Talk:Google/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

"Google" Name

While many sources seem to indicate that the "Google" name is a play on the word "Googol" there has been a remarkable paucity of speculation about the influence of two other names which may (also) be sources: "Google" is, of course, the last name of the old comics character Barney Google, who was known - in a famous song from the 20s which lives on to some extent - as "Barney Google, with the goo-goo-googly eyes." The "OO in Google often appears to be a pair of eyes, and there is some suspicion among other people I know that this is one of the sources. The other is Nikolai Gogol, a famous Russian author - among other works, "Diary of a Madman" - and it cannot escape notice that Sergiy Brin is, of course, Russian-born. Further support for this can be noticed in the somewhat unusual "Gogol" logo that appeared in April for Google on Gogol's 200th birthday. See: http://www.google.com.ua/logos/gogol09.gif

Perhaps this is ground for further investigation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.249.57 (talk) 02:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Google says that it comes from "Googol" themself at their company information page: http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/ ""Googol" is the mathematical term for a 1 followed by 100 zeros. The term was coined by Milton Sirotta, nephew of American mathematician Edward Kasner, and was popularized in the book, "Mathematics and the Imagination" by Kasner and James Newman. Google's play on the term reflects the company's mission to organize the immense amount of information available on the web." 87.212.16.222 (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Google OS?

Will google produce a desktop operating system .. google desktop / chrome is nothing more than an OS. An OS for download and trial. Microsoft is marketing OS's as a download now download, trial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.158.225 (talk) 05:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool story bro. 92.236.245.145 (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
It's not an OS actually, it's a UI. Luminifer (talk) 04:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Andrew Morton answered this question at Google Moderator, see: http://moderator.appspot.com/#15/e=c9&t=39 The closest Google will make close to a desktop OS would be Android —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.212.16.222 (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The article should be updated, now that Chrome OS has been announced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Backstabb (talk • contribs) 05:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Innovation Time Off

Marissa Mayer's statement should be expanded that it's in terms of quantity and not revenue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.27.59.78 (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Google Wave?

When will it be appropriate to add a section on the upcoming "google wave"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.181.49 (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It can be hard to keep up with all the new services launched by Google, and a preview of Google Wave can be found here. The Google article is primarily about the company itself, and a separate article for Google Wave has been created already.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.181.49 (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It should be a stub--Mjfan1 (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Google criticism

There is not even a a little paragraph about privacy issue. When we hear news about Google, it is often about this point. How is it possible not to talk about it in this article ? Ajor (talk) 11:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Google is primarily about the company structure. Criticism of Google looks at this issue in more depth, including privacy concerns.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Right now, this article looks like google is not criticised ( except a very short sentence in introduction). The problem is that a summary of criticism of google should be present in Google article (like Microsoft for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft#Criticism)...Ajor (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Criticism of Google is currently in the "See also" section. This is not pro-Google spin, because Wikipedia's coverage of Google is spread out over a range of articles, since it is such a wide subject. Agree though, that a summary could be in the article, as in YouTube.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Leave Criticism of Google out of the disambiguation title and leave it in the See also section or expand to a section for its own in the main context of the article. Placing Criticism of Google in the disambiguation is improper use. Disambiguation is for the purpose of pointing users in the intended direction of what they searched for. When someone searches for Google, they are probably searching for the company Google, the search engine Google or the number Googol, not Criticism of Google. — Moe ε 01:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of it on the disambugation pageMjfan1 (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Google criticism

There is not even a a little paragraph about privacy issue. When we hear news about Google, it is often about this point. How is it possible not to talk about it in this article ? Ajor (talk) 11:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Google is primarily about the company structure. Criticism of Google looks at this issue in more depth, including privacy concerns.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Right now, this article looks like google is not criticised ( except a very short sentence in introduction). The problem is that a summary of criticism of google should be present in Google article (like Microsoft for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft#Criticism)...Ajor (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Criticism of Google is currently in the "See also" section. This is not pro-Google spin, because Wikipedia's coverage of Google is spread out over a range of articles, since it is such a wide subject. Agree though, that a summary could be in the article, as in YouTube.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Leave Criticism of Google out of the disambiguation title and leave it in the See also section or expand to a section for its own in the main context of the article. Placing Criticism of Google in the disambiguation is improper use. Disambiguation is for the purpose of pointing users in the intended direction of what they searched for. When someone searches for Google, they are probably searching for the company Google, the search engine Google or the number Googol, not Criticism of Google. — Moe ε 01:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of it on the disambugation pageMjfan1 (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Innovation Time Off

Marissa Mayer's statement should be expanded that it's in terms of quantity and not revenue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.27.59.78 (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

goggle.com

could somebody add a section to this about goggle.com? I've noticed that this website was created by pranksters to fool other people that this was another search engine in 2003. About 10 people lost their computer to this website every day until t was shut down in 2007. Goggle is now famous in the way that it destroyed others computers in ads,spyware,and viruses. --Mjfan1 (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm i dont think it really needs to be mentioned here and in truth, i think someone may probably consider restoring the redirect at Goggle, where you have added a paragraph about "goggle" but provided no sources, its probably going to get deleted BritishWatcher (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The site is a non-notable spam site. It needs no article, nor any mention in this one, and should simply be ignored. I've restored the previous redirect. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It is a considirable addition--Mjfan1 (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not even close to notable. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I belive it is.millions of people lost their computer because of this prank —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjfan1 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC) I agree.it is quite notable.--GestOfLove (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC) — GestOfLove (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Creating new accounts or having your friends create new accounts to argue a point will not get you anywhere, and may result blocks for all involved. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The software section??

This section is obviosly a joke. I'm unable to remove it because of {{editsemiprotected}}. Could someone cacpable of doing so please remove this ridiculous section?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jillianjohnson1221 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 9 August 2009

Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve this article. That appears to be a valid, well-referenced section. Are there any specific changes you feel are required? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


It is now... It was definitely vandalised the first time I read the article. It was repaired, but thanks for the input. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jillianjohnson1221 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Google "Caffeine" Engine

Breaking News:

Google has released a new version of the search engine. It is testable today at: www2.sandbox.google.com.

I learned about it from this article: http://www.canada.com/technology/Google+building+generation+search+engine/1882015/story.html

Linuxzarth (R) 22:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No wonder I coudn't find anything about it here in wikipedia. It was spelled wrong. It's "Caffeine." tharsaile (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Google Books

I came here looking for information about Google Books. There is none. So I searched and found there are numerous other articles related to Google Books: Google Book Search, Google Books Library Project, Google Book Search Settlement Agreement. Great! However, could Google Books at least be mentioned in this article with a link to Google Book Search? I suggest something in the Software section, which appears to be a bit of a timeline of Google technologies, describing the launch of Google Books, possibly using this [1] as a source. I'd add something myself, but I can't. Thanks. 207.34.229.126 (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess Google Books isn't notable enough to mention here? 207.34.229.126 (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Easter Eggs

One Easter Egg not mentioned is that if you type in Chuck Norris and click "I'm Feeling Lucky", Google will reply "Google will not search for Chuck Norris because Google knows you don't find Chuck Norris, Chuck Norris finds you." 216.137.230.118 (talk) 02:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

My friend showed me that the other day. Made me laugh, although I don't think its notable enough to be included. --ScythreTalkContribs 15:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want to be technical, that isn't even actually an easter egg. That website isn't by Google, it's by a third party (which is why you need to click "I'm Feeling Lucky," because you need to visit the separate website.) Heavyflorida (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Old data in article

In the Info box it lists the number of employees as:

  • 19,665 – September 30, 2009

Yet in the First paragraph it lists them as:

  • As of March 31, 2009, the company has 19,786 full-time employees

The data needs changing --pc (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Petabyte

shouldn't the word petabyte in the first paragraph be hyperlinked? i can't do it because it's protected. MRed (talk) 06:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Feedback on this change to intro

As I write this, the introduction begins like this:

Google Inc. is an American public corporation, earning revenue from advertising related to its Internet search, e-mail, online mapping, office productivity, social networking, and video sharing services as well as selling advertising-free versions of the same technologies. Google has also developed an open source web browser and a mobile operating system. The Google headquarters, the Googleplex, is located in Mountain View, California. As of March 31, 2009, the company has 19,786 full-time employees. The company is running thousands of servers worldwide, which process millions of search requests each day and about 1 petabyte of user-generated data every hour.

Based on these two references:

I'd like to change the crossed-out portions of this introductory paragraph to this (quoting from the 2004 Form 10-K):

Google Inc. is an American "software, technology, Internet, advertising and media company" headquartered at the Googleplex in Mountain View, California. It earns revenue from advertising related to its Internet search, e-mail, online mapping, office productivity, social networking, and video sharing services as well as selling advertising-free versions of the same technologies. As of March 31, 2009, the company has 19,786 full-time employees. The company is running thousands of servers worldwide, which process millions of search requests each day and about one petabyte of user-generated data every hour.

The only thing I dropped was a reference to two technologies (Google Chrome, Android) which I think are covered sufficiently by treating the mobile Internet like cloud computing and Web 2.0, as evolutions in the Internet that need not be brought up in the introduction.

My intent is to add {{editsemiprotected}} to the top of this section, depending on the responses. Thanks in advance. 68.167.191.171 (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC).

Weird sentence

The following sentence in the article doesn't make sense to me: "Google's advertisements carry a lower price tag when their human ad-rating team working around the world believes the ads improve the company's user experience.[68]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.41.209.138 (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Google policy on child pornography

I think there should maybe be an article on Google policy on child pornography. Much of the legal debate surrounding the contemporary availability of child pornography concerns the role that prominent search engines such as Google have in allowing easier access to the illicit material. There have also been allegations from lawyers that Google corporation either faciliates or does not sufficiently block prohibited content. [2][3] ADM (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

See [4] for Google's policy on this and similar issues.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think a specific article on that is needed, as Wikipedia is not a repository of individual corporate policies. We don't need to (and should not) simply duplicate their policy on pornography. But it should be covered in articles dealing with this, such as either Criticism of Google or Censorship by Google. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Misspelling?

"The total initial investment raised for the new company amounted to almost $5.1 million, including a $100,000 check by Andy Bechtolsheim, one of the founders of Sun Microsystems."

Shouldn't "check" be "cheque"? Or is that another one of those American spellings I don't know about? :) 194.80.144.240 (talk) 10:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"Check" is the usual American English spelling of "cheque". See American and British English spelling differences for more about how Wikipedia handles this issue, and Cheque#Etymology_and_spelling.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Logo change

Google has recently changed their home page style, and their logo is updated: [5] [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.51.183.164 (talk) 19:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


Erroneous, outdated, and incomplete search share information

The article reads, "As of August 2007, Google is the most used search engine on the web with a 53.6% market share, ahead of Yahoo! (19.9%) and Bing Search (12.9%).[74]"

But Bing wasn't around in 2007 - it was released in 2009 - and the citation link goes to a "page cannot be found" page. Clearly, either the date or the data is wrong.

Besides, rather than 2007 figures, we might as well use the current search browser share, anyway (although I don't know whose data Wikipedia would want to use). Google is in the 70% market share area, from what I can tell from various sources, and Bing has been slipping now that their media blitz is winding down.

Finally, I came to this article looking for Google's year-over-year growth in search share. If someone would like to put that in there, instead of just having one snapshot date of search share, I think it would be helpful to shed light on the history of Google's growth, especially how it relates to that of Yahoo. Google came on the scene when Yahoo was dominating the search market, so it's interesting to look at how they slew the giant... and became the giant themselves. (Or perhaps the search engine market share of all different engines deserves its own topic that all search engine pages refer to.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.119.189.14 (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. The accuracy of market research on the Internet is often hard to gauge. ComScore is often quoted in the media, and its search engine figures for November 2009 are here. Google is on around 65% with the others trailing well behind. The problem is that the figures are for the USA only, which of course excludes other countries. Any suggestions on how to update the article would be welcome.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt reply! At the very least, I think that sentence needs to be fixed or omitted, because it's clearly wrong, and the citation is dead, so it needs to be removed or replaced. As to your question about updating the article, it sounds like you have at least one source you feel is reliable. Even if it's only figures for the USA, it's better to show those and note that those are figures for the USA only than to have something that just doesn't make any sense up there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.119.189.14 (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

UsaToday: Google and China play hardball in fight over search services

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2010-01-13-google-china_N.htm should the Wikipedia article mention this? Ottawahitech (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It’s Not Google that’s Withdrawing from China; It’s China that’s Withdrawing from the World

Let's hope MacDonald's, KFC, Coca-Cola also pull out. See whether the Chinese people care. 86.164.57.245 (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

POV Forks

Is it just me, or are the two seperate articles for criticism of google and censorship by google POV forks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.32.153 (talk) 06:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully not. Google is a large subject and these articles have been created to look at the issues in more depth. Ironically, people have said in the past that Google does not say enough in these areas. This is deliberate, because Google is primarily about the company structure.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Interesting that this article says "Google is a noted supporter of network neutrality" with no mention of any evidence, all while not mentioning any of their censorship. There is only one sentence, simply mentioning that google "has been criticized" ... obvious intention of nearing towards weasel words to diminish focus on that subject and promote the company. Crusty wallace (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Google Logo and Site Updates

Google has updated their logo and changed the layout of their site today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.58.199 (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Can't see anything unusual today. Any sourcing on this?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

So far it's just updated on the regular website searching, not on images, videos, maps, etc..

