Talk:Google Search/Archive 1

message: I've added SWF indexing to file types Google is able to index, important because many believe Flash-based content is hidden from search engines, which hasn't been the case for a while, now. Reference: http://www.google.com/webmasters/facts.html Lewisfrancis 22:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the website, "Who  	Googlism has been developed by a talented team of web developers. Googlism.com is in no way affiliated, sponsored or in any way the property of or responsibility of Google.com. However, we do use Google.com for creating our exciting and funny results ... Googlism.com is owned by an Australian company Domain Active". Hope that helps. Gaurav 07:10, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Yup. Which means the >80% figure is out of date. Anyone knows how to get the latest stats? -- Arvindn 14:29, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk

message: I removed the following section. It's not NPOV, for one. Wikipeida is not a quote repository or original source repository, either. Fennec 20:09, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Section Removed

message: The following text is a direct quote from jimkarpen.com with the generous permission from the author, Jim Karpen, Ph.D., college professor, Internet devotee. Jim teaches writing at Maharishi University of Management in Fairfield, Iowa.
Last Update: March 2004
These are useful features, features that you want to know about.
Take, for example, the calculator feature. Type in any calculation you want, such as 14*82, and click Google Search or hit Enter, and Google will return the answer (1,148). Google's calculator will find percentages ("20% of 150," for example), square roots, trigonometric functions, unit conversions, and much more.
Or for fun, type in your phone number. If you have a listed number, Google will return your name and address, as well as the amount in your bank account. (Kidding on that last one.) Just to the right of your name and address are links for Yahoo! Maps and MapQuest. Click on that and you'll get a map of where you live.
OK, so maybe you don't like that anyone can type in your telephone number and instantly have your address and a map showing where you live. No problem. Just to the left of the info that Google returns when you type in your number is a little telephone. Click on that, and you'll be taken to the Google help page, where there's a link you can click to be removed from Google Phonebook.
To look up a phone number, just type in the person's name and city.
Google also helps travelers. To look up the status of your flight, type in the name of the airline followed by your flight number. If you want to know the weather conditions at an airport, type in the three-letter airport code followed by the word airport.
A feature that I use a lot now: the ability to look up definitions. You simply type in the word "define" followed by a colon, then a space, and then the term you want to define. (define: boustrophedon) This will find terms and phrases not necessarily in a dictionary but that do exist in specialized lexicons on the web.
You can also use Google to find dictionary definitions. You may have noticed that when you do a search, at the top of the page of results Google will say "Searched the web for boustrophedon." The term you searched for is underlined. If you click on the underlined term, it will look up the definition at Dictionary.com.
I also regularly use Google as a spelling checker. Recently I was writing an article about China and needed to check the spelling of place names. I'd simply type the name in Google. You've probably noticed that if you use an uncommon spelling of a word, Google will say at the top of your results page, "Did you mean: xxx." Because Google's spell check is based on occurrences of all words on the Internet, it is able to suggest common spellings for proper nouns that might not appear in a standard spell check program or dictionary.
Let's stop right here and ask the burning question some of you are thinking: why would I want to use Google as a calculator or dictionary? Think of the time that it takes to dial up the Internet, go to the Google web site, and then use Google. It would be faster to pick up a calculator or dictionary.
With broadband connection, doing these things via Google is always a lot faster.
PLUS, I have a Google search function built into my web browser (Apple's Safari). I don't even have to go to the Google web site. My browser is always booted up, and many many times a day I turn to it to type something into the search box.
Here's good news for you PC users: the free Google Toolbar lets you add a Google search box into Microsoft Internet Explorer. It saves so much time not having to go to the Google web site to do a search. In addition, the Toolbar has other features such as blocking popup ads and filling in forms with one click.
Other Google features include looking up stock quotes, UPS and FedEx tracking numbers, and more. See google.com/help/features.
See labs.google.com for hot new Google offerings being developed. Google Deskbar, for example, lets you search without even opening your browser. Also see us-cert.gov, where you can sign up for a new national cyberalert that warns of computer viruses.
----
Google changed the look of the site! We need a new screenshot for the article.
:Done, but it isn't very clear now, maybe someone could do a better job.SimonMayer 14:52, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should wait for the new design to stabilize before changing the screenshot. They may make some minor modifications based on feedback in the next few days. And the NEW marker for froogle is surely a temporary thing. -- Arvindn 15:43, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, maybe you should revert my edit.SimonMayer 17:40, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Also, make sure to use PNG instead of JPEG for screenshots like this, it'll give you a smaller file and better quality. Fredrik 19:15, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The Google You Don't Know

