Talk:Google/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Google. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Slogan

Googles slogan represents a different business theory then one of walmart for sure. one of bounty and ease

Google's 2006 financial status

Revenue 10,604.92 million Net income 3,077.45 million—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leohuang (talk • contribs).

WP:CITE your source. ffm ^yes? 14:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"Google Income Statement". Reuters. Retrieved 2007-02-18.

Google Hits

Ok. First you killed the Google Hits article, merging it with this one. Then someone killed all references to Google Hits in this article Either restore the references, or I'll restore the original Google Hits article. Mugaliens 20:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Searchmash

Google the making of a modern company -iTunes Video-8999http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=174478070&s=143444&i=10669756

Could somebody tell me if there is an article on Wikipedia about [searchmash http://www.searchmash.com]. I have created an article now but there may already be one. Thanks if you can help. 0L1 - Talk - Contribs 19:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Why, yes, there is an article about SearchMash. Stev0 01:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That was the one I created after I couldn't find one... ;) 0L1 - Talk - Contribs - 01:14, November 10, 2024 (UTC)

Google Spoof

There was a spoof on Google Images where the images would be made of the letters used to search. 67.188.172.165 21:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

When? CITE your sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Firefoxman (talk • contribs) 19:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Archiving the page

This page is getting extremely long, can somebody please archive this page so anyone who view this page would not crash their browsers--67.34.214.207 00:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. See above for the link to the archived information. Dr. Cash 21:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Googlehit Section

What it the point of this section? It appears to be somebody sounding off their opinion against the use of google hit counts to imply relevance. I have never heard of anyone using google hits as a measure of social relevance, is this really the case? I suggest that unless something is included with examples of google hits actually being used in this manner, the section should be deleted, as currently it is just a rant against a nonexistent issue. 60.226.114.146 01:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC) SamL 10 Oct 06

YouTube announcement

Just to be clear, Google has announced an agreement to acquire YouTube. The acquisition hasn't actually taken place (yet). See their own press release [1]: "Both companies have approved the transaction, which is subject to customary closing conditions and is expected to close in the fourth quarter of 2006." Please wait for the deal to close before stating that YouTube "was bought" or "is owned" by Google. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Moot point. At this point, the deal has completed, and all text should reflect this. Freedomlinux 21:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Google Word Origin

The Oxford English on Historical Principles, Vol. 1, defines "google" As a verb - of a ball or the bowler. The same is described of an unknown origin of the by-gone era of 1904, and is a cricketing terminology of an off-break ball bowled with leg-break action

this definition was supplied as part of the Defence in a trademark dispute between Google Inc v Dot Name Communications [2] maybe contacting Lords (very old UK cricket organisation) would clarify this word definition

No, that's Googly not Google, they're different words. Gwernol 14:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

lol User:friendly_troll 14:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Barney Google is an American cartoon character from 1919. You can find it via Google. :)

Talking of dictionary entries, I notice there is no link to the verb to Google on the page at all. I think there should be at least some mention under Controversy... of the cease and desists allegedly served on some people using "google" generically. This is covered in more detail under to Google, one sentence and a link to there would be sufficient?

Markowe 17:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Eric Schmidt Interview

Google the making of a modern company video interview with Eric Schmidt

http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=174478070&s=143444&i=10669756

Eric Schmidt Interview by Stanford business school students

iinnovate interview of Eric:

http://iinnovate.blogspot.com/2007/03/eric-schmidt-ceo-of-google.html

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Minnibeach (talk • contribs)

Book titled "Search"

I'm looking for a book about google and yahoo titled "Search." Unfortunately I can't think of a unique string to search for it. I was hoping it already had a wikipedia entry, and was mentioned on this page. I think the author is Battel or something like that? Mathiastck 16:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The Search: How Google and Its Rivals Rewrote the Rules of Business and Transformed Our Culture --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Googleplex word origin

Also, from the first book of the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy¹ (1979), chapter 25, page 127, the correct spelling (rather than the number googol) is also found in the correct context:

"And are you not," said Fook leaning anxiously forward, "a greater analyst than the Googleplex Star Thinker in the Seventh Galaxy of Light and Ingenuity which can calculate the trajectory of every single dust particle throughout a five-week Dangrabad Beta sand blizzard?"

To be honest, from the first day I saw Google I thought that this was where the word came from...

Briantist 21:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

¹ I have a copy signed by the author!!!

I never heard of the word google until i saw google. Googoo gaagaa is something else. 86.140.139.252 14:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Google Acquires JotBot

I was on Crack Google.com and found this article on the front page. In case the front page changes, I have added the direct link as well.

http://www.crackgoogle.com

http://www.crackgoogle.com/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/

Google Buys Wiki Startup JotSpot Google, while waiting for the ink to dry on the YouTube deal, has started its acquisition engine up again with a purchase of the online collaboration startup JotSPot. We are being told to that this acquisition may have to do with Google Office.

The announcement was made public on Tuesday. Separate postings on Google's and JotSpot's company blogs have confirmed the speculation.

Google.com in 1998 Internet Explorer 6

Internet explorer 6 wasn't around in 1998. 86.140.139.252 22:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Version 6 was released on August 27, 2001 (from IE article) It certainly dosen't look like IE5 (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image:Internet_Explorer_5_WfW.png) - if you look down the left hand side of the IE page you can see the various versions.--Flutefluteflute 19:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image:Internet_Explorer_4.png IE4 does look like the picture - the difference with IE5 must be the OS. The wayback machine has two pages for google 1998 one is here http://web.archive.org/web/19981202230410/http://www.google.com/ and looks like the pic the other is here: http://web.archive.org/web/19981111184551/http://google.com/ and only a month before the other - dosen't. --Flutefluteflute 19:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Google.com as it was in 1998, viewed using the Wayback Machine in Internet Explorer 7 in Windows XP

How about replacing it with this? --Flutefluteflute 17:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Accusations levelled at Google

This is a difficult one. There are various accusations on blogs aimed at Google's alleged attempt to deal with the copyright issues surrounding You Tube. One or two of these appear to be very well written by people in the know, possibly even google employee's. What is the deal with placing links to these pages on the Google page as sources of dispute or does this come under original research?

Article about serverfarms

This is a rather long article about serverfarms and Google is repeatedly mentioned; Wired Magazine 14.10: The Information Factories. Maybe there's information in it that could be added in this Wikipedia article or related articles? --Jambalaya 17:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Top 10

In Google, why does Wikipedia always like end up in the top 10 search results if you search for practically any keyword? Did Wikipedia pay Google or something? It is high PR of the individual pages and better relevance.--Johnhardcastle 11:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is linked to from many sites across the web. Being linked to from lots of big sites gets your results higher up the results list. --Flutefluteflute 18:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

This report[3] sort of confirm your claim. I don't think WP is paying Google, but have this newsitem[4] in mind. --Jambalaya 15:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Correct the Date of Registration

Currently the article says Google.com was registered September 14th, 1997, however according to WHOIS information and the article at http://graphics.stanford.edu/~dk/google_name_origin.html, the actual date is September 15th, 1997. 75.28.17.146 16:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Google bought writely.com

I'm sorry that I do not have any sources to quote but, I know that Google bought a company writely.com in order to develop their technology regarding the word processing part of docs.google.com. I used writely.com for a long time, then one day when I went there, it forwarded me to docs.google.com. I later looked into it and discovered that Google had bought the company a few months earlier.

An update to the "# 3 Acquistions and partnerships" Section?

Weareschizo 04:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Acquisitions and partnerships

I've moved the 'acquisitions and partnerships' section to it's own section in the History of Google article, since it's more relevant as history to the company. There is a subsection in this article on 'acquisitions and partnerships' now, which is a brief summary of the complete information now in History of Google. Dr. Cash 04:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Founders monetary worth

One of the founders is reported on this page to be worth $40B, while he is actually worth $14B. Small typo. 63.224.188.143 21:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Better Business Burea of Silicone Valley

A link should be included to the "Better Business Burea of Silicone Valley " in case anyone has a problem with Google and needs help to resolve it. http://www.bbbsilicon.org/index.htm

The Better Business Bureau of Silicon Valley has nothing to do with Google, so adding a link to this article would not be appropriate. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, an informational resource. It's purpose is not to provide a means and an avenue for consumers and citizens to direct complaints against various corporations. Dr. Cash 00:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

On a less serious note, I'd love to know where, "Silicone Valley," is,... must be some really nice, ahem, "scenery," there,... ;-) Dr. Cash 00:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"Silicone Valley" is the place in Beverly Hills, California, with all the plastic surgeons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.175.225.22 (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

There is no page to leave a feedback message for Google on their site. They just give a telephone number and address, but who has time for that? User:Asciiletters 10 Feb 2007

Google's Free Wireless Internet in San Francisco

Link to a podcast from a presentation by Google and the City of San Francisco about their plans to build a free wireless network similar to what they already did in Mountain View:

http://www.usfmbapodcast.com

And yes, I tried to include this link in the main Google page but someone thinks that Wikipedia is not the place to put links... I disagree, I think Wikipedia is the best place to find information about any topic and if a link may be relevant to the topic, then it should be included. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tcalves (talk • contribs) 05:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No move Duja► 08:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Google → Google Inc. — When people think of Google, they think of a search engine, not a company ("I used Google", not "I used Google( Inc.)'s search engine. I am proposing that Google search be moved to Google, and have an overview of their products, especially the main search engine, and Google be moved to Google, Inc. or Google (company), with info about the company Jason McHuff 01:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up: I am not saying that Google should necessarily be at Google Inc.. I think having International Business Machines at IBM is not a bad idea. What I want is for the page at Google to be about the search engine and maybe mention Groups, News, etc. This means that the Google page, with info on the company, has to move somewhere, possibly by adding Inc. or (company). Also, this idea was mentioned here before. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmchuff (talk • contribs) 19:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Survey

Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Strong oppose - Google has become so much more than a search engine. The page Google should refer only to the company, with the services (including the search) on other pages. —Mets501 (talk) 02:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Support - The first two words of the page are "Google Inc" To be this shows that the title of this page should be Google Inc not Google. I think that this page should be moved to Google Inc. and Google should be turned into a redirect page which redirects to Google Search. Meanwhile Google Search shoud have a link at the top which says: Google redirects here. If you want to know about the company behind the search go to Google Inc.. -- Flutefluteflute ^Talk ^{Contributions} 13:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong oppose. Google is a company. It is unusual on Wikipedia for company pages to end in "inc". --Alvestrand 21:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Support. Google search is by far the most common meaning when the word Google is used. Heck, it's the very definition of the word according to Merriam-Webster. [5]. As for where to move the company article, either would be acceptable, but Google, Inc. would be my fav. As for the claim that it is unusual to include "Inc" in the article title, this seems to indicate otherwise. Nike, Inc., Gateway, Inc., Manpower Inc., TSR, Inc., etc. are all located at Inc when their shortened name is ambiguous. --Bobblehead 23:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong oppose – Putting 'Google Inc.' in the title does not conform to examples of other corporate articles. For example, Microsoft, IBM, and even Wal-Mart, do not have the 'Inc.' in the title/URL. However, it should be noted that the first line of each article does start with Microsoft Corporation, International Business Machines Corporation, and Wal-Mart, Inc., respectively. I don't see a valid reason for the Google article breaking with this. Dr. Cash 00:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - Google is the main topic article for several sub-topics, including Google search. Moving Google search here because most people refer to it as "Google" makes about as much sense as moving George W. Bush to President. – Anþony talk 00:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak support. True, that "Google" generally refers to the search engine -- not the company. But what other articles about companies with related terms, such as Xerox? Also, the disambig link is clearly right up at the top -- so this shouldn't be a major issue.+mwtoews 06:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong oppose As mentioned in previous, by adding Inc, it may effect efficiancy in search capabilities as most user's search the least amount of words associated because often using other words directly effects the once narrowness of the search, by widening it, many new people join the internet everyday, and requiring specific info will only hinder the search, best to just leave it alone as is, after all one can just simply add the Inc as hyper links as most pages contain, linking both to the definition and history of Inc, and alast Google association with Inc,is divided and seperate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fredflinstoned (talk • contribs) 19:12, December 12, 2006 (UTC).
— Fredflinstoned (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Strong oppose. The word Google (not Google Inc.) has become synonymous with everyone, so the article title should stay the same. People are more likely to search the word Google if they want info on Google. It's best not to divide the Google company from the search engine. Sr13 01:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

So far several of the opposes are citing faulty reasons. They are simply incorrect that the use of the company's "proper" name is uncommon within Wikipedia. It is very common to use the "proper" name when the name has uses other than the company's name. Apple is located at Apple Computers, palm is located at Palm, Inc., Coca-Cola is located at The Coca-Cola Company, Pepsi is located at PepsiCo, etc. I think Pepsi and Coca-Cola are the best and most applicable examples in this case. Both companies have a product named after the company and in both cases the product (the most common use of the name) is the one that is at the name, while the company is located at the company's "proper" name. --Bobblehead 04:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Bobblehead's points above, that those examples are the best treatment, and that Google should be moved to match (I propose Google (company) as the article title to be used), consitent with WP:STYLE. However, there are many, many other cases that need to be changed/split as well: eBay, Priceline, etc. 68.173.35.116 20:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to know whats up with the google logo, I understand certain times of the year google changes their logo on their home page durring certain holidays and festivities such as olympic competitions and etc, but has anyone noticed the current google logo, what has that got to do with anything, it looks more like an excerpt out of the holocaust, or the rendention of the end of days, anyone know whats up with the logo, do they randomly choose it, or did it take a company wide vote to decide to place it on their home page, hey while on the topic, it would be cool if google allowed users to submit their tasteful art on their homepage for veiwing, if anything they could do it for the arts. fredflinstoned

If you're referring to edvard_munch.gif, which is what I see on Google's homepage, it's rendition of Edvard Munch's painting The Scream. Today is Munch's birthday. When Google puts up those special logos, you can click it and search for the topic. (http://www.google.com/search?q=edvard+munch is today's.) – Anþony talk 19:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Yahoo maps

FYI

In late 2006, Yahoo began a campaign to upgrade their maps, to compete better with Google Local and other online map companies. Several of the maps used in the survey were similar to Google maps. The online survey is here. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 06:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Article Size: Possible Solutions

The Google article is now over 31 kb in length. To solve this problem, I think we can improve its structure. If you look at the History section, it has several sub-sections, yet they all lead to the same article. Perhaps the History section can be a concise summary, leading onto the main History of Google article. At the moment, it almost seems pointless having a separate article... it just needs to be used more.

--Mambo Jambo 18:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

31 kb is hardly anything to worry about. I've seen articles well above that, some of which are even featured articles. Seeing as how most people are using broadband these days, why are you worried about 31 kb? Dr. Cash 19:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The company was incorporated "at a friend's garage?"

"The domain google.com was registered on September 14, 1997, and the company was incorporated as Google Inc. on September 7, 1998 at a friend's garage in Menlo Park, California."

One does not incorporate their company (or register a domain name for that matter) at their place of business. One files for incorporation, and if they do it at any place it would be a corporate filing office. See Incorporation (business). Perhaps they used the address of the property (referred to as a garage) as their principal place of business? If so, that's what should be said, because it makes a hell of a lot more sense than "Google was incorporated at a friend's garage."

There are thousands of edits to the article, and this nonsensical sentence has survived every one. Please fix this because even though Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit," for some reason I can't edit it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.57.157.81 (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC).

A Monopoly? Or Quickly Becoming One?

It seems that we should be increasingly worried nowadays given that Google is BY FAR the world's largest search engine, with no other company/competitor even coming remotely close to matching Google's unabashed dominance on the Internet (though some European companies are currently working on viable alternatives). Google also has customized search sites in dozens of languages and tailored to dozens of countries (google.de, google.fr, google.ru, google.cn, google.it, the list goes on and on -- strangely enough though, the Japanese Google is google.CO.jp…CO for COMPANY, as in google.[COM]pany in the U.S.), and I assume that they are largely dominant in those 'markets' as they are in the USA.

Even Google's supposed "competitors" all now seem to be 'enhanced by' or 'powered by' Google (as shown by the nifty little badge located to the right of so many search engines these days), thus making them nothing more than Google clones; who knows how many smaller search engines have now been swallowed by the ‘Googlith.’ I won’t be surprised if even Wikipedia's in-house search engine doesn't soon become 'enhanced by' Google. How has Google managed to transform the browsing of the Internet in to a business (one of the world's largest and most obscenely profitable) given that it didn't begin that way? Do the words "Internet" and "business" even belong together in the same sentence when we web surfers aren't even trying to buy anything 99% of the time that we are using Google? Shouldn’t it be google.ORG instead of google.COM; or maybe google.cor might be best, since Google is technically now a corporation and is thus “publicly held,” though we all of course know that this is indeed not the case given the price of the site’s shares.

Doesn't this trend (the 'Googlization' of other search engines on the web) worry anyone else, especially governmental agencies, law firms, colleges/universities, scholars/researchers, etc.? Doesn't Google's undisputed pre-eminence on the Internet actually threaten the free-flow of information or impede the so-called 'marketplace of ideas,' (given that Google IS truly nothing more than an electronic marketplace/business that also happens to be the world's largest search engine: raking in BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of dollars a year on ads that people hardly pay attention to, much less click on). I thought that capitalism (remember: Google is still overwhelmingly a privately held company) required competition; however, it's clear that Google currently HAS no competition. This is why it seems that it is now a blatant monopoly (which is against American law) and, when it comes to the Internet especially, this could be a bit dangerous or 'shady' if you know what I mean. Does anyone else agree? Where are the anti-trust lawyers when you need them?!

In fact (I'm not insinuating that they do this) but the people at Google could EASILY block and/or erase very controversial or 'socially threatening' sites from its servers that it doesn't want the world to see or notice, i.e. websites that some might deem threatening to the 'social order,' sites with instructions on how to make weapons, sites with information on notoriously reclusive yet very powerful people/groups, and so forth. Or they could just as easily bury these ‘controversial search results’ on the 999th page of results that no one will obviously ever reach, thus keeping them very-very low in the results even if they contain highly relevant and useful information (even if these ‘Google-hidden’ sites are indeed 'controversial' or considered 'socially dangerous' it doesn’t mean that they do not deserve to be placed much higher in the results, that they aren't aren't valid and useful and deserve to be seen).

Is anyone else disturbed by this trend of Google utterly monopolizing the free-flow of ideas on the web? Controlling (or directing us to) the websites we see because we rarely if ever go past the 5th or 6th page of search results when looking things up? In a truly free and open society, shouldn't the entirety of the Internet be run by and for the PUBLIC GOOD with no centralized locus (Google is obviously now the Internet's hub, or locus); shouldn't the Internet be made fully transparent and a public service rather than having about a certain 10,000 Silicon Valley employees in a totally private and closed-off "Googleplex" manage and sort the information of the world, all the while reaping amazingly ridiculous profits for billions of tiny ads, most of which are largely ignored? So, do you all think that Google is a monopoly (or quickly becoming one) and/or a threat to the freedom of information on the Internet? --Pseudothyrum 10:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"strangely enough though, the Japanese Google is google.CO.jp" Some country code tlds don't give out names directly under the tld, i know uk is one and i'm pretty sure both jp and au are too. Plugwash 02:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No. It's just you. Arvindn 04:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Arvindn. Pseudothyrum is clearly (1) a troll and (2) pushing original research, neither of which are appropriate for Wikipedia. The last time I checked, GoogleWatch is the place for such silly speculation. Furthermore, Pseudothyrum is clearly unaware of the powerful "deep Web" which coexists with Google, by which I mean the huge information services companies that keep a huge amount of information in giant private databases not directly searchable from the public Web unless one has a lot of money (see LexisNexis, ProQuest, Thomson West, etc.). That's what most real intellectuals worry about, not Google (which can be easily dethroned by the next great search algorithm, just as Google dethroned AltaVista and Yahoo). --Coolcaesar 23:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well yes, they are a monolopy, but the catch is they always have a smile, and there motto is "don't be evil", but a couple years ago googles guys were a private company, now there more public then walmart putting stores on mars. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.15.250.195 (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