Here is the new logo:

http://www.google.com/images/srpr/logo1w.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.58.199 (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Still puzzled here. The drop shadow is missing on the image at [7], but otherwise it is the standard Google logo.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Please add the link of....

List of Google products and services in the See also section--124.78.210.114 (talk) 11:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Bit of a puzzle here. List of Google products and services is a redlink, which means that it has no corresponding article. List of Google products does have an article and is in the "See also" section.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Google and broadband

Should we mention this? Or is it already mentioned in another article? Cheers, Ben (talk) 13:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Definitely, if you don't do it in the next few hours, I will SeanBrockest (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Information processing rate

In this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petabyte) I read

  • Internet: Google processes about 20 petabytes of data per day.[4]

And here, it says that Google processes about one petabyte of user-generated data each hour.

And 1 day has 24 hours; how come?

--Xonny88 (talk) 06:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to respond. Seems there are not too many users checking this talk page. The information is a little confusing. I looked up a number of sources, and [8] [9] [10] and [11] say they process 20 petabytes a day, as you said. [12] says they process over 20 petabytes a day. And [13] is the site that says they do one petabyte an hour, or 24 a day. To make the situation even more confusing, a true petabyte is 1015 bytes, but in computing they more often use 10245 (the correct name for this is a pebibyte, but that name is rarely used). If you take 24 petabytes and calculate it out in pebibytes, it comes to around 21. In other words, all the sources say different things, and we cannot even decipher what a single one of them is saying. As far as I'm concerned, one of the sites that says 20 petabytes a day is Google's internal blog, so I am going with 20. In truth, though, I think the difference is insignificant, as long as we get the point across that Google processes a hell of amount of data, and that the user can get a source to back that up. — Parent5446 ☯ (message email) 04:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
It gets worse. I realized that all the ones that say 20 petabytes were published in 2008, while the 24 petabyte one was in 2009. So maybe they did 20 then and do 24 now. I am going to contact Google and see what's up. For now, let's stick with what's on the page. — Parent5446 ☯ (message email) 04:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, so Google emailed me back, and said that they can vouch for their Google Blog information, but nothing else, so for now we are going to have to stick with the 20PB a day. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 20:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Rankdex

i just found out that this "small search engine exploring a similar strategy" in the 1990ies didn't tragically fall into oblivion with google's success - instead, it was the predecessor of baidu, google's biggest competitor in china (thus, google's biggest competitor). rather nice.

Have any sources to back this up? I can't find anything linking Rankdex to Baidu. Sounds interesting, though. — Parent5446 ☯ (message email) 05:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

are browser stats appropriate?

In the paragraph about Google chrome, is it appropriate of me to add a snippet that mentions it's market share, and it's ranking as far as processing speed? I can add independent links for both. SeanBrockest (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good if you have sources. You are free to edit the article as you please, provided you have good intentions. Next time you want to put something in, just be bold and do it. There is no penalization for a bad edit if you have good intentions, and if somebody does yell at you, you can seek editor assistance, or a third opinion. Anyway, get that snippet in ASAP so we can see what you got. — Parent5446 ☯ (message email) 05:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Parent5446's lead rewrite...

I've done some minor tuning to Parent5446's rewrite/reorg of Google's lead.

My chief concern, presently, is that in the first sentence, it is stated, "Google Inc. is a multinational public cloud computing and Internet search technologies corporation that hosts and develops a number of Internet-based services and products." We have a second paragraph that goes into details about the variety of products, however I think that Google's product array is so vast, now, that simply leaving out the second paragraph is warranted, and the link to the list of Google's products should be all that is needed. The only additional information in the second paragraph is that Google makes money principally from advertising, so I'd like to move that up to the first sentence, like this: "Google Inc. is a multinational public cloud computing and Internet search technologies corporation that hosts and develops a number of Internet-based services and products and profits primarily from internet advertising."

Thoughts? —  X  S  G  18:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from. My only concern is that without the second paragraph the only thing the reader really finds out about Google is that it is a "cloud computing and Internet search" corporation. We should add some type of sentence or description that describes the type of services Google offers, especially considering it is unlikely people will jump over to a completely different article just to find out a general description of the services they offer. But I do agree the second paragraph is a bit long and unnecessary. Most likely, the lead will need to include other aspects of the article other than just their services. — Parent5446 ☯ (message email) 19:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Google

{{editsemiprotected}} In the lede, the link to Criticism of Google is piped as "criticism", which seems a bit misleading as there is nothing in the prose to signal to the reader that it is not a link to criticism. In such cases, it is usually helpful to include several words in the piping. I suggest

However, the company has also faced criticism [...]

or

However, the company has also faced criticism [...]

--87.79.187.17 (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Done Welcome and thanks, Celestra (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

External Links

Although Google is a search engine but still there is no easy way to find all the services run by Google. They are not listed at one place by Google. To remove this problem we have created a page on which we have listed 70 of Google's services and there URLs. We will continue to add more services. List of Google Services —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skj.saurabh (talk • contribs) 15:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Commas v. Line Breaks

Should we have commas or line breaks separating some of the infobox items? This question has come up particularly because of a disagreement between myself and Tinton5, with me supporting commas. Generally, I am willing to accept whatever consensus we can reach, but here is my argument. I would first recommend reading over User:Twsx/Commas vs. Linebreaks. Though it was written with a different subject in mind, many of the points correlate. The first is that the only real argument for line breaks is they look better, which is trivial considering you could just as easily argue commas look nicer. It's all a matter of perspective and what the editor believes looks better. On User:Kameejl/Line breaks versus commas, there are a bunch of arguments for line breaks that I would agree with...if they applied to this article. (Kameejl points out that line breaks make extensive lists easier to read, but we're not talking about extensive lists, just two lines.) Anyway, there is absolutely no consensus on the argument, and really there is not even a right answer. Personally I think it is more natural to use commas in such a short list. Comments? — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 04:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

As you may be aware, I'm pro this. It may turn out that many are against this, keep in mind that we are on a discussion page of one of the biggest and well known companies in the world. Were not talking about Al's Tires or Buck's Tavern. Were talking about Google. So, my point is that a top corporation should have a formal layout and not look sloppy. Sure, commas do the trick. But if we can work together to find some consensus, then that would be great. Take a look at these examples. Tinton5 (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Without line breaks
Company typePublic (Nasdaq: GOOG, FWB: GGQ1)
FoundedMenlo Park, California (September 4, 1998 (1998-09-04))←Same goes for date
FounderSergey M. Brin
Lawrence E. Page
Headquarters
Mountain View, California
,
United States ← With two separate fields, one for the city and the other for the country, the term United States does not fit on one line, where the word United is at the end of the first line, then States is underneath. Its better if we group United States together, on its own line. Compare both versions.
Area served
Worldwide
With line breaks
Company typePublic (Nasdaq: GOOG, FWB: GGQ1)
FoundedMenlo Park, California
(September 4, 1998 (1998-09-04))←The date falls underneath and its all on one single line, easier to read.
FounderSergey M. Brin
Lawrence E. Page
HeadquartersMountain View, California,
United States←This is on its own line, having a nice organized appearance and the reader can easily see the term United States on its own line, since it can't all fit on one.
Area served
Worldwide












Another possibility is to abbreviate United States with U.S., making the line breaks useless because this abbreviation can fit on the same line which says Mountain View, California, (U.S.)

Well, we cannot put the country and city in the same parameter for the template because the location parameter is being deprecated. We have to use the separate fields for city and country. Abbreviating it to U.S. sounds reasonable, or maybe we could just put a non-breaking space in between United and States so it does not break lines. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 14:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that is a good option to work with. Tinton5 (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Does any body have any problem in my adding our Google services page link to main Google article?

In case somebody has it please let me know in 2-3 days otherwise I will consider it my duty to add the link to external links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.31.87 (talk) 08:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Google is pushing for fiber cable by offering free internet cable services in California in remote places. Is there information from anybody this and why is Google doing it? Is about their advertising idea to get people on online to view advertising ads? Kind of want to know since we have Google in our area building fiber cable that will be available later this year for beta testing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.155.2 (talk) 04:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


"HTC phones such as the Nexus One and Droid Eris" - change this, yeah? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.109.245 (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems like there are three different people speaking here at once. For those asking whether you are allowed to make edits or not, I believe this article is semi-protected, so you need to register, that is, create an account, before you can edit this article. That is unnecessary, however, as you can just say here what you want to edit, and we can do it for you. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 04:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

April Fool hoax about Google changing name to Topeka

{editprotected}April 1st 2010 Google changes name to Topeka. Quote from Google website at http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/different-kind-of-company-name.html A different kind of company name 4/01/2010 12:01:00 AM Early last month the mayor of Topeka, Kansas stunned the world by announcing that his city was changing its name to Google. We’ve been wondering ever since how best to honor that moving gesture. Today we are pleased to announce that as of 1AM (Central Daylight Time) April 1st, Google has officially changed our name to Topeka.


We didn’t reach this decision lightly; after all, we had a fair amount of brand equity tied up in our old name. But the more we surfed around (the former) Topeka’s municipal website, the more kinship we felt with this fine city at the edge of the Great Plains.

In fact, Topeka Google Mayor Bill Bunten expressed it best: “Don’t be fooled. Even Google recognizes that all roads lead to Kansas, not just yellow brick ones.”

For 150 years, its fortuitous location at the confluence of the Kansas River and the Oregon Trail has made the city formerly known as Topeka a key jumping-off point to the new world of the West, just as for 150 months the company formerly known as Google has been a key jumping-off point to the new world of the web. When in 1858 a crucial bridge built across the Kansas River was destroyed by flooding mere months later, it was promptly rebuilt — and we too are accustomed to releasing 2.0 versions of software after stormy feedback on our ‘beta’ releases. And just as the town's nickname is "Top City," and the word “topeka” itself derives from a term used by the Kansa and Ioway tribes to refer to “a good place to dig for potatoes,” we’d like to think that our website is one of the web's top places to dig for information.

In the early 20th century, the former Topeka enjoyed a remarkable run of political prominence, gracing the nation with Margaret Hill McCarter, the first woman to address a national political convention (1920, Republican); Charles Curtis, the only Native American ever to serve as vice president (’29 to ‘33, under Herbert Hoover); Carrie Nation, leader of the old temperance movement (and wielder of American history’s most famous hatchet); and, most important, Alfred E. Neuman, arguably the most influential figure to an entire generation of Americans. We couldn’t be happier to add our own chapter to this storied history.

A change this dramatic won’t happen without consequences, perhaps even some disruptions. Here are a few of the thorny issues that we hope everyone in the broader Topeka community will bear in mind as we begin one of the most important transitions in our company’s history:

  • Correspondence to both our corporate headquarters and offices around the world should now be addressed to Topeka Inc., but otherwise can be addressed normally.
  • Google employees once known as “Googlers” should now be referred to as either “Topekers” or “Topekans,” depending on the result of a board meeting that’s ongoing at this hour. Whatever the outcome, the conclusion is clear: we aren’t in Google anymore.
  • Our new product names will take some getting used to. For instance, we’ll have to assure users of Topeka News and Topeka Maps that these services will continue to offer news and local information from across the globe. Topeka Talk, similarly, is an instant messaging product, not, say, a folksy midwestern morning show. And Project Virgle, our co-venture with Richard Branson and Virgin to launch the first permanent human colony on Mars, will henceforth be known as Project Vireka.
  • We don’t really know what to tell Oliver Google Kai’s parents, except that, if you ask us, Oliver Topeka Kai would be a charming name for their little boy.
  • As our lawyers remind us, branded product names can achieve such popularity as to risk losing their trademark status (see cellophane, zippers, trampolines, et al). So we hope all of you will do your best to remember our new name’s proper usage:

Finally, we want to be clear that this initiative is a one-shot deal that will have no bearing on which municipalities are chosen to participate in our experimental ultra-high-speed broadband project, to which Google, Kansas has been just one of many communities to apply.

