Jump to content

Talk:Google/Archive 4

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

New directions

In addition to barges on East and West coasts, there is this from The Regime:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-10-31/google-oracle-engineers-enlisted-for-obamacare-tech-surge
 ;-) I'll leave it to others to consider adding. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

NSA data center surveillance

Re this edit: The Washington Post article says "a sketch shows where the “Public Internet” meets the internal “Google Cloud” where their data reside. In hand-printed letters, the drawing notes that encryption is “added and removed here!” The artist adds a smiley face, a cheeky celebration of victory over Google security." The drawing says “SSL added and removed here!” which appears to be a reference to Transport Layer Security‎. Since this was done without the knowledge or consent of Google (which made the company furious) and Keith Alexander denied having access to the U.S. computers involved [1], it suggests that the material was decrypted and read while in transit between the data centers. There is also the possibility that this happened outside the USA, since Keith Alexander's response on Bloomberg TV has an element of non-denial denial.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

There's a bit of ambiguity with a lot of the press descriptions of what the NSA is doing. The drawing does say that SSL/TLS is "added and removed here," but it doesn't suggest that the NSA is doing the removal. This is WP:OR on my part, but my interpretation from reading both the Post and NYTimes articles is that Google wasn't using a VPN on the back end because they assumed they controlled the pipes between data centers. --JHP (talk) 10:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
And, actually, a new article from the Times seems to back up my assumption. They write, "Though tech companies encrypt much of the data that travels between their servers and users’ computers, they do not generally encrypt their internal data because they believe it is safe and because encryption is expensive and time-consuming and slows down a network."[2] (Emphasis mine.) --JHP (talk) 10:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Also, according to the previous Times article, the NSA is collecting entirely overseas, but that effectively gives the NSA everything because Google is mirroring its data among data centers. --JHP (talk) 11:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Ars Technica also has an article describing how the NSA got access to Google's data. It also points out that Google was passing data unencrypted. "Within Google's internal network, these requests are passed unencrypted, and requests often travel across multiple Google data centers to generate results. In addition to passing user traffic, the fiber connections between data centers are also used to replicate data between data centers for backup and universal access."[3] (Emphasis mine.) So, again, it wasn't the NSA hacking into Google's servers and turning off encryption. It was Google failing to encrypt data inside its own network. --JHP (talk) 02:0November

Intro Change Suggestion

Yo, I can't change this page with registering apparently. Anyway this line at the end of the intro should be changed/got rid of:

'According The Economist, Britain, “The proportion of Google searches that include the word ‘porn’ has tripled since 2004.”' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.8.82 (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for the tip. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Data Centers

Google actually has more data centers than listed in this entry - Dublin wasn't mentioned as a European data center location. The sites are listed here - http://www.google.com/about/datacenters/inside/locations/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.44.183.37 (talk) 10:23, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2014

117.200.203.41 (talk) 08:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

If you are making an edit request, please read the notice above and state exactly which changes you propose. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Will Google 'own' the Future ?

Headline: "Shooting for the Moon, Google Hopes to Own the Future"

"Over the last year alone Google has acquired more than a dozen tech hardware outfits working on projects that might seem crazy today, but could be part of our not-too-distant future." — FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It leads to a page with no useful information on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:1000:1700:BAAC:6FFF:FE98:C127 (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Digital Wallet, Electronic Wallet (Google Wallet), intellectual property belong to (Gaston Schwabacher), the number of patent PI9500345 - Fonte INPI Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2014

In 2011, Google announced Google Wallet, a mobile application for wireless payments. [201] Digital Wallet, Electronic Wallet (Google Wallet), intellectual property belong to (Gaston Schwabacher), the number of patent PI9500345 189.31.17.12 (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Google Wallet has a separate article, and it is mentioned in this article in the "Other products" section.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Google is in Advertising Industry also

Under the image of Google at the top of the page it lists the Industries that Google mainly participates in, Would it not be a good idea to have 'Advertising' under Internet,Computer software and Telecoms equipment seeing as it is an essential part of their core business? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenobr100 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Google and Motorola Mobility

Under the Subsidiaries heading in the sidebar, it lists Motorola Mobility still as a subsidiary of Google, when in fact it was recently sold to Lenovo. 205.154.31.120 (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

"Google Bus" Attacks

Headine: Joseph Malchow: Those Nonsensical 'Google Bus' Attacks
Subtitle: Why declare war on the tech workers who pour $14.5 billion of income tax into California?

QUOTE: “... Dubbed "Google buses," the shuttles remove thousands of cars from San Francisco's madcap streets and allow coders to continue building the enterprises that help to keep the city's jobless rate at 4.8%. ...But leftists in San Francisco see daggers in Google buses, which they insist are symbols of growing inequality.” [Public perception is important, even to those lacking facts.] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It won't be long before Joseph Malchow has his own Wikipedia page. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Antitrust suit

Neither the High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation (which shouldn't be capitalized) nor the class-action suit here (if different) is relevant to "employee relations", nor particularly relevant to Google. Google is one of 4 companies named in the first reference, and one of 5 named in the antitrust legislation above. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

It is far too short to have a section of its own and involved four companies, not just Google.[4] Someone seems to have a bee in their bonnet over this, despite the issues with WP:DUE and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. The action was settled out of court, so is not a big deal in the history of Google. It would have been a bigger deal if Google had fought and lost.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Why no PRISM?

Implication of google with PRISM illegal surveillance is a must. It seems being censored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.141.9.215 (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

This is covered in Criticism of Google and PRISM (surveillance program). It is also important to realize that PRISM applies to any company with server computers in the USA, not just Google.[5]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

So called 'inexpensive' hardware

Under "Financing and initial public offering" there is an image of Google's first production server with the caption "Google's first production server. Google's production servers continue to be built with inexpensive hardware." The citation is a page of photos of this historical first server but no argument is made suggesting that Google continues to use inexpensive hardware today. Google may have encouraged the use of "cheap" hardware as far back as 2003 but to say their production servers "continue" to use cheap hardware today is quite misleading. I suggest removing this AntJ103 (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked in China

I don't see this anywhere in any of the articles. All products are blocked -- no gmail, search, news, maps etc. -- all. Pretty major. Could someone please add this to the articles? Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China and List of websites blocked in China are separate articles, and would have some WP:TOPIC issues here. It is hard to prove with certainty that Google services are blocked in China because the government does not admit to it openly, but visitors report that access to certain websites in mainland China is limited.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, although one would think that if all their products were unavailable to a 5th of the planet, it maybe ought to be in the main article, but okay. Thanks for the reply. I won't click the above two articles because I am in China and it may cut my connection for a while. Also, I never click anything that has anything to do with anything like that. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2014

197.164.9.74 (talk) 08:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

New sidebar pic

The sidebar image is getting old. I'd like to suggest changing it to this image that I contributed for the Googleplex article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googleplex#mediaviewer/File:Google_Campus,_Mountain_View,_CA.jpg

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Nice image though.  NQ  talk 13:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Portal bar

The portal bar should go below the navigation templates. Could someone do that? Mahnifez (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC).

It leads to a page with no useful information on it.

Actually, the page does have useful information about why they named it "BackRub". However, the link is from some kind of archive or something weird, and there is a much better link. I have replaced the link with the better link. Feynman1918 Talk 09:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC).

Why no Street View?

Google Street View is one of the most important products of Google. It should be mentioned, as also other products like Panoramio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.59.4.217 (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Google Maps and Google Street View were added to the see also section. There are so many Google products and services that it is hard to mention them all in this article, which is about Google as a company. Maybe there should be a separate article for List of Google products and services.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
There is such as list. It is called List of Google products, which also includes their services. Feynman1918 Talk 09:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC).

Why no financials?

I was looking for some indication of revenues, profits, not mentioned at all.

There are some financials in the infobox, and they have been there for a few years now. However, perhaps you just missed them because they are not in the article body. Also, next time leave a signature on talk page posts by typing ~~~~ (as per WP:SIG).
Feynman1918 Talk 09:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Add this info to this article

This is all the info on the page Catull and I feel it would be best suited to just add this to this article.

"Catull is an old style serif typeface designed by Gustav Jaeger for the Berthold Type Foundry in 1982. It has been used in the Google logo since May 31, 1999." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.240.194 (talk) 05:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Google logo has its own article, and the typeface is mentioned there.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2014

213.140.59.144 (talk) 09:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2014

Please change:

The technology in RankDex would be patented[34] and used later when Li founded Baidu in China.

to:

The technology in RankDex was patented[34] and used later when Li founded Baidu in China.

because the existing version uses present tense subjunctive mood. What is clearly intended is past tense indicative mood. Li actually got the patent in the past, he is not "possibly" or "hypothetically" in the process of getting it now.

24.17.218.82 (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2014

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

122.252.236.68 (talk) 08:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Page is already semi-protected.No need to request again--Chamith (talk) 08:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

See also: Criticism of Google?

Can anyone explain why all criticism of Google was shunted off into a WP:POVFORK? This is not normal procedure for pages on corporations, and you'll note that, for instance, Apple Inc. has criticism of Apple integrated into the article.

I would like to reintegrate some of the contents of Criticism of Google into this article. Criticism of Google can probably remain as an article (it's extremely long, and moving all the information in it over to this article would lead to severe balance issues,) but the current state of the Google article seems wholly unacceptable. You can't just make a "Criticism of X" article and then move everything negative about X into it, keeping the main article "clean". That is not how Wikipedia works.

Please consider this an RFC: it's going to be a big job, and I'd appreciate help with it! Input regarding how best to go about this would be much appreciated. --Ashenai (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

How would you suggest we integrate a "Criticism" section to the Google page with the information from the Criticism of Google page without making it too lengthy? As you stated, moving all the information over would create a substantial imbalance and violate WP:UNDUE. How will we measure the importance of the criticisms and decide what deserves to be moved and what doesn't? No doubt the page should note the company's criticisms. The Apple Inc. page does not have a "Criticism" section but there are criticisms of the company scattered accordingly throughout the article. I would like to hear other user's thoughts on this. Meatsgains (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Ashenai to integrate core contents of Criticism of Google into this article. I agree with Meatsgains concern of weighing importance, but one just has to start somewhere (us 3 for example). I am neutral as to whether there needs to be a criticism section or if criticism can be scattered into history, environment sections etc.
One thing i´d like to see updated ( but cant at this point due to semiprotection) is the following info for the environment section:
Google cut ties with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) after pressure from the Sierra Club, major unions and Google´s own scientists, because of ALEC´s stance on climate change and opposition to renewable energy. (Google pulls out of conservative group amid environmentalist pressure, by EVAN HALPER, 23 September 2014, LA Times) Thanks.Wuerzele2 (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Brin's and Page's salaries

Yes, these figures are artificially low so that Google has a basis for lowballing strong talent. They refused to lower their salaries because they can't lowball new talent to that extent. Google claims to want the best but, when faced with the best, rapidly turns tail: one person close to me who is a world-class expert in security and has experience far broader and deeper than Google's was of enough interest to them that four of their top engineers spent more than seven hours on the phone with him—only to have HR summarily phone him and say he was "underqualified." R-i-g-h-t . . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.49.1.133 (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2014

Please change the most recent nexus phone to Nexus 6 under other products. Here's a link to the image. http://demandware.edgesuite.net/aahb_prd/on/demandware.static/Sites-Motorola_US-Site/Sites-Motorola_US-Library/en_US/v1413521308933/Nexus%206/MOTO-NEXUS-MORE-ROOM-CARD-540nyxtuy59%20(1).png Chipset95 (talk) 04:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Key people section

Hi I think under "key people" entire list of executives name are unnecessary/redundant. If you look other company articles like walmart, HP, Dell mainly chairman & ceo of the company's names are mentioned.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 15:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2014

Why is not Google's purchase and ownership of Android with the first paragraph? 213.112.70.181 (talk) 02:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The article already Android in the lead, as well as the fact that it has made acquisitions. Stickee (talk) 02:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Space needed to be remove

I don't have the necessary privileges to edit the article as I just created my account and don't have 10 edits, but while I was messing around with a Wikipedia parsing script I made, I noticed that a space was needed in one spot.

