Jump to content

Talk:Google

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kevin Saff (talk | contribs) at 02:53, 12 March 2009 (When were the humorous languages added?: June 27, 2001?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good articleGoogle was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 14, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
April 25, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 20, 2005Good article nomineeListed
May 17, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
March 3, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 13, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
October 5, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
August 2, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Template:V0.5

Template:Maintained

Google in China

This Google page makes no mention of their participation in the China firewall. This is really surprising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.14.75 (talk) 06:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In January 2006, Google received criticism in the media when it announced that it would filter its search results in China.[1]. The Google article does not mention this, although it is covered in Google China. Perhaps it could be mentioned in the main Google article, if other users felt that it was notable enough.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the China-filter is enough important to include in the main article, as the goverment of China demanded this, and it ain't to much choise for Google. There is nothing wrong with following the local rules. That's only my point of view... --SakJur (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aquiessence to unethical practice for the sake of profit is certainly a choice. They could have chosen not to do bussiness in china. It is important enough to me to choose another search engine and, when practical, to avoid their prominent sponsers. Put the imformation in the main article or at least with a prominent link to where it can be found. Some people prefer to know if the companies they deal with follow ethical practices or just blow them off as the local custom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.157.40 (talk) 11:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, the fact that "criticisms of Google" is a page separate from the main Google article, but with no direct mention of it in the main article beyond the "See Also" link, is a joke. The corporate power and sheer cultural impact of Google, if anything, should demand that criticism be well-publicized, not tucked away. I'll be fixing this soon if no one else does. WildlifeAnalysis (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is linked in the 2nd paragraph of the article: "The unofficial company slogan is "Don't be evil", although criticism of Google includes concerns regarding the privacy of personal information, copyright, censorship and discontinuation of services." --ZimZalaBim talk 04:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with WildLifeAnalysis. The criticisms should definitely be on the main page. Zestos (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison with Microsoft

Why is there nothing in the article about the relation between Microsofts market dominance and Google. The organisations both rose out of the level of access by the founders to supreme computing power. By that I mean they had access to the technology they needed to immediately launch and thrive. It could be interesting to mention this in relation to industrial sociology.

I wanted to add that un the Catalan series 13 anys... i un dia there is a character called Google.--Nauki (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

market cap

market capitalisation is changing every working day. so if someone isn't going to update it every day, that kind of information is useless. at friday's market close it was 109 bil. , 13 bil. more than the number we have here, which is month old.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.21.83 (talkcontribs)

If it's outdated and you have a newer figure, feel free to update it. However, since Wikipedia isn't a stock tracker, it's not necessary to update constantly - you only need to do so if it is drifting away from the listed value (especially when you ignore one-day spikes or other fluctuations.) --Sigma 7 (talk) 22:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well, since wikipedia isn't a stock tracker, market capitalisation should be removed.

Pronunciation?

Please Im an castillian Spanish speaker (as my first language), and I don't realy know how to say "google" correctly. I've heard people say it "gúgul" "gugle" and very few "gúguel" and "gagl" (pronuncieted all in Spanish). Can someone put an pronunciation mp3 for non-English speakers? thanks.200.90.236.167 (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When were the humorous languages added?

I believe at least some of these languages (bork bork, elmer fudd) were inspired from the Dialectizer by RinkWorks. Someone wants to delete the RinkWorks article, and I think making the case that the dialectizer actually inspired these Google features would go a long way to keeping that article. It's hard to remember back that far, but the dialectizer came out in 1998 and Google wasn't founded until September of that year, so I'm pretty sure that is right. -- Kevin Saff (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Information added to wikipedia articles should be verified, and cited as necessary. We can't just go by someone who says that they're, "pretty sure that is right." Cite your source. Although to be perfectly honest, this information sounds rather trivial to be included anyways,... Dr. Cash (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely doubt there will be any print articles about this, but I found a Metafilter article frlom June 27, 2001 announcing this feature: [2]. One of the commenters says they must have ripped off the Dialectizer, no other websites are mentioned.
And yeah, I know I'm so old and been around this Internet thing too long. Just mark my words, in ten years it'll happen to you! -- Kevin Saff (talk) 02:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]