Talk:Google/Archive 1

message: Anyone interested in seeing a list of acquisitions made by Google?
:posted by 24.84.130.194, Jun 9,2005
::I would --Hoovernj 1 July 2005 17:41 (UTC)
::I came, I saw, and I added! --Phileo 18:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To shorten the page a little bit, and to provide for better organization, I moved this list to List of Acquisitions by Google, which is linked to under the 'See also' subheading. Dr. Cash 21:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Acquisitions

message: 253,088 GHz of processing power
:Where does this number come from?--Jerryseinfeld 22:45, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Systems 

message: I kind of want this one next to "management" and "analysts".--Jerryseinfeld 11:08, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if we should even be listing analysts. The conference calls seem to be extra information so I would think they should go at the end. BrokenSegue 22:52, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conference calls 

message: I've removed the following listing of Research Analysts from the article. I cannot see why this is important to the company. None of these people actually work for google. If we add all the people that work for financial companies researching every corporation out there, wikipedia would quickly add a lot of useless information. The link to Imran Khan also did not even go to a financial analyst's page - the page says he's a cricket player. Dr. Cash 20:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Analysts

message: Google has a couple of innovations
* Uncluttered interface at a time when sites wanted to add more links and more features, thus cluttering their webpages.
* Built in calculator
* Modifying the Google logo to signify certain events
* I'm feeling lucky
Sense of humour
* PigeonRank
* Recruiting on the moon
* GMail news released on Apr 1 was thought to be a joke
* The link to lunar.google.com has been removed - it should be added in again (as it is pretty funny when you zoom all the way in to the surface)
-NOTE: This page is now situated at moon.google.com
These might be included in the article.
::This list of features are things that someone may want to add to a relevant section of the article or a spinoff article. However, the phrase 'Goggle is well known for its innovative, clean products' is, on its own, vague and a matter of personal opinion. It also uses weasely wording ('known for'). --129.67.89.102 12:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google's innovativeness and sense of humour 

message: 14-sep-2011: Is this date relevant information for somewhere in the article?  --  user:zanimum
: No, that is just the date when they will have to re-subscribe for the google.com domain...
:: All commercial domains have to be renewed from time to time.  This is no big deal.  I have heard some funny stories about certain Fortune 100 companies forgetting to renew their domains because the person in charge of that left the company and neglected to ensure that someone else took over that particular responsibility.  Fortunately, that's never happened to Google.  --Coolcaesar 04:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Whois]] says this is the expiry date on Google

message: yeah, i agree. 128.175.226.50 16:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guess this info is already in there. That's what I get for getting news from Slashdot. :-) --Cuervo 04:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Salaries

message: They include a 'Reference' link at the end, but they just copied the text, I think: [JuiceNewsDaily]
: If you mean that some other site is copying Wikipedia's content then...
: .. big whup, they're allowed to do that. PeteVerdon 00:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism? 

message: I had added the story about the check being made out to 'Google, Inc.' back when they were looking for investors, and that is how the misspelling is now the name of the company.  The story was deleted a few days later, saying it was false.  I found the source so I'll be putting it back in...
"Unable to interest the major portal players of the day, Larry and Sergey decided to make a go of it on their own. All they needed was a little cash to move out of the dorm — and to pay off the credit cards they had maxed out buying a terabyte of memory. So they wrote up a business plan, put their Ph.D. plans on hold, and went looking for an angel investor. Their first visit was with a friend of a faculty member.
Andy Bechtolsheim, one of the founders of Sun Microsystems, was used to taking the long view. One look at their demo and he knew Google had potential — a lot of potential. But though his interest had been piqued, he was pressed for time. As Sergey tells it, "We met him very early one morning on the porch of a Stanford faculty member's home in Palo Alto. We gave him a quick demo. He had to run off somewhere, so he said, 'Instead of us discussing all the details, why don't I just write you a check?' It was made out to Google Inc. and was for $100,000."
The investment created a small dilemma. Since there was no legal entity known as "Google Inc.," there was no way to deposit the check. It sat in Larry's desk drawer for a couple of weeks while he and Sergey scrambled to set up a corporation and locate other funders among family, friends, and acquaintances. Ultimately they brought in a total initial investment of almost $1 million."
source: 
:Why did you insert this story in the Etymology section of the article?  Larry and his officemates already had come up with the name (and spelling) Google by mid-September 1997, prior to the visit with Bechtolsheim.  Thus, this story has nothing to do with the etymology of the name Google.
::I think there's been a misunderstanding of the point of the quoted passage - the non-existence of anything called "Google Inc" was not because that wasn't its name, but simply because it didn't exist yet. The section just above that quoted already mentions "Google, as it was now known" but the meeting with Bechtolsheim was to show their business plan and demo - not to ask for investment in a pre-existing company - so there was simply no account to pay a cheque into yet. Google was already the name of their project, but you can't pay a cheque into a project. [I'll fix the article in a sec] - IMSoP 17:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I compromised by changing "a play on words" to "a reference to", which is true either way.JudahH 15:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Googol' vs. 'Google' 

