Talk:IGoogle/Archive 1

Archive 1

Problem...

The result was merge with List of Google products. Martin Porcheron ^{need help? just ask!} 17:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Page Should be moved to IGoogle, as Google is a noun and should there for be capitalized. Bballoakie 22:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC) As a page named IGoogle is already take, I suggest merging this page the IGoogle page, and List of Google products. Bballoakie 22:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Merge it into the list of Google products. This page will never be more than a stub. The freddinator 01:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Support. And there is really no other option, we can't have iGoogle being a redirect and igoogle a separate article! At the very least, we should move this to iGoogle. --Merzul 09:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree: Merge this into the list of Google products. As The freddinator said, this article will remain a stub. Martin Porcheron ^{need help? just ask!} 16:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder what the meaning of "merge" is though... the list of Google products is doing well, and contains as much as is needed on iGoogle. In my opinion, we shouldn't be talking about merging actually, it's a question of deleting this one or not deleting this one. --Merzul 16:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge to List of Google Products

I manually copied the material to "iGoogle", but the question remains if this needs to be a separate article? --Merzul 10:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't MERGE

Don't delete or merge this article. It's not a stub. There are so many things you could add to it like " Creating your own gadget" etc..

Don't merge it. The List of Google Products is just a brief overview of all the products, not a concise in depth long list of articles on products.

DON'T DELETE IT. (The One 12:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC))

Agree

I agree that this article should not be deleted. I believe the more popular and major services of Google should have an article on its own - and the less popular ones, eg. Google Ride Finder to stay in the List of Google Services. There is already a very brief summary of what iGoogle provides in the List of Google Services. In the same way you can argue why there are articles for Google Books, Desktop, Finance, Images, Products, Maps, News, Patents, Scholar, Usenet, Video, etc.

Additionally, I do not understand the issue with iGoogle, IGoogle or Igoogle. They all redirect to the correct IGoogle.

--Arthuralee 13:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

In need of Pictures

Desperately in need of pictures. Original pictures deleted due to no source info. Please contribute to the good of WIKIPEDIA.

(The One 16:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

Think It's Salvageable

i tried to remove most of the advert like quality, has potential

--Darthgeoff 21:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

Hi. Doesn't anyone else think there should be a criticism section on this article? The page have a slow loading time and sometimes refresh (for reasons unknown), which can result in you losing information. E.g. I got messages I hadn't read on the GTalk gadget, and all the sudden the page refreshed, and the conversations disappeared, only to be found by checking the chat logs in my gmail account (which, by the way, was marked as read because I was indeed logged in when I received the messages, so there's really no way to tell if you have missed any messages). --ReCover 11:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added a Criticism section, along with my own criticism. please help expand it, and add some more. Ghost of starman 19:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Your points raised in the critism weren't valid. This is not to say they aren't true (I find iGoogle slow), but Wikipedia requires references. Your three points each were removed for the corresponding reason: 1) Your talking about Google search, not iGoogle, 2) That's a discussion, not valid proof of complaint, 3) Not verifiable. Thanks for contibuting and feel free to re-add the points with a reference :) I suggest you take a look at WP:REF, it outlines why, when and how to cite sources. Martin Porcheron ^{need help? just ask!} 22:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest that YOU don't remove my edits, especially without consensus. You are not an admin, stop trying to act like one. Reverted. Ghost of starman 22:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I have never pretened to be an administrator of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia than anyone can edit, as it says on the homepage, and I simply removed your critism as I felt that you failed to provide any references. To quote from WP:ABOUT:

"Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world. With rare exceptions, its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the Internet, simply by clicking the edit this page link.". Wikipedia is a collaborative project and permission is not required to remove another persons edit. Martin Porcheron ^{talk to me}_{my edits} 23:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Ghost of starman, you said "along with my own criticism" (emphasis added). This is your OWN criticism, i.e. not attributable to anyone but yourself and therefore original research. See also Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy: you are quite obviously, and openly, violating Wikipedia policy.

Unsourced junk and original research should be removed. This is exactly what Mporcheron did. And this is exactly what I did just now. Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 03:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

To talk about criticism again, i think there should be such a section but it should come from official articles (if there are any). We shouldn't just add our own criticism. (The One 09:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

References required

More references should be added to this article. (Or else some random admin might put 'this article does not cite many references...)

(Shokwaav 13:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC))

Wiki gaget

Might be worth mentioning a blurb about how Wikipedia (and other wikis) have about a dozen available gagets? It'll be nice when someone figures out how to feed my watchlist into a gaget... bahamut0013♠♣ 11:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Guinea Pig Controversy

Google has recently begun testing changes to iGoogle, their portal interface. To do so, they selected an apparently random group of users and switched them over to the test version - which I'll mention does not work. As a control to their test, they chose not to offer an opt-out. Any test involving people which is not optional for those being tested on is not ethical. I initially mentioned this in the Dont be evil discussion, but it seems more appropriate here.

http://www.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=97658

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/01/google_personal_homepage_brouhaha/

Merennulli (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

April 32 ???

It says that iGoogle was redesigned on April 32, 2007. This day doesn not exist. (really?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.80.80.65 (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Change title of "Experimental iGoogle" section?

I think a more appropriate title for the section would be "Involuntary feature testing". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.116.140 (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)