Talk:Google Search

	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.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Archives

Archive 1

Alexa rating

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

The 'did you mean' thing

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

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

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

Google search in popular culture?

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

Outdated reference

Reference 4 (Houston Chronicle Online, March 21, 2007) is outdated. I'm not sure if this link should be removed or if it should point to an archived version of the page (archive.org).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

Gaygle?

Figured I should ask before deleting. Just on the off chance that is Is a legitimate term.

Picture

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

agreed. we need to keep track of these people. They constitute a serious menace.

Removed content

I removed this section from the article:

===Programming technology===

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

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

Group archives?

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

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

Count of websites or webpages

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

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

File size in search results

when you do a search on google, underneith each link is the web adress followed by a number. like "www.1234567.com -57k" what would the 57k mean? J.L.Main 22:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Current screenshot and personalized home

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

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

The Google

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

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

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

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

A similar thing to 'feeling lucky'

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

Google hits

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

daterange:

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

Removed the changes section

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

Stop fighting over the main photo

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

The 1000 results doesn't appear accurate

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

Google-fu

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

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

Google test

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

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

Criticism of Google?

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

Citations needed

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

"Google Games"

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

Google search manual ?

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

Google special searches

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

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

Sitemap External

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

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

Er

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

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

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

The screenshot in the top left appears to match just fine. Are you referring to the Google text above that screenshot? SDSandecki (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you mean the top right? The text above the screenshot of the box on the right is what I refer to. --Vergency (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, left, we are on par about what we are talking about :D The text doesn't need to match the logo to the "T". SDSandecki (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's all very well saying that, but the fact is it's inaccurately portaying the logo. --Vergency (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can glady edit it with the proper logo if you like, just make sure you follow any copyright and trademark laws that would apply. SDSandecki (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Requested move

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

The result of the proposal was no support for the move. 199.125.109.78 (talk) 05:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title case is important to ensure consistency, which is why we have guidelines on the issue. Looking at Google's list of products and services, they capitalize all of them, including "Web Search". Of course, that also suggests the notion that this should be moved to Google Web Search (which currently redirects here), inline with Google Book Search. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do we move it then, if there's a redirect there? --Vergency (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see the issue with the article being called Google Web Search. The question is should we correct the article title or not. I just saw the lowercase search as a minor issue, but if it's required then we should take action. SDSandecki (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can delete the redirect, but since this is an article of some significance, I'd rather get a few more opinions. I've added the suggested move template, etc. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, move the article to Google Web Search. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SDSandecki (talk • contribs) 21:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Mild Support~~ since it seems to be a specific product name, although does not get many Google hits by comparison (and I mean this without irony). Iamaleopard (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had another idea, but it would mean an enormous amount of work to fix many links. How many people typing "Google" want the search engine article, and how many want the company article? The fact that "Google" is now a verb in its own right with its own entry in dictionaries throughout the English speaking world (Merriam-Webster, OED) means that I might prefer this article at Google, and the company page at Google, Inc.; Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies) allows the use of the legal status as a disambiguator. Don't know that this is the best way to go; just throwing the suggestion out there. Iamaleopard (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose Common usage is Google search. The article seems more general than just web search anyway. If anything, make the second word lowercase. —Yellowspacehopper (talk) 03:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - common usage. Nobody says "Google web search". Bssc81 (talk) 05:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.