"Most of its profits are derived from AdWords,[9][10]an online advertising service that places advertising near the list of search results."

After the "9][10]" and before "an" there should be a space. My parser removes anything in brackets or parentheses which is why I noticed this. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxmarchuk (talk • contribs) 02:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! PS: You should sign your talk page messages with ~~~~ ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Google Timeline

I've made a timeline that shows the most important steps in the Google history and how they changes during the time and how they are connected. I think that this timeline will give a big picture of the entire page. Feedbacks appreciated, thanks!

Google timeline

--Nicolettabruno (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this adds anything significant, and there is a similar timeline added at The Pirate Bay by User:FrancescoBia, which is hopefully not a WP:SOCK.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
They're not sock puppets, are students from Politecnico di Milano. Since they registered using university wireless, they all share the same IP. --Mikima (talk) 10:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
As User:Mikima said we are not sock puppets but students of Politecnico di Milano. Why do you think that this timeline won’t be helpful? All the datas are based on this page List of Google products, and this one too List of mergers and acquisitions by Google. I matched these informations with the official google timeline (http://www.google.com/about/company/timeline/). Google has a history full of events, as you can see in those pages I’ve linked, and it’s impossible not to get confused. This timeline will help to make clear the most important stages in Google's history in a very clear and simple way.--Nicolettabruno (talk) 11:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Firstly apologies if I wrongly implied WP:SOCK. The main reason for not adding this to the article is that it does not work well as a thumbnail. As the image on the right shows, it doesn't work well as a thumbnail on a web page. Even the clickable version [6] is not easy to read as the text is too small. It would work best printed on an A4 sheet of paper.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Advertising Section

Forms of Advertising

Their is no discussion of how advertising is different from organic search order ranking - on the google search page. Google has an observable policy for labeling advertisements. It is not clear whether influencing the rank order of the organic search section, through googles licensing and partner programs, should not also be considered a subliminal for of adversing, i.e selective product placement. Perhaps a trivial mention of the issue and a link to Criticism of Google, with discussion there would be sufficient. This issue is not google specific: applies to all search providers: Bing, Yahool.. LarryLACa (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. Added 'search neutrality' to criticism list in lead section. LarryLACa (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC) google — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F07:91FF:FFFF:0:0:4F73:9521 (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2015

Change:

In 2011, the company had announced plans to build three data centers at a cost of more than $200 million in Asia (Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan) and said they would be operational within two years.[151][152]

To

In 2011, the company had announced plans to build three data centers at a cost of more than $200 million in Asia (Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan) and said they would be operational within two years.[151][152] In December 2013, Google announced that it had scrapped the plan to build a data center in Hong Kong. [1]

Azortje (talk) 10:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Done  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/12/10/google-scraps-plan-to-build-hong-kong-data-center/

Edit request

Reference link [1] leads to 404 (http://www.google.com/intl/en/about/corporate/company/). I believe the right link is (http://www.google.com/intl/en/about/company/). Please change. Freopen (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2015

Imran hossain chowdhury (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 14:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

New Google Product Google Domains BETA 2015

I was doing a quick search and Google has a new product called Google Domains BETA. This new product allows people to purchase domain names through Google. I was just wanting to let anyone know, should somebody create a new article about the product, or at least add it to the List of Google products? The website is https://www.domains.google.com. CookieMonster755 (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2015

Workforce Demographics (Data source: Google, Jan 2014- http://www.google.com/diversity/at-google.html)

Gender:
Men: 70%
Women: 30%

Ethnicity:
61% = White
30% = Asian (Most based on H1b: See Google H1b History )
4% = Two or More (Mixed)
2% = Black
1% = Others



Having a diversity of perspectives leads to better decision-making, more relevant products, and makes work a whole lot more interesting.

74644p (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information--Chamith (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Add Google Internships Section to Google Page

This is a request to add a section titled 'Google Internships' to this page:

Google Internships

What's it really like to be an intern? In 2012, The Internship was released, a movie starring Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson, who decide they want to take a shot at the tech industry and miraculously both score internships at Google. The movie sparked interest in the life of Google interns, and more students than ever applied to have their own shot. However, an internship at Google isn't exactly like the movie might depict it to be. Yes, it looks the same, given that it was filmed on the actual Google Mountain View Campus, but there are many differences. A Google internship entails mostly individual projects, although the interns are encouraged to learn about other interns' work. There isn't a big competition where teams of interns are pitted against one another, or nights where interns go out to strip clubs. However, there is a lot of fun. The free food is real, the nap pods are real, and the general relaxed and motivated attitude among Googlers is real.Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).

What are some of the different internship opportunities that Google offers for students?
  • Technical Internships
  • Product Management Internships
  • U.S. Business Internships - BOLD
  • Global Business Internships
  • User Experience Internships

Click here to learn more and/or apply. Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).


Csscogginss (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: This isn't an advertising platform for Google interns, and they really don't need much in the way of advertising. Cannolis (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

I propose merging Criticism of Google with Google the result will be a stronger NPOV article of Google, if the article gets too long we can divide it in ways besides POV ( IE Praise Vs Criticism )Bryce Carmony (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like a good idea - there is simply too much information on the Criticism article to merge it with this one(which is also quite large already). It may be a good idea to organize some of the criticism already on this article into its own section though, and link to Criticism of Google there. Cannolis (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
If the criticism article is really big it's possible that we are giving Undue weight to it, but also by keeping it out of the Google article we are creating 2 Articles addressing the same topic, which is not the best. If after adding the 2 articles together the Google Article is too long. we can look at spinning off articles on topics ( IE: Google Litigation, History of Google, etc ) I know it is a lot of material but we can look at the Criticism article. get it improved to where it is lean, dense, and accurate. then it'll be easier to merge into the main google article and the better the google article is, the easier spin offs become. Bryce Carmony (talk) 04:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the article might become a little big. but Size is only a guideline, Nuetral point of view is a core pillar. which is more important than size. Does anyone have any disagreement that isn't the size guideline?Bryce Carmony (talk) 06:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not generally a fan of separate "criticism of X" articles, but Google is large enough to justify one because of the wide range of issues involved. I don't think that it could all be dealt with at the current level of detail without WP:SIZERULE becoming involved.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think any article is "Big enough" to justify violating NPOV with a content fork. now, we can get spin off articles down to size breaking down google by various topics. The current level of detail may be giving undue weight to google criticisms. I really feel like Size is not one of the 5 pillars since it is subordinate to the corner stone neutral point of view. Bryce Carmony (talk) 07:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
So looking closer at Criticism of Google there's a lot there that we can easily merge. Section 1- "Page Rank" There is an entire article on Page rank we can merge that into. "CopyRight Issue" can go into Google. if it gets to long we can spin off "Google Search Results" that can contain Copyright issues, and censorship. "Privacy" can go into google. if it is so big we can make an article "Google Privacy Policy" where we can cover Google's Privacy policy and not just 1 POV of "Criticisms" Accusations of Monopoly can easily fit inside Google Article. and the "Other Section" is mostly. Apple inc is a big company that focuses on products. so each product that warrants it has a article ( iPod,iPhone,iPad, etc) google has a lot of services we can make articles for any services that have enough info ( including criticisms and non criticisms ) like Gmail, Search ( which might get sub articles even ) my point is the way we tackle big articles is breaking them down by Topic not by Point of View. It'd be a lot of work but it'll be worth it. Bryce Carmony (talk) 07:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Wuerzele, thanks for your input, you're right it will be a lot of work but I agree 100% that it'll be worth it.Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose - Merging would create a serious neutrality issue; best kept separate. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Shunting the criticism off to another page on any article creates a biased shallow summary in most cases even if that is not always the goal. Here we haved detailed discussion of things like the Easter Egg cruft while there is no section or even any discussion at all of their privacy issues. Also criticism articles tend to become inflated list cruft and hard to read since any time anyone reads something they dont like or has a gripe they add to it. Better to include a shortened summary of the main controversies here and then delete new additions to the article which are trivial. AaronY (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Looking at that criticism article all of the youtube stuff belongs in articles related to youtube so not including that here is one good way to keep the size down. AaronY (talk) 12:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Google Life Sciences

Google have had an increasing involvement in the life sciences recently via their venture fund and their spinoff 'calico'. I propose that we create a section dedicated to googles role in the life sciences in this article 12usn12 (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Google's mistake to stop supporting Google Chrome for Mac Cocoa 32-bit devices

Maybe we can add info on google's mistake to stop supporting google chrome for Mac Cocoa 32-bit devices.

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2015

68.184.63.98 (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 21:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Unprotect the page

You need to unprotect the page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Coddan Ercin (talk • contribs)

@Coddan Ercin: Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Sadly unlikely as many of the IP edits would be unconstructive and it would take up a load of time removing them. Facebook, YouTube, Twitter etc are semiprotected for the same reason.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Not done: a user has checked that this page has been semi-protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HTMLCAN (talk • contribs) 19:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Needs a extensive rewrite

Alphabet Inc. will replace Google Inc. as the publicly-traded entity and all shares of Google will automatically convert into the same number of shares of Alphabet, with all of the same rights. Google will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alphabet. Our two classes of shares will continue to trade on Nasdaq as GOOGL and GOOG. http://googleblog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/google-alphabet.html

--Cameron Scott (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Google#Alphabet Task Force StudiesWorld (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2015

Google is now owned by Alphabet, Inc. Add that to Google's parent organization. Sources: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2015/08/google-alphabet.html RobertWebb38 (talk) 02:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Already done -- Chamith (talk) 03:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Google Died?