We only object to monopolies when they act against the public interest and Google hasn't been deemed to be doing that yet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.129.209.151 (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Image Search link

Image Search could have a link to Google Image Search. --190.48.101.55 15:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean the Wikipedia article on Google Image Search? That article already has a link to Google Image search on it. Eric 01:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki

Please add mr:गुगल

Done/wangi 10:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Google Link

I suggest that we add a link to google.com/coop/cse?cx=011459247747130173317%3A-aw515pjxg4. That is a page on Google that allows you to search pages created by Google. For example, if you searched for history you would find only pages created by Google.com about History. It is really a nice resource! Eric 02:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you never entered 'site:google.com' into your Google search to limit the results to a given site or domain (ie 'site:uk', 'site:nhs.uk')? So you can search Google for it's history by entering 'history site:google.com'!!! Briantist 07:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand that, however, there are many people that do not know that. I believe that placing the link to a page where people don't have to enter "search term site:google" and they can just enter the search term they are looking for would be beneficial. Eric 14:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see core policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. That kind of "how to" information is more appropriate for Wikibooks, not Wikipedia. --Coolcaesar 20:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if you quite understand the question at hand here Coolcaesar. I am only proposing the placing of google.com/coop/cse?cx=011459247747130173317%3A-aw515pjxg4 to the external links section of the Google article. That link is a link that allows you to search pages on the Google website. Eric 23:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

badware.org blocking websites, google censorship

Google is now partially censoring websites that are believed to have spyware or badware. You get a badware page about warning you and the text URL of the link but there is no link to continue on.

This should be added to controversy. Ie, what gives right google to decide what is badware and warn when they dont warn about other sites like smoking, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikitalk009 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

A bit strange that you can't tell the difference between visiting a web site that installs unwanted software on your computer and a site with words about smoking on. ••Briantist•• talk 23:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not censorship, they ae still lettinng you go to the sites. It is just so that people's computers are safer. "Smoking on" is a social issue, and google is not censored, exept for porn and stuff like that. And in China. ffm ^yes? 16:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Google Tv

gogog google! The creator of googles father was born in 1947 and he was in the vietnamese warIm sure many of you may have heard of this video by "Infinite Solutions" If not look it up on google blogs. They seem to show proof and show you a way that is is real and how to get it. Other people claim to have tried it, but very few people seem to be showing proof. My question is, is this a hoax?

- Yes. Technostalgia 23:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

We should at least give it a mention in the article. No people gave proof, but no ones proved it wrong either. 24.164.18.127 02:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

See WP:CITE. We are not a directory of rumors, slashdot is for that. We need reliable information, not speculation. ffm ^yes? 16:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The other videos produced by Infinite Solutions seem to be hoaxes. For example, see the very serious sounding video showing how to use a cell phone with ethernet wrapped around it suspended inside a salad bowl to get better wireless networking (!!).

The entire article is a joke, clearly written by Google staffers. A gigantic multinational organisation which has shown exponential growth and which keeps information on it's users ?indefinitely and what do we get? Nonsense about April fools jokes. Some info on their financial operation, takeover plans etc is essential. Everything that's wrong with Wiki at the moment can be seen in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borsabil (talk • contribs) 15:18, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

To whoever just got rid of the vandalism

Nice work! I just noticed it and by the time i@d logged in it was gone! The Adept 11:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I got a lot of stick from User_talk:Grindingteeth for doing it. ••Briantist•• talk 12:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The edit of Google by User:Grindingteeth at issue is this one. [6] This is a clear violation of several Wikipedia core policies, including WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOT. I agree that Grindingteeth appears to be acting in bad faith and is possibly a vandal or a troll. If he keeps up that nonsense he should be blocked.--Coolcaesar 04:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Trip Across the Atlantic Easter Egg

Should the article mention the "swim across the Atlantic" easter egg within the easter egg section? See step 23 at [7] as an example. Tugttw 02:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)tugttw

I removed it as Google has removed this 86.25.3.115 16:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Google... Coordinates?

Whats up with the coordinates at the top right of the google article? I haven't seen this on any other article. IWhisky 15:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Check out Vancover. All of the articles that are cool enougth have one. Just kidding. It is for most articles that have actual locations, it is how google is able to intergrate the wikipedia into google earth. ffm ^yes? 19:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

In short: it is the coordinates of the headquarters of Google. --Iamunknown 04:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Question

when you do a search on google, underneith each link is the web adress followed by a number. like "www.1234567.com -57k" what would the 57k mean? J.L.Main 01:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Straight from Google help (http://www.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=35891): " This number is the size of the text portion of the web page, and gives you some idea of how quickly it might display. You won't see a size figure for sites that we haven't fully indexed." --Iamunknown 04:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank YouJ.L.Main 19:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Google Holiday Logo

I am removing the Google Holiday Logo from the article. The official Google Doodles page states: We've put them in this online museum for your amusement. Please do not use them elsewhere. As such, it is a violation of their image licensing uses, and should be removed. It does look nice, though. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 07:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

~~HEY GOOGLE BOY, FIRSTLY GET A LIFE AND SECONDLY THERE IS NO NEED FOR AN ANNOUCEMENT OF THE REMOVAL OF A HOLIDAY LOGO. Your Mocker Bigous Dickous! SHUT UP Kungming2~~ Thank you for the update.

   -iKrolm

Featured Status

I have renominated this article for featured status. The April 2004 nomination cited lack of references and cultural impact info as the primary reasons of failure. Both of these reasons have since been addressed. The May 2006 peer review cited lack of organization & lack of a substantial LEAD section, both of which have been fixed. I think we're ready for FAC status now. Dr. Cash 01:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is what my script says:

<quote>The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. bob

The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.^[?]
Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and WP:CONTEXT.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.^[?]
When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “~~All~~ pigs are pink, so we thought of ~~a number of~~ ways to turn them green.”
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.</quote> Thanks, ffm ^yes? 21:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent Changes to Article Summary

Recently, the article's summary section has been dramatically increased in size and wording. I'm not certain on who made these changes, but I feel that it could hinder the nomination for being a featured article. There are also other changes that really need to be made to this article, because recently things have been unnecessarily edited, leaving just a bigger mess.

Does anyone else see the motive in me re-editing the changes to the summary section? Thanks. Mambo Jambo 16:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the edit history, it should be obvious that I edited the LEAD paragraph, trying to make it a better summary of the article conforming to standards in WP:LEAD. If you can improve this, please do. Dr. Cash 17:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Enterprise products

Currently:

In 2007, Google launched Google Apps Premium Edition, a software suite for businesses that provides e-mail, instant messaging, calendar, word processing, as well as a spreadsheet program.[43] This product is targeted primarily at the business user, and intended to compete directly versus Microsoft's Office suite, with a price of approximately $50 per user per year compared to $500 per user for Microsoft Office.[43]

This section needs to be re-done. "Docs and Spreadsheets" needs to be mentioned in the previous section about Applications and not here (they're available without the Apps Premium Edition); this service does not compete with MS Office (even "Docs and Spreadsheets" don't really compete with it). And there's nothing approximate about $50 per user per year fee. -Olegos 23:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).

It appears you *don't* need to log in to edit this particular page.

Current lawsuit

Anymore info on the lawsuit would help out as it comes avaiable. Maverick423 02:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Point of view starts here click history to view:

Information on the Viacom/Youtube lawsuit has been added to the History of Google article and removed from this page.

Google Phone

I have added a section on the proposed Google Phone, along with references; it seems to be big news.

Also, these pages need a general cleanup (deleting discussion comments which have been noted and used, changing links etc.).

HiraV 19:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)HiraV

Information moved to the section on products. It is not notable enough for its own main section. Plus, it's largely speculation anyways, but considering that it got a decent amount of press coverage, a brief mention might be noteworthy. Dr. Cash 19:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Google Inc. is developing its own mobile phone, according to industry insiders and analysts, while a Google official in Spain last week acknowledged the company is "investigating" such a project.

Google isn't commenting directly on leaks from Europe and the United States which describe a low-cost, Internet-connected phone with a color, wide-screen design. Newspaper and blog reports in recent months have Google shopping its phone design to potential mobile phone manufacturing partners in Asia.For more on the subject visit :http://www.webdesigningcompany.net "Mobile is an important area for Google," Google spokeswoman Erin Fors said on Friday. "We remain focused on creating applications and establishing and growing partnerships with industry leaders to develop innovative services for users worldwide. However, we have nothing further to announce."

Gadget enthusiasts who only two months ago were obsessed with the potential revolutionary impact on the phone industry of Apple Inc.'s iPhone device -- due out in June and at prices starting at $500 -- have shifted their attention to whether Google is developing an even lower-cost phone.

Slogan

Is that slogan real? Or is it vandalism..?
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver And The Vandal Watchman (Talk) 16:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest you follow the link as it answers your question. --Bobblehead 16:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I did, but that wasnt very convincing either, I've seen more compecated vandalism then that.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver And The Vandal Watchman (Talk) 12:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

"The Google"

I noticed that "The Google" (without the quotes) redirects here. I'm thinking it should have a separate article, as it is a Bushism. After all, Internets has its own article. What do you think about this? TanookiMario257 00:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. A separate article on that isn't needed. I hardly even hear the term, "the google." Maybe by Bush, I supposed; but then, it should just be added to the Bushism page. Dr. Cash 19:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Google TiSP

Isint that an all fools day joke ?

It sure is. I actually fell for it but the obvious references to the bathroom finally made me realize what day it was. Good ol' April Fool's Day. - 75.35.237.117 10:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

TiSP isn't the only april fool's day joke by google this year. Gmail also has a joke for Google Paper. Dr. Cash 18:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC) also i hate

In order to do google tisp it would take an enourmous amount of work on google's part to put those things in the sewer pipes, its an april fools--Olavid 20:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

April Fool:Newest Google guffaw

Monday, April 02, 2007 Newest Google guffaw: High-speed Internet through your toilet By Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Presiding over a company with a market value of $143 billion apparently gives Silicon Valley's most famous billionaires a good sense of humor -- and a case of corporate potty mouth.