Posted by Eric Schmidt, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Topeka Inc.


ChuBbakka (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Rev. Chu Bbakka aka John DiewaldChuBbakka (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

LISTEN UP, FOLKS: THIS IS AN APRIL FOOL.[14] So no, it is not going to be added to the article, although it could be mentioned as an April Fool joke.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I would add a picture of the Topeka main page, but I reconsidered because of other "Themes" Google made over the years.--IViking (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The image would be OK in Google's hoaxes, but it is off the main topic in Google.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not know why we cannot have this titled as Topeka for today only. If we changed that for today it would make the entire April Fools Day joke much better and believable. (Weather130 (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC))

I agree. Can I get a third (or more) and reach consensus, so the next time someone edits changing the first Google, INC and logo to Topeka, it should not be reverted until midnight tonight --Lefton4ya (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I was in Boston for April Fools Day, and did not get to witness the fiasco that seems to have ensued. :) May I just say that while Wikipedia encourages a fun-loving community, and we love to joke around, changing a company's name is unacceptable, and should not be done. In fact, I would even go as far as to say it is on the verge of vandalism to do so (though not quite there). Sorry to ruin the fun, but that's policy. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 23:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Google/Archive 3/GA1

Google search engine page redesigned

Not sure if anyone else has noticed, but the search engine page has been redesigned. I think it's both worth noting and worth taking a new screenshot. source ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 02:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The new Google interface is experimental, and has not yet been publicly implemented. We can, however, find a place to talk about the new design in the article, but seeing as evidence of the new design is anecdotal at best, it might be better just to wait for things to develop. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 23:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Has the company noticed the expansion sign at....???

--222.64.214.173 (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Further information: Talk:Medical certificate

--222.64.214.173 (talk) 04:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

...I don't think "the company" noticed, but I did. And since the section does not really need expansions (it has a pretty lengthy description of the service), I removed the expand section template. If you have any questions, you can reply here. 71.247.81.233 (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Google Guys

I tried to direct and merge but the creator of the article did not follow guidlelines to referencing. It needed fixing. I really don't think this is appropriate for a seperate article and I think what is here should be condensed too. Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think that section should exist at all. It pretty much is just info on the founders of Google, and how rich they are, which belongs in Page and Brin's respective article. Furthermore, the germ "Google Guys" is used like twice in the media, and it is just an informal term instead of using their full names. This does not make it some kind of official nickname. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 03:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
If it stays it should include Eric Schmidt. "Google Guys" sounds so much better than "Google Jews" the term I had so far come up with. 32.165.243.205 (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Release for editing

No one can edit it without debate, which is really annoying —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.211.173 (talk) 11:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC) and I leave it for ISO 690 panelles to fix it up --222.64.223.117 (talk) 01:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please update the picture of the Google logo to the one that was adopted back on 5/7? Thanks.

See the conversation a few section up. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 22:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
There is no dispute that the Google Search logo has been updated, and the article now reflects this. Since some of the other Google services are still using the old logo, Google is waiting for a while per the above thread.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

New privacy violations, possible illegalities, May 2010

[15] "Google Inc. has been vacuuming up fragments of people's online activities broadcast over public Wi-Fi networks for the past four years... The company said it only recently discovered the problem in response to an inquiry from German regulators.

"... Google characterized its collection of snippets from e-mails and Web surfing done on public Wi-Fi networks as a mistake, and said it has taken steps to avoid a recurrence. About 600 gigabytes of data was taken off of the Wi-Fi networks in more than 30 countries, including the U.S. Google plans to delete it all as soon as it gains clearance from government authorities.

"None of the information has appeared in Google's search engine or other services, according to Eustace.

"Nevertheless, Google's decision to hold on to the Wi-Fi data until it hears back from regulators shows the company realizes it could face legal repercussions." ~snippets from AP; click the link for full article 24.155.49.116 (talk) 07:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

New Logo?

I noticed that Google have refreshed their homepage logo, I was wondering if the one on this page should be updated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckerr15 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The Google logo sometimes changes with special events. This version in the article was used during the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver, so it is not ideal as a general representation of the logo, and is also non-free content. The logo today looks normal.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I know it changes, but today (earlier this morning (UK)) the Google.com homepage had a different logo, it was the same as the current one, but it was smoothed off a little, I wish I had taken a screenshot of it. It also incorporated new things into the actual search interface; along the left side of the search results, you could switch between Images, Videos and so on. As of now, it seems to have reverted to the "older" style, maybe it was a live test or something? I'll keep an eye out for any changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.138.6 (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Google and several other very popular Web sites often run live tests of new features or designs on randomly selected user subgroups nearly every day. I've run into a couple such tests myself, though they are calibrated so that the probability of encountering one is rare. That's probably what happened in your case. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
It was on the www.google.com domain name, I checked the URL to make sure I was in the right place, and sure enough, it was definitely live. Intentional or not, if that's the route Google are going down, we'll be pleasantly surprised because it was pretty slick! Looking around the article, the picture of the "sign at the Googleplex" is roughly what it looked like. It had less "shine" to it and a less emphasised drop shadow. It looked much better in comparison to the "old" (current?) logo...

You are probably referring to the new Google interface that is being tested on various users. I have seen what you are talking about. However, new logo or not, this article can only include the official Google logo as dictated by the press page. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 04:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the new logo on the current main page is real. Look at this. Years in the making, apparently - http://www.techeblog.com/index.php/tech-gadget/google-logo-redesigned 208.101.155.117 (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
The logo looks to be now permanent, well in the UK it is. 90.210.193.168 (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The logo is permanent, as well as the new interface (see here). However, I would like to bring up that the logo for the other Google services has not changed (see random Google logo. Therefore, we might want to revert to the old image because the official "About Google" page has not changed. What is the company logo? Also, the actual image "fair use" or whatever might just be screwed up because of this. What should the community do?--mono 00:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I think we should go with the About Us page, until that's updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckerr15 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Did anybody read my comment? Google specifically provides a Press Page with copies of their company-authorized official logos, and that is the logo we should use. Do not use the new logo unless they change the Press Page. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 16:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
This is an interesting point of view. Google seems to have changed its logo and layout, as reported by the media.[16][17] The press page still has the old logo with the drop shadow.[18] It looks like the Google press page needs updating, rather than the other way round.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Before there is any edit warring over this, it looks like there is a roll-out period for the new logo. The search engine already has it, but Google News (at least where I am) is still using the old logo. Bearing this in mind, we should wait a while to see what happens. Strictly speaking, the article Google is about the company rather than the individual services, so the "old" logo could stay during the transitional period.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
That sounds like the most reasonable compromise. Until we find out what's going on, we'll sit down and not risk an edit war. But on a side note, I doubt that the new logo is the new official company logo, I mean it does not even have a trademark symbol. But we'll have to wait and see. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 20:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I feel that the current logo google use's for their main page should be the logo and on not being the unofficial logo? I feel that google just haven't updated the logo on other projects yet because on other sites like google videos,google shopping,and google images did update their logo but I still see the old logo on the google,mail,news,maps so I think instead of turning this into a editing war just put the old logo on the article and say Google other logo and have the new logo they use on their main search engine page as the infobox logo iCEMAN247 11:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
This is probably already known, but google's blog confirms that the new logo and layout is here to stay. [19] --71.169.116.179 (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

←Maps, Images, Translate (and the other main services) seem to have the new logo. I am initiating the change.--moɳo 06:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, just an explanation for everybody too lazy to read the entire section. We are waiting to see what happens on Google's part before updating the logo. It is true that Google has put the new logo in many of its new products. However, the media room on Google's press page still has the old logo. It is very possible that the new logo is purely for UX purposes, and the old logo has remained their official company symbol. If this is the case, seeing as this is an article about Google the company rather than Google search, the old logo should be kept. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 04:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Or it's possible that they didn't know how serous this was on just updating a logo that it can cause all this conflict iCEMAN247 02:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
{UPDATE} I want to see what people got to say now that have updated their press center with the new logo [20] iCEMAN247 02:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's stop edit-warring over this before it becomes an ArbCom case. This is a classic example of WP:DEW.--moɳo 03:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It has bee changed in the press page now. Aceleo 11:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aceleo (talk • contribs)
Since the press page has been changed, the new logo should stay now. For the pedants, Google News and Reader are still using the old version with the drop shadow.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
The Google Reader logo is here; it has the new look. moɳo 16:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Why has my visit been directed to the following...???

Every time I type www.google.co.uk --222.67.207.145 (talk) 11:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Similar things for the following

--222.67.207.145 (talk) 11:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it something to do with the Internet Censorship...??? --222.67.207.145 (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Wizardwithagun, 24 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

In the industry section (top left) google also manufactures computer hardware (mobile phones) such as the Nexus One. Please add this to the section.

Wizardwithagun (talk) 11:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done, the industry parameter in the infobox is only for the primary industries that companies occupy, as computer hardware isn't one of Google's primary markets I've not added it. Cheers, Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 12:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

To administartors, from Bug May 29th at 10:29 PM.

In subject 81, it claims that 99% of google's revinues are from advertisement. I highly doubt that, as it was actually in 2006. They need to reword that in 2006 99% of Google's revinue. Google might make more money of selling people's information, or sub-contracts which they never talk about. Anyways this is highly inaccurate.

Does anyone know how they work? Advertisement is not their main revinue. At the rate of 1 cent per link, and assuming they click on it 3 times a day, for 1 month. that's about 90 cents. Considering the that by the average of 25,000 link clicks (Top 1000) that's only $25 dollars per cite a month. Can anyone explain this phenomenon? This contradicts the aricle based off http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312507044494/d10k.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.50.145 (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Google receives over a billion search requests every day. That means over a billion impressions for each advertisement in each search, and this does not include the advertisements on Google's other services. Furthermore, not all advertisements are click-based. Many are impression-based, meaning the company pays based on how many times the ad is viewed. Either way, the SEC report shows that 99% of Google's revenue comes from advertising, and I doubt that Google is making money from selling people's information or making sub-contracts, unless you have concrete proof that they are. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 02:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

But web search information "what the people having in minds" is valuable information. Anybody who have some kind of secret (:= info not available to others) may capitalize on leaking it. The same hold for this website. His owner advertised it may provide a lot o valuable information in his initial adds.

Google's private network

Google has constructed a massive private network that rivals the capacity and size of major carriers. Why isn't there an article or even an entry on this topic? This network has implications for network neutrality, all of google's core business, and the future of carrier rules and policy. It has already been involved in several lawsuits about privacy and ISP law. I am not an IT professional, which is why I am first suggesting someone else write it.

Why is there no criticism section? There's certainly lots.

There is a separate article Criticism of Google.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


Why is the criticism section in a separate article? I propose that such content be more useful if included in the main article. Thanks, Hu Gadarn (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It is because this article is not WP:NPOV.

{{editprotected}}|Template:Template Sandbox|Sandbox please add NPOV tag on this article. thanks. 188.2.24.42 (talk) 09:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done "Criticism of" and "Controversy" sections can easily become WP:COATRACKs. Material of this kind should be presented in an organized way. Since Google is too large a subject for a single article, there is a separate Criticism of Google. What Google should probably have is a summary of the criticisms with a link to this article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It is common practice here on wikipedia that articles have at least an introductory section/paragraph and a link to separate article see for example Google_Street_View#Privacy_issues. The way it is now, this article lacks WP:NPOV, ...a fundamental wikipedia principle..., as an excuse not to become coatrack -- as is explained in an essay that you cited. I ask some other uninvolved administrator to consider this matter -- you seem heavily invested in this article as your signature is all over talk pages. 188.2.24.42 (talk) 10:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry, I'm not in the pay of Google. When there is a separate article, it is usual to have a "main article" template linking to it. This prevents the same information from being repeated. Google is primarily about the company structure, and it is hard to summarize all of the criticisms of Google briefly. The article could have some tweaking, but it should also bear in mind WP:TOPIC.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
summarizing is not that hard, for example (from the lead of separate article): The policies and practices for which Google has been criticized include its use of others' intellectual property, concerns that its compilation of data may violate people's privacy, censorship of search results, and the energy consumption of its servers. Much of the criticism of Google pertains to issues that have not yet been addressed by cyber law. 188.2.24.42 (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree that summarizing is not difficult, commonly done and would provide a more complete treatent of the subject. Thanks, Hu Gadarn (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC).
Wikipedia:Content forking - "Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary." ... "the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the 'spinning out' is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others." In my opinion, the article currently doesn't quite have a good enough of a summary of criticisms of Google to be considered NPOV. It seems to favor the positives while not adequately summarizing the negatives. - kollision (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree. Please add NPOV tag, or add a criticism section. 75.2.244.195 (talk) 07:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and added a Criticism section. It's mostly copy and paste from various sections of the main criticism article, with some glue in between. Feel free to edit away. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 17:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Google background image

Today Google added background image. What increase bandwidth and slow response on some computers. To get rid of it, for Firefox users, was published advice how to turn of images: from browser menu goto edit > then submenu preferences > tab content > right of "load images automatically" click Exception > in address of website type google.com > click block. 99.90.197.244 (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC) then the page do not load image, is white, and you save on time and energy. 99.90.197.244 (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Much as Wikipedia likes SVG images, the version of the Google logo at File:Google-Logo.svg is not very lifelike. It does not capture the colour and texture accurately, so it is best to stick with the official company version.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I actually went ahead and put it back. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 01:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Julien Silland, 16 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The number of employees should be updated to the most recent figure, which was published on July 16th 2010 in Google's Q2 2010 earnings report: http://investor.google.com/earnings/2010/Q2_google_earnings.html . Google's headcount rose to 21,805. Julien Silland (talk) 06:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Done by Sir Stupidity (talk · contribs) here. Sir Stupidity (talk) 06:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Google Web Search - Dictionary Results

After some disagreement with User:Parent5446, I'll now bring it the discussion page which I should've done last time were it not for his initial phrasing of "unless you mean something different", which I took to be a misinterpretation of my edit.