Just because Google is now a subsidiary of Alphabet does NOT mean Google is defunct. It means it's still there, but owned by a different company. Please remove the false "Defunct" thingy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:8C00:EE:8038:A7DD:CA19:6455 (talk) 04:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Some people have been rushing to kill off Google on the basis of news reports. The change to ownership by Alphabet has not taken place yet and the article should make this clear.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2015

203.196.145.98 (talk) 07:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC) CEO of google is now Sundar Pichai.please change

Nevermind, it was done by someone else. -- Chamith (talk) 08:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I've added a citation needed tag to the claim. Tcrow777 Talk 08:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
No he isn't. Not yet. He will only assume that position once the restructuring process is completed. At this moment, it is still in progress.  --Lambiam 11:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Not so fast, it's all in the future

The restructuring process is complex and will take a considerable amount of time. As of today

  • Larry Page is still CEO of Google;
  • Google is not a subsidiary of Alphabet;
  • the stock traded under GOOG and GOOGL is still Google stock.

Let us refrain from reporting the envisaged changes as if they have already been implemented. Most likely the process will largely unfold as planned, but there may well be some modifications, so precog reporting in the style of "The Minority Report" can result in misleading inaccuracies.  --Lambiam 11:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this Lambiam. It's tragic how some people fail to realize that this whole situation is a work in progress. It's not like everything is restructured with a click of button. The process takes time.--Chamith (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Fully concur with ChamithN. It takes a lot of paperwork to complete such a dramatic corporate restructuring, especially for big public companies like Google. What they announced yesterday will take months to implement. --Coolcaesar (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
It will be fully implemented by the beginning of the fourth quarter. StudiesWorld (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2015

Changing the Larry Page (CEO) to Sundar Pichai (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundar_Pichai ) Cs.mukulgarg (talk) 15:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2015

CEO Sundar Pichai Bishesh Naik (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Bishesh Naik: Please see Wikipedia:CRYSTAL Iady391 | Talk to me here 18:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

there's more than one chromebooks

" and the browser-only Chrome OS for a netbook known as a Chromebook."

this is not very accurate or explanatory and can be phrased much better:

" and the cloud focused Chrome OS for a netbook class known as Chromebooks" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:648:3044:3800:D4DB:8648:F901:6E9D (talk) 08:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Partly done: I took a third option and decided on something in the middle: "and the browser-only Chrome OS for a class of netbooks known as Chromebooks." Tcrow777 Talk 10:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2015

Itechjunkie (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Alphabet

The change of ownership by Alphabet is ongoing and this article needs to be updated to reflect that. The stock swap hasn't happened yet. Don't post future and present events as past events unless you have reliable sources that the changes have already happened. Tcrow777 Talk 06:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

This whole thing is confusing. I wonder for which articles this new ownership is going to affect. Do we have to change the |parent parameter of every single article concerning Google subsidiaries? Because, as some sources point out some subsidiaries will continue to remain as a part of Google. Such as Youtube -- Chamith (talk) 06:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's true. Basically, everything directly Internet-related will remain with Google, including Android, Chrome, YouTube, Maps, etc. Google X, Google Capital and Google Ventures will move to Alphabet. I don't know whether Google Fiber will be transferred, as it's an ISP, not just an Internet service. Tcrow777 Talk 09:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
From the SEC filing

On August 10, 2015, Google Inc. (“Google”) announced plans to create a new public holding company, Alphabet Inc. (“Alphabet”), and a new operating structure to increase management scale and focus on its consolidated businesses. Under the new operating structure, its main Google business will include search, ads, maps, apps, YouTube and Android and the related technical infrastructure (the “Google business”). Businesses such as Calico, Nest, and Fiber, as well as its investing arms, such as Google Ventures and Google Capital, and incubator projects, such as Google X, will be managed separately from the Google business.

Tcrow777 Talk 09:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, the change in organization is now official, per their 8-K filing with the SEC. "Google" is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of "Alphabet Inc". Which means, among other things, that "Google" doesn't own (e.g.) Nest Labs; Nest is another, separate, subsidiary of Alphabet. And there's no such thing as "Google Stock" any more--now GOOG and GOOGL are two classes of Alphabet stock. So yeah, some rewriting gonna happen. — Narsil (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
thanks for that info. would be hilarious, if it wasnt so serious. they're bracing for the worst.--Wuerzele (talk) 02:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Citation for atGoogle Talks

Here is the citation needed for atGoogleTalks: http://googletechtalks.net/google-tech-talk/ Goldhrs (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Citation for other U.S. cities

Here is the citation needed for Other U.S cities: http://www.google.com/about/careers/locations/ Goldhrs (talk) 03:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2015

The screenshot is wrong. Google has changed their home screen now. Just thought I would let you know! 101.165.6.154 (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The current Google logo in the infobox for the company is correct. The logo used on the home page of Google Search sometimes varies.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2015

Please replace the last sentence of the summary:

Its market dominance has led to prominent media coverage, including criticism of the company over issues such as search neutrality, copyright, censorship, and privacy.[1][2]

with the following:

Its market dominance has led to prominent media coverage, including criticism of the company over issues such as [[Criticism_of_Google#Aggressive_Tax_avoidance|aggressive tax avoidance][3], search neutrality, copyright, censorship, and privacy.[1][2]

Relyiar (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Done GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Unable to edit

I have noted a discrepancy, but there are no "edit" tabs anywhere on the page! Why is that??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:8000:4E00:3452:C1F:EA0A:6BDD (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The article is semiprotected. You can suggest an edit here on the talk page.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

History Section

I find it a bit weird that the history section jumps from history of the company in it's founding days in 1997 to the financials from 2-3 years ago. Should that section be moved out and into a different section? Possible create a new sub section under products and services that include that. Apriestofgix (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Google. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Checked Apriestofgix (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

1e100.net domain

Google owns the top-level domain 1e100.net which ..

"1e100.net" is not a "top"-level domain. ".google" is. (see https://www.iana.org/domains/root/db/google.html ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.103.114.193 (talk) 04:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested Move of X

There is an open discussion on moving X (incubator) to something else that uses a more common disambiguation word. Your input would be welcome and appreciated. --Natural RX 15:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The year needs updated from 2015 to 2016.

This page needs a update to how many years ago Google was founded. The page says it was 17 years ago when it is now 18. Keep in mind, that the parent says "Independent (1998–2015) Alphabet Inc. (2015–present)". It's no longer 2015. JacobMuncy (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

It won't be 18 years until Sept 4 2016. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

New NEWS today, for future editing

This information can go under the 'Corporate Affairs and Culture' section. 

Headline-1: Google will begin showing anti-ISIS ads to counter terrorism

QUOTE: "Not all weapons have a trigger, but that doesn't make them any less effective. No, I'm not talking about bombs, but rather about Google's new strategy to use its highly targeted advertising system in the battle against ISIS. Last week, Anthony House, the senior manager for public policy and communications at Google, revealed plans to show users anti-radicalization links in response to terrorism-related searches. The plan was outlined before a committee of the British parliament dedicated to counter-terrorism.

The program is still in its pilot stages, but House is hopeful that this new plan may provide a clever tool that protects the freedom of the Internet while protecting the livelihoods of the world's citizens ..." -- AstroU (talk) 09:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

This has WP:NOTNEWSPAPER issues. It also refers to results shown by Google Search [7] and this article is primarily about the company structure of Google.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Google. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Google. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Subsidiary

I think that in the infobox, the type should be Subsidiary of Alphabet Inc. instead of just Subsidiary like it is in Calico (company), X (company), and Google Capital. 67.174.242.129 (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2016

The line "and Washington, D.C.[citation needed] Google has several international offices." I think the great source for a citation is the original page of Google, where they write down all they offices locations https://www.google.com/about/company/facts/locations/ Auglan (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2016

google.com

google.com 73.4.198.147 (talk) 12:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2016

| Alexa Rank = Increase 1 (April 2016)[4]

Mohit Rajani8 (talk) 06:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b "Google ranked 'worst' on privacy". BBC News. June 11, 2007. Retrieved April 30, 2010.
  2. ^ a b Rosen, Jeffrey (November 30, 2008). "Google's Gatekeepers". The New York Times. Retrieved July 5, 2010.
  3. ^ Jesse Drucker (21 October 2010). "Google 2.4% Rate Shows How $60 Billion Is Lost to Tax Loopholes". Bloomberg.com. Retrieved 27 January 2016.
  4. ^ "Google Site Info". Alexa Internet. Retrieved 2016-04-14.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.
Please feel free to reopen the request when you can clearly state what changes you'd like to have made to the article. fredgandt 08:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Amount of users

Should a user count be included somewhere in the info box, like for facebook? While there are no recent official statements I made an estimate of 3 billion by multiplying # internet users http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users/#sources by search engine share in past week http://gs.statcounter.com/#all-search_engine-ww-daily-20160410-20160416-bar . You're welcome to include more accurate data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vissar2g (talk • contribs) 08:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Vissar2g. We cshouldn't include an estimate like that without a definite reliable reference as it would constitute original research. If someone else has published an estimate, we can perhaps carefully add the information. fredgandt 11:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, we'd need a reliable source to confirm a user count. An estimate should not be added unless it has been published. Meatsgains (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Google is a famously secretive company about pretty much everything. Estimates by outsiders need to be treated with caution as they are only estimates.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Verifiability not truth has us covered. If the source is reliable, we can publish the findings, as long as we remain neutral and don't claim it to be something it isn't. fredgandt 07:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2016

Innclude 2016 Google homepage screenshot 2601:8C:4400:6C2A:605E:1EE4:36E8:D21 (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.
There is already a screenshot from late 2015, which is not significantly different to the current page. We could arbitrarily include scores of versions for multiple years, themes, devices etc., but it would only clutter the article, and not greatly inform the readers. As such, only screenshots of historically important past pages should be included along with one of the current version (which we already effectively have). However, the change should be made if a discussion here reveals a consensus to update the screenshot, or if implicit consensus is established by a BOLD edit to update it, that no editor reverts. Fred Gandt (talk|contribs) 02:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
This article is about the company rather than the search engine, which has its own article at Google Search. The current version of the screenshot of the home page of Google Search was uploaded on 24 April 2016 and doesn't look to be any different from the live version. If it did change, it would get updated as people soon say "the screenshot is out of date." There was a significant change to a sans-serif typeface on 1 September 2015 [8] but there haven't been any changes since then.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

nidaa

hi

it,s me nidaa i live in jerusalem in tEL AVIV DURING MY LIFE I WANT TO KILL MSELF

I'M 21 YERAS OLD AND I;M THE MOST BEATUFUK GIRL IN THR WORLD /

BOOKS

1( NIDAA;S LIFE 2) THE ability of liveing 3) babydol 4) life underwater 5) life in plants


bigriphy

livef in jerusalem ten yea in japan two years in lebonan one yaera/ talk tgree languages arabic france hebrow plY Bsketball footbal and sports/

friends: israa niran mnmoneh eljmekah


eat" mojadrah' cornfkics serelak mfof without meat(mlfof)*** fototshiny fron\m dubi

drink: shocko niccaffe orange jucir fresh!!! tea


her death

7/6/2016.


bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.80.173.170 (talk) 14:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Slogan

The slogan on this is no longer accurate as "Don't be evil" [1] It's now "Do the right thing" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.70.80 (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2016

Please edit founders to include Michael, Ralf and John. Blinndsay (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Hoax request. st170etalk 22:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Google. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2016

Can somebody change the reference for the sentence, "The domain name for Google was registered on September 15, 1997[1]," underneath Google#History to "The domain name for Google was registered on September 15, 1997[2]" since the other reference is outdated and doesn't work anymore.