Senior executives at Google Inc. launched their annual April Fools' Day prank Sunday, posting a link on the company's home page to a site offering consumers free high-speed wireless Internet through their home plumbing systems.

Code-named Dark Porcelain, Google said its Toilet Internet Service Provider (TiSP) works with Microsoft Corp.'s new Windows Vista operating system. But sorry -- septic tanks are incompatible with the system's requirements.

The gag included a mock press release quoting Google co-founder and president Larry Page, a step-by-step online installation manual, and a scatological selection of Frequently Asked Questions. On some Google sites, the company's official logo -- a lticolored Google that changes according to the season and on holidays -- substituted a commode for the second g. There's actually a thriving little underground community that's been studying this exact solution for a long time, Page said in the facetious statement. And today our Toilet ISP team is pleased to be leading the way through the sewers, up out of your toilet and -- splat -- right onto your PC. Marissa Mayer, a Google vice president, called TiSP a breakthrough product, particularly for those users who, like Larry himself, do much of their best thinking in the bathroom. TiSP is the latest April Fools joke at the Mountain View, Calif.-based company, where hijinks pervade cubicles all year long. In blogs, Google employees joke about the recent injection of green dye into milk in the cafeteria, while another talks about zany underlings filling the vice president of engineering's office with sand. Visit me at http://www.webdesigningcompany.net. Anyway Eric Raymond, a software developer in Malvern, Pa., and author of the New Hacker's Dictionary, said TiSP nailed several important tenets of hacker humor.

The concept of free wireless access parallels a legitimate, four-year deal between Google and EarthLink Inc. to provide free wireless Internet service throughout San Francisco starting in early 2008.

As part of the spoof, Google said TiSP would be offered in three speeds: Trickle, The No. 2, and Royal Flush.

The leitmotif of hacker humor is precise reasoning from utterly bizarre premises, and once you're in that groove, you're absolutely fearless about going deeper, Raymond said. We also have a tendency to deliberately zigzag between highly intellectual humor and utter slapstick. The more zigzags you can manage in a single spoof, the funnier it is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Charlesmartinn (talk • contribs) 05:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Article summary

I've rephrased the wording of the lead paragraphs a bit, hopefully to make it a bit shorter and more concise. Let me know how it looks. If you have any ideas, please leave them here or feel free to edit the lead. Dr. Cash 18:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Web Hosting

Hello,

Does anyone know whether Google is concidering starting a webhosting project, offering webspace for people to host their site? It seems as a good idea and logical step for Google to take.

Thank you, LAUBO 17:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The article's talk page is not the appropriate place to discuss such things, but you might want to look at the article on Google pages, as it would probably answer your question. Dr. Cash 19:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Revenue

The revenue numbers listed in the sidebar are different than the revenue information listed at the bottom of the page. Can someone tell me why, or better yet, fix it with whichever number is the correct one? --Micah Hainline 21:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Google IPO

I believe there should a separate article on Google IPO. The IPO was notable for many reasons, not least that a record 28 banks were in the underwriting syndicate

Google hits

Google hits Redirected to Google search instead of Google. Google hits is closer to the search engine, not the corporation. Rjgodoy 07:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Google Personalized Pages now iGoogle

I'd add that but I think the page is locked. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.68.90.97 (talk) 10:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

JIZZ! Now that I got your attention, please add content to do with igoogle.

Addition

Hi guys, I recently wrote a piece that aims to better explain the acquisitions by Google and have posted it as an external link on the Google page. The edit section on the site asked me to mention it here so... here I am! I hope the community finds it useful.

-B —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Babar54 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

new google homepage

There has been a new Google web page posted on about Monday, May 7, 2007

The link to the photo is located here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image:Newgoogle.png

Lookatme2 21:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we please stop adding **every** incarnation of the google homepage to the article. The homepage has hardly changed since the company started, and this particular one adds such minor differences and is so horizontally oriented that it really won't add anything to the article. Dr. Cash 03:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be a nice new google homepage http://google.vc/google.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.186.109.232 (talk • contribs)

Google Earth

Google Earth really ought to be listed under "acquisitions" since it was acquired by purchasing Keyhole, the company that originally developed it... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.79.186.127 (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

I personally don't think that searching for "google" on wikipedia should take you to the article on google.com. I think that the word "google" is actually a mathematical term. Let's not help propogate stupidity on the internet, but rather keep things clear. And no, I'm not signing my post. That's totally uneccessary and needs to be omited from the wikipedia discussion procedure. It doesn't cut down on anything.

The statement that all Google Earth images can be found elsewhere should be removed or modified, since the images on Street View are unique to Google Earth. 70.118.225.241 09:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Another slight revision which should be made regarding Google Earth. One cannot read license plates on Google Earth, not even with the street view. 66.35.34.87 17:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Pioneerman

googles former domain: Deja.com

I think the article should mention something about google former domain, deja.com

Interestingly, navigating to deja.com brings you to groups.google.com

Bgbop15 Will, NJ

Google did not originally own deja.com. Their "original" domain has always been google.com. What happened, is that they purchased the usenet news content from DejaNews, which is why deja.com now points to google groups. See this link for more information on that. Dr. Cash 19:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"Twenty percent" time

"All Google engineers are encouraged to spend 20% of their work time (one day per week) on projects that interest them."

No engineers at Google work more than 5 days a week? --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 01:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Acquisition of Feedburner

Is Google's purchase of Feedburner worthy of being put into the acquisitions section of the article? --Jmccorm 03:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Request to add a reference to US Patent 5,748,954, which is relevant to the Google technology

I would like to place a reference to US Patent 5,748,954, which is relevant to the Google technology.

Specifically, I would like to change the last sentence in the first paragraph in the History section to read: "A small search engine called Rankdex was already exploring a similar strategy[7] and Michael Mauldin, a researcher at Carnegie Mellon University who later founded the search engine Lycos, had already patented a similar technology covering link popularity and anchor text within US Patent 5,748,954.[8]

The footnote reference [8] could link to the patent at the following link to the USPTO: [8]

Gculliss 03:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Overlinking under "Googleplex"

Where it says "assorted video games, Foosball, a baby grand piano, a pool table, and ping pong. In addition to the rec room, there are snack rooms stocked with various cereals, gummy bears, toffee, licorice, cashews, yogurt, carrots, fresh fruit, and dozens of different drinks including fresh juice, soda, and make your own cappuccino," EVERY OTHER WORD is a link. Seriously, who doesn't know what yogurts or carrots are? I don't know how an article can be considered "good" when there is such excessive and irrelevant linking.--143.58.196.120 12:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

add interwiki link

[[hi:गूगल]] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.94.136.199 (talk • contribs).

Done. :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 18:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Environmental Records Section

I would like to add an Environmental Records Section to the Google Wiki Page. I feel that it is relevant to the company's image and moto. Here are a few sample programs at Google that support environmental issues:

$5,000 subsidies for employees buying hybrid cars.
Company dining facilities that serve organic sustainable foods.
Charitable contributions to organizations that fight global warming.
On-site farmers markets.
Composting of food waste and use of compostable plates and silverware.
Use of green fuels and solar power.
Fully subsidized employee bus pools for commuting employees.

Thanks. --Orcasgirl 19:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Orcasgirl, I agree. I have gone ahead and started an "Environmental Record" section, beginning with the basic information about google.org. Please feel free to incorporate some of the information that you have outlined above to the now existing section. Sea.wolf4 01:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The motto...

Isn't the Google's motto "Dont'be evil" instead of "You can make money without doing evil"? The aricle states:

Google's corporate philosophy includes statements such as, "You can make money without doing evil,"

But there is no source for that. Google gives us more results for the first version of the motto (click) than for the second (click). Google Story (a red link? impossible :>) — ISBN 055380457X and ISBN 978-0553804577 (Amazon link) also tells us it's the first version. Any ideas? Andrij Kursetsky ⊗ 20:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, and there is also an article about the motto... Andrij Kursetsky ⊗ 20:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

locations?

It's weird to me that this article doesn't even list their various locations and labs, or at least the major ones. Is a short section on this appropriate? — brighterorange (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Nearly all large corporations have many, many locations; have you ever worked for one? Should we list the hundreds of GE or IBM locations in those respective articles? Wikipedia is not a directory, a yellow pages, an indiscriminate collection of random information! See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. --Coolcaesar 20:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Two Public Offerings

No mention in the article that Google shares have seen two public offerings. -CKL

Article is a mess.

Needs a complete re-write. -CKL

Please be more specific. I completely disagree with you; while the article could certainly be improved, I wouldn't say, "it's a mess." And I definitely wouldn't say that without adding a few details about WHY? I thought it was a mess. Dr. Cash 06:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreement with Yahoo

What about its agreement with Yahoo by the years 2000 - 2001 ? I first knew Google because its logo and a link were on Yahoo. I think many others knew Google after the same thing, but this site doesn't say anything about it.

Number of horns on a unicorn

See http://www.google.com/search?q=number+of+horns+on+a+unicorn . I found it mentioned on reddit, it seems that the easter egg that churns out 42 is not the only one using this medium. The 42 easter egg is probably considered more notable, but I think it should mention that others exist...? - Zero1328 _Talk? 11:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Slightly unorthodox request

Hello, I'm trying to reach a human at Google that knows where once can make a request to have a bot do automated searches (the TOS are clear that this is a no-no without permission). The help email addy gives no joy (they simply quote the TOS back).

I've had an offer from Kylu to resend the request from a Foundation email address, but we're still laking a destination for the request.

I'm guessing here that Google employees check this page out every so often. If you are, please contact me. — Coren ^(talk) 03:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

"An eye tracking experiment revealed that college student users have substantial trust in Google’s ability to rank results by their true relevance to the query. When the participants selected a link to follow from Google’s result pages, their decisions were strongly biased towards links higher in position even if the abstracts themselves were less relevant..." [9] Brian Pearson 17:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't make that separate. Brian Pearson 01:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Google in another scandal.

Should they turn their user's info to the Government of Brazil or should they protect Pedos?

Brazil Threatens To Shut Down Google.br. It's a slippery slope, they do turn over some info to the US Government to deal with "Terror" so shouldn't they turn over info to the Chinese Government and Brazil governments too? CaribDigita 23:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Logo?

