Talk:Google Search

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Google (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Websites / Computing  (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Internet (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Internet culture (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Business (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Googletestad[edit]

Googletestad redirects here but there is nothing on this page about it. Was there once content which was subsequently removed?


Adult Content[edit]

On the Bing.com page there is a section about adult content you can watch in the video section. You can do the same thing on google.com. Why no mention? I think either include it here or delete it on the bing page. Thoughts? Below is what the bing page has. --Brian Earl Haines (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Adult content [edit] Video content Bing's video search tool has a preview mode that could potentially be used to preview pornographic videos.[42] By simply turning off safe search, users can search for and view pornographic videos by hovering the cursor over a thumbnail, since the videos and audio in some!!!!! bullshit !!!!! cases is cached on Microsoft's Server[citation needed]

Since the videos are playing within Bing instead of the site where they are hosted, the videos are not necessarily blocked by parental control filters. Monitoring programs designed to tell parents what sites their children have visited are likely to simply report "Bing.com" instead of the site that actually hosts the video. The same situation can be said about corporate filters, many of which have been fooled by this feature.[43] Users do not need to leave Bing's site to view these videos.[44][45]

Microsoft responded in a blog post on June 4, 2009, with a short term work-around.[46] By adding “&adlt=strict” to the end of a query, no matter what the settings are for that session it will return results as if safe search was set to strict. The query would look like this: http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=adulttermgoeshere&adlt=strict (case sensitive).

On June 12, 2009, Microsoft announced two changes regarding Bing's Smart Motion Preview and SafeSearch features. All potentially explicit images and video content will be coming from a separate single domain, explicit.bing.net. Additionally, Bing will also return source URL information in the query string for image and video contents. Both changes allow both home users and corporate users to filter content by domain regardless of what the SafeSearch settings might be.[47]

[edit] Regional censorship Bing censors results for adult search terms like "sex" for some of the regions including India, People's Republic of China, Germany and Arab countries.[48] This censoring is done based on the local laws of those countries.[49] However, Bing allows users to simply change their country/region preference to somewhere without restrictions – such as the United States, United Kingdom, Ireland or Australia – to sidestep this censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianearlhaines (talkcontribs) 02:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

New layout[edit]

Google changed their layout a couple of days ago and did it again yesterday. The changes seem to be tests of the new design. So I guess the logo image should remain unchanged until these changes are permanent. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 01:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

FWSE[edit]

Redirects here, but is not explained in the article, could someone please rectify that? Paradoctor (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, FWSE stands for famous Web search engine, which is a pathetic redirect query, in my opinion.--ATDC Raigeki (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Add a History/Timeline of Search's development[edit]

Has anyone read the recent Wired article that goes in-depth into how Google Search's algorithm works and has been improved over the years? I wanted to add some significant events in Search's development but there's no real section for that right now.

Examples of what I'd like to add are at the top of this page. Things like the complete rewriting of the algorithm in 2001, moving to continual updating of the index in 2003, and real-time search in 2009. The last one is already in the article (Caffeine) under the "functionality" section where it doesn't actually belong.

So do I hear any objections to a History section?

--Qwerty0 (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I added a link to the article. Very interesting reading! Best, Sam nead (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Add Criticism section[edit]

The internal article "Criticism of Google" [1] focuses on the Google corporation, but contains many sections and references to the content and nature of the search engine, which should be listed in this article.

Criticism section should include that needed search tools are buried so that to access the crucial necessary date-sorting options, a click through a "more search tools" link is necessary every. single. time. No option accessible to open with the crucial necessary date sorting tools available. And it isn't like there's no space available for the needed date sorting links. The cryptic, crippled, unhelpful 6-link non-changeable user standard interface appears above a giant column filled with white space where the needed date sorting tools can and should go.

Criticism section should include that new Google logo looks ugly, amateur, and hard to read compared with the one it replaced. The Google corporation is suffering from the lack of someone with an eye who understands fonts and readability. It needs a Steve Jobs.