96.255.209.103 (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Done GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "WHOIS – google.com". Retrieved July 5, 2010.
  2. ^ "Google.com WHOIS, DNS, & Domain Info - DomainTools". WHOIS. Retrieved 2016-07-11.

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2016

Google Wallet Security Issue Recently Google was questioned on why it does not use Google Wallet for its own services such as Adwords. No respose was given from Google executives, but speculation is due to a security risk associated with Google Wallets code. 12.34.41.5 (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Summary Bar

Google's logo, used since 1982 is not true, it's 2016 I think. Founded September 4, 1998; 17 years ago

2607:FEA8:3C5F:FC96:FDAB:AD3F:82AB:AEF8 (talk) 06:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, it was a vandal edit and has been reverted.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Amitoj singh (talk) 08:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2016

Please change "Drive" to "Docs" in Google Drive, another part of Google's productivity suite, allows users to create, edit, and collaborate on documents in an online environment, similar to Microsoft Word.

Rnwll (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Please see Google Drive.  Rules of enpagement Paine  00:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2016

82.132.239.215 (talk) 22:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC) davidthomson is the founder owner of the company before being renamed google in british taxoffice so thelaw was witness employed two germans to look after the company only persons could getthe time google payed raxes in southampton britain before expanding to america david thomson southampton invented the internet did big media campain and with microchips laptops made the computer that nasa use to land on the moon which gave means do all this

Not done: I'm not entirely sure what this means, but I'm pretty sure it's not an edit request. Topher385 (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2016

The second sentence states that most of Googles revenues are derived from AdSense (an advertising service Google offers).

However the citation is to a 2005 article, and is no longer true.

JBlarsonIII (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. clpo13(talk) 23:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2016

Put the name "Rajeev Motwani" with the google's founder member names, as he was the superior intellect for making this giant 'GOOGLE' a reality. He developed many key algorithms for it, also these algorithms were developed long before and are still being used in operating critical operations of Google. Hence Rajeev Motwani's contribution is exceptional and spectacular for which his name must be mentioned as the head google founder.

103.234.189.58 (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2016

google founded by a person from india and then it was been sold to an american citizen Sam1568 (talk) 11:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

New Section

Can add some information about Google mini-games that can be played when clicking on the logo. --Zlatatref (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

This isn't really notable here as the article is about the company rather than the search engine. Some of the Google Doodles have included games and it is mentioned there.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2016

In Our company one of the most important company which help to out to our Company this Company MD Name is Krunal Makadiya ANd His Employeers to help our company in this Company manager Vrunda bhirud she is very knowlagemen girl show the google company all server and contract give the this company Krunal Makadiya (talk) 06:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Turing Visual Test

It was an attempt to de-orphan an article. The body of the Turing article states that Google and Facebook are spending millions on the type of visual recognition that the Turing test does. Adding a link to that section seemed to be the best way to link it to a real-world example of an application that could make use of the Turing Test. I will bow to you if you think the connection is too much of a stretch. Thanks Bobdog54 (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I understand your motivation, but yes, that is too much of a stretch. The Visual Turing Test article also doesn't feature a source for its example of Google. LocalNet (talk) 06:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
To my embarassment, I didn't notice that there was no reference for that statement. Thank you. Bobdog54 (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

hafazard article

Many sections are repeated and disorderly, the whole article must be rewritten. Addyianson (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... Any particular info you find that is "repeated and disorderly"? There might be parts of the article that need to be rewritten, but I doubt the whole article must be. I'd love to hear specific input, though, if there's something I can try to help in changing or discussing? LocalNet (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Controversy/Search Warrents

@LocalNet:I believe this story is interesting enough and important enough to mention on the Google Wiki. It could even set a precedent. Its part of the total picture of what Google is and does. Eggstress (talk) 12:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Eggstress: Thank you for starting a discussion here. The issue in particular, as seen in this Reuters report you cited in your edit, discusses that a judge in the United States has ordered Google to comply with search warrants seeking information from emails stored in countries outside the United States. Google plans to repeal the decision, and points to an earlier, similar incident where Microsoft did not need to turn over data in the United States that originated from Ireland. This issue focuses on whether or not data stored in foreign countries can be required to be turned over to a legal authority in the United States, and I believe it more concerns laws and regulations rather than Google specifically (the fact that the article multiple times references Microsoft is also an example of this, and the article also states that "Google said it believed it had complied with the warrants it received, by turning over data it knew were stored in the United States", which would be an important fact to mention if we add the info). LocalNet (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi @LocalNet: Glad to have this discussion here, many editors do not bother with this important part of editing, so I appreciate it. I have nobjections to adding that Google already turned over US-based emails, and that it is planning on repealing the decision to hand over the off-shore emails. We can also mention Microsoft's case here, if you think that makes the addition more neutral and informative. The point is that this is important news about Google and US laws and regulations regarding privacy, government authority, and the rights of private corporations. Google is a huge company that almost every single adult in the US interacts with close to everyday. This issue is interesting, important, and concerns Google directly. That is why some mention, whether detailed or general, should be found on Google's wiki page. If you want to write something that you think is relevant and helpful to the article, I will most likely agree to it, as long as the issue does get a mention. Great collaborating with you. Eggstress (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
@Eggstress: It is indeed great to have a good discussion. However, I think we still disagree, and part of that is because I didn't properly explain my reasoning. I'll try again now. Although the case is about Google, the issue itself doesn't seem specific to Google (happened to Microsoft, with a different result); it is a developing story; and it seems that you have a personal interest in getting it in into the Google article based on some of the text you have written here. I don't want to give it undue weight. We disagree on how big the case is. Some points:
* "and concerns Google directly" - yes, but similar cases have also affected Microsoft, and also probably other companies that store data outside the United States. It doesn't appear to be a targeted effort towards Google, and could happen to any data company with storage outside the U.S.
* "issue is interesting, important" - Editorial bias. This is one of countless reports about Google and its data, and we have to be careful about what we give weight to.
* "important news" - While it is important to include major news stories on Wikipedia, this particular case might fall into the policy on "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". It is currently a developing story where the actual outcome isn't yet known.
I fully respect your opinion, but I also want to make sure we don't blast this headline to the front page. So, my thinking is that this case isn't yet notable enough for inclusion on Google's Wikipedia page. (P.S. Despite my examples of your language, this isn't an effort to oppose you or your edit. I am simply focused on the content.) LocalNet (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2017

Can you change these source links back from:

  • https://www.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704342604575222420304732394.html
  • https://www.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110928-700133.html
  • https://www.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204653604577251293275921060.html

To:

  • http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704342604575222420304732394.html
  • http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110928-700133.html
  • http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204653604577251293275921060.html

please? They redirect to the "Sign up/subscribe" page. 82.212.78.141 (talk) 01:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Done! Thank you for bringing attention to it! :) LocalNet (talk) 07:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Info in the lead

Hi everybody! I am looking at the lead section, and the short paragraph that "An August 2011 report estimated that Google had almost one million servers in data centers around the world. It processed over one billion search requests per day in 2009, and about 20 petabytes of data each day in 2008". The information is from 2008 (over 10 years ago), 2009 (almost 10 years ago), and 2011 (approximately 6 years ago). It's woefully out-of-date for a company that specializes in big data. Furthermore, the different pieces of information appear to have been one-time reveals, and not continuously updated numbers such as monthly active users. Additionally, the lead section does not contain anything about criticism or controversy, which is stuck at literally the bottom of the article. My suggestion? Remove the paragraph on servers, search requests and data processing, and replace it with a summary of criticism. Thoughts? LocalNet (talk) 09:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Normally I'd wait perhaps 48 hours for responses, but since I haven't received a single comment in the matter of 24 hours and this is a change I really want to make, I'm going to assume silence means consensus and change the article later today. Take this as a final chance to respond if you have comments. :) LocalNet (talk) 07:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Google. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

On February 22nd 2017, Google announced it would discontinue sales of the Google Site Search - [1]. MarigoldDuncan (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://enterprise.google.com/search/products/gss.html
Hi @MarigoldDuncan: Thank you for bringing attention to this! I will add this to the article soon! :) LocalNet (talk) 06:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

"AtGoogleTalks"

Hi everybody! I was just taking a look at the article and noticed a section called AtGoogleTalks. I noticed a few things about it, the first being that it features no decent sources, with the only actual source present being a questionable-looking personal website. Two, I tried searching Google for actual information on the presentations, and found a strikingly low zero reliable sources discussing it. I tried searching over and over again with different search terms, and yet, nothing. This does not seem to be a notable topic that is discussed by the media. Rather than sitting and gathering dust, with the "citation needed" tag present since March 2015, I just want to remove it. It's obviously not a big deal. The topic has its AtGoogleTalks Wikipedia article, again lacking even a single decent source, with a citation needed tag present since May 2008, which just reinforces my point: This is not notable. I want to remove it. But I thought I'd ask here first, properly explaining my reasoning, and see if I receive any responses. :) LocalNet (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Update: Going just a little further down reveals a "CodeF" subsection. Again, no sources, just a citation needed tag. I did, however, find a source for that, but only a single publication that published a report in March 2012. I tried doing research to find updated information and other sources, but was unable to. In my opinion, this qualifies as a news event rather than notable encyclopedic content and fails to meet notability requirements. I want to remove this subsection as well. LocalNet (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd normally wait maybe 48 hours for a reply, but past experiences in advancing a potential edit on the talk page have shown me there aren't active people watching this article, so I will go ahead with the edit now. This post serves as a deeper explanation of my thinking. :) LocalNet (talk) 06:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@LocalNet: The AtGoogleTalks article has just been deleted. Thanks for participating in my deletion discussion! DBZFan30 (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
@DBZFan30: Thank you for the notification now and thank you for nominating the article! Teamwork, yay! :) LocalNet (talk) 04:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Full Re-write

I'm planning to attempt a full copy-edit of the article later this week. Out of an abundance of caution, I want to point out that I worked at Google from 2007-2013, but no longer work there and own no stock in the company. I plan to rely mostly on I'm Feeling Lucky (book) and Googled: The End of the World as We Know It as sources for any additions. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Power~enwiki: Uhm, why? Putting aside the conflict-of-interest, which is enough to raise concerns on its own, what in the article needs to be fixed? I believe it would be easier to try to fix those elements rather than making a "full copy-edit of the article". LocalNet (talk) 06:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
The history section is filled with a hodge-podge of news stories. Some years have a lot of news coverage, others have none, and I don't see that corresponding to any actual difference in the rate at which Google did news-worthy things. Acquisitions is particularly bloated. Also, some references to "corporate revenue" should probably be moved to the Alphabet Inc. article. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
There are also a few "facts" which are incorrect. For example, "In July 2012, Google's first female employee, Marissa Mayer, left Google to become Yahoo!'s CEO" - Marissa was the first female engineer, but not the first female employee. [10] Power~enwiki (talk) 06:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@Power~enwiki: Thanks for the info. Sounds like you know what you are doing, so I'll leave you to fix it, but if there is something I can do, let me know. Also, for full disclosure: Out of concern, I will be monitoring your edits due to the old COI. Not personal, just want to make sure the wording isn't unintentionally biased. LocalNet (talk) 06:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Corporate Research?