I am just curious as to what the reason may be for using the "non-shadowed" logo [10] as opposed to Google's "official" shadowed logo. It does not appear that using the image of their official logo [11] violates any copyright law. Am I missing something? --207.61.219.218 15:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.219.218 (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Google caving in to the demands of some groups

There's nothing in the article about Google's history of giving in to the demands of some groups. The Church of Scientology demanded that they demote anti-Scientology websites in favour of the official ones. George W. Bush demanded that a site critical of his policies be demoted on searches for the phrase "dumb motherfucker". China demanded that Google remove links to sites appearing in searches about "freedom" or "democracy". Google has consistently acquiesced to the demands of these groups and others. --Darth Borehd 23:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Some of your points are addressed in the article on Censorship by Google, I would assume. If there are still things that you feel should be included, feel free to bring them up on that talk page. :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 23:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

Im an castillian spanish speaker (as my first language), and I don't realy know how to say "google" correctly. I've heard people say it "gúgul" "gúgle" and very few "gágl" (pronuncieted all in Spanish). Can someone put an pronunciation mp3 for non-english speakers? thanks. Comu_nacho, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.222.251.235 (talk) 05:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Google in Iran

News : Iran blocks google http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=42402 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.108.67.119 (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Enterprise products

Is there any reason Google Search Appliance or Google Mini isn't listed in the section? --soum ^talk 10:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This is just a part of Wikipedias increasing restrictions and censorship. Too bad because actually I had some new information on data mining protocols at Google but I'll just blog it. You are not helping your cause Wiki because yes a LOT of people use library computers and it is certainly not their fault. Again your loss... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.127.78.65 (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Android

This article doesn't seem to mention google's new offering of Android which is a mobile phone operating system based on linux and is opensource. It was announced today (Monday November 5th 2007). There was a conference call today announcing it. I read about it on the engadget blog who was part of the conference call. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.20.208 (talk) 01:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Google.org

The wiki on Google states that Google.org is a not-for-profit organization, however the Google.org wiki states it is a for-profit organization. The correct answer is that Google.org is a for-profit organization, that is why they are able to lobby and fund beneficial commercial sector initiatives, they do however support and help finance other not-for-profit organizations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Animelion (talk • contribs) 01:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

References

Reference one looks screwed, maybe someone that knows what they are doing could fix it? Sancassania 00:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge Project 02

This doesn't seem to need a separate article, so I have suggested merging it to here. --Trödel 23:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Support. per nom. Dr. Cash 01:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I just went ahead an merged this information. There doesn't seem to be any major opposition. Furthermore, it's interesting to note that the three newspaper articles that were cited by the original article were really all citing the same source – just different wire service reports from the original New York Times article. Dr. Cash 19:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thx - just realized I never checked back to see the views of others etc. :) --Trödel 15:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

"Google" used as a proper name by Raymond Chandler

In a letter to H.N.Swanson dated 14 March 1953 Raymond Chandler wrote:

"I had exactly four seconds to hot up the disintegrator and Google had told me it wasn't enough. He was rght."

p 188 'The Raymond Chandler Papers' Eds Tom Hiney & Frank MacShane, Hamish Hamilton 2000.

While of no great significance in the history of Google it seems worth adding to the History section of the Wiki page. Sj65 08:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how that quote either (a) makes any sense whatsoever or (b) has anything to do with this corporation. Dr. Cash 19:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Google Picks political sides?

I propose to add this to Criticisms section of the Google page.

In Oct, 2007, Google is accused of taking sides with liberal organization MoveOn by working with them to prevent anti MoveOn ads from appearing on Google's adwords. Google's public council gave the reason as enforcement of trademarks [12], but has been criticized by several bloggers. [13]

In addition, Democratic leader Al Gore is one of the key influencers of Google's early day decisions. [14] TwakTwik 16:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's significant at all, and appears to be mainly a product of recentism. The primary criticism here that you're citing is by several blog posts, which don't meet Wikipedia's reliable source criteria.

The Al Gore information could be interesting, and could possibly be integrated into the history section. But it should be written in a way that integrates Al Gore into the actual early decisions of the company itself -- if the only reason you're adding it is to give Al some extra "exposure", then it's inappropriate. Dr. Cash 19:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair. We will wait couple of weeks to see if the criticism of Google's policy continues. TwakTwik 20:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Animated Google

Propose merge because this is a very minor aspect of Google's service in just one country and it could easily become a couple of sentences in the main article; making things much easier. Itsmejudith 14:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur. 'Nuff said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrandpaGroove (talk • contribs) 17:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Also agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.77.157 (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The Animated Google page has been redirected here. There's still no significant content, so nothing has really been "merged". All of the sources it's citing are just bloggers, and blogs do not meet Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines. In other words, this is non-notable. Dr. Cash 19:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm Feeling Lucky

What's the I'm Feeling Button do?Roxy2k7 06:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Take you directly to the first result, without seeing the other results on the google.com page. Matan 13:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Google.org & Google.mobi

The Google.org subsection was not deleted from the article, it was moved and rewritten to a subsection under history, entitled 'Philanthropy'.

The Google.mobi section was deleted outright because it was stupid. It was poorly written, and made it look like Google was the main proponent behind this new TLD, which is bull. It's not a significant part of the company, and nobody is even using .mobi domains anyway. This section violates WP:NPOV and has been removed. Please do not readd it to the article without a major rewrite or organization,... and even then, it probably doesn't even need to be there, as it's not even a major part of Google's company. Dr. Cash 17:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It should also be pointed out that the Google.mobi section was added by John Appleseed, who states on his user page that he is, "a writer for an online Mobile Tech magazine", and therefore has an obvious conflict of interest on the topic. Dr. Cash 17:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The Google.mobi information has been moved to the History of Google article in the 'Partnerships' section. A brief, paraphrased version of this is also now in the main Google article, under 'partnerships'. It seems to fit best here and I don't believe that it deserves its own main section in the article, as it's just one minor facet of the company's operations. Dr. Cash 18:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Google Maps at gas stations?

I could not find any mention of what's covered in this article anywhere in this article or on the list of Google products. I don't know whether it's actually been implemented yet, but it should probably be mentioned somewhere. -Mike Payne (T • C) 20:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge of History of Google into this article

Someone has proposed a merger (see History of Google), which seems to me to make not much sense. But the underlying logic is not debatable - the "History" section in this article is way too long, and probably has massive duplication with the article. It would be great if someone more interested (I'm just passing by) would shorten the History section of this article per WP:SS, and then remove the merger proposal. Your username goes here 15:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

comma usage

Forgive my ignorance but is the comma really relevant in context here ""Work should be challenging and the challenge should be fun", illustrating"? Should it be removed? Why not?

Google's corporate philosophy includes statements such as "Don't be evil" and "Work should be challenging and the challenge should be fun", illustrating a somewhat relaxed corporate culture.

Thank you. __Kushal^t 21:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Google IPO price

"Google's initial public offering took place on August 19, 2004. 19,605,052 shares were offered at a price of $200 per share.[25]"

I believe the offering price was $85 per share. The cited article [25] only mentions the offering price range. Oddly, the next sentence is correct, and the next cited article [26] clearly states the offering price was $85. Multiply total shares: 19,605,505 x $85/share = 1.67 billion.

"Of that, 14,142,135 (another mathematical reference as √2 ≈ 1.4142135) were floated by Google and 5,462,917 by selling stockholders. The sale raised $1.67 billion, and gave Google a market capitalization of more than $23 billion.[26]"

The "History of Google" article has the same content but with correct price-per-share amount.

A more authoritative source for IPO information would be:

investor.google.com/pdf/2004_AnnualReport.pdf

or the prospectus filed with the SEC. Cbfedits (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed this... I wonder who made the change... ~ Paul^C/_T+ 18:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Too much detail?

In the "Googleplex" section, the article describes all the different snacks and drinks there are, fine, but isn't it a little too detailed?

In addition to the rec room, there are snack rooms stocked with various cereals, gummi bears, toffee, licorice, cashews, yogurt, carrots, fresh fruit, and dozens of different drinks including fresh juice, soda, and make your own cappuccino.

Do we really need to know all that? BunnyFlying (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Simplified. --Aseld (talk) 04:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice. Thanks. BunnyFlying (talk) 05:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, I think that who ever created the part was trying to get the point across that there is so much for the employees to have. Weirdude (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Google Earth should be in aquisition paragraph (keyhole)

Currently Google Earth is mentioned in the 'Applications' section as an application developed by Google. The origin of Google Earth is in a product developed by Keyhole ([15]). Keyhole was acquired by Google in 2004 (another missing fact in the article). Keyhole's product had the base functionality of Google Earth still as a product of Keyhole - taking this in mind, I think it would be more appropriate to be placed in the acquisition paragraph as not to mislead people to think it was actually crated by Google. Thedrs (talk) 09:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The new holiday logos?

Someone should include the new holiday logos, the ones that show the Google logo being constructed for Christmas.

Agreed. What would be better is a list of the logos. 204.11.191.49 (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Or rather, a link to Google's own list, since such a list is not particularly encyclopaedic. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 21:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

money

How does Google make money? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.82.140 (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Google's unofficial slogan is "Do no Evil" and not "Don't be evil" which, according to Kant (or is it Hegel), is different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midtownmike (talk • contribs) 19:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Google managed to acquire long-term labor contracts with the Elves, and it leases them out to Santa Claus, Keebler, and an occasional movie. — X S G 21:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

They make money via stocks. AP Shinobi (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No, they don't make money "via stocks." Google's primary source of revenue is selling keywords to advertisers so they can place contextually-relevant ads on the results page for a particular search (see AdWords). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

They also sell search solutions (e.g. rack search servers) to industry, and I suppose adwords contributes a little. Incidentally, this kind of question isn't technically what the talk page is for. You may want to use the reference desk for such questions in future. :-) Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 21:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"Adwords contributes a little"?!?! Um, RTFA: "Most of Google's revenue is derived from advertising programs. For the 2006 fiscal year, the company reported US$10.492 billion in total advertising revenues and only US$112 million in licensing and other revenues." --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Zim Zala, for your informative comments here. I came here with exactly the same question in mind.