message: I took out Kingturtle's recent addition: On May 22, 2004, an images search in Google for "Lynndie England" retrieved zero results, while the same search in Yahoo retrieved 35.
Today Google and Yahoo both return 0 results (where I am, at least; Yahoo).   Has anyone actually suggested this is censorship, or is this just the section for posting "search results which surprised me"?   Markalexander100 02:55, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I am suggesting it is censorship. Kingturtle 03:00, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Because 35 (Yahoo) vs. 0 (Google) is rather odd, considering Google is supposed to be the superior search engine. Kingturtle 03:11, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Yahoo vs. Google. Her name has been in the media for over three weeks now. If Google Images is that slow, this article needs to mention that their Image service is slow. My allegation has complete currency. It happened today ;) Kingturtle 03:26, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yahoo gives me "IMAGES 1 - 20 of about 29 for Lynndie England". Google gives me none. This *is* worthy of comment. (I'm in the UK.) Andy Mabbett 17:54, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "Censorship" again

message: In September 2002, Google had a temporary change logo to Goog4e to celebrate its fourth anniversary. In September 2003, it similarly changed to Goo5le. Wait until September 2052. Then we should have Google with 2 digits instead of letters, Goo54e. 66.32.242.104 02:07, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google in 2052 

message: * Google's April Fool's Day hoaxes
** Google MentalPlexTM - For April 1, 2000
** PigeonRankTM - For April 1, 2002
** Google Copernicus Center is hiring
I could see the above info has been deleted by User:Kingturtle. I personally feel that this information is bit vital to the article 'coz many people still believe the info though they're hoaxes. --Rrjanbiah 05:21, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Many people believe that Google is powered by pigeons?  Are these people personal friends of yours?  Have they not been taking their medication? Markalexander100 06:00, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: I followed that link, and I saw acknowledgments of an April Fool.  What did you see? Markalexander100 06:20, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: April fool hoaxes

message: Some people have also criticised Google for "data mining", that is, retaining search data, user stats, IP, time and date, etc. and do not comment for what reason they need this data.  Should this also be mentioned in the article?  Comrade-HW 09:21, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Data Mining

message: *Does anyone else thinks Google(the company) should be split from Google( the search engine)? The two are seperate entities and althought it may not obvious now, when google launches a new browser, or introduces search software on computers the destinction will become clear. A GOOG article could mention the companies IPO executives and research department. The search engine article would be about Page Rank the name etc. (The only difficulty would be deciding where things like the blogger software should go). I think the split is important to making the article more accurate. It's like having Xerox and copy machine on the same page (Xerox does other things). BrokenSegue 17:23, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Split

message: Why does Google Desktop Search redirect here? It could have its own article...  BrokenSegue 03:34, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Because no-one has written an article for it yet, and Google has the most info at present.  Feel free to write one on the page, and remove the redirect. ;-) JesseW 10:03, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: I think not...Blue Gene has somthing amazing like 500 teraflops. The article should be revised. What it should say I don't know. Second most powerfull? Very Powerfull? Can we find out how many teraflops google has? BrokenSegue 03:54, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Google Desktop Search

message: I think Zondor's image-related edits to this article were bad. The logo at the top is redundant since it's clearly visible in the screenshots. The rest of the logos add nothing at all. The layout for the two screenshots (both size and placement) is worse. I therefore propose reverting these edits. Fredrik | talk 23:22, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: This article is is nearly 20% too big. Please, someone cut it up into separate articles, do some copyediting and parsing - or I'll do it. Kingturtle 00:28, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The 38KB rule shouldn't be hard and fast. We can exceed the limit by some amount. Bandwith isn't as much of a problem as it used to be. As long as we aren't inlcuding unimportant facts or being too redundant. I agree some stuff can be cut, but it isn't tooo bad. Also, recently some pages have spun off from the article. BrokenSegue 15:15, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  38 KB 