I feel like discussions of internal tools such as Piper should be done in a single section, rather than being embedded in the history section. Not sure what that section could be called, though. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi! If we're talking specifically about Piper, it's usually not a good idea to take a single paragraph or topic and make it into its own subsection. Are there other examples of "discussions of internal tools"? :) LocalNet (talk) 08:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Sawzall (programming language) and Google File System are currently standalone pages but would fit there as well. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
@Power~enwiki: I personally think both of those pages should be deleted due to a lack of citations and a potential lack of notability, but that's another discussion. Regarding Piper, it's clearly sourced and somewhat relates to History in some aspects. I'm not sure it's enough information to justify its own subsection, and I don't currently see any better places for it among other details in this article, but I'm open to hearing your thoughts anyway. :) LocalNet (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Due to my conflict of interest, I'm refraining from comment on whether any of these should be kept or deleted. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Google had (and still has) internal tools which were novel to the technology field. Some of these are predecessors of systems now publicly available, the rest should only be considered notable based on their academic references. MapReduce is an example that meets the "academic references" threshold.
This content might also fit on an improved History of Google page, but that page needs major revision. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, they might have notable value. I probably shouldn't have commented that since I hadn't even heard of those before opening the articles, I just noticed the lack of sources. LocalNet (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Founding

The second sentence of the lede contradicts the infobox in which date the company was founded. Can someone knowledgeable about the subject fix this? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 03:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Both are technically correct, though it's misleading. Google (the product) was created in 1996, and initially called Backrub. Google (the company) was founded in 1998. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
This should be clarified, because the lede reads as "Google is a ... company. ... Google was founded in 1996", which (without clarification) would imply it's still talking about the company, which wouldn't be true. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 17:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Didn't notice these comments before now. I've changed 1996 to 1998 in the lead. LocalNet (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

David Foster

This person is not notable on his own (no Wikipedia page); and a single employee's six-month tenure at Google is not notable to justify coverage in this article. Google has hundreds of executives at his level, he may be the only one who has engaged in public self-promotion enough to have media coverage but he is still not notable. Also, only being at Google six months, it is incredibly unlikely that he ever *did* anything notable in that time.

An article-length treatment of hardware devices by Google *might* justify his inclusion, but I wouldn't support it even there. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Power~enwiki: Thank you for coming to the talk page! First off, you keep mentioning David Foster as a person not being notable enough of his own. There's no objection there. I am disputing the fact that his position within the company, specifically aimed at its new hardware direction, isn't notable. He was hired during Google's efforts to create new hardware products, and then he leaves after only six months, and without the public knowing his replacement or how committed they are to the new devices launched while he was working there? Until more information is available, I personally see that as a notable aspect of Google's hardware direction. Also, please be aware that "it is incredibly unlikely that he ever *did* anything notable in that time" is editorial speculation. As far as I know, there isn't any information about how much he did or didn't accomplish, but having the position within the company that he did and then leaving after a short time after hardware product release seems justifiably important to me. LocalNet (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Is there any reference to anything Foster has done, other than joining Google or leaving Google? Personnel turnover is generally not notable. I would note that Paul Buchheit is not mentioned in the article, and he created GMail. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi again! At the time of its addition to the article, Foster joining Google was important to establish the context of its then-upcoming hardware direction rather than specific accomplishments he made. I fully agree that people joining or leaving a company generally isn't important, but when the context explains an effort to create a result, it can become useful aspects of the history behind the actual result. Regarding Buchheit, the article has a weird split I've been wondering about for quite some time. It splits some, but not all, services into "Consumer services", listing the different products and services, but keeps hardware direction in "History". It's not an ideal solution, and I've been brainstorming solutions in my mind but without a real solution yet. Gmail was placed in "Consumer services" with very limited information, therefore the lack of a mention for Buchheit. LocalNet (talk) 08:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
That makes sense (at least for Osterloh); I'll try to find a way to solve the hardware/software weirdness but there's no easy fix. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm still not sure why Foster is notable. "Bloomberg's sources say that the search juggernaut won't be replacing Foster" means to me that he never had a major role at Google, merely an impressive press release when he joined. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
@Power~enwiki: You make good points and a part of me does agree with what you are saying, but the Bloomberg article also states "Which makes us wonder what Google has up its sleeve for this year's round of hardware" in the very same paragraph as the sentence you quoted. But let's put it this way: At this time, I think his position within the company is notable enough for a mention. If, in a few short months, it turns out not to have had any significant consequences, then it can be removed. But I don't believe there is a hurry, or enough evidence, to support the removal at this time. LocalNet (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi again @Power~enwiki: At Google I/O, the company announced further improvements to Google Home. They have also in the past announced a new Pixel smartphone coming later in 2017. They appear to indeed be committed to hardware. I think we can safely remove information on David Foster now. :) Regarding the weird split between the "Push into hardware" and "Consumer services" sections, I have been brainstorming ways to make it look better, though it's a tricky situation. One example of what I personally think looks good, is Apple Inc.'s use a "Products" section, giving a deeper dive into the main products it offers that the company is notable for. For example, the "iPhone" subsection features information on the product, such as an image and a summary of key details. This is just one idea I have come up with, but I honestly just think it looks dull and uninteresting to just gather all services into an image-less basic description that offers very little insight. It wouldn't be that challenging to do this, either. Pretty much copy features info from the lead of different articles, adding sources and their respective images. For services based on other services (Inbox by Gmail from Gmail comes to mind), a simple mention is enough. Many of Google's services have received criticism over privacy, so repeating that everywhere isn't necessary either. Sticking to the services' respective feature sets would do the trick if you ask me. Thoughts? :) LocalNet (talk) 14:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Google promotes the gay agenda

It currently has the pervert flag on its home page: https://www.google.com . Shouldn't this be mentioned in the "Criticism and controversy" section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.0.246.92 (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

 Not done We need sources for the information before we can add any info, and I might add that you seem to have a biased tone, which would mean any info would have to be rewritten for neutral point-of-view. Not going to get into any arguments or discussion here, but you might benefit from reading the Homosexuality article. Here, I'll help you get started: "While some people believe that homosexual activity is unnatural,[9] scientific research has shown that homosexuality is a normal and natural variation in human sexuality". LocalNet (talk) 04:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
It's referring to this, which is a Google Doodle with the rainbow flag. The article Google Doodle doesn't list all of them individually, because there are too many. As for "Criticism and controversy", well, you can't please everyone.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Ah. Hadn't seen that article before now. Interesting. LocalNet (talk) 07:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2017

27.109.30.89 (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Murph9000 (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2017

Change the description of Google's mapping products from just 'Google Maps' to both 'Google Maps and Waze'. Original text: mapping and turn-by-turn navigation (Google Maps), Proposed change: mapping and turn-by-turn navigation (Google Maps/Waze), Mikimer (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mikimer:  Done LocalNet (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2017

Update section "2.4.4 Hardware platforms" to include Nest Labs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google#Hardware_platforms

Original text:

Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Hardware platforms

Main articles: Google Nexus, Pixel (smartphone), Chromebook, Chromecast, and Google Cardboard

Revised text:

Hardware platforms

Main articles: Google Nexus, Pixel (smartphone), Chromebook, Chromecast, Nest Labs, and Google Cardboard

Insert the following text as a paragraph after the paragraph beginning 'In July 2013, Google introduced the Chromecast dongle: In January 2014, Google spent US$3.2 billion to acquire Nest Labs, which made the Nest Learning Thermostat and the Nest Protect smoke and carbon monoxide detector. After the acquisition of Dropcam in June 20, 2014, the rebranded Nest Cam was introduced in June 2015. Mikimer (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I did not adopt the exact suggested text, but I think this covers all the essential points and is supported by sources. If you supply some sort of link for your requests, they can sometimes be answered faster. Thanks for the edit request, however. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
ok thank

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2017

SHUTUP (talk) 02:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Google is an American multinational technology company specializing in Internet-related services and products.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2017

In the second line of the article,please change 'search enine' to 'search engine'. Ketandahake (talk) 11:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Ketandahake: Thank you for commenting and pointing out the typo! I have made some changes to the text so the error has already been corrected :) LocalNet (talk) 11:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I have tried all the links supplied in this article(Sundar Pichai in the infobox for instance) and could find that all the links are directed to gnaa(dot)press (I could not provide the URL clearly as it is a blacklisted one) instead of intended articles. When I checked the code behind, it was all fine. I have no idea as to how this is happening. Please check. Thanks in advance. –Vkumar1216 (talk) 09:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hello, the link in the infobox goes to gnaa.press instead of www.google.com I tried to fix it but the article is protected. 81.171.7.101 (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

For me clicking anywhere on the whole page links to gnaa.press — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:105F:4:9C4F:A7F5:2ACA:4D5F (talk) 13:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes you are correct, I didn't think to test other links initially. I assume the page has been hacked then :( 81.171.7.101 (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I think I have fixed this. Anyone still having problems? TwoTwoHello (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2017 (UyeTC)
@TwoTwoHello: From what information I could gather, the external link went to a website owned by Gay Nigger Association of America, described by Wikipedia as an "Internet trolling organization". Scary that this could happen. The whole page redirected... LocalNet (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes it all seems to work now :) nice work @TwoTwoHello 81.171.7.101 (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@LocalNet and TwoTwoHello: According to John of Reading here, it turns out {{Finance links}} was vandalised earlier today and was changed to contain code that redirected you to the site when clicked. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
@Anarchyte: Wow. Thank you for the info! LocalNet (talk) 13:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Reliability

Are the sources added in this edit really reliable? In the mean time, I have asked for temporary full protection due to edit warring. @NorthBySouthBaranof, Calton, and Clown town: Please discuss the changes here for consensus rather than edit warring. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 19:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


Which sources? Are you talking about the NYT sources? Please read the talk page about google memo and we can discuss the sources there. I already explained my reasoning quite clearly.@NorthBySouthBaranof, Calton, and GeoffreyT2000: Clown town (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

The New York Times is literally the gold standard for reliable journalistic sourcing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2017

213.55.90.5 (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Not done: Empty request. Please resubmit with content. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2017

213.55.90.5 (talk) 12:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Not done: Empty request. Please resubmit with content. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Downfall

On July 4, 2017, Google pushed an android update that made the HOME BUTTON DISAPPEAR on millions of user's phones.

https://forums.androidcentral.com/samsung-galaxy-s8-and-s8-plus/814011-disappearing-home-button.html

Within 3 months, this set off a mass exodus from Google products and led to a 30% decline in the value of the company's stock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.185.180.195 (talk) 05:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The update was signed by Samsung (to work with their TouchWiz interface). This is Samsung's issue, and apart from that, there is no reliable source provided, just a forum post that currently holds comments by a total of five users, compared to your "millions". You statement is clearly WP:NPOV and does not belong to this article. Lordtobi (✉) 18:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Affecting everyone I know with an Android phone. So actually, yes, millions of people had to waste 30 minutes figuring out how to get their home button back. 100 lifetimes wasted. This will not be good for Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.185.180.195 (talk) 01:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
For one, I doubt that you know a million Android users personally, all of which have that problem. In fact, I don't know anyone who had it, whrefore you are clearly exaggerating and are presenting WP:COI. You also have not asserted any of my other issues, such as Samsung being responsible for a TouchWiz update fault (not Google), so you appear to be WP:NOTHERE and just want to prove something to yourself. Hence, please cease this discussion. Lordtobi (✉) 05:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Google Memo

The memo was not about showing women were "ill-qualified to work in technology." To have this in the wikipedia page is extremely misleading - see https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/the-most-common-error-in-coverage-of-the-google-memo/536181/

"The balance of his memo argues that he is not against pursuing greater gender diversity at Google; he says it is against the current means Google is using to pursue that end and the way the company conceives of tradeoffs between the good of diversity and other goods."

