Jump to content

Talk:Google Search/Archive 2

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

Alexa rating

Why does this article list an Alexa rating. I don't see this on most of the other articles about websites. Alexa is considered controversial and misleading by some, even spyware by many. I don't think this adds any benefit to the article and is honestly misleading if not false as the rating may change at any time (although unlikely on something so large). I think it should be removed.Alexkraegen (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree - I'm going to remove the Alexa rating as it serves no useful purpose... Oldiesmann (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I too agree. --Doctor Foci Whom 21:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

People, stop adding this without discussion on this page. Again, this alexa rating adds nothing to the article and is KNOWN to be inaccurate dispite what Alexa claims as their product can be manipulated. See http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Alexa_Internet#Concerns_over_Alexa_rank_information_and_the_Alexa_Toolbar for more information. Adding this back without discussion constitutes vandalism. Alexkraegen (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The 'did you mean' thing

Ayo, Does anyone happen to know about how the 'did you mean x' function on google works. For example if I were to put wikkipedia, it would bring up a message saying 'did you mean wikipedia?'

Was this invented by google? Do they own any rights to it, and most importantly does it have a proper name?

Thanks LouiseCooke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.71.199 (talk) 14:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I would be interested in seeing a section such as this added to this article. Several items come to mind: the use of Google search in films such as the Bourne Identity, the expression "the google" as used by American President George W. Bush, and the verbification of the word (i.e., "to google something"). Any thoughts? --Garythemann 21:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Marge Simpson googles herself in one episode, too. I think it's Marge Gamer, but I'm not positive.Lemonhead112 (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Outdated reference

Reference 4 (Houston Chronicle Online, March 21, 2007) is outdated. I'm not sure if this link should be removed or if it should point to an archived version of the page (archive.org). Anybody please correct this.


Picture

Umm... why google CANADA!!!? There should just be a normal google page. What stupid canadian guy did that? Thinks canada is so awesome, everybody must be canadian, what other countries are there?

agreed. we need to keep track of these people. They constitute a serious menace.
Of course, now we must make a reference as to why we are using the Mac Version of the page. it should just be a normal google page! OUTRAGE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irreama (talk • contribs) 16:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed content

I removed this section from the article:

===Programming technology===

Google use their own concept for distributing the task of processing collected data. Chunks from the Google File System of typically 64 MB are processed by the MapReduce framework. This framework makes it possible to apply the map and reduce concepts from functional programming languages across the data stored in the GFS. First a function is mapped across the collected data, then the result is reduced. For example a function extracting the hostname of the URL can be mapped across all pages, it is then sorted and reduced, yielding a figure of how many times a certain hostname has occurred. All mapping and reducing is massively parallelized across the nodes and fault tolerant, so if nodes crash or misbehave during map reduction, work is moved over to another machine.

It contains grammar errors, and is plugging functional programming languages, so I do not really trust it. If someone else knows that it is correct, feel free to restore it or move it to Google platform. --unforgettableid | talk to me 22:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Group archives?

When searching Google groups, there will sometimes be threads dating back to the early 90's, and if you're really lucky, late 80's, loooong before Google was an established search engine. So I was wondering, where the heck did those messages come from!?--Claude 10:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Google groups is based on the usenet newsgroup system, which dates back long before google existed. The threads you see dating back then are original usenet messages that google has archived. Dr. Cash 04:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Count of websites or webpages

In the "The search engine" section, it says, "At its start in 1998, Google claimed to index 25,000,000 websites.[6] By June 2005, this number had grown to 8,058,044,651 websites, as well as 1,187,630,000 images, 1 billion Usenet messages, 6,600 print catalogs, and 4,500 news sources." Is this supposed to be websites or webpages indexed? 203.122.193.52 14:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It's web pages, as can be seen from the older versions of the Google front page on the Internet Archives, where the number of web pages indexed are noted. Bill Slawski 15:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Archive

This talk page is quite long. I will work on archiving it, but will have to remove two embedded external links to www.google -watch.org. This site is blacklisted, and I can't create the archive page with this url present. --mtz206 (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Archiving complete. --mtz206 (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

File size in search results

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 22:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

the '57k' means that the website which that link leads to is 57 kilobytes. This doesn't really matter unless you are using a dial up modem.