I have never ever clicked an ad on Google. I don't know anyone who ever has. It's a mystery to me how they can even be solvent. Somebody somewhere out there must click google ads. Or: is it rather the **sorting** that they sell?Because when I am looking for a supplier, the ones on top of the list are more likely to get my business.

I've exposed the answer to this question a bit more prevalently by placing it in the first sentence of the article's lead. This helped to kill two birds with one stone (as the lead was too short). — X S G 19:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead

The lead should be longer than it is. One more paragraph would be enough, but probably twice its current length would be ideal. As is it's borderline GA failure material. Richard001 (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Better? — X S G 19:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Uneditable

The page is uneditable, and therefore dated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.156.230.157 (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's editable. Just not by you. Get an account if you want to make edits. Dlong (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Most popular/important Wiki pages are protected from guests without an account AP Shinobi (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

what do you mean by "dated" Machete97 (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No mention of Google Video []ing customers?

I spent close to $200 buying videos from these people, and in August 2007 they closed the servers. Now I can't watch the various movies I purchased.

And wikipedia acts as if the event never happened?!?!? Apparently this article was "cleansed" by the google police to erase that negative publicity. Congratulations Wiki for helping to promote & sell Google even when they block their customers from watching the movies legally purchased. (Yes I am angry.) Theaveng (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Calm down. The information you seek is at Criticism of Google. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"Assuming good faith" is fine if wikipedia was only edited by people. But it's also edited by Google and other corporations in order to erase bad publicity. I've seen it happen over at HD Radio - an executive came along and replaced "users complain it doesn't sound good (with ref)" with "many users are surprised how great it sounds" and a link to the HD website. Corporations come in here and erase negative views, trying to turn Wiki into their personal advertising forum. ---- Theaveng (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a straw man argument. Just because it has happened elsewhere doesn't mean that it has happened or will happen here; I see no need to change or disband the policy of "Assuming good faith". This article has enough people monitoring it for POV edits that bad-faith edits to the Google article will be reverted quickly. I also suspect that you'd be hard-pressed to find Google as a corporation intentionally and systematically slanting Wikipedia articles by making POV edits. If you can, the information ought to be added to the Controversy section or Criticisms page... — X S G 16:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This could be prevented if Wikipedia refused to advertise websites in their "free" encyclopedia which in my opinion is rather restricted as well contradictive (I'm not saying it's possible to have a truly free online dictionary). I have no doubt, by the way, that Wikipedia are receiving some nice compensation for advertising large websites such as Google in their dictionary, which would also explain why any bad criticism is removed.213.114.169.144 (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Broken link

Reference "howgoogleworks" returns 404 error Ps ttf (talk) 08:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

2006 DoJ Search Data Subpoena

Google was subpoenaed by the Department of Justice to hand over user searches in 2006, along with Yahoo, MSN, and AOL. Google was the only search company to say no and stand up to the U.S. government's invasion of user privacy. This should be noted alongside criticisms of Google's storage of search queries (used for targeted advertising, personalizing search results, and to improve search algorithm, but never released or disclosed to 3rd parties). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Subversive.sound (talk • contribs) 16:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Citations Needed

I added a few ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} to the Introduction, only to have them removed. I figured I would post it here, so the correct citations could be added without placing impurities on the Article page.

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Google&diff=191355967&oldid=191315261

--HockeyInJune (talk) 13:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The intro is supposed to be a summary, summarizing information that should later appear in the article, and the 'citation needed' tags that you added were totally unnecessary. This particular sentence doesn't need a citation because (a) the "don't be evil" philosophy is covered and cited in other areas of the article, and the criticisms are also covered in a well cited 'criticisms' section. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Founded by Jews

We need to acknowledge the fact that Google was founded by two Jewish people, Larry Page and Sergey Brin. 24.174.48.155 (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Significance being....?? 64.69.123.132 (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no significance in the Google article. There may be significance on each of the founders' pages, however while I know that Brin is at least culturally Jewish, I'm not sure that he's religiously Jewish, and Larry Page being Jewish comes as news to me... — X S G —Preceding comment was added at 04:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ethinically they are Jews. I think this is a very important fact to submit. Also, Larry is categorized under Jewish business. Stop censoring stuff you guys. 24.174.48.155 (talk) 05:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Methinks you have some kind of agenda. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 05:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, the claim of censorship comes from our reversion of a reference to the founders being Jewish. This causes me to question what the agenda is (though not that there is an agenda). — X S G 07:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

External links

I'm curious, would an external link to how to submit a sitemap to Google be relevant for this direct topic of Google Inc? As usual the link is a netural point of view and the official suggested method by Google itself. No sale, downloads or any of that crap is marketed at this external link.

SDSandecki (talk) 10:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a "how to" guide. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

And what about the different country´s google? :* : Argentina, Armenia Belice, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, El Salvador, Ecuador, España, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, México, Venezuela, Panamá, Paraguay, Perú, Puerto Rico, Rep. Dominicana, Trinidad y Tobago, Uruguay

wikipedia is not a repository of external links. please see WP:NOT Machete97 (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Censorship by Google

The censorship by google is not discussed in this article and there is no link to the atricle "Censorship by Google". There is one mention of censorship but it is hyperlinked to the wiki-article of the concept "Censorship". Can sombody fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.34.83 (talk • contribs)

The intro currently links to censorship, while the lower section on Criticism links specifically to Censorship by Google. However, I'll change the intro to link to Censorship by Google, too. Thanks for pointing this out. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 11:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Google moved HQ to Switzerland

Google your way to a wacky office. If your ideal workspace includes a slide, a games room, a 'chill-out' aquarium and plenty of free food then you had better get your CV into Google. Dotcom companies were defined by beanbags and pizza but Google, a company that came to prominence after the bubble had burst, has taken that image to a whole new level. Meeting 'pods' in the style of Swiss chalets and igloos, fireman poles to allow easy access between floors and a slide to ensure that people can get to the cafeteria as quickly as possible are all part of a design of its new European engineering headquarters in Zurich Switzerland. The building was designed for - and partly by - the 300 engineers who will work there. They are best served, according to the vice president of engineering, by both a creative work environment and a flat, open working structure. The wacky office is both a showcase for Google's unconventional approach to business and a symbol to prove that Google is no longer a US-centric firm. From (BBC News 03/13/08) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7290322.stm 192.31.106.34 (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is the point you're trying to make ? Machete97 (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Censorship section

Google's cooperation with the governments of China, and to a lesser extent France and Germany (regarding Holocaust denial) to filter search results in accordance to regional laws and regulations has led to claims of censorship.

I was under the impression that Google had removed pages discussing the holocaust (and was thus denying the holocaust, since that seems like a more legitimate criticism), when they were actually removing pages that are White Nationalist/Neo-Nazi. Perhaps the sentence is worded correctly, but it still reads a little ambiguously. -98.209.101.146 (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Google Android

No one has started anything on this new OS yet? So i might aswell atleast get something going.

So my question is. can google andriod be used on any phone with uptodate capabilities? i.e. color screen. internet, etc. but the real thig is can it be used with any phone from any carrier?

like for instance a sidekick?

just wipe my phone clean and replace it with andriod? that all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.233.222 (talk) 03:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Android is, ostensibly, an operating system for mobile devices. All operating systems must have a native interface into the processor and memory of the device, which means that at le google ast a part of Android must be Google compiled to run on the processor of the device in question. Android does have one major thing going for it; it's open source which means that anyone can build it for any platform. But that building process wipanes ll be non-trivial, so if a consumer wants to put Android on their device then some developer will have had to already compile Android's core for that device. Once this happens, the Android interface on that device will be similar to the Androidgoogle interface on any other device and any application that was programmed to work for Android should work for this device. — X S G 02:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, this is not a chat board, so I now regret having written what I just did. Please follow up on my talk page, not here. — X S G 02:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

And as well as Android being an operating system for mobile devices, Google also had a hand in building the layout for the iPhone operating system. As well as the mobile operating systems, there has been a recent leak about an operating system called Multixe (Mul-ty-cs is the correct pronunciation). Unfortunately, the email I received with information about this supposed operating system for the PC came to me as a spam email, so it is most likely either some kind of scam to get me looking like some kind of idiot or the truth, or just a deliberate lie.

Incorporated by the laws of Delaware?

Does anyone have insight into this:

Google Inc. is a company incorporated under the laws of Delaware.

http://www.google.com.au/intl/en/contact/index.html

There doesn't seem to be any info about it on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.5.212 (talk) 08:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not true that Gmail ads can be removed free of charge

Can someone who's able to edit this fix it. You can't take ads off Gmail unless you pay 50 USD/user/year for the premier apps edition: http://www.google.com/a/help/intl/en/admins/editions.html

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silviagomez (talk • contribs) 03:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 03:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Google Revenue

I often read this article and normal get the gest of things but why the massive jump in revenue from 2006 - aprox $10B to 2007 $16B.

Surely YouTube isnt bringing billions when half the time I'm on it the ads dont even load.

Any suggestions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.164.63 (talk) 08:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

And what with Gogle TiSP?

http://www.google.com/tisp/index.html

Anonymously 26.06.2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by FxJ (talk • contribs) 14:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see Google's hoaxes#Google TiSP. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

NO justification for protection of the article

Is there any? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.223.59 (talk • contribs)

I don't know. You may want to check the history. I would suspect that this has been a GRAWP target, and frequent IP vandal target. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

New Google favicon?

It appears that in the last couple of days Google has changed its favicon. This the small icon that appears in the address bar of the browser. The new design is a lower case letter g, as opposed to the previous capital G. See [16] for a look at the old and new favicons. May be worth a mention in the article. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed this as well, but it's rather trivial and probably not worth including in this article itself. Possibly in the article on the Google logo, though. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Trivial, unless reliable sources make a big deal over it. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Could theoretically indicate a possible a change of logo, or a new design, to move up with the way operating systems and modern programs are attempting to make themselves "Prettier" for lack of a better term. Google has always employed a policy of keeping their website very minimalistic, so it's unlikely, but the favicon change is a possible "Dry run" of a new logo in the works. It could be interesting, but I agree not possible in the article until there's sources. Neuro√Synapse ▪ ∆ 08:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting that the new lower case g design contradicts the current Google logo. This may indicate a future change to the main logo, but at the moment it is not a major issue. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

IGoogle

Why isn't there anything written on IGoogle? The personalized Home Page to compete with Windows Live! and My Yahoo! It has totally changed the web product strategies for both Microsoft and Yahoo!