The memorandum is about how Google is trying to achieve diversity incorrectly. He adds information about suggestions on how to get more women into the technology field based on their biological traits. Nothing in the memorandum is about how women shouldn't be in the technology field due to being "ill-qualified." That is an extremely biased opinion and should be left out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clown town (talk • contribs) 19:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

That is one opinion of the meaning of the memo. Other interpretations are possible, and in fact, have been made. That you disagree with the NYT's interpretation is interesting, but of no relevance here. Your personal agreement or disagreement with the conclusions of a reliable source are not grounds to exclude that interpretation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
("That is one opinion of the meaning of the memo. Other interpretations are possible, and in fact, have been made. That you disagree with the NYT's interpretation is interesting, but of no relevance here. Your personal agreement or disagreement with the conclusions of a reliable source are not grounds to exclude that interpretation." It's not an "opinion" at all, and the NYT did not offer an "interpretation" of Damore's article. It piped a quote, i.e., it lied about what someone had said, which used to be an automatic firing offense in newsrooms all over America, including the NYT.
The NYT lied about Damore's article. The fact that the NYT has supporters here who are sufficiently powerful to grant it "reliable source" status does not grant anyone license to turn a manifest lie into the truth, under cover of a "reliable source." And pointing out a lie by the NYT is not a case of "original research." To assert otherwise, is to engage in wikilawyering, among other unspeakable acts. 2604:2000:9046:800:21C8:F1DB:80DC:79DD (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC))
To quote a man I quite respect: cool story, bro. Dumuzid (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
So the article that this statement has come from is an unreliable source? --Kylea21 (talk) 08:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC).
  • Yes they are grounds. The interpretation can be put in if you point in the primary source where he even mentions that women are "ill-qualified to work in technology." That is not in the article at all. It is about how to better include women and my article is a great reason to not include our words. It is debated and should not be put in the wiki page unless it is certain. There are equally qualified sources showing your interpretation is wrong. Thus, your pov should not be included in the wiki page.

Clown town (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

  • No, that's not how it works. It's not my or your role to analyze the primary source and decide whether or not the secondary source analysis is correct - we are not here to make those kind of decisions, as that is textbook prohibited original research. Our job is to write articles primarily based on reliable secondary source analysis, including analyses we disagree with or think are incorrect. The Atlantic analysis should be included as well, as it is also a reliable source, and we should balance differing views expressed in reliable sources. But removing the NYT analysis because you personally don't like its analysis is simply not how Wikipedia works. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

As I read it, The New York Times challenged text doesn't run afoul of The Atlantic's alleged error; it is possible to be pro-diversity and still advance arguments about biological essentialism. The New York Times quotes are that women "are biologically ill-suited to work in high-stress technology jobs" and that Google's biases have "clouded" their thinking on diversity. Neither of these is to say that the memo is somehow anti-diversity. It is possible to believe in gender stereotypes (whatever their inherent truth value) and yet be pro-diversity. It would also be possible to disbelieve stereotypes and yet be anti-diversity. The New York Times cite and quotes seem appropriate and apt to me. It might be possible to work in The Atlantic, but that seems harder as the article is about the coverage rather than the event itself. Just the way I see it! Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Corporation vs. LLC

I've reverted good faith changes made by Ethanmayersweet changing the "Inc." after Google to "LLC." The user has correctly cited a secondary source, but to me it sounds prospective--it's a change that's either in process or contemplated. Before we officially dive in for the change, I'd like to see something saying it has officially happened. The user also directed me to business entity record in Delaware for a "Google, LLC" but I have issues with that both as a primary source, but also, because it's unclear exactly what falls where in the greater Alphabet corporate umbrella. Add to it that the Delaware listing says the LLC was formed in 2002, and I don't know what to think, other than waiting for confirmation from a secondary source is a good idea. Happy to hear from anyone who disagrees! Cheers all, happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Hey Dumuzid, here's some sources for you.
Press coverage:
[11]] [[12] [13]
See also lawsuit naming Google LLC as defendant: [14].
Also just to clarify, the reason it says 2002 on the incorporation date is Google LLC is a reorganisation of Google Inc (putting it under XXVI Holdings Inc), so it doesn't get a fresh incorporation date.
If you'd like anything else just let me know.
Ethanmayersweet
  • Goolge's own webpages still outline Google Inc.; I suspect Google LLC was registered to prohibit other people from doing so. Since it is not in CA's databse, it also does not do business in CA, wherefore it is de fact inactive outside being registered, and sometimes (like in your lawsuit) simply mistaken. Regarding the date, Inc.s and LLCs are two different types of companies and need to be registered individually (a renaming does not do the trick, its different taxing et al.); note that both a Google Inc. and a Google LLC were registered 10/22/2002, each with their own file number (so different legal entities, not renamings). Given that I was not able to find any mention of "Google LLC" on Google's own pages, but a lot of "Google Inc." + Google LLC never having been active in California since incorporation (dormant), I believe that the supposed switch (as given in the three articles above) never actually happened, and the company structure stood the same, with just the addition of Alphabet and non-Google-named subsidiaries moved to it ("anonymous acquisitions" I believe it is called). Lordtobi (✉) 21:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Ethanmayersweet, all of those sources suffer from the same problem, to me -- they all put the conversion in inchoate terms: we're "changing" or "updating." Not "we have changed" or "we have updated." They read to me like declarations of intent rather than statements of fact. I think you'll be right soon enough, but I'd personally like an unambiguous statement to that effect. If consensus is against me, that's cool too. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Google Tez

Google has started a new product/service called Google Tez. This is its Wiki page. In short, it is an online wallet for developing countries. If this could be added to 'Other products' (or wherever else deemed fit) it would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingAegon (talk • contribs) 01:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2017

According to this article (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-01/alphabet-wraps-up-reorganization-with-a-new-company-called-xxvi) Google is an LLC. Tlafronz (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 22:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
The article cited says "Google is also changing from a corporation to a limited liability company, or LLC." All of the articles I have seen put it this way -- at an indefinite time. I agree that this is absolutely the plan, and maybe it has happened! But I would want something that shakes out to more than a statement of intent. Of course, if consensus is against me, so be it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2017

Change 'Google, Inc.' to 'Google LLC' 71.198.202.91 (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 19:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2017

change 'Google, Inc.' to 'Google LLC' Mcparadip (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 19:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2017

92.9.67.19 (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- Begoon 11:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

supply and chain management

what are the scales/levels of measuments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faridasharimila (talk • contribs) 15:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2017

TropicaL Fish that die when it gets cold outside. Have a heater, but still they die. Fish are inside, not outside. 5 neons and a zebrafish. 50.77.62.150 (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: You might want to actually use Google: https://google.com Primefac (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2017

87.21.115.132 (talk) 15:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2018

I think in the table, the net worth should be added which is US$101.8 billion according to Forbes 2017. Maditya2003 (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: https://www.forbes.com/companies/google/ seems to list Google's brand value (which we don't have a place for in the infobox), not their net worth. AdA&D 20:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Missing information on 'Hardware'

In the hardware section they don't mention all the new devices released on 2017, like Pixelbook, Pixel 2, Pixel 2 XL, Home Mini, Home Max. MikelYou (talk) 10:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2018

To add in the acquired section : Google entered the competition when it acquired the marketplace "FameBit", in October 2016 to focus on supporting video content and influencers. Famebit concentrates on [marketing] and long and mid-tail creators. --Sophiedenly (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Sophiedenly (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
There is some coverage here, but it does seem to have problems with WP:DUE.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2018

New content for "Criticism and controversy" by ex-YouTube recruiter, Arne Wilberg, alleging that Google discriminated against white and Asian men.


Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/google-sued-discriminating-white-asian-men-2018-3?IR=T Clarevoyance (talk) 12:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Organize Google services in a table?

In the main paragraph, a really long sentence lists the services Google offers (e.g. Translate, Drive, Gmail). A table may be better to organize the information, which is difficult to read as a sentence. ZhangP (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2018

to chane the co joint deatails to present 172.222.29.25 (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Spintendo      23:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected request of added information on 30 March 2018

Google has two interesting tools. One to see your search history and all links you have clicked on (even outside google searches). One to see all your journeys with your phone. Please include those links.

Reliable source: https://www.rt.com/usa/422753-cambridge-analytica-facebook-scandal/ Per in Sweden (talk) 13:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2018

Freevirtual (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


TAXES OWED BY GOOGLE

Created on 30/03/2018 at 11:15 pm: Google having been created to generate a maximum of money(silver), everything is implemented by this company(society) to avoid the treasury of most of the countries, even the USA: the profit, always the profit.... As a result, GOOGLE managed to become established all over the world without paying of taxes in most of these countries, but by managing to impose its diktat: you play my game(set,play) or you clear(release) of my system. I do not give for a long time to my assertion so that she(it) is erased by a moderator against diligent spy pro-googled to erase him(it).... Attention: if it is you the administrator(director) who intervenes to erase this, your name and your IP of against spy will be registered(recorded) for a complaint to whom it may concern for abuse of dominant position and abolition(deletion) of real data.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —C.Fred (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Not done: See WP:NOTFORUM NeilN talk to me 21:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2018

In the section International Location: remove, "internationally, Google has over 70 offices in more than 40 countries. add: it should state based on current data on the About Google website, it should state: Internationally, Google has over 78 offices in more than 50 countries, including North America - 26; Latin America - 6; Europe - 24; Asia Pacific - 16; Africa/Middle East - 5.

Cbknight (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)by cbknight, educator; Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).source: https://www.google.com/intl/en/about/locations/?region=north-america Cbknight (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done Waddie96 (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Add?

add previously called: BackRub RealCyGuy (talk) 23:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2018

in the tab next to the article chance the 1998-2017 to 1998-present 4tg4th (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done The name "Google Inc." Was dropped in 2017 and exchanged for "Google LLC". Lordtobi (✉) 17:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Possible text issue

Hello, I'm Rebestalic.

