Talk:Google

Merge Google Dashboard

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

I didn't mean to do anything controversal. I came upon Google Dashboard and noticed that it was failing in several areas to merit its own article page including WP:STUB, WP:SOURCE, WP:ORPHAN, WP:MOS, and WP:REF. Not to mention the whole article consists of 8 sentences, and with the exception of adding template, tags, etc., this article hasn't had any information added since November 5, 2009. I didn't mark it for Template:prod as I felt the information in the article was important, so I added it to the first place that came to mind, Google, Inc., under the "Other products" section. I agree that it could do to Criticism of Google#Potential for Data Disclosure. PopMusicBuff ^talk 17:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I sounded harsh. It was probably a good move to boldly go ahead with the merge, it's just I had a few objections. I feel like the merge would be more appropriate into an article like Criticism of Google or even List of Google products. Criticism of Google#Potential for Data Disclosure sounds good to me. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 00:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Ill do it. PopMusicBuff ^talk 18:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Edit request from 190.192.21.143, 2 August 2010

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

For example:

Total assets

Wiki US$40.497 billion (2009)

Google: US$40.497 Millions (2009)

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

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

 Not done The numbers in the article appear to me to be expressed correctly (that is, per [1] and [2] they have billions of dollars in revenue, profit, et cetera). It is common for American companies to express such numbers in millions, because the SEC requires that format; Google's reports reflect numbers in a large whole number of millions (40,497 millions) for this reason, but we express it more conveniently as a smaller number of billions with a fraction (40.497 billions). There is no contradiction between these numbers; the comma is used as a separator for the digits of a large whole number, and the period is used as a decimal point, and even though some other languages use them differently, they are not interchangeable. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

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

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

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

Initial review

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

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

I distributed the Criticism section to an extent. Some of the stuff in the Criticism section is specifically criticism of Google as a whole. I was able to move some product specific criticism into their related sections, and what was left I renamed to the new Privacy subsection, since that title is more fitting. Furthermore, I went to the Criticism of Google article and merged in some more info (see diff). Hopefully the article is more neutral this way. Comments? — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 00:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It's better, definitely. I'm going to let the review sit for a week or so to get more feedback on it. Large companies such as Google always have had long lists of complaints and criticism, so I'm admitting this is a difficult topic to bring up in a neutral manner. I'd encourage you to let more interested editors know and comment on the talk page, or here, on suggestions to improve it further if necessary. elektrikSHOOS 03:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Elektrik Shoos, if you want others to comment on the review, you will probably need to let people know that. Editors are unlikely to do so since you have done the review. You can ask for a second opinion on the GAN page (instructions at the top of the page if you're not familiar).--BelovedFreak 09:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing that out, I'm new to GA reviews. elektrikSHOOS 22:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Quick driveby comments from Belovedfreak

• You have a link to a disambiguation page (bing)

 Done

• You have at least a couple of dead links in references that need fixing

Most of the dead links have been resolved with the exception of one from the New York Post. I think that specific link is dead because the site is running into technical problems, since if you search for the cited article on the Post's main site, it comes up in the search results and just directs you to the same weird page with "GENERIC" on top. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 22:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I just removed that link completely, since it accompanies three other references for the same thing. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 22:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

quotes

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

Nothing about network neutrality?

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

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

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

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

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

Could you give us a break? There are very few people working on this article, and it has taken until now to get it to even GA. So the article is missing one of Google's mishaps, that doesn't mean "google does not evil in the eyes of wikipedia." The article mentions Buzz and its issues, as well as its questionable censorship practices among other things. The reason things are missing was because originally this article had all the Google criticism kept in one big Criticism section, and that section was kept short because there is a separate Criticism of Google article. In the meantime, you can always go and put stuff in yourself. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 03:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

"Could you give us a break?" In short: no? The WiFi slurping controversy is pretty old (but important) news and its absence shocks me a little. It really needs to be in there, as every few months yet another country tells google it's being "evil" and needs to stop. I added a bit from the google criticism article, slightly trimmed. Also, article is semiprotected, so OP can't "put stuff in himself".--Mongreilf (talk) 12:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

10 ^ 100

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

To tell you the truth I have no idea. Other editors have asked the same question, since the mention of the project in the article is very brief. But there is no information on what ever happened to the project or any of the ideas people submitted to it. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 12:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Google announced the results of this today.[3]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

How about the New Privacy Policy and Data Liberation Front?

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

I thought this was worth putting in the article.

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

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

Me???

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

Incorporation Date

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

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

Vulnerability of Network

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

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