message: I think it would be appropriate to rename the April Fool's Day Jokes section of the article to Jokes by Google (or something like that).  Why you ask?  Becuase not all of the jokes that Google have done are on April Fools day - take today for example if you click here and zoom all the way in it shows "cheese".  Also related to google moon are this, a FAQ about Google moon, and this a site about a new center Google is "building" on the moon.  AfterSpencer 16:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also if you search for "Paris Hilton isnt a whore", it returns a "Did you mean: Paris Hilton is a whore" Ablaze 20:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That also works, for example, if you use "cheese isnt a wine". But if you use the apostrophe in "isnt", the results are as one would normaly expect. Andy Mabbett 20:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its will work with just about anything, so the google servers don't reconise inst as a word without the apostrophe. Like if you searched for "George W. Bush isnt a Bad President" Ablaze 12:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename the April Fools section?

message: 12:22, 27 July 2005 208.58.74.167 (Rewrite to clarify - not add to - original text.) by Kyle Andrew BrownKyle Andrew Brown 12:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit 

message: 07:20, 29 July 2005 entry states "recent".  This needs to be factual date for an enclycopedia.Kyle Andrew Brown 12:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  be more specific 

message: the phrase "it is estimated that less than one job offer is made per thousand resumes submitted" reads more like a magazine article than an encylopedia. I suggest it be deleted.Kyle Andrew Brown 21:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Salaries

message: After the External links is a magazine like history followed with what look like are copies of Google produced newsletters.  I dont think I get it.  Why would an encylclopedia have a company's newsletter and why would an encyclopedia entry evolve into a "user manual"?Kyle Andrew Brown 20:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, you've made four comments now. You do realize that you can edit this page now, don't you? — David Remahl 03:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The changes were reverted long before your comment by an editor that correctly identified the content as vandalism. And it's common sense to ask the community's opinion before doing an edit.  That's what my query was all about.  I see you were out of the loop.Kyle Andrew Brown 13:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content Query 

message: The article states that there are 4000 people working for google, whereas the factbox states that there are only 3000. Maybe this could be investigated further.
:Well, if I remember right, one of the founders themselves wasn't too shure about the # of Googlers. --Jason McHuff 07:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of employees 

message: Googol says the spelling of Google was a spelling mistake, and has a quote.  However, this entry claims the spelling was a "play" on the word, implying that it was intentional.  Which is right?
:This  link at google's website says its a play on the phrase, but that may be an oversimplification or a cover up since there is some evidence that it was a mistkae.  This link is Broken 01:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling mistake? 

message: What is the "I'm feeling lucky!" thing about?-Darkmewham
:it takes you directly to the first result. With some luck hopefully the first result will be what you wan't hence the i'm feeling lucky button title ;) Plugwash 01:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm feeling lucky!(but am not.)

message: anybody adding Google Analytics here? 59.93.130.58 09:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: List of Google services and tools getcrunk juice 21:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  google analytics 

message: would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  publish 

message: How many wikipedia.org pages on Google?  120 million?  --Henrygb 18:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What's your point? --pitr 16:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Strange results

message: I've removed the following links to news articles from the external links section. For one, this is not a complete list of all news articles that mention google. Secondly, the purpose of an encyclopedia article is not to provide such a list - there are plenty of news sites out there that provide these services. If we were to keep adding news article links to every article on the net that mentioned google, this article would be way too long! I have kept the links here and provided them, as some of the information could be used by editors in referencing various info in the article. Dr. Cash 21:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: In the news Links