Current screenshot and personalized home

The current screenshot appears to be from the Safari browser on Mac OS X. Would it be wise to switch it to an IE or Firefox screenshot, as that's what most people use and see it with? If so, I can take a screenshot (or anyone else could =P). Would it be wise to also include information about personalized homepages? It seems there is no info about them in the article, and only a brief mention in the list of Google products. Goyston talk, contribs, play 13:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeh i had a look around and couldnt find anything about the personalised home page (rebranded today, as i understand it, as "iGoogle.") Might be worth putting in a typical screenshot and explanation of its gadgets and tabs features etc? it may even grow to a small article of itself.... Jamamala 20:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The Google

There's no explanation as to why it's referred to as "the google." Without an explanation this sounds kind of strange. Is there a reason? It's throughout the article. --PTR 17:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. I found in history it was added without consensus and changed it to just "google".--PTR 18:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It's known as "The Google" because of one of Dubya's bushisms.

-Grim- (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

A similar thing to 'feeling lucky'

would be entering something into wikipedia that you don't expect to have its own article (such as giggity ) to see if it redirects to the relevant article ( in this case, Glenn Quagmire ) or something unexpected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.72.20.191 (talk) 03:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Google hits

Google hits Redirected to Google search instead of Google. Google hits is closer to the search engine, not the corporation. Rjgodoy 07:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

daterange:

with Julian day-format (instruction) does not work eg "Star Wars daterange:2452122-2452234". When did Google stop this feature? -- Cherubino 13:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed the changes section

That already happenned and is iGoogle --201.235.108.196 23:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop fighting over the main photo

I understand Google would probably want the picture to be in Safari because their more with Apple than Microsoft, but Safari isn't exactly the most commonly used browser. If they want it to be Safari, then they'll come here and change it themselves with a high-res licensed version. The picture should represent the view of the general public, it should look like what most people see it as! Either IE =( or Firefox =), cause the two look the same, but not Safari with the Aqua stuff, it is just too different from what most of us see it as!! 69.233.91.87 03:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The 1000 results doesn't appear accurate

I tested if I get 1000 results (100 pages of 10 results each!) and found I was getting more like 640. This is original research and Wikipedia is a very serious effort, to be based on published sources only :-) Wikivek 13:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Google-fu

You might argue about the notability of google-fu as Google-related jargon, but it's not nonsense - the term is used sufficiently widely to give 167,000 hits on a Google search. Lavateraguy 22:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Scanning the first 3 pages of results yields little more than a bunch of blogs and online forums of people discussing the term, which seems much more like "something made up at school on one day" rather than a term that has been verified by reliable sources. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. --ZimZalaBim talk 23:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Google test

I have added the definition of 'Google test' to the list of Google jargon. I anticipate this to be disputed as this neologism has only internal references, to which no other prestigious encyclopedia in the world does. However, this neologism like was notably adopted here on Wikipedia. The article Google test itself has thousands of internal links to Talk pages around Wikipedia and has even been commented upon by Jimbo Wales. It should also be noted that Google tests are now being used in business practices, research, and most online inquiries. For those reasons and its central use in AfD's it should remain. Thanks! Mkdwtalk 03:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no article Google test - it redirects here. And you're right: just becuase a bunch of Wikipedia editors link to Google test doesn't make it a notable term. We need reliable sources in order for it to be considered anything other than a neologism. There is the (correctly generic) Wikipedia:Search engine test, which has no place on teh Google search article. --ZimZalaBim talk 03:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Google?

Isn't there any criticism to Google? I've heard that if you pay them, they rank your site higher..--200.125.44.77 15:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Google? ... Privacy

A lot has been said in other media about Google recording searches linked to IP addresses, as well as their project on taking pictures of actual streets for their map-related pages. One place to start might be past NPR shows on the subject.

Citations needed

There are several key pieces of information in this article that are unsourced. I've tagged some of them. Per WP:V, I'm going to remove this and any other unsourced information from the article by the end of November if nothing is done about it. -/- Warren 12:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"Google Games"

What is with that section? If it is not affiliated with the Google search, and is simply a set of games that serve no use to help Google, why have it in the article? Wouldn't that be considered unencyclopedic/irrelevant? I'd remove it, but I want a second opinion first. 67.121.115.156 02:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Google search manual ?

Is anywhere a complete documentation for using google search ? Like the various keywords etc ? I cant find any useful document on google.com --Xerces8 (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Google special searches

Why are these not on here? There are things like searching "find Chuck Norris" that send you to a special page.

-Grim- (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sitemap External

I inserted a external link to the official method provided by Google to submit a sitemap to Google search, netural point of view is observed. Page doesn't contain any sales, downloads, etc on the step by step explanation.

