here are progressively older versions of our logo, dating back to the days before we were Google..."(thanks for pointing that out to me Treeloveinhippie, I missed that part =) However I think it should be pointed out to people that these are from "the days before we were Google" so as not to confuse (like it did me, lol). Cheers, flyer_13 talk 13:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes and by "the days before we were Google", the are referring to before they created the company called Google. They were still calling their search engine 'Google' when they were creating it and so the logos are a part of their history and development.

Very true. I am in concurrence. I may have not made that clear in my last post but that was my intent, sorry for the confusion. =) Cheers, flyer_13 talk 01:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

new google toy

http://www.google.com/reader/lens/

if anyone feels like writing about it ...

70.80.66.115 04:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC) --martin

Wow that works horrible. Everytime I found something I liked in the search, and clicked, it wouldn't load. -- user:zanimum

Google Worth US$100 Billion

Google is about to reach a US$100 Billion value. Worth more than the Coca Cola Co. Wow.

Google Video deletes broadcast content?

See talk:Google Video

google analytics

anybody adding Google Analytics here? 59.93.130.58 09:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

List of Google services and tools getcrunk juice 21:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

publish

would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Strange results

How many wikipedia.org pages on Google? 120 million? [4] --Henrygb 18:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

What's your point? --pitr 16:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

In the news Links

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)

• Google's 3Q Profit Seven Times Higher
• Yahoo! Internet Information Providers market cap listing where Google is leading in front of Yahoo! at $95 billion
• Yahoo! Retail (Specialty) market cap listing with eBay Inc. (EBAY)
• October 21, 2004 - Q3 2004 earnings conference call (presentation) (audio)
• Lawsuit alleging that Google stole Orkut code
• June 8, 2005. $80bn Google takes top media spot at BBC News
• September 28, 2005 - Google announces a Memorandum of Understanding with NASA BetaNews
• Video footage of an interview with Sergey Brin
• November 6, 2005 - Just Googling It Is Striking Fear Into Companies New York Times article on Google's impact
• Google to buy 5% of AOL

External links

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)

Blogs should generally not be linked to (see WP:EL). There are sooo many blogs on Google out there, it would also prove quite difficult to select which should be included over others. --mtz206 23:09, 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

Neither of those links provide anything you can't get anywhere. Stev0 19:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

EU countries to fund research for a competitor to Google?

• Europeans weigh plan on Google challenge Look out Google.

"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)

Google Shuttle

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...

59.92.something.something

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

Etymology

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" -

Nope. I'm talking about "google", believe me. --Urbane legend 09:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Well then, you are mistaken. The word didn't exist before (except in some obscure British sense that meant somthing else) Broken S 13:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

Other Versions

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

Okay, I found Elgoog, and put a link to the wikipedia article about it. Googirl, though, has been removed. - Ian Burnet

Alas, I found googirl as well. However, as it says clearly on the site "Googirl.com.ar is in no way related to Google.com nor its creators. Googirl's name and layout were choosen as a mere tribute to what we consider to be the best search engine of the world, and represents our hope to become the best celebrity pictures search engine." It is unrelated to Google AND contain innapropriate material, so it should not be included in this article. - Ian Burnet

Too long

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 sorta agree. The article is a bit long. But a lot of the material seems relevant and I don't think I would want to delete it. I reorganized a few things a bit, mainly in the history and culture areas. It seems like there are two areas that could be shot off to new articles: possibly a History of Google and a Google Controversy article? These appear to be the two largest sections. What do others think? Dr. Cash 23:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea, although I'm not all that good at writing articles. I will be happy to edit anything anyone puts up. Whispering 05:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

fastest growing company ever?

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)

vandalism on sidebar?

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?

It's obviously vandalism. After all, Google's motto is, "Don't be evil." Dr. Cash 23:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Barney Google

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.

see Barney Google BrokenSegue 20:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Article Cleanup

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)

Should dollar signs be links or not?

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)

I actually prefer making the dollar signs as links to the United States Dollar article. One other alternative I have seen is, e.g. $1 million USD, or something similar (maybe USD 1 million, or USD $1 million). I think it looks better as $1 million. The USD part makes it look a bit odd. Dr. Cash 05:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Link to Criticisms/Controversies on History page?

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)

I just removed the small sections regarding controversies from the page and added a 'see also' link to the criticism and controversy section of the History of Google article. Dr. Cash 07:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I came to this page specifically to read about the Google/China situation, and was disappointed when I couldn't find it. The link to this is certainly not as prominent as it should be. -anon

"Google and censur"

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)

Striver has also been trying to add weird stuff to the Internet article. See Talk:Internet. --Coolcaesar 06:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Pagerank patent

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)

Interesting point. Though I suspect with all the money google has made, they probably have bought the rights to it from them by now. But this would definitely be something worth looking into,... Dr. Cash 07:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is the original patent application showing Stanford as the assignee. According to this article Google has an exclusive license of the patent. --mtz206 13:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Consensus on Other links

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)

Note: removed link to google-watch. It has been blacklisted and the link was preventing me from saving the page --Straif 17:33, 27 April 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)