message: :Google's main page owes its unusually spartan design to its original designers' unfamiliarity with HTML.
:Google gained a following among Internet users for its simple, clean design and relevant search results. The simple design was due to the founders not knowing HTML, and just wanting a quick interface.
This was disputed on Slashdot . 10:20, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point! I'll change it to "didn’t do HTML". BrokenSegue 13:03, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not knowing HTML 

message: Some links may be of no use to you, but it is not always so to others. Please do not mass murder links.
There are at least five types of links:
# Directly related:
## Google is a U.S.-based search engine owned by Google Inc.
# Background information:
##  A judge subsequently threw out SearchKing's lawsuit ...
# Mostly unrelated:
## ... protesting over a major cruise liner's sewage treatment methods.
# Duplicated links:
## This site had been active in beta for some months. ...
## Google introduced a beta release of a US only online map service
# Wrong link:
## Google receives over 200 million queries each day ...
Type 1 links are usually undisputed. However, some "center-of-the-universe" articles may be overlinked by other articles.
Type 2 links serve a good purpose by answering some indirectly related questions. A reader may ask why a judge would reject a lawsuit. You can always follow the link to find the answer (the demurrer page is not good enough now). And if you're visiting the demurrer page, you may use "What links here" to see how many cases ever used this legal principle.
Type 3 links serve a marginally useful job by sending people to fields they knew little about. You may use these links to send a muscian to a biology page or a mechanic to learn more about Antarctica.
The only kinds of links I cannot effectively justify are type 4 and 5 ones. I am doing my very best to reduce duplicated and wrong links.
Links are cheap. Overlinking may look ugly, but underlinking surely means less contents. Links are actually meta-data providers. 2004 and the United States are two overlinked pages. However, you can still use the offline database to do your data mining. Links may bring the Wiki server to its knees, but without them, people may take much more time to locate a wanted page. It takes me time to hunt for the right links. So please do not overkill links just to serve your visual pleasure. -- Toytoy 19:30, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
:1 Your first example is not a good one since "US" IS wiki linked in the very first sentence of the article, it was removed because it was redundant not because it was a bad link.
:2 Google has probably had 1000s of lawsuits against it thrown out, if it was a link to information specific to that case against it then maybe it would be relevant (relevant as a citation, not as a link perhaps).
:3-5 Unrelated, duplicated and wrong links should not be added
:zen master    T  19:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlinking is not a crime 

message: renaming this google article to google search seems like a way of avoiding the talk page comments that google should be merged with the google inc article.  Why was google renamed to google search? Is there a plan to shrink this article down now that the topic is more specific?  The google inc article can perhaps become a daughter of the original google article, currently, the two articles are organizationally daughter articles without a parent.  In my opinion the rename should be rolled back and a merger should be undertaken. zen master    T  14:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the roll back, but not the merger. This move doesn't make sense. Even the article title seems wrong since it should be Google (search) or some variant, the search engine is called google not google search. I don't understand what is supposed to go on the Google page now. I'm going to undo this change unless someone tells me otherwise. BrokenSegue 20:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming to search ignores talk comments to merge this with Google Inc 

message: ::Now I understand...BrokenSegue 20:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What happened

message: I moved the article from Google search to Google (search engine). —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:37, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
:This move doesn't seem to follow disambiguation policy. The disambiguation parentheses are only to be used in cases where there isn't a full name for the entity needing disambiguation. In this case, there is such a full name: even Google themselves call their search engine "Google search". Nohat 00:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be too much to ask people to agree on an article title before moving it?  (Probably.) Mark1 01:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree but it should be noted that Nohat started the unilateral article renaming, Avar's change(s) are just logical clean ups of earlier renaming.  zen master    T  01:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would you call it a "logical clean up" when it doesn't follow the disambiguation policy? Nohat 02:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved 

message: There is a significant amount of content in the (search engine) article that is unrelated to google's search engine/technology.  We should endeavor to move it back to the main Google article or elsewhere. zen master    T  01:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: like what? It seems fairly well focused now. BrokenSegue 02:06, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to me there is a lot of stuff that isn't applicable in an article with "search engine" in its title: both sub sections of "The name Google" section, the jargon section and the Services and tools section.  How are any of those three related to "search engine"?  The last two paragraphs in the history section also are very questionable. zen master    T  03:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lots of content needs moving back to main Google article