@ Parent5446: Do you happen to have a gmail account or are otherwise logged into Google when you search? I don't have any preferences with them. As to the definitions posted above the linked results for certain English words, I was told of such a feature several months ago, and have been keeping an eye out for it. When it finally appeared, I added mention of it here immediately. I have specifically been using Google Web Search as a dictionary+search for quite some time now. This is not something I would've missed, as an avid casual user. As far as a link? try searching at http://www.google.com for "diligence" and then "diligent" in the main page web search bar. The latter search will produce the result I was reporting on. The former won't. Note, I did specify the distinction of it being what google classifies as a "web search" and not their "dictionary", nor am I referring to the dictionary sites' results listed in link form.

"Though web searches still appear in a batch per page format, on July 23, 2010, dictionary definitions for certain English words began appearing above the linked results for web searches. " Fixblor (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Aha! I apologize for disagreeing, but I thought you were talking about something else. Note that when you search for "define diligent" (specifically without the colon), the first result is a link to dictionary definitions. Now that I know what you're talking about, I have no problem including it in the article. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 23:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, sir. I commend you for your candor and decorum. I shall myself endeavor to be more clear and concise in my additions to the wikis. BRAVE ON! Fixblor (talk) 04:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Link with Googol

It could be added somewhere that google currently uses the domain 1e100.net for his IP resolves. 

magicaltux@Memol ~ $ dig +short google.com
66.249.89.104
66.249.89.99
magicaltux@Memol ~ $ dig +short -x 66.249.89.99
nrt04s01-in-f99.1e100.net.

1e100 is a Googol (1e100 = 1*10^100). Searching "1e100.net" (on google for example) shows that many people have come across this name and were wondering either what it meant or what it was. If it was cited in the Google's wikipedia article it would definitly turn up in searches and be useful to many people (plus it could help illustrate google's mindset). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicalTux (talk • contribs) 23:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 190.192.21.143, 2 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The financial information is expressed in billions. This is wrong. According to google's own information and yahoo financial, most of these figures shoud be expressed in millions.

For example:

Total assets

Wiki US$40.497 billion (2009)

Google: US$40.497 Millions (2009)

190.192.21.143 (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide some links here? Thanks.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

 Not done The numbers in the article appear to me to be expressed correctly (that is, per [21] and [22] they have billions of dollars in revenue, profit, et cetera). It is common for American companies to express such numbers in millions, because the SEC requires that format; Google's reports reflect numbers in a large whole number of millions (40,497 millions) for this reason, but we express it more conveniently as a smaller number of billions with a fraction (40.497 billions). There is no contradiction between these numbers; the comma is used as a separator for the digits of a large whole number, and the period is used as a decimal point, and even though some other languages use them differently, they are not interchangeable. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Google/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hey, just creating the subpage. After taking a look at the article I'm going to read through. Stay tuned.

Reviewer: elektrikSHOOS 23:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Initial review

  1. Well-written: ✓ Pass
  2. Verifiable: ✓ Pass - A few sources should use a standard template such as {{Cite web}} or {{Cite news}} to be more informative at a glance, but there are no outstanding unreliable citations.
  3. Broad in coverage: ✓ Pass Given Google's far-reaching holdings it would be impossible, or at the least improper, to include every single Google product in this article. However, it does an adequate job of touching on all of Google's major projects and products and provides relevant wikilinks to articles which can expand on them further.
  4. Neutral: ✗ Fail - The article contains a criticism section. In the past, dedicated controversy/criticism sections have been seen as jeopardizing the neutrality of an article. If possible, information in that section should be integrated into other sections where applicable. Of course, this has always been something that's up for debate, and any interested editor can discuss this with me on it on this page if they believe it's not a major concern.
  5. Stable: ✓ Pass - No current edit wars or major revisions in its history, and the article's current semiprotection has virtually stopped vandalism.
  6. Illustrated: ✓ Pass - There's only so many pictures you can include in an article about a tech company. The ones here are sufficient and none have any outstanding fair-use or copyright problems.

Reviewer: elektrikSHOOS 23:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I distributed the Criticism section to an extent. Some of the stuff in the Criticism section is specifically criticism of Google as a whole. I was able to move some product specific criticism into their related sections, and what was left I renamed to the new Privacy subsection, since that title is more fitting. Furthermore, I went to the Criticism of Google article and merged in some more info (see diff). Hopefully the article is more neutral this way. Comments? — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 00:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
It's better, definitely. I'm going to let the review sit for a week or so to get more feedback on it. Large companies such as Google always have had long lists of complaints and criticism, so I'm admitting this is a difficult topic to bring up in a neutral manner. I'd encourage you to let more interested editors know and comment on the talk page, or here, on suggestions to improve it further if necessary. elektrikSHOOS 03:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Elektrik Shoos, if you want others to comment on the review, you will probably need to let people know that. Editors are unlikely to do so since you have done the review. You can ask for a second opinion on the GAN page (instructions at the top of the page if you're not familiar).--BelovedFreak 09:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for pointing that out, I'm new to GA reviews. elektrikSHOOS 22:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Quick driveby comments from Belovedfreak

  • You have a link to a disambiguation page (bing)
 Done
  • You have at least a couple of dead links in references that need fixing
Most of the dead links have been resolved with the exception of one from the New York Post. I think that specific link is dead because the site is running into technical problems, since if you search for the cited article on the Post's main site, it comes up in the search results and just directs you to the same weird page with "GENERIC" on top. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 22:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I just removed that link completely, since it accompanies three other references for the same thing. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 22:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

--BelovedFreak 09:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, since there's been no response for a second opinion in nearly two weeks, and I don't see anything that screams "not fitting GAN," I'm going to go ahead and promote it. If there's any criticism the article can be delisted using standard processes. Congrats. elektrikSHOOS 22:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

it should have 'criticism' section. 93.87.96.127 (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

quotes

help with ralph waldo emerson quote "though we travel the world over to find the beautiful we must carry it with us or we find it not." please sent me information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.232.5.178 (talk) 10:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge Google Dashboard

Recently, PopMusicBuff proposed that Google Dashboard be merged into Google (this article). Despite the speedy merge process, I strongly disagree with this merge. Google Dashboard is not exactly a product of Google, i.e. it does not provide a service to the user. Rather it is a type of meta-service created in the light of privacy concerns brought up over Google. With this in mind, I would not recommend merging this article into the Other products section, as was done. If anything, it should go in the Criticism section as a response to their privacy concerns. Furthermore, regardless of which section we decide to merge it into, it only really deserve a sentence or two mention and not much more. Thoughts? — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 01:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to do anything controversal. I came upon Google Dashboard and noticed that it was failing in several areas to merit its own article page including WP:STUB, WP:SOURCE, WP:ORPHAN, WP:MOS, and WP:REF. Not to mention the whole article consists of 8 sentences, and with the exception of adding template, tags, etc., this article hasn't had any information added since November 5, 2009. I didn't mark it for Template:prod as I felt the information in the article was important, so I added it to the first place that came to mind, Google, Inc., under the "Other products" section. I agree that it could do to Criticism of Google#Potential for Data Disclosure. PopMusicBuff talk 17:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if I sounded harsh. It was probably a good move to boldly go ahead with the merge, it's just I had a few objections. I feel like the merge would be more appropriate into an article like Criticism of Google or even List of Google products. Criticism of Google#Potential for Data Disclosure sounds good to me. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 00:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Ill do it. PopMusicBuff talk 18:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see why Google Dashboard can't be its own article - it is a product just like many Google products that have their own article. It needs improvements, like citations, sources, links, etc., but it seems lazy to me to redirect or remove the article rather than improve it. And even if it doesn't warrent its own article, Dashboard doesn't really fit with the Criticism of Google article. It might have been part of Google's response to criticism, but it is not about criticism of Google.

It would be better off under Google#Other products if anything. I also think that a Google products page would be a better way of organizing information about Google's products. The list is good, but if it was a stand-alone article about all the Google products, the main Google article could give Main article links to the various sections of the Google products article. Right now, the main Google article provides short, jumbled summaries of products. Separating them would make it easier to organize information about each product category.

I'm going to remove the resolved tag for now, just to get some more conversation going. fnord (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the other thing is that there are still many links to the original Google Dashboard article. What's the norm for removing or redirecting these links after a topic has been 'resolved' ? fnord (talk) 06:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing about network neutrality?

Eh? I note the article says Google is a support, in the week thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of journalist and IT people in the US and around the world has come to the conclusion that google is thinking "screw network neutrality there is money to be had". Perhaps someone should write a few lines about that (I'm not going to do it, someone always deletes what I write) --IceHunter (talk) 03:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

How about the New Privacy Policy and Data Liberation Front?

I've just visited Gmail home page today and it says the Privacy Policy has been updated. On clicking on it it shows the new Privacy Policy and gives a link to the Data Liberation Front (http://www.dataliberation.org/), a website created by Google with the intention of being a "central location for information on how to move your data in and out of Google products"; in other words, how to manage easier the data you provide to Google.

I thought this was worth putting in the article.

By the way I hate Google, they are the evil! But I like Wikipedia and want to contribute to the articles. ;)

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.32.44.181 (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Me???

Quote: "allowing in-depth research to get users to go where you want them to go." 70.52.184.212 (talk) 12:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

10 ^ 100

what happened with project 10^100. they got hundred thousand ideas and didn't announce winners yet. it feels like idea robbery if you ask me. 89.216.196.129 (talk) 10:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

To tell you the truth I have no idea. Other editors have asked the same question, since the mention of the project in the article is very brief. But there is no information on what ever happened to the project or any of the ideas people submitted to it. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 12:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Google announced the results of this today.[23]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Incorporation Date

Since it is the 27th.. I see the date as September 4th listed as the day they incorporated, yet no source is given for this. Google themselves, and several other sites list the date as September 27th, 1998. If some one can change this or find the source that proves Google is wrong. 65.169.195.238 (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This article might be able to give more insight. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 00:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing on biggest privacy breach in history (in words of australian official)

what about street view wi-fi sniffing? 109.93.183.93 (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a very good question. There is alot of advertising and PR in the article such as google provides free wifi to it's community but none about how it roams the earth stealing wifi data from private networks.

I guess google does no evil in the eyes of wikipedia. Follow the money.Woods01 (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you give us a break? There are very few people working on this article, and it has taken until now to get it to even GA. So the article is missing one of Google's mishaps, that doesn't mean "google does not evil in the eyes of wikipedia." The article mentions Buzz and its issues, as well as its questionable censorship practices among other things. The reason things are missing was because originally this article had all the Google criticism kept in one big Criticism section, and that section was kept short because there is a separate Criticism of Google article. In the meantime, you can always go and put stuff in yourself. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 03:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
"Could you give us a break?" In short: no? The WiFi slurping controversy is pretty old (but important) news and its absence shocks me a little. It really needs to be in there, as every few months yet another country tells google it's being "evil" and needs to stop. I added a bit from the google criticism article, slightly trimmed. Also, article is semiprotected, so OP can't "put stuff in himself".--Mongreilf (talk) 12:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello registered users. can someone put info about this [24] in the article. this is way important to be pushed to the second level 'criticism' article. 89.216.196.129 (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Vulnerability of Network

I understand that one of the innovations attributed to Google is advancement of a dispersed model of network computing. Perhaps the article should incorporate a mention of the relative vulnerability of this approach to natural or manmade disaster, such as a series of simultaneous fires affecting Google facilities in various locations around the world. Surely the relative security afforded by Google's method of expansion is matched by their vulnerability to physical damage.