And I just removed the Google Watch and Scroogle links from the See also: list. The list is too long as it is, and there are links to those to articles in the Google Inc. box. There are probably several other links that could be safely removed from that list since they are in that box. --19:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Google searches

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)

The article at once had links to every single google subdomain and product that they offered, which I found to be cluttered and unnecessary. There is also a specific article, List of Google services and tools, which contains information (and links) to all of Google's products and services. This is where this information should go. Dr. Cash 04:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree on this. I looked through the article and missed List of Google services and tools buried at the bottom among all the "See also" links. Certainly a list of products isn't the right format. But we should be using summary style and give a brief summary of their products and services in prose form. Like maybe, discuss when the *key* products were introduced and their impact/significance. Some like Google Maps had a major impact, with their use of Ajax and on market share versus MapQuest (AOL), Yahoo!, etc. Google Print sparked some heated debate between Google and the publishing industry over copyright issues. Gmail, Froogle, and Google News are also in my opinion, worth a brief mention. Do we need to list every Google product in this main article? No, but a brief summary with a {{main|List of Google services and tools}}? Yes. Certainly discussion of their products and services is more noteworthy for inclusion here than discussion of "April Fool's Day jokes". -Aude (talk | contribs) 15:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point. This is actually somewhat important information. Though I don't really like the name 'specific searches'. I've added a 'Products and Services' section, right under the 'History' section. I don't really want this to end up as merely a list of links and sorts, and I've added a main link to List of Google services and tools. Dr. Cash 22:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Seeking feedback on Google Groups article

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)

Controlling well-meaning links as well as pointless links and link farming

Following a suggestion from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam, I added the following comment to the external links section:

<!-- ATTENTION! Please do not add links without discussion and consensus on the talk page. Undiscussed links will be removed. -->

Openly discussing the merits of a particular link is a good thing. --Straif 15:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• This strategy has been effective on Google Maps, so should also be helpful here. -Aude (talk | contribs) 15:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

POV

Googleplex seems to make out Google is a great place to work. POV. 212.135.1.49 08:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Are any of the stated facts in dispute? It is a rather glowing description (makes me want to work there), but how does that make it POV? What are the drawbacks to working at the Googleplex (are they specific to Googleplex, or are they about working for Google--if the latter, then perhaps the tag should be moved). The description does seem a little unbalanced, but is there good, verifiable information that could be added to moderate the tone? Basically, what I'm saying here is that saying the section "seems to make out Google is a great place to work" doesn't convince me that it it is POV. I need more explanation than that. --Straif 12:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't think it's POV at all. Providing information about a companies corporate headquarters is ok for articles. And what are you going to say that's negative anyway, "the bathrooms stink and the basement is filled with rats?" I do think that it would help to add a reference to this text, which would back up the claims. Most of the information in the paragraph seems to have been taken from Google's own Corporate Culture page. I would think an independent reference from another publication or website would be a better reference, however. Dr. Cash 20:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It also only cost a very small amount per click to the websites that advertised this way. ... Compared to what? I've advertised with Google's service. Some search terms sell for over $10. How is that a small amount. I'm removing this. --66.87.184.227 13:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Several weeks ago, the Time magazine cover story had a lot of good things to say about the Googleplex. The Mercury News has also said many good things in various articles in the past. I don't have the time to dig up the citations right now, though. --Coolcaesar 02:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's POV, but I agree that references must be made in order for the section to survive.--Sheeo 08:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

External Links

• Please read: Wikipedia:External links
• Can anyone explain to me what value the link to http://www.google.vc/ adds? Don't get me wrong, it is a nifty site, but I'm not clear if it really adds any value to what is already a long article (especially since it already overwhelming with all the wikilinks). I've removed it a couple times, giving my reasoning both in the summary, and once in talk. It is promptly replaced without comment. I'm not the first one to remove it (and have it quickly replaced). I'm not interested in getting in an edit war, and clearly there is at least one person that feels this link belongs. That being said; without so much as an edit summary, I have no idea why that person feels the link belongs.
• There are two other links, www.google-watch.org and www.scroogle.org, that I've removed only to see them reappear, and again it looks like this is an ongoing trend. They both have Wikipedia articles (Google Watch and Scroogle) and the Google article links to them. It seems to me like an unnecessary duplication. Does this redundancy add value? Also where the person/organization that runs both sites is extremely critical of Google, I think that if one or both links do stay, that bias should be clearly noted--honesty is good. --Straif 14:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: removed links to google-watch and scroogle. They have been blacklisted and the links were preventing me from saving the page --Straif 17:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: I took the liberty of reformatting a reply that was embedded in my original comment to make it more readable, and make it clear who wrote what. --Straif 15:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone explain to me what value the link to http://www.google.vc/ adds? Reply: http://thegooglist.blogspot.com/2006/02/googlevc-is-unofficial-google.html -- 219.95.14.230

That still doesn't answer my question. What value does it add to this article? --Straif 15:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Google.vc is very creative. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.115.116.213 (talk • contribs) .