New search page?[edit]

Today 5/5/10 Google seems to have a new format when you do a search. Is there any news about this? (And why do software companies keep changing the interface when no one seems to want a new one?)

Č<ref</ref> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.176.113.164 (talk) 06:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

More details about Google calculator[edit]

I added the fact that Google calculator calculates 0^0 as 1, which most people find rather odd. I'll remove the addition if any objections arise. Reuben2011 (talk) 08:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Malware[edit]

"if the site is known to install malicious software in the background or otherwise surreptitiously." I think this is rather sweeping, not to say risky. However it needs replaceing with a more careful wording rather than removeing. Rich Farmbrough, 03:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC).

DecorMyEyes[edit]

I came to Wikipedia to see about any significant information on a website/company called DecorMyEyes that's apparently involved in some fraudulent business practices. See http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/business/28borker.html And was redirected to Google Search. With nothing in the discussion here about why. Anyone care to explain why this is, and why the company does not have its own Wikipedia entry? Cheers. Pär Larsson (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Instant Search Section[edit]

This section includes the line:

"In concert with the Google Instant launch, Google disabled the ability of users to choose to see more than 10 search results per page."

This does not appear to be correct to me, or at least, it's not clear. But rather than change the page and find that I'm wrong, I thought it better to put a comment here. When I go to the Settings/Preferences page for Google, I still see a choice to display 10/20/30/50/100 results per page. The key is, you can only change this setting successfully if you disable Google Instant. It's an either/or proposition.

The next sentence states:

"Instant Search can be disabled via Google's "preferences" menu, but autocomplete-style search suggestions now cannot be disabled. "

Again, this appears to be a bit unclear at best, and incorrect to some degree. I agree that it does appear that for users who go to google.com, there is no longer a way (or at least not one that I have discovered yet) to turn off the autocomplete or "suggested search" feature. However, for people who use the Google Toolbar (myself included), it is still possible to turn off "suggested search" by unchecking the appropriate box in Google Toolbar Options (Search tab). I can't find anything on my Google Toolbar to tell me what version I'm using, so I don't know whether I may have an older version, and perhaps newer versions no longer offer this option. It's important to note that when you turn off "suggested search", that impacts only the search window on the Google Toolbar, and once you land on the search results page, if you attempt to change your search terms, you don't appear to have any way to turn off "suggested search". But for folks who do most of their searching from the Google Toolbar, it's nice to be able to turn off this feature.

Baroness of Ballymote (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Google +1[edit]

I was just wondering why nothing exists on Google +1. I would have added a section or atleast a couple of sentences if I was familiar with the technology. Is WP:Notability under question? Or is information unavailable? Afaik, it is personalisation of Google Search, so a mention would help. [1]--Kknundy (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I second this!--Hontogaichiban (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

And now? — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Answering my own question, (and half of your question), if you do a FIND in the Article for '+' you will find eight hits; and if you do a FIND on '+1' you will find NO hits. What does this tell you? One of the '+' hits links over to Google+ which is the WP Article on Google Plus. Does this answer your question? — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneCharles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Reference does not seem appropriate[edit]

Reference \ Citation 56 is a power point which does not include any validation or proof of the statements made.

56. Google, Web Crawling and Distributed Synchronization p. 11.

The content of slide 11 includes the following:

What needs to happen when you… Click on “purchase” on Amazon?

Suppose you purchased by credit card?

Use online bill-paying services from your bank?

Place a bid in an eBay-like auction system?

Order music from iTunes?

What if your connection drops in the middle of downloading?

Is this more than a case of making a simple Web Service (-like) call?


It is used under the section "Search products" in support of this sentence: "In 2006, Google has indexed over 25 billion web pages,[56] 400 million queries per day,[56"


I would suggest flagging this for removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.11.65 (talk) 05:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Google dance[edit]

"Google dance" redirects to this article. But what is it?

193.140.194.148 (talk) 12:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Click & Read: Search_Engine_Strategies#.22Google_Dance.22Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Boolean search[edit]

Google has removed the "+" (AND) functionality from its search. [2] - (apparently "do no evil" and "batshit insane decisions" are not mutually exclusive).