Why does "A March 2013 report was presented at EclipseCon2013 which detailed that Google had over 10,000 developers based in more than 40 offices" appear to have a white box around it?

Thank you, Rebestalic[dubious—discuss] 06:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

It's the result of using Template:Update inline span. The reason given is "This information is over five years old and the growth of Google since then suggests that the number might have doubled or tripled since then. Google's Form 10-Q SEC filing for Q1 of 2018 does not appear to break down employee numbers." This should be updated or removed if it is well out of date.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2019

In response to the backlash, Google ultimately decided to not review their DoD contract, set to expire in 2019. ****change review to renew**** 73.185.29.77 (talk) 12:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

"Simple design", "little experience", dubious comment?

Near the top is a screenshot of Google beta in 1998, and the thumbnail text reads: "Google's original homepage had a simple design because the company founders had little experience in HTML, the markup language used for designing web pages." [source]. But this was 1998, and back then the vast majority of webpages were "simple" indeed, so it sounds pretty inaccurate in my book. I know there is a source attached but I'd imagine this would be a minority's viewpoint on the matter. --Tim42 (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Misplaced paragraph under the Acquisitions and Partnerships headline

The paragraph "On August 23, 2018, Google deleted 39 YouTube accounts, 13 Google+ accounts and 6 blogs on Blogger due to their engagement in politically motivated phishing, the deleted accounts were found to be tied with Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB)" seems out of place under the headline "Acquisitions and partnerships" since every other entry is some form of purchase or sale. I edited to remove that paragraph with that reason but it was reverted with a cryptic commit message. I'm thinking that information fits better in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google since no other specific instance of censorship seems to be mentioned in the main article (?). Otrebus (talk) 06:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I just wondered about the same thing, but apparently can't edit the article. No opinion in whether it belongs in this article, but it certainly doesn't belong in that section. 188.108.216.173 (talk) 12:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

Change "Google adhered to the Internet censorship policies of China,[402] enforced by means of filters colloquially known as "The Great Firewall of China". The Intercept reported in August 2018 that Google is developing for the people's Republic of China a censored version of its search engine (known as Dragonfly) "that will blacklist websites and search terms about human rights, democracy, religion, and peaceful protest"." to "Google adhered to the Internet censorship policies of China,[402] enforced by means of filters colloquially known as "The Great Firewall of China". As a result, all Google services except for Chinese Google Maps are blocked from access within mainland China without the aid of VPNs, proxy servers, or other similar technologies. The Intercept reported in August 2018 that Google is developing for the people's Republic of China a censored version of its search engine (known as Dragonfly) "that will blacklist websites and search terms about human rights, democracy, religion, and peaceful protest". However, the project has been withheld due to security concerns." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woshiyiweizhongguoren (talk • contribs) 20:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

information Note: - Template changed from help me by RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs). at 15:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Gallagher, Ryan (2018-12-17). "Google's Secret China Project "Effectively Ended" After Internal Confrontation". The Intercept. Retrieved 2018-12-17.

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2019

In the "Infrastructure" paragraph, an image is shown of "A Google Datacenter in Oklohama ". I believe that the correct spelling of this location is "Oklahoma". Aka, "Change Oklohama to Oklahoma" Retrey7 (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Criticism - Jon von Tetzchner

I feel like someone should mention the criticism by Jon in the criticism section, and maybe also in the Don't Be Evil article. https://vivaldi.com/blog/google-return-to-not-being-evil/ 85.64.33.163 (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like a notable critic (WP:SPS). Lordtobi (✉) 20:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't think WP:SPS is relevant here: criticism (if objective and to the point) doesn't have to be told by an expert in order to be legitimate. Nevertheless, Jon is the co-founder of Opera Software and Vivaldi Technologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.33.163 (talk) 10:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
At least a last name would be useful? --Splinemath (talk) 01:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Examiner report of blacklisting

O3, you said that my edit was "poorly sourced". I recognize that there is not a consensus on WE. But the WE report includes a statement they got directly from Google about Google's policies, and that statement seems to me important and worthy of inclusion in the article. So I used in-line citation to mitigate the fact that some see WE as unreliable. Your other point was that the policy doesn't just hit conservative sites, and does not affect organic searches. I agree, but it seems easy enough to edit what I wrote to clarify that instead of just dropping it. Would it be ok with you if I gave another try? Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

This story was originated by The Daily Caller, a deprecated source. I did a Google search and found this on numerous very poor sources and no good sources. Basically, a poor source took a Google policy that makes perfect sense (don't use bad sources for news feeds or infoboxes) and pretended it was censorship of conservative viewpoints. This is simply false. WP:UNDUE WP:NPOV WP:RS WP:V. O3000 (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I disagree. It's true that DC first reported it. But WE is not regarded as unreliable, and they re-reported it and added due info to the story. Do you doubt the accuracy of their report of Google's response to the story? Is that response from them really not of interest in this context? It sure seems to me that Google issuing a statement increases the importance of the story. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
And shame on WE for repeating a TDC article. The article clearly tries to suggest that Google is targeting conservative sites, for which there is zero evidence. There is simply no reason that Google should put info gleaned fromThe Gateway Pundit into an infobox, any more than Wonkette would belong in such. WP:UNDUE WP:NPOV WP:RS WP:V O3000 (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I guess readers will be unable to learn from the article of Google's response to the WE report in this case. Too bad. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't "Advertising" be added as "Industry"?

I mean, this is how Google makes money (they also directly sell an ad server and many other related service). Pelroy (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2019

Please add Advertising to the "Industry" section in the company Infobox. Advertising is Google's main business model. It has several Advertising products including its own ad server and its considered a monopoly in the advertising industry. Pelroy (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Izno (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

"Don't be evil" was not removed from the company's code of conduct around per the source linked in the page

The ending of the overview says " The company's unofficial slogan "Don't be evil" was removed from the company's code of conduct around May 2018.[11][12]" of which the 11 source shows that it is still there per a quick control-f on it.

[11]: https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.127.238.49 (talk • contribs)

Both can be true. The current code of conduct was last edited in July 2018. I've updated the sentence to reflect that. Killiondude (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Project Veritas

I think there should be described (Redacted)/Project Veritas in the controversy section. (I am not going to do this since English is not my native language).

 Not done No reliable sources cited. Name redacted per BLP. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2019

The criticism section currently implies that China blocks Google because Google adheres to its censorship policies - obviously nonsense. That sentence should be something like

Google formerly adhered to the Internet censorship policies of China, but no longer does so. As a result... 135.23.162.39 (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 14:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2019

Please change: "Google was founded in 1998 by Larry Page and Sergey Brin while they were Ph.D. students at Stanford University in California." into: "Google was founded on 27 September 1998 by Larry Page and Sergey Brin while they were Ph.D. students at Stanford University in California." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.229.140.201 (talk) 11:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

September 4 is correct per their about page (see sidebar on the left). See also, "When is Google's birthday - and why are people confused?" on The Telegraph:

Google is celebrating its 21st birthday today with an Doodle showing what a desktop computer looked like more than two decades ago. The company, founded by Larry Page and Sergey Brin in 1998, traditionally marks its birthday on the Google homepage on September 27. However, not even Google seems to really know when it was formed. Since 2006, it has celebrated its birthday on September 27, but the year before that, had it as September 26. In 2004, its 6th birthday Doodle went online on September 7 and in the year before that, it was September 8. In fact, none of these dates seem to have any particular relevance. The company's own history lists its incorporation date in 1998 – the nearest thing to a corporate birthday – as September 4.

Lordtobi (✉) 11:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
See Talk:Google/Archive_3#Edit_request_from_65.8.28.120,_27_September_2011 and elsewhere in the talk page archive. There is a longstanding debate about why Google's "official" birthday is September 27, while the date of incorporation is September 4, 1998.[15]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
See also this news story. September 27 has become the traditional day on which a Google Doodle celebrates the company's birthday, but nobody (including Google) can give a clear reason why. According to this source, "According to Search Engine Land's Danny Sullivan, who wrote about this mess last year, they pushed the date forward in 2005 to allow for the announcement of an index-size milestone (ie the record-breaking number of pages the search engine was sifting through). At least Google is consistently inconsistent: "Google opened its doors in September 1998. The exact date when we celebrate our birthday has moved around over the years, depending on when people feel like having cake."--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Based on the references provided, I added a note to detail this supposed error. I found it odd that, despite Google being consistent in this error for 13 years, it was not mentioned at least once in the article. Lordtobi (✉) 18:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2019

The date on citation #1 is incorrect. It should be 2014. 216.249.144.14 (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for pointing this out. GermanJoe (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2019

In the 2012 onward section, add the following:

It was announced in November 2019 that Google would purchase Fitbit for about $2.1 billion. The acquisition comes with data associated to 28 million Fitbit users, including gender, height, weight, credit card information, heart rate, calendar events, among other information.[1]

Thank you! 73.32.97.198 (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The source does not metion that it means Google will acquire any of the data types. Per WP:OR, this isn't something that can just be extrapolated based on Fitbit having the data. Standed policy (as per the Fitbit privacy policy) is that they do not store credit card information. Please link a source that directly supports the second sentence. — IVORK Talk 00:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 Not done for now: 73.32.97.198 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has yet to add the requested citation and IVORK: didn't close the edit request (grumble grumble) Upsidedown Keyboard gonna take my horse... (talk) 01:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Lee, Bruce Y. "Google To Buy Fitbit For $2.1 Billion, What About Privacy Concerns?". Forbes. Retrieved 3 November 2019.

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2019

The homepage for Google, the company, is http://about.google. http://google.com is the site for Google Search, a Google product. Gabeferreira91 (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)Gabeferreira91Gabeferreira91 (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2019

Last informations about Project Maven are actually missing. Weeks after Google stated they would not renew their contract with the Pentagone, they published this article on their own blog, explicitely saying they will pursue their military contract. I am not used to wikipedia edits. Would it be possible to add this information? Sephir (talk) 14:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

To which part of that article are you referring? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: That source doesn't mention Project Maven or say they'll pursue a military contract. "we will continue our work with governments and the military" is vague af. NiciVampireHeart 22:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2019

The end of 2nd paragraph, which says "replacing Larry Page who became the CEO of Alphabet.", is mistaken. He (Sundar) became the CEO of both Google and Alphabet.
Source: "Going forward, Sundar will be the CEO of both Google and Alphabet." (blog.google: Letter from Larry and Sergey (2019))
Khirehu (talk) 04:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done, Page did become the CEO of Alphabet in 2015, which the sentence is about. Pichai is only becoming the CEO of Alphabet now, four years later. Lordtobi (✉) 08:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

What is Google's digital magnitude?

I don't even know if there is a better or more commonly used term but I tried finding the answer through a web search and couldn't find what I wanted. This is just plain interesting for an individual whose digital magnitude is essentially 1.5 terrabytes of his desktop computer's 2TB HDD with maybe triple that in backups -- backups which are, let's say, not what I would include in my 'digital magnitude'.