FWIW, MyYahoo existed for many years before iGoogle. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow mistakes...

This article is not very accurate. I noticed many mistakes that seem to have gone unnoticed. Since I cannot edit it I suppose you users should reread it and check your sources.141.155.170.45 (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you be a bit more specific?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

hacking

theres a video on you tube that says how to hack webcams and cctv cameras using google should that be mentioned?81.108.233.59 (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I wouldn't say so. See WP:NOT#GUIDE. Also, this article about the company Google, and I assume that that video would be talking about the search engine Google, so discussion should probably be brought up there if you want further input. :) Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 15:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, another item about hacking using Google could be the fact that, using Google, there are many other

places to hack as well. The reason for this is a small glitch in the hexadecimal code within Google's HTML. Sadly, this means there are plenty of things you are able to get to which breach security measures, and is therefore classed as hacking. Freewebs websites are sometimes ably hacked by persons who type in a special code, then search and click a specific link to get to the members area of websites like these. Luckily, I have yet to hear about anything related to hacking Wikipedia, so we are all safe for the time being, as long as no-one finds out the glitch in syntax for links to here. From Steve

GA Sweeps—on hold

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

1) The article contains a number of claims that are not cited (see {{Citation needed}} tags). Please, add citations.

2) The lead is too short. It should be at least 3 paragraphs long. The statement that Google is not part of Dow Jones Industrial Average is not mentioned in the main text.

3) Please, find substitutes for the two dead links.

4) The word Google in some references should be unbolded.

5) Generally, the article is not well structured. There are lots of stubby sections and paragraphs. It may need a thorough copy-edit.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are being addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Ruslik (talk) 08:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Jewish

Isnt it funny how the two founders are Jewish? Its amazing actually, one in a million; did they have a cabal too do you think? Just a thought lolz. :) ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 06:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Two names

Google has two official names. In China, it is called "谷歌".Kongyi (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

If google.com is typed as googel.com the same page will arise giving google 2 home pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.250.136.11 (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Copied verbatim into Google Knol...

[17]

Maybe we should make a template for this :( Procedure (talk) 10:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

While that action is technically legal (I think, but IANAL) due to the GFDL and creative commons licenses, I don't think we should be encouraging it. For one, there's already several wikipedia mirrors that copy content from wikipedia to begin with (and they do it by copying the database dumps directly, not with templates -- much easier. Secondly, I don't think the purpose of Google Knol should be to simply mirror wikipedia. If it takes off with good articles by verified experts, which is what [I think] Google wants, it should be able to compliment Wikipedia very well, and some Knols may even be able to be used as citations for Wikipedia articles (particularly those written by verified experts). Dr. Cash (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggested citation

Good day. Under the Acquisitions subheading is the following text: "In 2004, Google acquired a company called Keyhole, Inc., which developed a product called Earth Viewer which was renamed in 2005 to Google Earth.^{[citation needed]}" Perhaps one might consider http://www.google.com/press/pressrel/keyhole.html or http://www.google.com/press/pressrel/google_earth.html as these are the official press releases by Google for each of these events.Ddcorkum (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

In the text "Google was added to the Standard & Poor's 500 index (S&P 500) on March 31...", the citation could be the same as the one in History_of_Google. The text are excatly the same as "Growth" part.wd.acgrs (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Google's history

Google was made by two close friends (kind of like Lucy Ricardo and Ethel Mertz on the TV sitcom ''I Love Lucy'' starring the Lucille Ball-Desi Arnaz comedy-real life husband and wife team, don't you think?) Sergey Brin and Larry Page in late 1998. Today, it has grown to become the largest American-used website for research, images, shopping, books and more.

It's still expanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingerandfred (talk • contribs) 21:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Comprehensive, but shows the flaw in Wikipedia

The Google page is lengthy and covers a lot, including that which is quite trivial. This shows the flaw mentioned - that fashionable, 'new', American entities are favoured over less hyped and 'old' entities, something that wouldn't happen in an edited encyclopaedia. For example, look how sketchy the page for BHP Billiton is in comparison, despite this being the world's largest diversified mining company with earnings and profit well beyond Google's.

Gmelina (talk) 07:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

So fix it...at BHP Billiton --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Web based programs

I have not found any reference to the Google Language Tool, making translations of texts or web pages and allowing users to search in other languages than their own. Also, I think there should at some location be a reference that Google now owns the YouTube site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.68.136 (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Google browser

I started the article for the new GBrowser at Chrome (web browser). Happy editing! --Azertus (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Market Capitalization updates...

Placing a "spot price" for the Market Capitalization of an organization like Google doesn't seem to reflect very useful information. It was > $150B two weeks ago and now it's below $140B, and who knows where it will be tomorrow. My point being that I think readers of Wikipedia would find more value in knowing a reasonable range for Google's Market Capitalization rather than the amount at this very moment. Perhaps presenting the highest and lowest Market Capitalization from the previous quarter would be more valuable? Any thoughts on this? — X S G 19:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

?

Why is the article using British dates? 98.226.32.129 (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

LSE Listing

It appears that Google has been quietly de-listed from the London Stock Exchange. GGEA(.L) is no longer a registered stock ticker. 88.151.55.11 (talk) 10:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Founders

Founder should be changed to founders, in the info box thing at the top. --24.136.141.30 (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That's the way the Template:Infobox Company shows it. Changing the field name in the article itself would result in the "Founder" field not showing up at all, so it's going to stay "Founder" until someone changes the template. This is pretty unlikely, since the template is indefinitely protected. Phlyght (talk) 12:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Doodle 4 Google

Didn't read this article very thoroughly, but mentioning Doodle 4 Google might be nice. For info, type in Doodle 4 Google on, well, Google.

Perhaps in the introductory paragraph. Game Lord z (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Listing on September_27

Google is listed on the September_27 page as being founded on 27 Sep 1998. However, in this article it states that Google was incorporated on 7th Sep 2008. Which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.2.22 (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Google to allow UK Gambling Ads

From tomorrow (17th October 2008) Google will again allow Gambling ads on its UK search pages, source:( http://www.latitudegroup.com/weblog/permalink/google_relax_gambling_laws_for_the_uk/ ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LukeR1981 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this a necessary addition?Spitfire19 19:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spitfire19 (talk • contribs)

Current Version Profanity

The current version has profanity above the box on the right side.

The article is semi-protected, otherwise I would've removed it.

Thanks to whoever cleans it up. :)

Amperehelion (talk) 03:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"ten years of google"

the link to "ten years of google" needs to be fixed. it didnt work for me, but this one does: http://searchsiren.com/google/10-years-of-google/ Masakrovat (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

History

Shouldn't the history section mention who funded Larry Page and Sergey Brin original research project.

NSF Rethinks Its Digital Library Jeffrey Mervis, Science 2 January 2009: Vol. 323. no. 5910, pp. 54 - 58, DOI: 10.1126/science.323.5910.54 and the references there in.

--128.231.88.4 (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in company name

The official name of the company is "Google Inc." not "Google, Inc." (It may seem strange, but there is no comma.)

There are two places on the page that say "Google, Inc." -- both of these should be changed to Google Inc. without the comma. You can look at any of its SEC filings (e.g. http://www.secinfo.com/d14D5a.tvTt.htm) to verify that there is in fact no comma. I would change this, but sadly i'm not able to edit as it's semi-protected.

Ifette (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Good call. This search returns only articles without a comma in them, except this one. Also, search "GOOG" brings up Google's stock entry (or something financial like that) which is listed as "Google Inc". Greggers ^{(t • c)} 15:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The symbol of Google has been modified?

When I open google.com or any of its services on firefox the tab shows a different symbol. It shows a red, green, blue and yellow background behind a small caps g unlike the blue capital G with the white background. ??? --KnowledgeHegemony ^talk 19:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

See Google_logo#Favicon. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it true that Google has a country named "Googland"?

http://www.googland.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.126.6.17 (talk) 12:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, this is unusual, although it looks like a spoof article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It was an April Fool's joke. -- Fluteflute ^Talk ^{Contributions} 16:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Google motto

I understand that Google has a motto which is "Don't be Evil." Where in the article would be a good spot to place Google's motto? Nhl4hamilton | Chit-Chat

Don't be evil has its own Wikipedia article. This could be in the infobox of Google. Can anyone figure out a way of adding this? Unfortunately, Template:Infobox Company has permanent protection.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Changing the template to Infobox Dotcom company caused the "Don't be evil" slogan to appear correctly, but it also removed other parts of the table, so I had to revert the change. YouTube uses the Infobox Dotcom company but Google does not, so YouTube is able to have the slogan "Broadcast yourself" in the infobox.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hack or Error?

[[:Image:Google31-01-2009.png|thumb|Searching for "Google" on Google]]

On 31 JAN 09, every search result, including "google" has returned with a "this site may be harmful to your computer." Is this considered a notable event? Wiki worthy? There are are blogs referencing it, but I have not seen any news articles. 71.126.98.43 (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Treo no loggy in

Considering how much people rely on Google for their searches today I would probably consider a large outage like this to be notable. How about anyone else? Canterbury Tail talk 15:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitely worth a small note somewhere, but I'm not too sure about making an entire article about it. 85.228.66.40 (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This is likely to be covered in the tech blogs, but a Wikipedia article requires mainstream media coverage to establish notability. The fault is definitely occurring at the time of writing, but the article should hold off on this issue until things become clearer.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely worth it's own section, I reckon, once the media notice. And judging by your IP's and my location it's spread throughout at least North America and Europe. Shocking. I wonder who's responsible? --AD ^talk 15:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This must have been going on for over half an hour. The effect is global, it affects at least English and Finnish language interfaces. I have include a screnshot from Finland. Before we can add this ~~to the article~~ in fact I think this needs an article of its own, we need sources. Please list them here. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/StopBadware.org Faijer (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Aaand it's over. 85.228.66.40 (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If the press starts covering it, it might get a mention on Google search, but this article is about the company. Wkdewey (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This happened just after I visited Encyclopedia Dramatica. OMG what did that site do to my computer! But, now I see it is just a coincidence, and it's happening to everyone. --Aude (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

At least the problem is solved. Still the problem scared users dry. Even in Asia it happened for an hour. This is indeed Wiki-worthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyuzoaoi (talk • contribs) 15:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Please list sources here.