You may want to update the lead section. ie "Google Search provides many options for customized search, using Boolean operators such as: exclusion ("-xx"), inclusion ("+xx"), alternatives ("xx OR yy"), and wildcard ("x * x")." 77.86.12.113 (talk) 20:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It's BACK! At least in this very moment Google seems to accept the + operator again. I don't get that warning message and the results pages look like before. Hope the don't change it back. For my work with minority languages it is very useful to find the few hits in those languages quickly. Does Google have something like a Developers' Blog? Maybe you can find a reference and add it to the article. --Kazu89 ノート 18:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Maybe not? At least the message's gone... Can anybody tell? --Kazu89 ノート 19:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


Looks like AND is no longer implied. Looks like this is part of Google's making things "easy" to use for uneducated masses or is it their new philosophy of "we know better"? Who thinks Google search has jumped the shark?

I added CN and dubious tags. Please find NEW reference to Google's implied AND or change the para to indicate change.

180.148.127.197 (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the + operator was deliberatly removed by Google purely for commercial self-interest. The only alternative on offer is repeated " " - of little or no use. On the other hand - does still work. Shaemfully, yhey have degraded their own search engine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.212.28 (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Google new look.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg

An image used in this article, File:Google new look.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 1 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Google web search.png Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

History/Origins of the company?[edit]

There is nothing about the origins of the company, why they used the word "google", etc; i.e. some history; while the article is too extensive about the functionality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.50.1.25 (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

See the main article, Google. This page is intended to only cover Google Search itself.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the first person. What bout Google Search Beta?

Advertising[edit]

Amazingly, the main article in no way deals with Advertising Policies on the Google Search pages. Seeing as the policies dealing with the mixing of Advertising and Google Search results were formative of Google as a company, these certainly should be included here.

Also a history of the advertising policies would certainly be interesting and informative as Google search started it out with the Google Founders specifically separating advertising and search results. However, now there is often advertising at the head of the Google Search results which looks very similar to the search results. The political and economic forces which brought about these changes would certainly be uniquely informative and interesting, and appropriate to a high quality encyclopedia entry on the topic of Google Search. 99.22.94.80 (talk) 08:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Is this the same as Google?[edit]

Is this the same search engine as Google?ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Google-Search is 68% of the market, and Search_engine notes further breakdown: "According to Hitwise, market share in the USA for October 2011 was Google 65.38%, Bing-powered (Bing and Yahoo!) 28.62%, and the remaining 66 search engines 6%." Does this help? — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done — Your answer is, "No." Google search is not the same as 'Search engine'. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC) Yahoo used Google search-engine at first, but not now.

Requested move[edit]

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

The result of the proposal was not moved per unanimous opposition.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


– We should go by the same logic as Facebook becaise there is a separate page on Facebook Inc. . The main use of “Google” to refer to the company is in news articles. TheChampionMan1234 05:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I disagree with the comparison. Facebook focuses on mainly one service, social networking, while Google is known for multiple services (Google Maps, Google Chrome, Google TV, etc), some nearly as important as its search engine, so Google Search is a necessary disambiguation. "The main use of “Google” to refer to the company is in news articles" is exactly the reason why it should remain where it is. Titles should be located at names commonly used in reliable sources.--SGCM (talk) 01:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Google calls it Google Search, and breaks that down further into Web Search, Blog Search, Image Search etc. LittleBen (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As per reasons given above.--Southronite (talk) 03:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Microsoft is not at Microsoft Inc.. The only reason Facebook Inc. exists is because there is no better name for Facebook. Google Search, however, is a perfectly fine name. — Parent5446 (msg email) 13:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Google search is different than the company Google. (Reasons already explained by the previous editors)--ZooFamily (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Google is more than just a search engine. This move may have made sense at one point but not now.--70.49.81.140 (talk) 03:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Google has multiple products. VIncent Liu (something to say?) 03:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I would tune the proposal. The existing Google page should be moved to Google Inc. and a new Google disambig page created that lists all the Google services we have different pages for, search, GMail, etc. Hcobb (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Alexa ranking[edit]