SDSandecki (talk) 10:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Er

The logo on the page is not the same as on the site. I.e. it hasn't got a shadow, it's just a typed font. --Vergency (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Google logo? SDSandecki (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. --Vergency (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The screenshot in the top left appears to match just fine. Are you referring to the Google text above that screenshot? SDSandecki (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't you mean the top right? The text above the screenshot of the box on the right is what I refer to. --Vergency (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Right, left, we are on par about what we are talking about :D The text doesn't need to match the logo to the "T". SDSandecki (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
It's all very well saying that, but the fact is it's inaccurately portaying the logo. --Vergency (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
You can glady edit it with the proper logo if you like, just make sure you follow any copyright and trademark laws that would apply. SDSandecki (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I replaced the logo with a proper one (also used on all the other Google related pages). I also have another issue: is there any reason "Search" is capitalised? Is a "Google search" a name? --Vergency (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice edit, I think it looks better. I wouldn't worry to much about capitalization in the article title, unless it really bothers you. SDSandecki (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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 proposal was no support for the move. 199.125.109.78 (talk) 05:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Title case is important to ensure consistency, which is why we have guidelines on the issue. Looking at Google's list of products and services, they capitalize all of them, including "Web Search". Of course, that also suggests the notion that this should be moved to Google Web Search (which currently redirects here), inline with Google Book Search. --ZimZalaBim talk 20:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
How do we move it then, if there's a redirect there? --Vergency (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I see the issue with the article being called Google Web Search. The question is should we correct the article title or not. I just saw the lowercase search as a minor issue, but if it's required then we should take action. SDSandecki (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I can delete the redirect, but since this is an article of some significance, I'd rather get a few more opinions. I've added the suggested move template, etc. --ZimZalaBim talk 21:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, move the article to Google Web Search. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SDSandecki (talk • contribs) 21:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Mild Support since it seems to be a specific product name, although does not get many Google hits by comparison (and I mean this without irony). Iamaleopard (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I had another idea, but it would mean an enormous amount of work to fix many links. How many people typing "Google" want the search engine article, and how many want the company article? The fact that "Google" is now a verb in its own right with its own entry in dictionaries throughout the English speaking world (Merriam-Webster, OED) means that I might prefer this article at Google, and the company page at Google, Inc.; Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies) allows the use of the legal status as a disambiguator. Don't know that this is the best way to go; just throwing the suggestion out there. Iamaleopard (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed 70.64.78.207 (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose Common usage is Google search. The article seems more general than just web search anyway. If anything, make the second word lowercase. —Yellowspacehopper (talk) 03:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - common usage. Nobody says "Google web search". Bssc81 (talk) 05:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Merge I'm Feeling Lucky. It doesn't need its own article.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposed merge. 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 merge debate was merge. ZimZalaBim talk 23:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this content should be included in the google search article. It's not worth a stand-alone page.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 06:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I know that it is a trademark, but I'm pretty sure the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button was also patented by Google Fosnez (talk) 12:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've proposed the merge following User:HisSpaceResearch's rationale. Skomorokh 17:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with merge, per nom. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the merge, because it is a component of the search engine. TrekCaptainUSA (talk) 09:26, 2 May 2008 (Eastern Daylight Time (United States); UTC-4:00)

I definitely agree. Merge em' -- Tkgd2007 (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitely, go ahead. Should have been done ages ago. The fact that there is no internal link besides a see also link (now removed) is a bad sign. That article would be a subarticle of this one summarized here, but it's too small to merit its own article. Richard001 (talk) 07:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

New sections: syntax, query expansion

I've added these two sections, which begin to help deal with an issue with this page, namely a shortage of information about what Google actually does with user queries. That said, the information I've provided is pretty lightweight, unreferenced, etc... --- Charles Stewart(talk) 13:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Google Syndication

Why is Google Syndication redirected to this article? It apparently refers collation of multimedia, advertisements and news across Web sites via proprietary algorithms and syndication protocols like GData. As a independent article, it has to contain material on click fraud schemes.

The domain googlesyndication.com attracts 490 million visitors annually.Anwar (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Article name

Any reason why the article is named Google (Search engine) and not Google (search engine)? This page has existed for a long time so it seems to defy reason that it could have gone unnoticed. Having said that, my bet is that it has gone unnoticed. Richard001 (talk) 07:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it has just been moved now (with no prior discussion, or fixing of redirects!). Moving back. Richard001 (talk) 07:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


Search engine features

" The largest number the Google calculator can compute as of May 2008 is 1.7976931348623158e308 [8], the maximum value that can be stored in the computer number format of a Double."