69.254.213.117 (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Arkhamite

Wikipedia Ad

There is a particularly large ad for donations by Jimmy Wales on this Wikipedia page about Google. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be ad free? Would not a much smaller begging note have sufficed, especially as many readers and contributors have already donated? Google themselves would probably have been willing to pay for an advert. Perhaps a very small advertisment area on the Wikipedia pages would be acceptable, in order to keep Wikipedia free for all without guilt attached, it is frankly annoying to all who have donated already especially as it is so large. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.255.189.186 (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The ad you see is not unique to the Google article but wiki-wide, so nobody here has any control over that. However, to answer your question, a smaller begging note would not have sufficed and they have actually found that since the implementation of the new "advertisement" (I use quotations because it's not really an advertisement) that more people have been donating more money to Wikipedia, which is pretty important since the Wikimedia Foundation, which hosts Wikipedia does not have any other form of significant revenue. Personally, I do find it a little annoying, but I see where they are coming from and do not complain. Unfortunately, I wish it were the case where the Wikimedia Foundation did not even need these ads because they got enough money from voluntary donations on their own, but that is not the case. If you feel like taking your complaint further, I would recommend going to meta:Wikimedia Forum. Happy editing! — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 02:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Demo Slam

This article (created as a duplicate as and redirected from Google Demo Slam) is mainly quotations and copyvio. Anyone want to clean it up? I may be stubbing it due to the copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 12:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest a merger. Any opposition? — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 16:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Merger seems like an appropriate solution.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Financial data and tax rate

Google is a major corporation and therefore I thought that a section showing its financial data would be useful in this article, as is the case for instance with the article on ExxonMobil. I have started to create one but User:Gavia immer has immediately eliminated it. Why?

Furthermore, in that section I had written a short paragraph on Google's tax rate, which is a hot issue at this moment. My text summarized the main informations provided by the following recent news: Drucker, Jesse (Oct 21, 2010). "Google 2.4% Rate Shows How $60 Billion Lost to Tax Loopholes". Bloomberg. User Gavia immer deleted it claiming that it was "not demonstrating importance". I wonder how such importance is to be demonstrated. Google's tax avoidance tactics have reportedly made it avoid $3.1 billion in taxes in the last three years. This figure is quite big and important, at least from my humble point of view.

I would like User Gavia immer to express his/her opinion and hopefully undo his/her reversion. I also invite other users to help decide whether the proposed financial information is pertinent in this article.

Regards, --Hispalois (talk) 04:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

In short: 1.)"Tax rates" can be seriously misleading, since not all taxes are income/profit taxes and attempting to synthesize a "rate" out of taxes paid is an interpretive enterprise - though a very common one that you had a source for. 2.) "The reason is that Google paid a tax rate of only 2.4% for all its income generated outside of the U.S. thanks to income shifting strategies that take advantage of a number of legal loopholes and tax havens like Bermuda." is pretty questionable verbiage that implies that something dodgy is going on, as opposed to Google just not being any more inclined than you or I are to pay taxes from their earnings; if this material is kept, it must be neutral 3.) There is no context, and probably can't be, to show whether their taxes were actually low or high compared to other corporations with a similar business model, and without this it is just numbers presented with a vague air of condemnation that could just as easily attach to any other numbers 4.) In fact, we rarely cover tax payments in our articles on large corporations, except as one line or so referenced to an annual report, so it's not typical to single out such information. Actually, that's not very short - but there you go. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Gavia, thank you for your answer. I will comment on the four issues that you raise and hopefully we will find an agreement on how to edit the article.
1) In order to avoid confusions when using the concept of "tax rates", I propose to use the precisely-defined concept of "effective tax rate", which is what is reported by U.S.-listed companies, including Google.
2) I see your point regarding neutrality, what about the following wording: "The reason is that Google paid a tax rate of only 2.4% for all its income generated outside of the U.S. thanks to tax avoidance schemes." As clarified in the article Tax avoidance and tax evasion, avoidance refers to legal methods to pay less taxes, while evasion is for the illegal ones. Suggestions welcome.
3) We could write the following: "In 2009 Google's effective tax rate became the lowest among the top five U.S. information technology companies. Nevertheless, according to Google, its practices are similar to those of other global corporations." Possibly the most objective way of reporting this would be to create a table with the effective tax rates of those top five companies.
4) Tax avoidance on overseas profits has reached massive proportions in recent years and ignoring it deliberately could be regarded as non-neutrality. The following link provides detailed numbers for Microsoft, a very large tax avoider: [25]. In my opinion every article on a large corporation should contain a section of "Financial information" and within it the effective tax rate should be mentioned in the same way as other key figures like income or assets.
Looking forward to your answers. --Hispalois (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I see your point Hispalois, but the information on effective tax rate really is not notable enough to deserve its own section. If you strongly believe it should be included in the article, then a neutral, two-sentence implementation of the topic should be integrated into one of the current sections. If you take a look at Microsoft, a featured article and also a technology corporation article, there is absolutely no mention of the tax rate, nor does it say anything about it in Facebook. However, I do not like to follow by example, and this information does seem pertinent. It should probably fit somewhere in the Corporate affairs section. On a side note, it would be helpful if you could find a few more sources on the tax rate other than just that one article. The one source is enough, but I just want to make sure we're getting all sides of the story. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 21:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Probably the best source on Google's tax rate is Google's annual report 2009, p.48.
I did look at the article on Microsoft and found it bizarre that a FA contains so little financial information: just a paragraph on the historical evolution of the stock price; no discussion of key figures (income, revenue, assets, cash...); no information about who are the main shareholders... and no reference to the controversy over its tax avoidance ([26],[27]).
I take advantage of this answer to provide the numbers that I have been collecting on effective tax rates of other U.S. corporations. All data, unless otherwise indicated, are for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2009. Apple: 32.0%. HP: 18.6%. IBM: 26%. Cisco (first 9 months of 2010): 16.6%. Microsoft (fiscal year ending June 30, 2010): 25%. ExxonMobil: 47%.
Regards. --Hispalois (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Hispalois, I think your second suggestion (previous to the one immediately above this) is much improved, especially in replacing slanted language like "loophole" and "tax haven" with "tax avoidance". I still think (and I see Parent5446 has agreed with me above) that devoting too much space to this not a good idea, since it might amount to a non-neutral emphasis. In particular, while quoting Google's rebuttal might seem to focus of balance and neutrality, it also tends to presume that there is prima facie some issue in need of rebuttal. I'm not convinced that there is; nearly everyone believes that they personally ought not to be paying high taxes, but nearly everyone harbors some belief that distant others "deserve" to pay the high taxes that they themselves would never want to pay. We shouldn't enshrine such dubious reasoning in a neutral article. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm gonna have to agree. And when I meant more sources I meant more secondary sources. Citing Google's tax rates directly means nothing without a context. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 04:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi again. Apologies for my long silence, I spent last week traveling without access to internet. I see that the subject of the tax rate is controversial. Would you agree to introduce the text that I proposed only after a section about Google's finances has been created and achieved a reasonable size? Hopefully this would avoid the non-neutral emphasis that Gavia immer probably rightly fears. Regards.--Hispalois (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. The existence of a section for a certain piece of information does not determine its inclusion. Even if there was a financial section, which personally I do not think is necessary (will explain), the tax rate would get a one or two sentence mention because there is only one secondary source that argues it is controversial. Otherwise the tax rate is just big business as usual. In fact, this information might be more appropriate in an article on business itself rather than the Google article. Anyway, as for the financial section, if you can really pull together enough important information, then it would make a nice section, but remember that this is the general Google article. Nobody cares about detailed financial statements or statistics. The only information I can think of that would go in such a section is already integrated into the article, such as the tidbit on how 99% of its revenue is advertising. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 01:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but I disagree: Google is one of the world's largest publicly-traded corporations; therefore, a financial section is relevant to the article. Both the articles in French and in German contain sections that describe Google's sources of revenue, main financial figures (sales, income) and the evolution of its stock price. --Hispalois (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Most of the information in the sections you referenced are just descriptions of Google's history (their IPO, how they survived financial crisis, etc.), and we already have a history section. The only other information that is not historical is the information on tax rate, which is what we're debating about now. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 01:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
To add to what Parent5446 says above, we have other article on other extremely large companies, and if tax data is mentioned for them at all it's just a line or two of figures with a neutral reference, not a single writer's opinion that they should pay more taxes. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • FWIW I think the tax information and financial section should be kept. BEARinAbasket (talk) 02:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Following up on the discussion above, you will probably find the following article interesting: How long will Google's magic last? (The Economist Dec 4, 2010). It mentions some key financial figures (180 G$ market cap, 33 G$ cash), reviews the evolution of earnings in recent years and lists the price tag of major acquisitions (YouTube 1.7 G$, DoubleClick 3.1 G$). In my opinion all this is relevant information that should find its place in a "Financials" section in Google's article. Regards. --Hispalois (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 202.63.112.182, 13 January 2011

import java.io.*; —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.63.112.182 (talk) 12:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Logan Talk Contributions 16:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Page isn't CEO Just Yet

Page isn't ascending to post of CEO until April 4th. As it stands the current wikipedia entry is slightly incorrect.

Source = http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j3DKTQtBGvdMpr_5K8If4AAPcfAg?docId=1fc4588e659b44f3b7762e1fbdc7b328 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.157.254 (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

-- I've seen it too, but apparently I can't change it, because this page is (semi-)protected. BrouwerQ (talk) 09:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Ballance, 24 January 2011

Eric Schmidt is no longer CEO of the company. Larry Page is the new CEO. Eric remains chairman.

Ballance (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request: Network Neutrality

Lets start with the current entry:

Network neutrality

Google is a noted supporter of network neutrality. According to Google's Guide to Net Neutrality:

Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet. The Internet has operated according to this neutrality principle since its earliest days... Fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet. In our view, the broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to discriminate against competing applications or content. Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online.[204]

On February 7, 2006, Vint Cerf, a co-inventor of the Internet Protocol (IP), and current Vice President and "Chief Internet Evangelist" at Google, in testimony before Congress, said, "allowing broadband carriers to control what people see and do online would fundamentally undermine the principles that have made the Internet such a success."


^^ The above information is in my opinion no longer precise, as google has now started to intervene in the functionality of Search Word Suggestions and Instant results. This form of Censorship I think is in direct contradiction with the above statement on Network Neutrality.

This is the Headline from my source which is linked to below. I hope people around the world agree on this, and if there are any more examples on this kind of google censorship. please post them here...

"It’s taken a while, but Google has finally caved in to pressure from the entertainment industries including the MPAA and RIAA. The search engine now actively censors terms including BitTorrent, torrent, utorrent, RapidShare and Megaupload from its instant and autocomplete services. The reactions from affected companies and services are not mild, with BitTorrent Inc., RapidShare and Vodo all speaking out against this act of commercial censorship."