The issue isn't if it is creative or not. It is clearly a labor of love, and I'm sure that many people find it useful. There are undoubtedly hundreds on other sites related to Google that are also creative. Clearly, it would be unwieldy to list them all. What makes this site important enough to be included when others aren't? More importantly, how does it expand on the article? Links to Google and its various projects are, of course, important as they are directly related to the facts discussed. Sites with verifiable sources of information (such as pertinent journal articles) might be useful (although it is generally better to add the information, no plagiarism ;), and site the article). However, I don't see any information on the google.vc page that isn't available through official (and verifiable) channels. --Straif 23:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The Google Template Box

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 concur. --Coolcaesar 04:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I've created a new box at Template:Google_services - pending corrections and some changes, it will be submitted to replace the template at Template:Google Inc.. Kungming2 01:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

That one is much better! Dr. Cash 05:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Issue resolved! All Google pages that link to the new Template:Google_services have been changed! Whether or not Template:Google Inc. should be up for deletion is up to the Wikipedia community. Thanks, Dr. Cash for the help. :) Kungming2 07:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete Template:Google Inc.

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)

Support deletion of the template. I know the Wikipedian who created it, and I don't know why he did what he did, but I know his intentions were good. Nonetheless, it's unnecessary. (Oh, and please change your sig in your prefs so that it subst's the template.) --M@thwiz2020 20:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 20:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

controversy / Advert

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.

Information about the Google China controversy is here (in the History of Google (Criticism and controversy) section. The link to this is at the bottom of the History section in the main article (this article). Having all the controversies and criticisms in this article was making it a bit too long, so it was moved. Dr. Cash 19:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I quickly scanned the Google article, it does not seem sufficiently neutral. I'd like a section w critisism, like on Firefox and MSIE. I do not think the "see also" section is enough. Perhaps this main article should have a summary of the others embedded. PER9000 09:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Link to conference call transcripts?

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.

Vandalism in History Section

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)

More complete list of products and services.

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)

Google and Wikipedia

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)

I don't think I'd call it a true "partnership", but more of a, "sponsorship", or actually, a corporate donation would be more appropriate. It might be useful to the article to have a section on corporate donations and philanthropies,... Dr. Cash 21:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

About Google Australia

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

First paragraph sentence is ambiguous

With a market cap of 117.16 billion as of early 2006, Google is the largest Internet search company in the world.

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)

ATM it's 111 billion dollars see [this. BrokenSegue 00:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It's all better now :) -- drrngrvy ^tlk @ 02:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Employee work percentages

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

Google Fansite

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)

[User blocked as spam sock. WikiProject Spam case - (permanent link) Femto 16:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)]

Who says that is allowed? (ESkog)^(Talk) 04:39, 24 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)

I'm not sure this qualifies as a "major fansite" quite yet. SubSeven 05:34, 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)

Here are a few others. The first two get quite a bit of traffic. [7] [8] [9] SubSeven 17:58, 27 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)

Heh. I'm familiar with fansites, but thanks. I'll make one more point on this. Just the mere existence of a fansite doesn't mean it should be linked in the article. If the site is considered a valuable resource, it will find its way in there. You now know of course from reading WP:EL that you shouldn't add links to your own site. Nominating it on the talk page is the right thing to do. SubSeven 08:51, 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)

And I oppose that nomination. Your poor English and the defects of your site as already pointed out by others make it grossly unqualified. When your site gets covered by the New York Times or some other respectable newspaper, then it will be worthy of mention on Wikipedia. --Coolcaesar 19:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Video Google

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)

Yes, I think so. You can have a Google account without having a gmail account. --Alvestrand 19:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you can upload video without a gmail account jak 23:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Power

Isn't 10 to the power of one hundred ten with 101 zeroes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.99.99 (talk • contribs)

Nope. 10 to the second power is 100 (two zeroes), 10 to the third power is 1,000 (three zeroes), and so forth. SubSeven 23:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

SubSeven hasn't given a complete inductive proof. It is still necessary for 10 to the (n+1)th power to be EXACTLY ten times 10 to the nth power, for any n. But how many times can Google's stock increase ten-fold? Certainly not more than ten times per quarter. The question then becomes: after 100 quarters (25 years) are there enough dollars in all the universe to represent Google's stock? The answer, surprisingly enough, is that after 25 years there won't be dollars -- only Google stock. So, no, Google isn't equivalent to ten to the one hundredth, at least as far as inductive mathematics is concerned. Hope this helps.

GBuy

http://www.forbes.com/2006/06/09/google-0609markets09_print.html --SkyWalker 15:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Increasing revenue

From the article:

In 2000 Google began selling advertisements associated with the search keyword to produce enhanced search results for the user. This strategy was important for increasing advertising revenue, which is based upon the number of hits users make upon ads.

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)

I've been digging around, but its hard to find much since they were private back then. It's possible they were using untargeted advertising. So far, all I know is that they lost $14.9 million in 2000 and $6 million in 1999. I'll keep looking. BrokenSegue 16:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Profitability

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)

Advertising revenue: see, for example, AdWords and AdSense. --mtz206 (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Any cases prosecuting individual sellers for selling counterfeit brand-named shoes?

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).

Try asking at the Refefernce Desk. Wizrdwarts (T|C|E) 17:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

What does this have to do with Google? Stev0 19:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't. The editor has posted this same question in several different locations. Road Wizard 21:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That was a rhetorical question. Stev0 06:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I know your question was rhetorical. I was just pointing out the editor had asked the same question in multiple places to avoid other people wasting their time by answering here. Road Wizard 12:23, 23 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?