Is that even a feature? IT CAN CALCULATE NUMBERS AS LARGE AS DOUBLES! WOW! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.93.177 (talk) 01:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

hacking

there is a youtube vid saying how to use google to hack webcams and cctv cameras JUST BY SEARCHING SOMETHING should that be mentioned?81.108.233.59 (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"several hundred million"

We currently say that Google receives "several hundred million" search queries each day. While I don't think that's inaccurate, it is a bit vague unfortunately. And unsourced. I wonder if anyone reading this knows of a good source for an estimate of the total number of daily or monthly queries that google receives worldwide?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the most recent Nielson Net Ratings data, but this summary of the ComScore data reveals that Google's non-YouTube search traffic was 7.5 billion searches in June 08. So that's roughly 242 million a day, on average. --ZimZalaBim talk 00:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
And this is only the US, not worldwide. --ZimZalaBim talk 00:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:Google.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Deep Web

Excuse me, but what reference is needed for deep web? That's what we call it, and it is explained in the very next sentence. I will add the notation that Google is not able to crawl this part of the internet. I can, of course, add a reference as there are a gazillion out there - what difference does this one make? Referencing is fine, but on statements like "water boils at 100 degrees Celsius" we can stop, I think.... --WiseWoman (talk) 12:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

"This site may harm your computer."

Anyone know what's up with the "This site may harm your computer." notice that's currently displayed on EVERY site of a search result? SeriousWorm (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm seeing this too: came here to find out if it was just my computer or the google website. 89.241.33.255 (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, almost everyone on our Croatian college forums (3000+ members) reports the same thing. IRC, too. A tech guy bounced over a few servers located in Germany; same thing. It seems to be global. SeriousWorm (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
It has been partially fixed. Sometimes it shows the "this site may harm.." notice, sometimes it doesn't. It's funny how Google is slow to fix this issue. Maybe it's night in America? It's afternoon here in Europe. :) SeriousWorm (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The issuse seems to have been fixed. SeriousWorm (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:Google#Hack or Error? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

unfortunately the link the website http://forgeeks.ismywebsite.com/index.php?m=0009 is down --85.181.240.63 (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC) What do you mean!?!? thats my fave site! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.112.173.193 (talk) 03:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Retrofit talk-page year headers

07-May-09: I have added subheaders above as "Topics from 2008" (etc.) to emphasize the dates of topics in the talk-page. Older topics might still apply, but using the year headers helps to focus on more current issues as well. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Added section: Special features

07-May-2009: In an effort to broaden the article, with updates since 2006, I have added an entire new section (titled "Special features"), plus a top intro paragraph summarizing the "special-features" aspect of Google search, as follows:

Beyond the original word-search capability,[1] Google Search provides more than 22 special features, such as: weather forecasts, time zones, stock quotes, maps, earthquakes, movie showtimes, airports, home listings, sports scores, etc. (see below: Special features). There are special features for numbers: prices; money/unit conversions ("10.5 cm in inches"); calculations (3*4+sqrt(6)-pi/2); package tracking; patents; areas codes;[1] plus rudimentary language translation of displayed pages.

That paragraph was added to expand the intro into a broader summary of the entire Google Search article. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Untagged broader intro section

07-May-2009: I think the scope of the intro has been sufficiently broadened (this week), so I untagged the page from being tagged "{{tooshort}}". However, a few sentences could be added to the intro to summarize all the other-language URLs, notable bugs, etc. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Reducing article size by broader focus

07-May-2009: Perhaps the article has too much detail about all the other-language URLs. That type of other-language data is typically avoided, in general articles, especially with the focus on English Wikipedia. Since 2006, using list-style pages has become commonplace, on Wikipedia, to contain long lists of data: perhaps move the list to a page titled "List of Google Search URLs" (or such). The focus of the article should be features, history, or events related to the English-language view of Google Search.