Full News Article on TorrentFreak

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TrintignantX (talk • contribs) 15:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds to me you're trying to start a discussion on Google's censorship, please remember this is not a forum. Regardless of anything, we'd need a reliable source, do not not believe Torrentfreak would qualify per our guidelines. Rehevkor ✉ 16:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

^^Its Pretty easy to test just using google. The article on torrentfreak portrays and links to the talked about censorship. I suggest to add something like this under the current Network Neutrality Section: "However Google has been known to implement censorship when... "Insert known cases of Google related censorship"

Edit Request: Financials

Please update the revenue reported by Google for the year 2010 as $ 28,236.00 billions. Also the revised net profit etc. http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:GOOG&fstype=ii -> Annual Data —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.8.238 (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TrintignantX (talk • contribs) 16:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

what is american multinational?

how can it be american when it is multinational? can we get rid of american? since some founders of google is not american? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.106.98 (talk) 05:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's possible to be both a multinational corporation and American, since its headquarters is in the U.S. In the same way, BP is a British multinational. And Carrefour (I think) is a French multinational.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

One founder is American and the other is Russian-American. I think it's appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.155.133 (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not that that matters, but how many and which countries the company does business in and the location of headquarters.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that "American Multinational" is not just okay, but more accurate. Google's roots are American. Not just by the founders nationalities (Russian-American is American), but also by the first business licences and domain registration. They have a history leading up to this day that involves them releasing products and services to America first (or and the very least in English first). It's obvious that Google is a multinational corporation, but it is also obvious they are more American than they are of any other singular country. HankyUSA (talk) 06:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Echelon

I think there is missing something about the question is google in fact echelon? Or just something with say there have been this question on the web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.83.42.75 (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Videos of early Googleplex

I've started posting some video of Google's offices in 1999 here: http://www.youtube.com/user/Xooglers, which might be worth adding to this article. Also, I'm adding historical anecdotes here: http://xooglers.blogspot.com which could fill in some holes. I've not done any Wiki editing previously and this page is semi-protected, so not sure how to make the changes myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougmn (talk • contribs) 18:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Google is cool! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.241.163 (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 205.133.211.107, 10 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} In 2006, the company moved to their current headquarters in Mountain View, California. 205.133.211.107 (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Google is a single entity. Thus reference should be made to its headquarters rather than their headquarters

Done, thank you. sonia♫ 23:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

virtual organisations

After reading the story of google i have now a question: are virtual organisations considerable as multinational enterprises? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guendyf13 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

gayglers

why is this link there in see also, it seems very unimportant compared to the other stuff there and what else could be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.7.203 (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It's an article related to Google, so it would seem to be a legitimate listing in that section. As far "what else could be there", if you know of related pages that are not listed or linked to in the article, you are always free to add them.--Rollins83 (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

SVG logo version

As per the discussion here, my SVG Google logo was removed from the infobox for lack of lifelikeliness. I've updated that a little but since then, and am just wondering if it's progressed to an acceptable level yet. —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 21:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Kosmatos, 12 May 2011

In the article it clearly states "Ninety-nine percent of Google's revenue is derived from its advertising programs."

Yet right at the beginning, the description of Google is written as: "Google Inc. is an American multinational public corporation invested in Internet search, cloud computing, and advertising technologies."

It should read "Google Inc. is an American multinational public corporation invested in advertising technologies, Internet search, and cloud computing."

There is no reason I can see that the order would be the way it is now, other than people trying to manipulate perceptions that advertising revenue is not what drives the company.

Kosmatos (talk) 03:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Not done: The description sentence is talking about the company's products and what they're known for, not their revenue sources. — Bility (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

What?

What are these quotes supposed to mean? And why are they the lead paragraph in the Privacy section of the article? (see below)

  • Eric Schmidt, Google’s chief executive, said 2007 in an interview with the Financial Times: "The goal is to enable Google users to be able to ask the question such as ‘What shall I do tomorrow?’ and ‘What job shall I take?'".[212] Schmidt reaffirmed this 2010 in an interview with the Wall Street Journal: "I actually think most people don't want Google to answer their questions, they want Google to tell them what they should be doing next."[213]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Easter Eggs and April Fool's Jokes (Citation Needed)

I found a source for the [citation needed] under this category, however, I am unable to edit it because I had to create a new user name and will need to wait to edit semi-protected articles.

Here is the reference information:

Chan, John. "[http://asia.cnet.com/crave/google-celebrates-world-cup-with-gooooooooooal-62111461.htm> Google celebrates World Cup with Gooooooooooal!". CNET. June 9, 2010. Retrieved on May 17, 2011.

Randirocks37 (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. I'm surprised nobody put in a citation for that earlier. Anyway, I put it in the article and removed the Citation Needed tag. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 21:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 75.65.221.212, 13 June 2011

In the privacy section the following has a minor grammatical error:

Google's has also faced criticism with its release of...

should read:

Google has also faced criticism with its release of...

75.65.221.212 (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for spotting that. –CWenger (^ • @) 15:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

List of notable hackings?

Google Trends has been the target of hackers defacing it with swastikas in the 21st century.(See: "Google Trends hacked again", "Tupac Shakur NOT Alive, What Other Stunts Have Hackers Pulled?")

Petey Parrot (talk) 04:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yad Vashem charity

In 2011, Yad Vashem received charity from the company which partnered with the organization to put Holocaust archives on display.(See: "Yad Vashem and Google partner to preserve and share Holocaust archives")

Petey Parrot (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Request Change - Misspelling Sheryl Sandberg

Hi,

The article is protected so I can't change it.

Sheryl Sandberg's name is misspelled in the article (and also not linked to). It is spelled Sheryl Sandburg (notive the U instead of E in the last name).

Thanks, 79.176.206.168 (talk) 09:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Dubious patent dispute claim

In the paragraph describing the acquisition of Motorola Mobility it is mentioned that Google has a patent dispute with Cisco, which is not true. The referenced [110] article contains no information on any legal action between Cisco and Google.

Meanwhile, Oracle that does have an ongoing patent battle with Google is not mentioned in that paragraph at all. Perhaps there has been some confusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumith (talk • contribs) 08:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

-- I've removed this as the claim of Google defending from Cisco is unreferenced and somewhat silly; Cisco's own Cius tablet is dependent on Android, they wouldn't be attacking Google over IP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boatsdesk (talk • contribs) 09:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixing a <br>

The following line in the article: 

| industry = Internet<br>Computer software

should be 

| industry = Internet<br />Computer software

201.81.163.195 (talk) 05:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The <br> used here isn't really HTML, but is interpreted as wikimarkup (see Wikipedia:Line break handling). In the page source, <br> actually becomes <br />. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 17:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Update number of employees

In the paper published by Google: Google Announces Second Quarter 2011 Financial Results http://investor.google.com/earnings/2011/Q2_google_earnings.html

There is much information up to date, for exemple : 28,768 full-time employees (and not 24,400 as is currently in the page) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seynaeve (talk • contribs) 09:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

  •  Done Updated and sourced it. Thanks for the tip =D Sephiroth878 | Talk 21:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

STILL LOCKED? - Please add this change

August 2, 2011
No doubt the powerful Google Boys want to manage their costly and valuable Public Relations and spin by minimizing external views, opinions and all "warts."

"The techniques of spin include selectively presenting facts and quotes that support ideal positions (cherry picking),..." --Wiki

Therefore, shouldn't there be an explanation of why it's STILL locked? ...and the lock dates?

Please add Criticism of Google, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Google to the appropriate section. (There is a new search malfunction.)
--69.110.91.98 (talk) 00:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford

You are aware it's linked to the in last sentence of the lead section, yes? I've added a link to it under "See also" for good measure. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done Seems he has fixed the issue. Sephiroth878 | Talk 21:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Est. date

Google officially announced that was founded in 1998 here, while it's 1996 in the article. ♥MehranVB♥ ☻talk | ☺mail 07:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems that there is no answer to my request, so I changed the date to 1998 according to above reference and one else (considered in the article) ♥MehranVB♥ ☻talk | ☺mail 13:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Wall of text intro

I'm not at all versed with editing wikipedia, but I really think that the wall of text at the beginning of this article needs to be redistributed or heavily edited down. I am amazed I have to scroll to find the contents. 72.213.56.146 (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Nick F. S.

The lead is rather long, I agree. Does anyone else support maybe crunching it down?Sephiroth878 | Talk 21:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Not sure what you're talking about. The lead in its current state is actually pretty short, or at least shorter than what WP:LEAD recommends. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 01:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

why is there no criticism regarding google aquisitions?

there are a number of articles on the web explaining how google uses its dominance and money to buy out or mess up the competition in one vertical after another. 24.148.34.157 (talk) 09:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

If you could site some of these reports and they are reliable sources, perhaps that information could be included. Do you have some sources in mind?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


not quite a news source, but describes it well: [29]. so that kind of criticism needed from reliable sources. 24.148.34.157 (talk) 05:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

That just seems to be some random poorly written rant by 'some dude' - certainly not the sort of material we'd used in articles. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Cameron, the link you've provided is a blog written by the guy who runs the website. So it is an opinion piece with no editorial oversight and therefore not a legitimate source on wikipedia. cheers, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 65.8.28.120, 27 September 2011

{{tl|edit semi-protected| Google is founded September 27, 1998 not September 4th, reason is because Google is having its 13th Birthday today and which today is Sept 27th

65.8.28.120 (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Not done. Google filed for incorporation in California on September 4, 1998 [30] but celebrates its official birthday on September 27.[31] Not sure why this is, could someone else explain.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Include Ben Fried as CIO?

Include Ben Fried as CIO? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure. CIO is certainly a prominent and notable position, especially with an organization like Google.--Rollins83 (talk) 13:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Google X Labs

Add a Google X Labs section. Google X is officaly known as "Google Special Projects Division" it is run by head of special projects Sergey Brin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.116.197 (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Yahoo/Google patents

"Yahoo patents could throw a monkey wrench into Facebook’s IPO hopes" http://venturebeat.com/2011/11/08/yahoo-facebook-patent-dispute/ Interesting tidbit - but where does it fit  ? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Google.com page has mistake.

in the first section it says Blogger.com is Alexa:6, but it is actually Alexa:49. Blogspot.com is Alexa:6.

216.40.149.131 (talk) 08:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Google owns Blogger, and the blogs are mainly hosted by Google at a subdomain of blogspot.com. Strictly speaking, Blogger's Alexa rank is 43 and Blogspot's is 7.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Android

Surely android deserves more of a mention here? It's the largest smartphone platform by far. Only a couple of short mentions on the article.

James.94.freeman (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


Google privacy violation in Kenya

Mocality, a Kenyan firm that creates online business directories, has accused Google of misusing its database and misrepresenting its relationship with it in order to drum up business in the country. On January 13th Nelson Mattos, a Google executive, said that his firm was "mortified" by the episode, had "unreservedly apologised" to Mocality for its behaviour and was in the process of investigating how the situation arose.

References: http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/01/google-kenya http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/01/14/businessinsidergoogle-mocality-smal.DTL http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57359021-93/apology-to-kenyan-firm-ends-googles-week-from-hell/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsvp5627 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you in advance for taking a stance!!!96.235.184.88 (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Google is just about to (March 2012) implement a new Privacy Policy, FWIW: [32]
People with Gmail accounts should also know that when you are signed-in to your Gmail account and access another Google site like YouTube it also creates an account on the other site and logs you-in whether the user wants one or not. I only noticed this when with my e-mail open, I also opened another browser window open at YouTube - I never opened an account with YouTube, nor do I want one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 09:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

New Google policy

January 2012, the Google search site burbled and chirped about their new "policy". I read it. NOT an improvement. Basically, google owns everything the commoners do.

I stopped using Google. There are lots of other search engines out there (try Wikipedia "List of Search Engines" and while not quite as convenient, very satisfying in sticking it to the Massah.

Does anyone know how many people besides me are so paranoid they've stopped using Google?Aaaronsmith (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

While a mention of any new policy in the article might be warranted, general discussion of personal views on this subject is beyond the scope of this page. Wikipedia talk pages are for the discussion of improving the article. Яehevkor ✉ 02:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Ooops. You are so right.Aaaronsmith (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I think it might be helpful to readers to include a NPOV assessment/summary of the new policy. The service is so ubiquitous, and the Google message so prevalent this month, I am sure people by now are looking for such info at this point. Verne Equinox (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Google web search.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Google web search.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Google web search.png)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 February 2012

While I agree there is a deal in the works, it is not accurate to list Motorola Mobility as a subsidiary of Google, and this should be removed from the Company Facts:

PLEASE CHANGE THIS: |subsid = AdMob, DoubleClick, Motorola Mobility, On2 Technologies, Picnik, Zagat, YouTube

TO THIS: |subsid = AdMob, DoubleClick, On2 Technologies, Picnik, Zagat, YouTube


Bobsd (talk) 07:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: You will become autoconfirmed after one more edit and can make the change yourself. Please be careful to have verifiable reliable sources to support any first-hand knowledge. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I made the edit. Once the acquisition goes through, I will add MMI back with the proper references. Bobsd (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Does Google think that government is trustworthy and that Google is un-hackable

The article on Google should include a bigger section on privacy. Of course, it must be un-biased. Anthony717 (talk) 02:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Changes in its private law

It has been in the news recently that Google has changed its privacy law, and that this has been controversial, as it could go against regulations of the European Union. This could go in the article, if any one knows the full details here. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Deadlinks, etc

Just ran WP:Checklinks on this article and founds a number of errors and various other issues with some of the citations: result Jesse V. (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Headquarters

The info box says that Google's headquarters is the U.S. This is not true - Google International Headquarters is in Dublin, Ireland. "Google's international headquarters is in Dublin, Ireland, taking advantage of the country's small corporation tax." Google is a transnational corporate entity - the headquarters field in the info box should reflect the international headquarters. Barry McGuiness (talk) 12:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Google's corporate headquarters are at the Googleplex in Mountain View, California. The incorporation of the company is also in the United States, under Delaware General Corporation Law.[33] Google has various overseas offices [34] but is a US based company.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Googol

I don't think the use of this template is suitable for the article. The word "Google" and "Googol" are well-known and quite distinguishable. And I don't expect our readers to be dumb enough to confuse between the two. The fact that Googol is a "namesake" or "homonym" – [35] – is already being referred to in the article, so don't see any point in mentioning that over the top. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 05:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Googol also has a disambiguation, although nowadays the Internet company is far more famous than the number 10100. The disambig here could probably be removed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Philantropy section inaccuracy

"Google revealed the winners of the project, giving a total of ten million dollars to various ideas ranging from non-profit organizations that promote education to a website that intends to make all legal documents public and online."