The closest I found to an answer was in the Exabyte article.

That says: "In 2013, Randall Munroe compiled published assertions about Google's data centers, and estimated that the company has about 10 exabytes stored on disk, and additionally approximately 5 exabytes on tape backup.[28] The company has not commented on Munroe's estimate.[29]"

Maybe an editor who knows this subject can find a better recent estimate and make it part of this article? —Blanchette (talk) 01:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

This is the first time I see "digital magnitude". A precise definition is required, however. For instance, if you recorded a video and stored it in your HDD, I'd say it counts towards your digital magnitude. However, if you just downloaded someone else's, is it really yours? Does data in Google HDDs from its cloud customers count towards its digital magnitude too? The list goes on. Additionally, there are better metrics: knowing which technology company has the largest amount of data is not as useful as knowing how many of the emails in the world are handled by GMail. Dead (or dying) social networks probably have a lot of data, but is it as useful as having active users? BernardoSulzbach (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I find all the issues you raise, Bernardo, to be valid and interesting in themselves. I can't help thinking that among all that has been published on the subject of the digital domain, including 'blue sky' scholarly journals where such complex definitional issues are the medium of exchange, some of these questions must have been addressed. I think my interest goes beyond mere curiosity about who's biggest in what respect: such questions about size affect our judgments of a company's impact on our lives. I am far from thinking there is one number that answers all questions — I would want to know how may people spend how much time within the digital domains of a company, how many bytes are tranferred by them, and so on, but I repeat, I'm pretty sure these issues have been discussed in the scholarly literature. Perhaps Wikipedia even has a separate article about it? —Blanchette (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Maybe it does. However, I would say that we should not go around throwing a "magnitude" value into all companies and individuals as the impact is only part of the story. Maybe it is good if the NHS has a lot of data about the individuals, but it is quite dangerous if Google has information you were not willing to share with it in the first place. For now, I can assure you of one thing: Google is big. Very big. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2020

In Popular Culture Rams69491 (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC) The 2013 American film, ‘The Internship’, directed by Shawn Levy, starring Vince Vaugh and Owen Wilson captures the Google office and environment. Many reviewers have stated that the film is nothing but an extended advertisement of the company. The Google employees have mentioned that even though the depiction of the work environment is accurate, the recruitment process is not, breaking many hearts worldwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rams69491 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. If you want to add this somehow, then I'd still say no, as irrelevant trivia. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2020

Google Search, also referred to as Google Web Search or simply Google, is a web search engine developed by Google. It is the most used search engine on the World Wide Web across all platforms, with 92.62% market share as of June 2019, handling more than 5.4 billion searches each day. 71.169.165.216 (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Removed quantum supremacy section

I deleted this from the controversy and criticism section, because it hasn't been controversial beyond its initial announcement, primary because it involved only an algorithm without any feasible applications, and is several years away, the involved researchers say, from useful applications, meaningful configuration of specific programs, or any quantum memory (QRAM) necessary to run the algorithms for which quantum computing research is typically touted:

Google claims to have reached quantum supremacy

In 2019, Google claimed it had built the first quantum computer, which can carry out calculations beyond the ability of today's most powerful supercomputers.[1]

References

  1. ^ Waters, Richard (23 September 2019). "Rivals rubbish Google's claim of quantum supremacy". FinancialTimes.

EllenCT (talk) 00:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

"Googer" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Googer. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

"Guugle" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Guugle. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

"Googke" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Googke. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

"Googlit" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Googlit. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

"Goolge" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Goolge. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

"Googers" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Googers. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

This article is missing a few information about the history of Google.

Please add information on the history of Google section and on the history of Google article about BackRub, which is a successor of Google since 1995. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DesktopTech2020 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2020

Add a period after Menlo Park, California Dvelasco734 (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. O3000 (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

"Don't be evil" in lead

A few days ago, I BOLDly removed this from the lead:

Google's mission statement is "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful". The company's unofficial slogan "Don't be evil" was removed from the company's code of conduct around May 2018, but reinstated by July 31, 2018.[1][2]

My reasoning was that all of that information was down in the "Corporate identity" section anyway, and the inclusion of the "don't be evil" bit in the lead feels like a bit of an implicit assertion that they are not evil, which obviously isn't NPOV. Today, EditQwerty reverted it with the summary It's still history.

I still think that I was right—while the information is worth including, putting it in the lead is unnecessary and makes us seem less than neutral. (Again, the information appears later in the article, and I'm fine with that.) Thoughts? Gaelan 💬✏️ 19:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gaelan: Sorry I didn't notice that. Feel free to revert. Stay safe, EditQwerty (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)EditQwerty

@EditQwerty: Alright, done. Thanks for following up. Gaelan 💬✏️ 20:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Google Code of Conduct". Alphabet. Archived from the original on February 11, 2017. Retrieved August 31, 2017.
  2. ^ Conger, Kate. "Google Removes 'Don't Be Evil' Clause From Its Code of Conduct". Archived from the original on May 25, 2018. Retrieved May 24, 2018.

Pointless use of zeros in financial figures

66,000,000,000 is 66 Billion. Why are the numbers in the article using pointless full representation. Everyone (should) understand what a Billion is. The figures should be changed. 94.175.102.211 (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

This occurs in the infobox and I'm inclined to agree here. It would be simpler and more standard English to say 66 billion rather than 66,000,000,000.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Top US Tech Giants Face Grilling

For the lawmakers in US to come out by this time to said, top tech in the world are deviating from privacy policy, I think this would have been something they should've acknowledged ever since. Privacy has being exposed to unknown hackers of users using this technologies.

However, it shouldn't lead to devastation to the CEOs of these company but a wake up call to increase their privacy policy to enable confident using their services.

I also think they have clear the air to the congress committee.

Kudos to Mark Zukerberg and Google. Odim Kingsley (talk) 10:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Correct use of "Google"

This may be a dumb query, but when using "Google" in print, should it be accompanied by a circle-C, a circle-R, a circle-T, or what if anything?

Nowhere that I've looked and found "Google" in print does it have any copyright, registered, trademark, or any other symbol.

Is there supposed to be one or is "Google" symbol free?

Or is 'something' just "understood"? 2600:8800:785:8500:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 04:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks says "Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations, unless unavoidably necessary for context" so they are not normally used on Wikipedia. Also, "Google" is the WP:COMMONNAME for the company and the search engine. Google does have a list of trademarked phrases, but for most of us, plain old Google will suffice.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

"Gstatic.com" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Gstatic.com. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 24#Gstatic.com until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Should we mark Google as a conglomerate?

Google produces both hardware and software, and they are in multiple industries of tech at the moment. Not only that, their subsidiary - FitBit has gotten into the healthcare industry, so it would make sense to mark either FitBit and/or Google as a conglomerate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Optimal152 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2020

Hello, my name is Arielle Smith. I am writing to you today on behalf of the administrators at The Rashi School. We have requested to edit Wikepedia pages in order to educate our staff on how to find mistakes and fix them through the internet in our current technological age. Our hope is that our teachers will be able to edit articles that are crudely made, and quickly put together, in order to show our students the difference between them. Best wishes, Arielle Smith and the rest of the Rashi School administrators team. Thelengthofastring (talk) 13:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Thelengthofastring: Hi Arielle! This page isn't the best place to discuss this. Wikipedia has a dedicated noticeboard for information on educational assignments and the use of Wikipedia in schools - you can find it at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard. I suggest that you post your question(s) there for better assistance! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM

Go complain on twitter or something. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 09:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Google deliberately promoting sickening, degenerate filth and perversion on its home page that is intentionally designed to alienate conservatives

Google is promoting a fake holiday called "Transgender Awareness Week," as if the mentally-ill perverts don't already have an entire month to celebrate their deviancy: https://web.archive.org/web/20201117025656/https://www.google.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sungsees (talk • contribs) 09:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2020

change: "DeepMind Technologies, a privately held artificial intelligence company from London" to DeepMind Technologies, a privately-held artificial intelligence company from London

"the challenge of ageing and associated diseases" to "the challenge of aging and associated diseases" Ajuma.app (talk) 04:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done I don't see a reason to change the spelling of "privately held", as this doesn't seem like an accepted regional spelling difference. Generally, the spelling of "ageing" should be changed since this is an American English article, but not in this case, since it is quoted from a British source (see here, "a quotation from a British source should retain British spelling, even in an article that otherwise uses American spelling"). TimSmit (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2021

Imp70 (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 Note: Article content removed from talk page. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 21:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Please do not copy the article to the talk page with your changes, because we cannot see what changes you have made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 21:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

"AutoDraw" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect AutoDraw. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 14#AutoDraw until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2021

79.106.228.114 (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2021

Elon Musk is not a investor of Google, i have not found any source. Lluiscp (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Split Article Google LLC

Article Google LLC is the original Article because the company Google was Named Google LLC so please split the article and the Google article was moved into Google LLC QWERTY Technology (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think a split is required here.--Mvqr (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2021

I would like to create a section about the google redesign, where Google are implementing new icons onto their products. Danieldoes (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. You need to provide the exact edit, with sources, you'd like to make. You can mock it up in your sandbox first, then paste it here in an edit request. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Edits to Early Days section

I am removing some sources that do not comply with WP:NPOV from the Early Days section. James Altucher's reminisces from his Forbes contributor blog about how he missed out on investing in Google is one example. Another is the Jewish Virtual Library link which someone used as a source to describe Page and Brin as "PhD Jewish students". Mental Floss articles (e.g. "9 amazing things you didn't know about Google!") are equally superfluous given that there are already better, more WP:RS sources in the article. There is content from a live Google website page which clarifies the origins of Google, which I will use to replace a dead link. Specifically,

"The Google story begins in 1995 at Stanford University. Larry Page was considering Stanford for grad school and Sergey Brin, a student there, was assigned to show him around."

The part about Brin and Page's partnership follows, including renaming of the search engine from backrub. I am not going to make any major changes, merely provide more current sources and refs in addition to existing ones that should remain in the article.--FeralOink (talk) 10:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2021

change"Google LLC is an American multinational technology g company that specializes in Internet-related services and products, which include online advertising technologies, a search engine, cloud computing, software, and hardware. It is considered one of the five Big Tech companies along with Amazon, Facebook, Apple, and Microsoft" to "Google LLC is an American multinational technology use tracking company that specializes in Internet-related services and products, which include online advertising technologies, a search engine, cloud computing, software, and hardware. It is considered one of the five Big Tech companies along with Amazon, Facebook, Apple, and Microsoft." Steve1234567891011 (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Stock price history & quarterly earnings

The section on stock price history and quarterly earnings does not belong in the article. Other articles do not have this information and this type of news is a violation of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Any opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ward330 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 11 August, 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS doesn't say anything about how we can't include this type of information (stock price and market cap info), so I'm not sure what you're referring to. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2021

It says Google at the end instead of Google. ,which it should say. 178.84.105.187 (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Google/Archive_4&oldid=1140128638"