Please read our policies on what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia isn't an online forum for debating the wider implications of issues that have nothing to do with the content of our articles. You are allowed a little leeway in asking such questions at the Reference Desk, but if you want to just have discussions, please find another, more appropriate website. Thank you. Road Wizard 12:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

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!)

I have responded on your talk page. Please ask any further general knowledge questions at the Reference desk. Thanks. Road Wizard 14:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia & Google

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)

Such a thing would not be appropriate for an article, but more for the WP:Community Portal area, if it were to develop.

The only collaboration, per se, between Wikipedia & Google, is more or less some limited sponsorship funds that Google has donated, in terms of servers and/or bandwidth, to Wikipedia. There's really not much for individual Wikipedians to do to really add to this, and really not appropriate without either a) Google explicitly going to the Wikipedia community and asking for assistance with something, or b) Jimbo Wales himself talking with Google and mediating some sort of official program involving individual Wikipedians. It's probably best to leave the ball in Google's court regarding how they wish to partake in official sponsorship activities. Dr. Cash 02:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Google a Verb

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)

I moved the information to the opening paragraph, where it talks about the definition, and being a derivative of googol. I think this is a more appropriate location for it. I also added a few references as well. Also, I cleaned up the Google (verb) page which deals in greater detail with the definition and use as a word. Dr. Cash 00:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You can find an article on this at Wikinews [10]. FellowWikipedian 23:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

External link proposal

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)

The link is really not an 'external link' for the external links section, and would have little value there. There could be information in it that could be incorporated into the article, and referenced using the 'ref' tags (references section). Listings in external links should actually be more for links that have more broad and wide-ranging information on the subject and not just merely for a listing of a bunch of journal articles. We also have to be very careful with making links to journal articles, since different online publications have different policies regarding how long something is available publicly; yahoo news, for example, deletes news articles much quicker than many other sites. So if you add the article as a reference, rather than merely a link, and add it using the guidelines provided in WP:CITE, even if the link is deleted, we still should have author, publication, date, title, and other information regarding the article that you're referring to, so someone using wikipedia for actual research has some sort of 'paper trail' (for lack of a better word) to follow if they want more information. A '404 not found' doesn't really help much here. Dr. Cash 17:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

See example. The link has now been added to the article as a reference. Interesting stuff. It probably needs to be used to improve the Google platform article as well. Dr. Cash 18:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Mozilla Collaboration?

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)

Google also is involved in collaborative development efforts with the Mozilla Foundation, based on a recent job posting. Google is looking for software engineers to join them in collaborative development on the Firefox browser. They also offer a download of Firefox with the Google Toolbar pre-installed.

Google vs. googol

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)

External link proposal

The article told me that I should discuss a external link here before I can add it. So here is my external link candidate:

• Google Your Race

70.225.75.58 20:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Umm, NO. Completely and totally 'non-notable', not to mention stupid. Whoever put that site up is probably a racist, too. Dr. Cash 21:23, 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

Scores of orcmagazine links have been deleted as spam. Please don't start re-adding them. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Google censorship link

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)

I don't want to get into a revert-war with an anon IP, but this edit should be reverted: [14]. This is just one social/cultural/political issue of dozens that one could potentially accuse Google of involvement in. While I do agree that this is an important issue (just read my blog), I don't think it should be singled out in the introductory section of an encyclopedia article about the company. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

As other users have pointed out in this discussion page (vid. supra anon user: 'I came to this page specifically to read about the Google/China situation, and was disappointed when I couldn't find it') and as shown by the fact that users keep adding the issue on the main Google page, the China censorship issue is a major aspect of what Google is and has done as a company. In this sense, I deeply believe it belongs in the introduction of the main page. It is factitious to dismiss it it as merely another criticism to add to the list. When the decision was made by Google in January 2006, major main-stream media (e.g. BBC) covered the news and it is fair to say it was a scandal. The company's shares plummeted, and it is widely accepted that Google went through one of its worst weeks ever.

I find it very dodgy that a few people have been consistently hiding this under the carpet on this wiki page for the last few months (withdrawing not only the information itself but even removing links!), despite the large number of attempts from different users to express the issue and give it the relevance that most of the world believes it deserves. I think that it is only fair that this page expresses the views and concerns of most people regarding the subject it addresses, rather than becoming a cheesy leaflet by and for Google. Spet1363 14:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC) (spet1363)

I don't think its fair to say criticisms of Google are being "hidden under the carpet" or that this article is just a "cheesy leaflet by and for Google." I will work on creating a "Controversies" section to summarize the various related issues (China, privacy, bias, etc), which will then point to the History of Google. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 15:02, 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)

This article, and all of our other daughter articles concerning Google, should ideally contain nothing but important facts. Many editors seem to be concerned that you are the only one really arguing that the "Google censors content in China" issue is at all logically connected to the end of a paragraph about the name of Google. Just because both have the words "Google" and "China" in them doesn't mean it makes editorial sense to put them next to each other. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:24, 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)

Yes, the issue of censorship in China is important. But I think that Google's privacy issues are equally important. And someone else might be most concerned with their AdSense policies, or click fraud. Point being, not all of these belong in the lead section which is meant to summarize the company. Note that Yahoo doesn't cover equally vital issues of their involvement in China in the lead. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add the censorship stuff until further discussion takes place on the talk page. This appears to be quite controversial and only seems to be going in the direction of an edit/revert war. Anyway, on another note, it's interesting to note that the wikipedia entry for Pinyin doesn't even mention google at all, further pointing to the fact that the two topics are totally unrelated.