However, a short example, such as explaining how the German "Google Suche" searches first for pages in German (HTML "language=de"), could be included to note the presence of other Google-Search websites, without explaining all 160 (or more) other-language versions & their URLs in this article. Similarly, the French Google Search, "Google Rechercher" could have its own article, with an overview of what trigger words are used (such as the equivalent words for "weather" forecasts and "time" zone shifts). I don't mean to trivialize Google's massive other-language support, but just keep this article with a broader focus than listing 160 (or even 50) of anything. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Google in Morocco

Google is also developed locally in Morocco (www.google.co.ma) with the option to search both in French and Arabic. Sadly I lack the editing skills to update the list of countries and domain names sections. Can someone help ? AlexandrDmitri (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Thank you to whoever included this. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

04-June-2009: There is a tendency to over-simplify. Because Google Search provides more than 22 special features, beyond word-searches, as in weather forecasts, currency conversions, patent searches, stock lookup, calculations (etc.), some editors want to avoid all that "information overload" and oversimplify the article. Unfortunately, Google Search actually does perform all those 22 special-feature actions, and so don't be tempted into dumbing-down the article because doing 22 actions is not merely doing A, B & C. Please remember, doing 22 actions is like:

  • doing A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U and V.

So, yes, expect a lot of details for an encyclopedic (meaning "all-encompassing") description about Google Search. There is some merit to wanting to keep articles as very simple, but it would not be appropriate to ignore, or throw out, letters of the alphabet, just because some readers would get confused by knowing how the 26 letters ("OMG who could possibly understand 26 of anything?" ) are arranged.
Also, explaining "how" the 26 Latin letters are arranged (or how they compare to the 24 Greek letters) is not the same as a "how-to" manual teaching users how to use the alphabet. In similar fashion, explaining how the 22 special features (of Google Search) are used, is not the same as a "how-to" manual teaching users how to use Google Search. Teaching people about Google Search would take weeks of lessons to explain multi-word scans and page-rank strategies, plus use of algebraic formulas, stock-market ticker symbol naming, ISO currency code standards, weather forecasting high/low terminology, etc., etc. A section describing the 22 special features is in no danger of becoming a how-to manual for Google Search. If you can't comprehend that, then you shouldn't be editing the article at all. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following is a closed discussion 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 proposal was oppose. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

As I suggested above over a year ago, the official list of Google products describes it as "Web Search", so I again suggest it be moved to Google Web Search to be in line with the service's official name. --ZimZalaBim talk 00:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
You are right. "Google Web Search" is more correct. James Michael 1 (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is! But this is name of Google product. This is not the same as President of the United States. For example, Barack Obama (not Barack Hussein Obama II), but Google Web Search (not Google search). James Michael 1 (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Outage?

Guys is there an outage going on with google right now? or is it just me? --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 02:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


Nope, I have it too. In Ireland. Wondering if there was any info out there about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.42.143 (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Can't figure out how to add following Google sites.

I can't figure out how to add to the localisation list under subsection "3.2 Domain names". The following are live now:

  • Bénin -- www.google.bj
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo -- www.google.cd
  • Central African Republic -- www.google.cf
  • Republic of the Congo -- www.google.cg
  • Kuwait -- www.google.com.kw
  • Lebanon -- www.google.com.lb
  • Madagascar -- www.google.mg
  • Sierra Leone -- www.google.com.sl

I went through entire Google list. So these additions would bring the list current as of 12 August 2009. CaribDigita (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b See Google

Safesearch

In my opinion, the query Safesearch no longer should redirect to this article, as other search engines like Bing also use this term to describe the content filtering technology.--ATDC Raigeki (talk) 23:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, so you guys will keep ignoring me. Looks like I don't belong here.--ATDC Raigeki (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Quality of Google search results as compared to Yahoo

Try the search "microwave sickness 2009". It produces 'approximately' 854,000 results.

Now try the search "microwave sickness 2009 tower". It produces 'approximately' 4,080,000 results.

Very curious. In a default search adding a word should narrow the search. Here it returns 4 times the result!

Now let's try Yahoo: 487,000 and 51,200 results respectively. A much more honest result.

The distinct impression is that the Google search mechanism is very sloppy, to say the least. On the advanced search page the first search option is to search for ALL words. Even there the results are identical to those above.

Maybe there should be a 'Comparison with other search engines' section on this page, or perhaps better still, a 'Web Search Engines Compared' page.

Chris Scott { 189.93.211.238 (talk) 12:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC) }

To create such content, original research, such as your personal test results above, should not be used as a source. Reliable sources that already document the issue would be needed - in which case it would be better to simply add it as a criticism rather than as an actual comparison. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Number of results

There is a problem with the number of search results in Google. For example, if we try to search "annealing of gratings", Google shows "Results 1 - 10 of about 6,860". Then we click on the third page of the search result and Google produces "Results 11 - 16 of 16". What is going on with Google? 194.220.19.64 (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Google_Search/Archive_2&oldid=1142357643"