References: http://googleblog.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/10-million-for-project-10100-winners.html

None of the 5 mentioned initiatives "intend to make all legal documents public and online" from the description given in the reference link. It sounds like their talking about something similar to Project Gutenberg who Google did have talks with before going off and starting their own (and in many ways more limited) Google Books


TLDR: The summation of projects that received money from the Google.org Project 10^100 needs revising to be accurate.

132.185.240.124 (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 April 2012

New section: Critisism

Text: It is virtually impossible to get in contact with Google's support. At their support page there is an e-mail link. Sending an e-mail there just gets you an e-mail which says your e-mail will noit be answered. Following the other links on Google's support page, it says you are supposed to be able to e-mail them but clicking that link just gets you back to the main page. after trying everything you will find out all you can do is posty a topic in their forum. and as you can fsee in ref3 often no one answers the thread, certainly no one from Google. Google's support is ranked 518 of 531 (Ref1).

Comment: I think it is a major issue when such a dominant party is impossible to get in contact with even for site administrators and the like. If you search for "contact google hopeless" in google you get no negative hits. If you do the same in Bing you get a bunch. Just pujt a couple of refs below.

Ref1: http://www.customerservicescoreboard.com/Google Ref2: http://contacthelp.com/comment_list.php?listing=142 Ref3: http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!category-topic/gmail/reading-and-receiving-messages/aLr6itHarlE

217.209.36.180 (talk) 06:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done, Criticism of Google is a separate article. Also, forums and search results are not reliable secondary sources.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Where might this NYT frontpage item best fit?

There is an element of WP:CRYSTAL in the NYT story, as it says "Federal Trade Commission officials cautioned that no decision had been made about whether to bring a formal case against Google." In view of this, it would probably be best to wait until a formal decision is made.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Billions of smartphones, mainly Androids

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: To 2017. years the world will be 1.7 billion smartphones, of which almost half will be owned by Google Androids, announced analysts Ovum, and transmits Croatian Bug Online. Smartphones, tablets, laptops, PC classic... does the virtual world have yet more visitors than the population of the Earth today? 93.137.57.158 (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Wording of intro

This sentence in the opening paragraph needs to be moved or re-worded so that the reader knows who "Brin and Page" are before they are referred to: "Together, Brin and Page own about 16 percent of the company's stake." I'd suggest maybe moving this sentence from the start of the second paragraph to be before that sentence: "The company was founded by Larry Page and Sergey Brin while both attended Stanford University." OR reword it as "Together, founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page own about 16 percent of the company's stake" with appropriate links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.179 (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Criticism

The criticism of the company has recieved only a brief mention in the first paragraph, and requires more attention in the Company's own page. A separate section of "Criticism" should be leading readers to links to the criticism page and should also hold a brief transcript of what is there in that page (as is done on many other pages on Wikipedia) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheOriginalSoni (talk • contribs) 16:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Soon Google tablet

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: A well informed DigiTimes announced that in July, the market appears Google tablet. Will be called Nexus, will be 7 inches, with Android. Price: between 200 and 250 dollars. Quality plus a good price - a guarantee that the end of 2012. Google will reach the plan to sell 2.5 million units.78.2.65.232 (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

This is covered here but there is still an element of WP:CRYSTAL.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

9 July 2012 "Internet shutdown"

Some of the media coverage of this story is sensational and could give the wrong impression. There has been a problem for around half a million users infected with a specific piece of malware which hijacks the Domain Name System on the computer.[36]. This is a tech news story and not ideally suited to the artcle.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is a logo copy made by a third-party being used instead of using the official Google logo? --Tow Trucker talk 03:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia tends to use PNG or SVG versions of logos because they can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. 2011 logo.png File:Google 2011 logo.png is a very accurate transcription of the current logo, and is hard to tell apart from the real thing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


That is because I changed it to the current one. Please see article revision history. --Tow Trucker talk 05:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 June 2012

the text:

with paid vending machines prorated favoring nutritional value.

should be removed. I am a google employee in the Mountain View offices, and all food and drink is gratis; there are no paid vending machines.

Edward.crabbe (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a mention of vending machines in the source at [37]. Not working at Google myself, it is hard to comment on how accurate this edit request is.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
The source is a year old. They might have switched to free vending, but there's no way of confirming until it's reported in a reliable source. User:King4057 02:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Nick Leeder Article

Not much is spoken about Google in Australia. Here is an article from the Managing director from Google Australia but I'm not sure where it would go: Google Australia's managing director Nick Leeder says Sydney must become a "Silicon Beach" if it wants to be a major global city. "Just as New York created Silicon Alley and that entered into the lexicon, I think that should be an ambition for us," he said about Australia. http://www.studynow.com.au/Latest/Sydney-as-the-southern-hemispheres-Silicon-Valley.html

58.108.186.144 (talk) 01:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The word 'TAX' does not appear in this article

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/22/google_double_irish_tax_loophole/ As reported by Bloomberg Businessweek, Google uses techniques known as "Double Irish" and "Dutch Sandwich" to lower its foreign tax rate to a scant 2.3 per cent. This is the lowest rate among the top five US tech giants, according to the report.

Worth a mention? Hcobb (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Google employees

according to investor.google.com, Google employees are 54,604 full-time employees http://investor.google.com/earnings/2012/Q2_google_earnings.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alternajoe (talk • contribs) 20:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 July 2012- typo "networing"

"In order to expand its social networing services,... " Typo in the last line of the second last paragraph in the acquisitions section. "networing"=>"networking"

122.248.163.3 (talk) 08:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks. Dru of Id (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Google_Search - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. 05:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Google Search which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Google was also available at z.stanford.edu

[I don't think I have enough edits to write on a semi-protected page, so I'd appreciate it if someone else could make this edit. thx]

The current article includes: "Originally, Google ran under the Stanford University website, with the domain google.stanford.edu."

However, in the summer of 1998, google was also reachable via z.stanford.edu, so perhaps the above could be changed to

"Originally, Google ran under the Stanford University website, with the domains google.stanford.edu and z.stanford.edu."

Reference for the z.stanford.edu domain is http://web.archive.org/web/19981201235013/http://z.stanford.edu/ WikiAlto (talk) 23:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

YesY Done - M0rphzone (talk) 05:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Alexa Rank?

Should Google's "Alexa rank" be shown in the info box? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.22.38 (talk) 23:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. The article is about the company which operates many websites, and the article uses {{Infobox company}} which has no Alexa parameter. The article Google Search uses {{Infobox website}} and shows the Alexa rank. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Stylised as...

I like the "stylised as Google" bit at the beginning of the article (Thanks, Stryn!). The colors look much better than the first version edited in (Google), but they are still not quite correct. The official Google Logo colors are slightly different: Google.

  • #184df3 → #3369E8 (or RGB: 51 105 232)
  • #d51b2d → #D50F25 (or RGB: 213 15 37)
  • #f39701 → #EEB211 (or RGB: 238 178 17)
  • #00a114 → #009925 (or RGB: 0 153 37)

Or, for your copypasta convenience: '''{{color|#3369E8|G}}{{color|#D50F25|o}}{{color|#EEB211|o}}{{color|#3369E8|g}}{{color|#009925|l}}{{color|#D50F25|e}}'''

[Source: Internal Google brandsite]

Thanks for the info! I changed the colors. --Stryn (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Google's first female employee

(I can't make this change, as I don't have an account — can someone please make this change for me?)

“In July 2012 Google's first female employee, Marissa Mayer left Google to become Yahoo's CEO.”

This should be “Google's first female engineer”. The first female employee was Heather Cairns. Marissa was the 5th female employee. Reference: http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2012/07/18/of-googles-first-20-employees-besides-larry-and-sergey-how-many-are-still-there/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.66.118 (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

At least

Why google.1 shows google.wp instead of google.1911? Why google.n shows google.@wp instead of google.@n? Why google.ne show$ google.us result$ instead of google.ha, google.fr, google.ng, google.dz or google.en? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.14.248.102 (talk) 15:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Is Google in Canada? CA means Canada for me. — Preceding Aunsigned comment added by 201.14.248.102 (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Banned words

In the Search Engine section, there is mention of the list of words banned from the instant search feature. As of 9/2012, the word "bisexual" has been restored to normal, unblocked status, allowing the search engine algorithms to begin building a list of instant results. This removal of bisexual from the banned list was brought about by bisexual advocacy groups, in partnership with others, putting pressure on Google.

Let's discuss -- any reason not to put this information in? Opinions on the best way to do so? Eponymous (fnord) 02:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

This has received some, but not a great deal of coverage.[38] It is more on topic in Google Search, as this article is primarily about the company structure. There have also been other complaints about the autocomplete feature. [39][40] and [41] are examples.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Kodak divisions and patents buyout

Just thought I'd park this here to notify people, so in case the deal goes legit (as seems to be decided pretty soon) it can be put into the article. The whole hubbub is about the fact that today, Kodak has announced selling off its film divisions: http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2200811/kodak-to-sell-off-film-division , and Google is one out of the four companies making a joint bid: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444233104577593681054808606.html Gee, I wonder if any of the seven currently available Super8 Kodak stocks will soon bear the Google logo... --79.193.39.165 (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I tihkn they failed to buy them!--88.111.127.125 (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Factual Correction on April Fools

I do not have an account and the page is locked, could someone please correct the following:

Factual correction for 2008: (Its ok if you wish to leave the Gmail group joke, but Google's April Fools joke for 2008 was Virgle).

In 2008, Virgin founder Richard Branson and Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin announced on national TV and YouTube they will be leading hundreds of users on one of the grandest adventures in human history: Project Virgle, the first permanent human colony on Mars [42].

Addition for 2009:

In 2009 Google's Research group switches on CADIE world's first "artificial intelligence" tasked-array system. CADIE stand for Cognitive Autoheuristic Distributed-Intelligence Entity and the entity maintain a diary over several days.

2620:0:1000:3803:A800:1FF:FE00:54B5 (talk) 03:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Requests / servers very very wrong!

"Google has been estimated to run over one million servers in data centers around the world,[14] and process over one billion search requests"

So that's an average of 1,000 requests per day, per server? I could serve more than that with my phone! (an Android, naturally!). Even if not all those servers are used for web search, it's still way too much of a discrepancy, since searching is presumably Google's main use of server resources.

One thousand requests is not a lot for a server. One of those figures is surely widely out. Perhaps they're sourced from very different dates?