I also still am not buying the argument that the google censorship issue is important enough to mention in the main paragraph. Yes, it's an issue, and is causing some problems. But let's look at things today. What are the top news articles that are in the mainstream media right now? Is google censorship in china one of them? Not hardly! Right now, they're talking about some sort of WAR in Lebanon and missiles in North Korea! The last time google really came up was talking about their new service GBuy, and I can think of quite a few other new products and developments that came to the forefront of the news regarding google before the censorship in china thing. I'm not saying that the issue of Google in China isn't an issue; I'm just saying that it's probably not quite as important as some people think, and not important enough to mention in the opening paragraph. If you still want to argue this, then I would suggest reading this guideline first. Dr. Cash 00:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Another vote for NOT having the censorship link other than where it currently is, the appropriate place in the article. Basically, I agree with everything Michael Zimmer, Derek Cashman, Eskog, and everybody else except that one lone editor says. Stev0 07:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I am getting the impression that 'disgression' is being used by many here as a synonym for 'something we simply do not want to talk about'. Throughout all this process I hace received no constructive feedback whatsoever (just deletions one after the other, like all previous users pointing out the Chinese censorship issue in any prominent way in the article). I have changed the original appended fragment for a two-word edit linked to the BBC news. I hope it is acknowledged that this IS integrated with the flow of the text and I have made a big compromise by reducing an aspect that I believe of key importance to merely two or three words and a link. --129.67.89.102 14:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

(This comment was not saved as a result of simultaneous edits): Can someone please explain why 'controversial' and 'self-censored' do not belong in the introduction but 'innovative' and 'clean products' are just alright?! What exactly are we dealing with here? --129.67.89.102 15:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not a valid edit summary by 129.67.89.102: [15]. Consensus must be built on the article's talk page, and 129.67.89.102's claim is unverifiable. Please stop this edit war and work towards consensus. Thanks. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, Michael. I agree with the fact that an edit war is in nobody's interest and that we should work towards consensus. I have already provided two options (my original edit and a compromised shorter version with a link). I am keenly awaiting for alternative viable options (rather than mere deletions). --129.67.89.102 15:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The viable alternative endorsed by most of the people in this conversation appears to be that we should keep the article as it is - certainly not hiding the Chinese censorship; we do mention it in the article and have a spinoff article concerning nothing but that subject, but we seem to be in agreement that it is no more notable than any other controversy Google has been involved in. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The entire point of my argument is that the China censorship is not just 'another criticism' to add to the list. This is reflected by the mediatic coverage of the issue at the time, the plummeting of Google's shares, and the constant attempt by many differnt Wikipedia users to mention the issue on the article (which is immediately followed by deletion), as reflected on the article's history. At the risk of repeating myself (alas it seems necessary!) it would appear that this is an issue that certain members do not want to feature prominently (despite the fact that it IS a very important aspect of what Google is and has done and it DOES deserve special mention). Why am I facing completely different arguments against it (e.g. 'it doesn't fit into a sentence about the name of the company', and then 'it just doesn't fit in the introduction because it is not important enough as a single issue)? Once again, I am very open to working towards consensus. Leaving the article just the way it was is NOT working towards consensus. --129.67.89.102 15:49, 17 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)

Comment - FWIW, this is User:Igloolily's first and only edit. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 16:46, 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)

The entire point of my argument is that the China censorship is not just 'another criticism' to add to the list. This is reflected by the mediatic coverage of the issue at the time, I'll ignore the word "mediatic" and go on to the obvious point - WHAT media coverage? the plummeting of Google's shares, You mean how it's up $4.33 today as of this writing? and the constant attempt by many differnt Wikipedia users to mention the issue on the article (which is immediately followed by deletion) It's deleted because it should be deleted. as reflected on the article's history. At the risk of repeating myself (alas it seems necessary!) it would appear that this is an issue that certain members do not want to feature prominently (despite the fact that it IS a very important aspect of what Google is and has done and it DOES deserve special mention). If you feel so strongly about this POV, go make a blog about it. Wikipedia is not your personal editorial space. Once again, I am very open to working towards consensus. Leaving the article just the way it was is NOT working towards consensus. Why not? It seems to work for everybody else here. Stev0 20:04, 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)

The article you link to makes no mention of the stock falling because of censorship in China. Rather, it states it was because of "quarterly earnings report falling far short of expectations". --MichaelZimmer (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, I agree with ESkog's revert [17] and that consensus is that this information not be included in the introduction. Singling out one single controversy is not what the lead section is for. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 21:46, 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)