In the past few minutes the fault seems to have gone away, so please don't add anything to the article at the moment. For a screenshot of the fault in action , click here. The main issue here is not whether the fault occurred (it did) but whether it is notable enough for the main Google article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Reported by the BBC here. Dooky (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's another one. 85.228.66.40 (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The fault is now mentioned in Google search with a citation. This is a better place than Google, which is primarily about the company's structure and business operations.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Popular Culture

I wanted to add that un the Catalan series 13 anys... i un dia there is a character called Google.--Nauki (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

Please Im an castillian Spanish speaker (as my first language), and I don't realy know how to say "google" correctly. I've heard people say it "gúgul" "gugle" and very few "gúguel" and "gagl" (pronuncieted all in Spanish). Can someone put an pronunciation mp3 for non-English speakers? thanks.200.90.236.167 (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't oblige you with mp3, Señor(a) anónimo/a, but your first 'gúgul' version is close enough, providing you pronounce the '-ul' like Catalán 'el' (as in el nen). Now, if you like the place, why not Register as a Wikipedia User and have more fun. Maybe Gugul or Gugulesp is available as a name. Ombudswiki (talk) 09:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Google in China

This Google page makes no mention of their participation in the China firewall. This is really surprising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.14.75 (talk) 06:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

In January 2006, Google received criticism in the media when it announced that it would filter its search results in China.[18]. The Google article does not mention this, although it is covered in Google China. Perhaps it could be mentioned in the main Google article, if other users felt that it was notable enough.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the China-filter is enough important to include in the main article, as the goverment of China demanded this, and it ain't to much choise for Google. There is nothing wrong with following the local rules. That's only my point of view... --SakJur (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Aquiessence to unethical practice for the sake of profit is certainly a choice. They could have chosen not to do bussiness in china. It is important enough to me to choose another search engine and, when practical, to avoid their prominent sponsers. Put the imformation in the main article or at least with a prominent link to where it can be found. Some people prefer to know if the companies they deal with follow ethical practices or just blow them off as the local custom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.157.40 (talk) 11:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, the fact that "criticisms of Google" is a page separate from the main Google article, but with no direct mention of it in the main article beyond the "See Also" link, is a joke. The corporate power and sheer cultural impact of Google, if anything, should demand that criticism be well-publicized, not tucked away. I'll be fixing this soon if no one else does. WildlifeAnalysis (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It is linked in the 2nd paragraph of the article: "The unofficial company slogan is "Don't be evil", although criticism of Google includes concerns regarding the privacy of personal information, copyright, censorship and discontinuation of services." --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with WildLifeAnalysis. The criticisms should definitely be on the main page. Zestos (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

>>There should be mention of China's censorship of Google here. It is a notible part of their history and was reported on a large scale by many major news stations across the globe. I'm not confident enough to write the paragraph, but do feel that someone should enter it into the article. Jacobsdad (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Comparison with Microsoft

Why is there nothing in the article about the relation between Microsofts market dominance and Google. The organisations both rose out of the level of access by the founders to supreme computing power. By that I mean they had access to the technology they needed to immediately launch and thrive. It could be interesting to mention this in relation to industrial sociology.

Why? I don't think that you can congratulate Microsoft for Google's success. The internet was on the cards way before Microsoft went global with an internet ready operating system. The fact is that Microsoft and Google are obvious competitors. All the founders can breathe air - should we mention that also? Jacobsdad (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

nobody deplores gates obviously a software genius but he was very well backed as were google came from the intellectual preppy elite they could do what they wanted to m$ arose from access to supreme computing technology as google did —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.158.225 (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

market cap

market capitalisation is changing every working day. so if someone isn't going to update it every day, that kind of information is useless. at friday's market close it was 109 bil. , 13 bil. more than the number we have here, which is month old.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.21.83 (talk • contribs)

If it's outdated and you have a newer figure, feel free to update it. However, since Wikipedia isn't a stock tracker, it's not necessary to update constantly - you only need to do so if it is drifting away from the listed value (especially when you ignore one-day spikes or other fluctuations.) --Sigma 7 (talk) 22:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

well, since wikipedia isn't a stock tracker, market capitalisation should be removed.

I agree. Why have it? Anything that isn't historic shouldn't be included in an encyclopedia. Jacobsdad (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

When were the humorous languages added?

I believe at least some of these languages (bork bork, elmer fudd) were inspired from the Dialectizer by RinkWorks. Someone wants to delete the RinkWorks article, and I think making the case that the dialectizer actually inspired these Google features would go a long way to keeping that article. It's hard to remember back that far, but the dialectizer came out in 1998 and Google wasn't founded until September of that year, so I'm pretty sure that is right. -- Kevin Saff (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Information added to wikipedia articles should be verified, and cited as necessary. We can't just go by someone who says that they're, "pretty sure that is right." Cite your source. Although to be perfectly honest, this information sounds rather trivial to be included anyways,... Dr. Cash (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt there will be any print articles about this, but I found a Metafilter article frlom June 27, 2001 announcing this feature: [19]. One of the commenters says they must have ripped off the Dialectizer, no other websites are mentioned.

And yeah, I know I'm so old and been around this Internet thing too long. Just mark my words, in ten years it'll happen to you! -- Kevin Saff (talk) 02:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, the point isn't to add something to the Google article, Dr Cash, but that if there's a strong chance that a website like RinkWorks may have influenced Google, that is plenty of reason to keep the RinkWorks article. Or do you disagree? -- Kevin Saff (talk) 05:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

What humorous languages are we talking about here? 192.12.88.7 (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Office Locations

If you want to put the office locations into the main article, please do so, and then you can cite the link that you put at the bottom - that's the correct way to do things, apparently. Luminifer (talk) 03:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Logo

Wikipedia needs to change the logo because Google reinvented the logo in a contest for Doodle4Google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkquest21 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The Google company blog announced the results of the 2009 Doodle 4 Google competition yesterday.[20].--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Product Managers

I removed some text mentioning the departure of a Google Product Manager, which implied that Product Managers were senior executives. At the time, Google had over 100 Product Managers [21], and the firm now has over 200 [22]. The departure of people in these positions is not inherently notable. -- Thirteenity (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

American company, why British dates?

Needs to be edited so the dates used reflect American usage (month, day, year) instead of British (day, month, year). 24.24.244.132 (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, no. Google is a multinational corporation with a huge presence in every English-speaking country. Please read the guideline: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English. If an article was originally written in British English, and if it is not "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation", then please just leave it alone. —Aetheling (talk) 02:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC).

Did you go back to research what dialect it was originally written in? Who's to say it wasn't rewritten in this fashion? Which is why the country of origin is much simpler. Because if you want to go with "b/c wikipedia is international" then all articles dealing with international companies finances should be converted to US dollars, as it currency most often used (in the case of oil, solely used). See how complicated this gets then? 24.24.244.132 (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, articles about US-based corporations should use the predominant US date format. The British date format is just plain wrong in this case. Sorry, but feel free to edit away and change them. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Protected

*sigh* Can someone please edit this section so it doesn't open with "an interesting"? It's conversational, not NPOV, and doesn't specify who finds it interesting (likely the editor who inserted it). I'd do it myself, but you know... accounts. 70.91.178.185 (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Then register and become autoconfirmed, then edit. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have an account. I'm choosing not to use it. Was there even a glimmer of something constructive in your comment here? 70.91.178.185 (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Changed "As an interesting motivation technique [...]" to "As a motivation technique[...]". Words to avoid specifically talks about this kind of stuff, and even mentions "interesting", in MOS:OPED. Thanks for pointing it out, guy. :) Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 14:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of it. :) 70.91.178.185 (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Advertising - more info needed

Could someone with more information than I have incorporate some text into the article describing how paid advertising works? I've heard that there is an auction system based on selected keywords and a budget... — X S G 07:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Slogan

Google's 2006 financial status

Google Hits

Suggested article to include about Google's corporate culture

Searchmash

Google Spoof

Archiving the page

Googlehit Section

YouTube announcement

Google Word Origin

Eric Schmidt Interview

Eric Schmidt Interview by Stanford business school students

Book titled "Search"

Googleplex word origin

Google Acquires JotBot

Google.com in 1998 Internet Explorer 6

Accusations levelled at Google

Article about serverfarms

Top 10

Correct the Date of Registration

Google bought writely.com

Acquisitions and partnerships

Founders monetary worth

Better Business Burea of Silicone Valley

Google's Free Wireless Internet in San Francisco

Requested move

Survey

Discussion

Yahoo maps

Article Size: Possible Solutions

The company was incorporated "at a friend's garage?"

A Monopoly? Or Quickly Becoming One?

Image Search link

Interwiki

Google Link

badware.org blocking websites, google censorship

Google Tv

To whoever just got rid of the vandalism

Trip Across the Atlantic Easter Egg

Google... Coordinates?

Question

Google Holiday Logo

Featured Status

Recent Changes to Article Summary

Enterprise products

Current lawsuit

Google Phone

Slogan

"The Google"

Google TiSP

April Fool:Newest Google guffaw

Article summary

Web Hosting

Revenue

Google IPO

Google hits

Google Personalized Pages now iGoogle

Addition

new google homepage

Google Earth

googles former domain: Deja.com

"Twenty percent" time

Acquisition of Feedburner

Request to add a reference to US Patent 5,748,954, which is relevant to the Google technology

Overlinking under "Googleplex"

add interwiki link

Environmental Records Section

The motto...

locations?

Two Public Offerings

Article is a mess.

Agreement with Yahoo

Number of horns on a unicorn

Slightly unorthodox request

Google in another scandal.

Logo?

Google caving in to the demands of some groups

Pronunciation?

Google in Iran

Enterprise products