94.197.127.215 (talk) 03:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that sentence is that it doesn't specify what unit of time. IIRC the one billion search requests are served per second, making 86.4 million requests/day per server.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Birthday

The figure caption

Google's mainpage on 27th september 2012 of its 14th birthday..

corresponds to the appearance of google.com today, but the article does not otherwise mention the date September 27 1998, so what is this about?--Nø (talk) 13:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It is a long story!--88.111.127.125 (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... not really a helpful reply. So what is the story? If Google celebrates Sept. 27, it should be significant enough to appear in the article (it contains many other dates).--Nø (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Google's date of incorporation was September 4, 1998, so the choice of September 27 as the "official birthday" has puzzled many people. According to this source, "In 2005 Google changed the date to September 27 to make it coincide with the announcement of the record number of pages that the search engine was indexing." If this is accurate, it should be in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

THat os the short version of the story ,but the version I read much much longer!--88.111.121.131 (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

In that case, it would help if you could find a reliable source, because the article should mention why this discrepancy occurs.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Tax evasion or "careful management"

Got reverted by user:72Dino on the issue of presenting tax evasion as "careful management" instead. If it's really the case, how do you suggest renaming the article Tax avoidance then ? "Financial prudence" ? Come on, let's call a cat a cat --Ofol (t) 17:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

As stated in the lead section of the Tax avoidance Wikipedia article, tax avoidance is a pejorative term. A more neutral term would be tax management or tax mitigation. While tax avoidance is legal (unlike tax evasion, which is illegal), the term carries some baggage for a strategy that is proper and prudent for a corporation. I recommend the Google article use the term tax management. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Looks more to me like corporate windows-dressing than a wikipedian neutral statement of facts. Fact : Google deploys a wide array of tax avoidance strategies, and on a much bigger scale than competitors. We are writing an encyclopedia, so let's not make it look as good "careful" management.. and oh I see again a positive spin coming up. Now it's done ... but only for the good of the shareholders (and why not the bad of the general public ?). Spin doctor again. Well what about the 2006 switching from using a structure called Google Bermuda Limited to Unlimited ? The difference with the 'unlimited' is you do not make your accounts public. Anyone thinks hiding accounts is any good for shareholders ? Anyway, to me, Wikipedia is not here for corporate advertising --Ofol (t) 19:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Google has faced political criticism in the UK for paying £6 million tax on £395 million income in 2011 (around 1.5%), which was described as “entirely improper and immoral”[43] This was, though, perfectly legal due to the use of offshore subsidiaries.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Ticker symbols

The suggestion to remove the ticker symbol from the lead sentence is not something that I would like to see. The WP:NASDAQ suggestion was created about a month ago, is not a policy or a guideline, and is, I would suggest, not a good idea. For anyone who is looking for a stock to trade, the ticker symbol is pretty important, and the practice of putting the ticker symbol right after the company name in an article about that company seems to me to be good practice, and very useful. Speaking only for myself, I tend to not look at info boxes, and find them visually challenging. Apteva (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

China hacks google

I couldn't find anything mentioning the Google hacks earlier this year in China. Is it in another page?

"In January, Google said it had been subjected to a "sophisticated cyber attack originating from China" - it said the e-mail accounts of human rights activists were among those hacked." China leadership 'orchestrated Google hacking' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11920616

The release of secret US embassy cables on Chinese hacking this weekend by WikiLeaks shines fresh light on the issue, first publicised in January with Google’s disclosure that its security had been pierced by hackers seeking company programs and information on dissidents." US fears Beijing still backs hacking http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9a0eabc2-0016-11e0-ad1d-00144feab49a.html

ty --112.207.201.66 03:59, 15 December 2010

Yes this should be added--88.111.127.125 (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
It's located at Operation Aurora. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Unicorn

Google identifies the number 1 as the number of horns on a unicorn in a similar way as it identifies 42 as the answer to life, the universe and everything. 121.127.203.153 (talk) 07:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Not so good Google?

Reading the main article, it seems (to me), to be almost an advert for google. There's no mention of any contraversy by google at all. Like (for example) google's well known invasion of privacy issues, in more than one country. I just feel it needs a little bit of balance is all.. 80.5.31.96 (talk) 23:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

That has a whole article at Criticism of Google. Almost every single criticism/negative thing is listed there. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a WP:SUMMARY section for that article in this one? 2010 SO16 (talk) 08:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 December 2012

In the sentence that contains "acquisition of the mobile ad network AdMob", the word "Admob" can be linked to the Wikipedia page on AdMob (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdMob).

Before On May 27, 2010, Google announced it had also closed the acquisition of the mobile ad network AdMob.

After On May 27, 2010, Google announced it had also closed the acquisition of the mobile ad network AdMob. Happyman7 (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Happyman7

Done - with this edit. Thank you. Begoon talk 03:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 December 2012

As of November 2012, Alexa listed the main U.S.-focused google.com site as the Internet's most visited and number 1 website Shahvr (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. -- Dianna (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 December 2012

As of November 2012, Alexa listed the main U.S.-focused google.com site as the Internet's second most visited website and numerous international Google sites as being in the top hundred,

Now as of December 2012, Alexa listed the main U.S.-focused google.com site as the Internet's first most visited website. [1] 115.242.75.105 (talk) 11:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the contribution! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 December 2012

Under "Growth": "This model of selling keyword advertising was first pioneered by Goto.com, an Idealab spin-off created by Bill Gross." This is linking to the wrong Bill Gross. Should link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gross_(entrepreneur)

Google in North Korea?

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Google CEO Eric Schmidt reportedly plans this month to visit communist North Korea, writes Mashable. Schmidt will join a private humanitarian trip organized by former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, the AP reports, and cites "two people familiar with the plan for the group." North Korean leader Kim Jong Un during his New Year's speech called for the launch of the "industrial revolution" based on science and technology, and it is my opinion that it should be liberalized to control the Internet. However, due to the official policy of the U.S. is not yet known what Google CEO Eric Schmidt to work in North Korea? Soon, Google in North Korea? 78.2.123.90 (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This is good news but we should be patient in regard to the article and see what develops and how the matter is covered in reliable sources.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Photos need adjusting

Per WP:MOS/IMAGES "Avoid placing images on the left at the start of any section or subsection, because it makes it harder for readers to find the beginning of the text. Images on the left are best placed somewhere after the first paragraph." -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request on February 12, 2013 for Google Docs

Google Docs is no longer an offered Google product as they have switched the name to Google Drive. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Controversy over tax issues

The end of the opening section says that the dominant position of Google in the market has led to controversy over issues such as privacy, censorship and copyright. Shouldn't this section mention what has surely been a bigger controversy than any of these things - tax issues? After all, as of late 2012, along with Starbucks and Amazon.com, Google became one of the three companies that became notorious for paying less tax than other companies. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

2012 REVENUES AND PROFIT (recently released) Revenues: $50,175 bn. Profit: $10,737 bn.--88.9.130.40 (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hard Critics in Germany and in France against Google

In Europe many people are very angry about Google, because Google pays no taxes in Europe. Company Google becomes in Germany as THE typical company for agressive capitalism.

92.72.101.22 (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Google eyeglasses for 1500 dollars

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: After a few days ago released a promotional video in which they show how it would look using Google Glass 'spectacles' (Googgles), Google has confirmed that the Verge of them planned by the end of the year to launch and that the finished product will cost less than $ 1500. As CNET says, glasses which have small screen over Bluetooth will pair with Android or iOS devices. Data for internet browsing or navigation will then pull over WiFi or 3G/4G networks. Google has this week opened up orders for the 'Explorer' version of glasses that creative individuals will be able to get for $ 1500. Should send a short application, and Google automatically selects a small number of people who will get a chance to use the glasses.78.2.88.251 (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

"Not to be confused with Goggles"

Really? People confuse Google with Goggles or even "Goggles!"? --taras (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

These were removed. Goggles! is a 1969 book that most people are unlikely to have heard of. Hatnotes at the top of a page should be reserved for situations where there is a clear risk of confusion occurring, not vague similarities.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Sergey Brin?

I am pretty sure that there is a wiki page about Sergey Brin, so why is he not linked properly on the sidebar like Larry Page? They did co-found the company and Sergey does a lot with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iretrala (talk • contribs) 19:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Only the first mention of him is linked in the sidebar (AKA infobox) per our guidelines on prevention of overlinking. I'm guessing the second mention of Larry Page in the infobox should be de-linked. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Google down for anyone else?

For the last six or seven hours I have been unable to access google. On the offchance that this is a global issue I am documenting it here on the basis other random folk will see it and confirm/deny. That includes google.com, google.co.uk, and google.fr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.226 (talk) 00:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It's just you. http://www.isup.me/google.com EllenCT (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Down for me as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.75.155 (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Trusted Stores

Google have a technology in place on trial in the US called Trusted Stores where tracking code is placed on the receipt page of an ecommerce site, the retailer then sends a daily feed of orders shipped and method. Google can use this information to ascertain a retailers performance and display a badge with near real time metrics. Is this worth adding? Benwatsonuk (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Google "doing evil"

Regarding Tax Avoidance, could someone please add Margaret Hodge MP's comment to Matt Britten VP Head of Ops in N Europe: "You are a company that says you do no evil and I think that you do do evil in that you use smoke and mirrors to avoid paying tax." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/may/16/google-tax-arrangements?INTCMP=SRCH) Since she made this statement in her official position as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, this seems an important inclusion, demonstrating the political tensions to which Google's accounting policies are giving rise. (I am not sure why the article is locked.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.170.45 (talk) 11:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Given all the publicity about Google's deliberate structuring of much of their global corporate setup for tax avoidance, it's puzzling that this doesn't get a decent mention in the intro section. Thoughts anyone? I would suggest it merits a couple of sentences. Looking back into past versions, it appears that material on this has regularly been deleted, presumably by Google apparatchiks? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 May 2013

I believe where it says "Google has acquired many companies, primarily small venture capital firms."

It is supposed to say: "Google has acquired many companies, primarily small venture capital-funded firms."

206.183.27.229 (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Google Inc?

Why is there no Google inc page and why is it redirecting to Google+? 212.49.88.105 (talk) 10:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Same question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.193.169.139 (talk) 10:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done Look at Google to see, "This article is about the corporation. For the search engine, see Google Search. For other uses, see Google (disambiguation)." And then, "Google Inc. is an American multinational corporation specializing in Internet-related services and products. These include search, cloud computing, software and online advertising technologies.[6] Most of its profits derive from AdWords.[7][8] Google was founded by Larry Page and Sergey Brin while they were Ph.D. students at Stanford University." [ED: Looks good to me.] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 May 2013

Please change the first sentence of 1.4 Google data centers from "As of 2011, Google Inc. currently owns and operates six..." to "As of 2011, Google Inc. owned and operated six...." Or you could get up to date figures at http://www.google.com/about/datacenters/inside/locations/index.html. Thanks. Pyzaist96 (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Done RudolfRed (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
How about 19 massive data centers with 14 planned? The link just provided shows 13 data centers; however, the massive servers are proprietary as are some locations, I think. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Illegal Drug Trafficking

Knowingly selling ad-words for illegal online pharmacies, pled guilty, paid a large fine, no one from Google went to prison. I'll have to look up a good reference for it.Jonny Quick (talk) 05:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

PRISM

Why isn't PRISM mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.247.150.216 (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It is mentioned in Criticism of Google, where it is more on topic.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
There are four whole paragraphs about Google Easter eggs; I think we can fit in a mention of PRISM. Google is the type of company that would spend millions to defend against things like PRISM so it also needs to be covered in a non-critical way. There is already a section on network neutrality, so why not aggregate this under a section called ==== Lobbyism and political views ====? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 08:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Add Pentagon fuel discount here?

99.109.125.176 (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Why? This is not a newspaper. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Calico

should there be a new section/article on this? http://mashable.com/2013/09/18/google-calico-human-life/ more sources: http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/18/4744650/google-launches-calico-as-separate-company-to-improve-human-health http://techland.time.com/2013/09/18/google-vs-death/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.55.70.160 (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Google's "Birthday"

So like many things, Google has a number of dates associated with its creation. There is the start of their research project in January 1996, then the founding of the company on September 4th 1998 and then September 27th, which is the date that Google claimed as their own birthday as shown on Wikipedia's own date page for September 27th. Now the September 27th date isn't even shown in this article. So which one is correct? -- Deltaray (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

This was discussed previously at Talk:Google/Archive_3#Birthday. It is still something of a mystery how September 27 became the official birthday.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
And today, Google says it's celebrating its 15th birthday, with a little game on the search page to show so. Yet still no mention of September 27 on here for anything. 81.152.111.150 (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
This article was in the Washington Post yesterday. It says " But while the search giant has celebrated Sept. 27 as its birthday for the past few years, it's not entirely clear where that date comes from. In fact, they've used some other dates in the past, and there are a few days that could arguably make a better claim to the title." So the mystery remains.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup of article

In order to maintain its Good Article status, the article needs to be strict about various policies:

  • WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Parts of the article were reading like a scissors and paste trip round the newspaper cuttings library, rather than prose. Despite some trimming, the problem remains. As NOTNEWSPAPER says: " While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." This type of writing leads to an article bogged down by WP:RECENTISM and WP:ASOF statements that go out of date very quickly. Before adding current news stories, it is important to ask whether the material will date quickly and has enough long term notability.
  • WP:TOPIC and WP:NOTHOWTO. Google is a large topic, and this article is primarily about the company. Detailed descriptions of the products and services offered are beyond the scope of the article, and should be left to the main articles involved.
  • WP:PEACOCK and WP:PRIMARY. Quotes from company spokespersons saying that a product or service is innovative, cutting edge etc are unnecessary and should be removed.
  • WP:V and WP:NPOV. Unsourced assertions and editorializing interpretations of source material should not be included.

Some material was removed as it had the issues mentioned above, but the article is still too choppy and lacks free flowing prose due to an excessive reliance on news stories.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ [[44]]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Google/Archive_3&oldid=1092049902"