IMO, there are all controversies with those particular governments first, and issues with Google's cooperation second. As such, it is not appropriate either from a neutrality standpoint, nor a style standpoint, to isolate just one of Google's questionable policies in the lead. Now, 129 and others, don't get me wrong: I think the Google & China issue is major (again, just read my blog), but this is an encyclopedia, and the introductory paragraphs on an article about Google is not the place to focus attention on just one of the various controversies. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 23:07, 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)

Controversy subsection

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)

Please stop reinserting the material without adding any new rationale. There is strong consensus on this talk page (really, everyone but you) that this material does not belong in the article's introduction. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have already compromised once. I will do it again (hopefully it will get us somewhere). I appretiate Michael Zimmer's constructive response, creating a section about controversies where the Chinese censorship and other relevant issues can be discussed and accessed easily. I would be happy to remove 'self-censored' from the introduction and substitute that by the words 'controversial site', linked to the 'Controversies subsection'. --129.67.89.102 22:02, 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)

Speaks volumes. Dr. Cash, may I suggest you publish your cheesy leaflets about Google's clean and innovative products elsewhere? Wikipedia is not a shop window. Back to the edit war. --129.67.89.102 22:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Civility, please, 129. Please assume good faith with Dr. Cash's edits & reasoning, and work with consensus, not against it. If you persist, you very well might end up being blocked, esp in relation to the three revert rule. Keep in mind, this article is not meant to be your soapbox, either. Cheers. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have made big efforts to work with consensus. Consensus consists of compromising on all sides so a middle ground is established. I have reduced my original point to a shadow of its original concept-- THAT is working towards consensus. We were making some progress with the new subsection, and that was unilaterally deleted by Dr Cash (who has deleted all previous entries referring to the Chinese censorship for the last few months in whichever format and location, as pointed out by Igloolily). It is very hard to assume any objectivity (let alone good will) in those actions, which go very much against the spirit of Wikipedia (and indeed one of Google's ten points-- democracy on the Internet works). With regard to your last sentence, I am very saddened that this is becoming my personal soapbox. Believe me, attention is not what I am seeking. --Spet1363 22:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

While wikipedia encourages all editors to be bold in editing articles, if what you add to the article is reverted by someone else, the consensus guideline does not tell you to start an edit war over it by reverting the reversion! Consensus means using the talk page to come to an agreement regarding your addition or material that you've added BEFORE directly adding it! But you seem to think it's the other way around: add what you want added and then debate it's validity on the talk page and meanwhile keep reverting anyone that takes what you want added out. Unfortunately, I don't think that's the way wikipedia operates,... Dr. Cash 23:08, 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)

3RR concerns

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:

1. you should always be careful not to revert the same article four times in 24 hours, to avoid breaking the three-revert rule
2. there is precedent for everyone involved in a long-sitting edit war to be blocked even absent violations of the 3RR, although this is usually reserved for cases in which discussion is not present.

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)

I find it hard to progress when certain users will blindly delete any hint of criticism to the company regardless of who it comes from, where it is placed, and how it is worded. I am not going to conceal the fact that 129(...) and spet1363 are the same (I never intended to make it a secret). I also agree that an edit war is in nobody's interest and am willing to reduce the blind reverting, as long as there is some hint of progress (e.g. not unilaterally blasting the foundations of modifications that lead towards the establishment of a middle ground, such as the 'Criticism' subsection created by Michael Zimmer). I believe getting that subsection back would be a step in the right direction.

I also hope it is clear I am not a vandal, I am not in despeate need of attention, and I am not a 'conspiracy theorist writing junk'. I simply believe strongly that the Chinese censorship issue is important and users must be able to find it easily so they can read and write about it. I do not believe it is fair that this Wikipedia article develops into a rosy account of how successful and innovative Google is. It would not be objective nor fair. As ever, I am open to constructive feedback. --Spet1363 23:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Dr. Cash 23:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I know you are not a vandal. However, I have informed you, both on your user talk page and on 129..'s user talk page, of the three-revert rule. This applies to an individual, not an account. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:43, 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)

I am new to this discussion, but I have read over most of this talkpage....I found out that no one thinks this is a big deal. In fact, only one person was defending its inclusion. What? It made news in TIME magazine, as one of the issue's larger articles. It made news on BBC, New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, there were letters written in the editorials about it for a month......how is this not notable?? Perhaps it doesn't belong in the introduction, but it belongs somewhere.....it is something that a person researching about google should know. I feel that the wording is neutral enough that the facts speak for themselves in this case. Shall I put it in its own section until we can come to a conclusion on whether or not it goes into the introduction?--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 14:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Few argue its notability. This issue is whether it belongs in the introductory paragraph. References and links to further coverage in WP already exist in the article. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This will sound stupid, but.....where is it in the article?--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 14:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There's been so many edits..... There is a general reference to censorship in the Google#Controversies subsection, which directs to further coverage. IMO, this could briefly be expanded to provide a little more detail, but not so much to burden the length of the article (which is why they redirect to a different article). --MichaelZimmer (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

China Straw Poll

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?