Which one of these is nr. 1 now, Google or Facebook? This shows that Facebook, but if we look these sites: [3][4], then Google. --Stryn (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The list of top sites gives the site's rank over the last month whereas the others give the last three months. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Email!!![edit]

ik hou van australie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.80.183.66 (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

[edit]

Flatter Google logo in case Google sticks with the change: https://www.google.com/images/srpr/logo6w.png. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 07:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Someone put the Bing logo in as the Google homepage (top-right of article) not nice! — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done — Never mind; Google is back! Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The hummingbird makes a nice logo also. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the hummingbird logo now;
Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Burying wikipedia[edit]

There is one company whose wikipedia entry does not rate getting onto the first page of their google search. Worth noting? Hcobb (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like it would be original research without a source, and in any event, Google search results change depending on various factors. For me, Wikipedia is the number one hit on Google when "Wikipedia" is searched.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
What do you get when you search for "google"? Hcobb (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Google at number one position. I'm not sure why you ask. Did I misunderstand your post? I thought, given the headline "Burying wikipedia", that you meant Wikipedia was not coming up first for you. Actually now that I'm reading your original post more carefully, I see you're apparently referring to a specific but unnamed article on a company. Not all Wikipedia entries go to number one. There's no consistency and it depends on lots of factors that are rather opaque (as well as that as I mentioned it's not always the same for each person) so you could never say Google is targeting one Wikipedia article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Added note to article with generalized ref about EU finding that Google pushes Google to the expense of other sites, without any mention of WP. (The ultimate example begin that WP's Google article does not show up when using Google to search for "Google".) Hcobb (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem with that reference I can see, and wouldn't you expect that? Of course they will and do. On the other hand, your ultimate example seems to me to show nothing at all because first, Wikipedia's article on Google (for me) is the eighth result, and regardless, you can't draw any conclusion unless you actually know how its algorithm works and then had all the data it crunched to provide the search result--which none of use do. For all you know the reason it's the eighth result for me is related to how many hits each page gets from my region of my country (or something utterly different and 100 other factors).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

'+' prefix currently works[edit]

The statement under the Search Syntax heading "a prefix such as... (no longer valid, the '+' was removed from Google on October 19, 2011)" is false because the plus operator is working now. For example, the searches (without quotes) 'abraham lincoln' gives about 43,000,000 results and 'abraham +lincoln' gives 138,000 and the latter search does not look for a plus character.

The citation for this information, http://www.frag.co.uk/blog/2011/10/googles-changes-the-operators/ says that instead of "+" you should include the word in double quotes, but that also currently is not true. ('abraham "lincoln"' gives 43,200,000 results again.) Also, that citation says that you get a warning when you use '+' which is false as well.

I can't find a citation acknowledging that + works now or when it was added back and google's help doesn't mention it, but it is definitely working. SesquiZed (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The '+' sign works on words (stop words) that would ordinarily be dropped: [+An important concept] for example. Otherwise, the '+' sign before words is assumed by the Hummingbird (and prior) search algorithm (and, hence, not ordinarily needed.) — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I consistently see substantial differences when I use + on a non-stop word vs. when I don't use it. Compare red book blue with +red book blue. They're really different. However, what you said confirms that the citation is obsolete (the reference says + is ignored). However, I don't know the correct information to replace it with. SesquiZed (talk) 02:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

'~' prefix was dropped under Hummingbird?[edit]

Now that Hummingbird replaces everything, and uses semantic searching (includes similar terms), the need for '~' has disappeared. The '~' is stripped off before the search is conducted. That is my understanding and I can research the date this happened. You can test it also by entering the search keywords: [~Wikipedia -Wikipedia]. You would expect information 'similar' to Wikipedia to be on the search results, but not any entries including 'Wikipedia' as a word. Try it and you will see that the effect of what you get is nothing because it stripped off '~' and submits [Wikipedia -Wikipedia]. Can you confirm or deny?  :-) Hope This Helps, — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.google.com/+1/button/