• Yes
  • Support I think it is important enough to be mentioned in the intro, because it is the most controversial issue about the company, and the rest of the article reads like an advert. We're supposed to be balanced, not cheerleading. If you look at WP:LEAD, the lead section is supposed to include "a mention of its notable controversies, if there are any." Publicola 05:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• No
  • Oppose - Issue is important, but should not be singled out in introductory paragraph. Google#Controversies section is sufficient to mention, and point readers to additional details. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Agree it's important, also agree it's not material for the introduction. Stev0 15:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per MichaelZimmer and Stev0, should be in controversies not introduction. The censorship is not central to describing Google, and does not belong in the introduction. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the above, particularly KC's rationale. — Lomn | Talk 15:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above discussion, it's not intro material. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per KC - Draeco 15:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. -R. S. Shaw 03:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Remember, it's a summary. It should cover the most important things about Google. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- nope, not in the intro. That's just top of mind right now. -- MrDolomite | Talk 15:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

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)

Um, the section was not removed: Google#Controversies--MichaelZimmer (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I am against this poll, not because I want to be difficult for the sake of it, but for two important reasons:

1. As the article about straw polls mentions, Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy, the way to solve disagreement is by arriving at consensus (i.e. a compromise on EVERYBODY's part), not raising your hand and counting.

And 2, it presents a black and white case. I originally defended the idea of including an explicit mention on the intro, but I have listened to what others have to say and am now willing to accept different options, such as a simple link from the intro to the relevant section (as long as that section exists and is objective and balanced in the first place). This is not an all or nothing situation. I am keenly awaiting for moves in the right direction, rather than obstinate attitudes. Are we going to start working towards agreeing, or are we going to carry on with this for much longer? --Spet1363 15:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are looking for for "moves in the right direction, rather than obstinate attitudes," I would suggest you stop obstinately reinserting the text and leaving comments like this [20] from your anon IP address. It is not helpful, IMO. If you want to improve the article as you note, then add useful content to the Google#Controversies section. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

How about adding this sentence?

"Google has attracted considerable news attention in its censorship of pages in various countries and its [can't think of a good noun here] with various national agencies over its privacy policy."

It doesn't single out China, but it doesn't leave out the issue either.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that Google "attracts considerable news attention" for a lot of things. The introduction is meant to be a summary, not a place to list current events. FWIW, I have expanded the Google#Controversies section to provide more context and include embedded links to other Google-specific articles with more information. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want to use news attention as criteria, Google has been getting more press with Google Checkout than with China censorship, but I wouldn't mentioned Google Checkout in the opening section, either. Stev0 16:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the new controversies subsection is fair, objective and is a good compromise. I am going to delete the appended phrase in the introduction (re self-censorship) and adding a simple link to the subsection after the 'Chinese new name' in the intro. --Spet1363 16:27, 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)

I added the links again because the etymology excuse is something we have already argued about extensively here. The introduction is obviously not a place were etymology is discussed. I am surprised you are not even willing to leave a link (no mention, no disgression, no disruption!). With regard to the internal link, I am afraid I have tried to make it a proper internal link (not a disguised one) but haven't figured out how. I would be happy if someone with more experience changed that. --Spet1363 18:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not any less edit-warring when you just post the same explanation for the same edits. You aren't considering the statements or consensus-building here at all, and quite frankly your reverts are getting pretty tiresome. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me present it from my perspective. I am getting pretty fed up as well that, as soon as we seem to have arrived at a consensual agreement, one particular user makes his appearance and unilaterally deletes all progress, without providing any reasonable explanation that considers all the previous days of discussion, without providing viable alternatives that help us to get closer to an agreement, without providing feedback. Just adhering to the same (dubious) justification over and over again. I would have expected any intelligent user to realise that we have moved since last week, and blind reverts are not going to get us anywhere. Many of us here have compromised on what we believe in order to accommodate for others' opinions. Others have not. Please consider what you your opinions, how far you are willing to compromise, and how we can best do that. --Spet1363 18:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Now, you're just ranting. Please stop. If I, "unilaterally deleted all progress," I would've removed the 'controversies' section as well. But I left it there, as it seems more people seem to think it's probably a good thing. I still remain quite opposed to any mention of chinese censorship in the opening statement, though. Dr. Cash 19:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There was no consensus for including a link to a BBC article about censorship in the introduction. Quite the contrary. Please keep it out unless you build such consensus. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I repeated several times that a combination of a single internal link and a Controversies subsection was, in my view, the way forward. Nobody argued against that. But anyhow, more compromising: does anyone have a problem with an internal link from the Chinese site name to the Controversies section and moving the BBC link to the Controversies section (which I think someone already did anyway)? --Spet1363 18:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I oppose: internal links are generally frowned upon in the lead sections (see "Avoid links in the summary" remark in WP:GTL). And users are already one click away from reading more about Google's censorship in China (just click the censorship link in that section). Linking to WP content is preferable to the use of external links. So, if what you want is a link to more details, it is already there. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with it the way it is.....it's mentioned, and there is a link to an article with more information about the topic. No need to make the scandal/issue a major part of the article, yet it shouldn't be absent either. Thanks goes out to Michael and Spet for working this out, this section is well-written. If nothing else, we have worked out one issue here.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 19:31, 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)

J.L.W.S. The Special One has a point - we don't mention any of Google's other non-U.S. properties; why single out the Chinese one in the introduction? Should these be mentioned in the Products and Services section, or maybe an entirely different section? Stev0 17:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. What is so special about Google China to deserve mention in the introduction? I decided to be bold and make my proposed changes to the article in an attempt to reach a compromise. However, Stev0 reverted my edits, calling them POV. I have re-inserted my edits, but will not undo further reverts from him, so as not to violate 3RR. Feel free to comment on my edits. [21] --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The issues isn't just the singling out of China, but the mention of one (or two) particularly controversial topics. Your attempt at "settling" introduced the notion that it is best to now mention censorship and privacy generally in the introduction. That's no better: why these two issues? Why not clickspam? Bias in ranking? Adsense practices? The point here (which I thought we had settled) is that the introduction should be a brief summary of what the company is and not try to address (selectively) the multiple controversies the company might be embroiled in. (To be sure, I am deeply concerned about these issues, and I'm not trying to brush them under the rug - I just don't think this sort of mention in the intro is appropriate). --MichaelZimmer (talk) 10:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it may be difficult to select which controversies to include in the introduction. I am for not including any controversies in the introduction, and instead leaving those to the other sections. After all, Google is not particularly controversial, unlike Microsoft or Neopets. I just thought my edit was a middle ground between the person who wanted the Chinese censorship controversy included, and the rest of us. However, since you've settled the issue, I don't think I should get involved. However, I still think the Chinese name should not be included in the introduction. The singling out of China was what provoked someone to include the Chinese censorship controversy in the introduction. However, when including it in the Controversy section, please remember to include the fact that other search engines also censor results. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Cheating Google

Cheating Google article

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)

See search engine optimization. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

And after reviewing some of your other contributions (mostly links to your website), you might also want to read Wikipedia:Spam#How not to be a spammer. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 11:34, 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 would urge you to help contribute content to the encyclopedia, not links. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

MichaelZimmer is right. If you link to your website, it will be edited out faster than you can say "spam". If you put in the article what you write on your website, it will be read by way more people than if it just stays on your own personal site. Stev0 01:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

huh? Time limit.

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 think it means that logs are not deleted, ever. --Alvestrand 22:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that's the meaning. I've made some copy edits to the opening paragraphs to hopefully clarify this and a few other parts. Gwernol 23:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Chinese Name of Google

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)

公司 is Chinese for "company". It's probably a suffix, like "Inc.". --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Need a better reference here

This video seems to keep being inserted as a reference for the statement about 50% of new product launches coming from 20% time:

[22]

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)

A little discreet, but still hard to find (sort of a tertiary source). Anyway, I went ahead and added the original video as a reference, but also added a bit more details on the source, and provided a link to an audio podcast version as well. Hopefully, this should be a bit better. Dr. Cash 18:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Featured article candidate?

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)

We need to put how Google is being censored in China in the opening paragraph. (Just kidding) Stev0 18:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh no! Not that shiat again! ;-) Dr. Cash 18:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Not the opening paragraph. According to WP:LEAD, significant controversies should be summarized in the lead section. As it is now, more parts of the lead don't summarize anything else in the article, and there are vast sections of important information which aren't summarized in the lead. Don't blame me the messenger; with the lead section the way it is now, you'll never get through FAC. The policies are the policies (and during FAC review, the style guides are the policies, too, almost all of the time.) Publicola 05:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

How many google screenshots do we really need?

Google personalised homepage, as viewed in Firefox on 5 August 06

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)

It was me. How are two screenshots too many? I thought it, along with the other illustrated how the google website has evolved over time. *Growing* from a small site to a multifaceted empire. anyway, I've moved it to the services section. Perhaps you should get better hardware - Jack (talk) 01:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The Google homepage screenshot needs to be updated... Google has changed it. 67.168.171.148 21:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It is my personal belief that every article needs exactly 7 screenshots. No more, no less. Dlong 00:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Chinese name

Can somebody tell me where should the Google's Chinese name writing? Aleenf1 09:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Privacy

this should go somewere. --Striver 03:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Size of index?

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)

Products and services

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

Google Apps for your Domain has now been added.

But, about the new Google apps in 2006 -- there are many more that were lunched this year, besides Calendar and GAfyD. Spreadsheets and Notebook are the most notable ones, IMO. Search for "2006" in List of Google services and tools for the rest. So the last paragraph in this section should be reworded. -Olegos 22:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

China again

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)

Featured article?

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)

An anonymous editor added it several days ago, escaping notice until now. Thanks for pointing this out. The star has been removed. --Aude (talk contribs) 04:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Actually, it'd be great if Google became a featured article, as I'm a Google fan. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

27 September

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)

The Million-Dollar Question

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

No, we all wonder how cool it would be to work in a place like that with an executive chef and an on-site doctor and tons of other luxury perks, plus the chance at getting stock options. I noticed the last time I drove around Google to take the pictures for the Googleplex article that they have luxury shuttle buses from Bauer's (a Bay Area limousine service) that shuttle Google personnel between the Googleplex and the dozens of satellite buildings. But the constant pressure to invent the Next Big Thing must be a real killer, though. --Coolcaesar 03:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

True, true. The pressure's on, Google people!! User:hxc ryan