message: Why are there links to every google subdomain for every google project in the external links section. Since we already mention the various google projects elsewhere in the article, with a list of the projects and links to them, I see no reason why we need a huge linkfarm to every google project under the external links section. All that I can really see here are providing a link to the main google search page and perhaps the google.org philanthropy page. Dr. Cash 21:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blogs should generally not be linked to (see WP:EL). There are sooo many blogs on Google out there, it would also prove quite difficult to select which should be included over others. --mtz206 23:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Neither of those links provide anything you can't get anywhere. Stev0 19:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: * Europeans weigh plan on Google challenge Look out Google.
 "BERLIN Germany and France are negotiating on plans to inject E1 billion to E2 billion over five years into a public-private initiative to develop a series of sophisticated digital tools including a next-generation Internet search engine, a project organizer said. " CaribDigita 06:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU countries to fund research for a competitor to Google? 

message: I'm sure I heard the word "google" as a verb, meaning "to look at" before the search engine company came about. And, no, I'm not thinking of "to goggle". --Urbane legend 13:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. I'm talking about "google", believe me. --Urbane legend 09:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then, you are mistaken. The word didn't exist before (except in some obscure British sense that meant somthing else) Broken S 13:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: I realize that the subject is a big subject, however does anyone else other than me think that this article is a bit too long? Whispering 00:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I sorta agree. The article is a bit long. But a lot of the material seems relevant and I don't think I would want to delete it. I reorganized a few things a bit, mainly in the history and culture areas. It seems like there are two areas that could be shot off to new articles: possibly a History of Google and a Google Controversy article? These appear to be the two largest sections. What do others think? Dr. Cash 23:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea, although I'm not all that good at writing articles. I will be happy to edit anything anyone puts up. Whispering 05:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too long 

message: I was reading an article today that said "...Google, which was founded in 1997 and is now worth $129 billion (£72 billion), making it the fastest growing company in the history of the world."    I think this is noteworty enough to warrent mention in the article, but I am not sure where.   Cacophony 20:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  fastest growing company ever? 

message: It reads "Google Inc. Monstrous evil facist empire" on the sidebar describing Google.  There is also the word "swastika" next to the Google logo.  What up with this?
:It's obviously vandalism. After all, Google's motto is, "Don't be evil." Dr. Cash 23:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandalism on sidebar? 

message: After using Google for a while, I remembered the cartoon title "Barney Google and Snuffy Smith", which is usually shortened to "Snuffy Smith."  Google "Barney Google" and a few web pages about the cartoon and derivative media (TV, movie, song) show up.
:see Barney Google BrokenSegue 20:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barney Google 

message: I just finished a major clean-up of this article. The history section has been shorted, and much content has been moved to a new History of Google article. I also moved the entire controversy section over to the history of google article as well (after all, today's controversy is tomorrow's history, eh?).
The external links have also been cleaned up greatly, removing much of the linkspam, and moving many of the links to news articles to references within the text. The article now makes use of Wikipedia:Footnotes, so future news article references should now make use of that format. Any external links inserted without the footnote formatting should ideally be converted to this format. The primary reason for this is that, if we insert the author, title, publication, and date information into the reference, instead of just the link, if the site is later removed by the original publisher, we still have information regarding where the citation came from and can still track it down. Dr. Cash 03:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Cleanup

message: Some dollar signs are links and some aren't. Should I remove the links or add them to all dollar signs? Maybe this should be asked in a more general area because it applies to all articles, but I don't want to go searching for the right one, and I haven't seen an inconsistency problem involving this anywhere else. -Barry- 02:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually prefer making the dollar signs as links to the United States Dollar article. One other alternative I have seen is, e.g. $1 million USD, or something similar (maybe USD 1 million, or USD $1 million). I think it looks better as $1 million. The USD part makes it look a bit odd. Dr. Cash 05:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should dollar signs be links or not? 

message: As I noted above, the section Striver is adding is incomplete and mentions an isolated event regarding alleged actions by Google. If this even deserves mention, it should be added to the criticism and controversy section of the History of Google page. (also, it should have a complete heading title, not whatever the abbreviated "censur" is meant to represent. --mtz206 02:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Striver has also been trying to add weird stuff to the Internet article.  See Talk:Internet. --Coolcaesar 06:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Google and censur" 

message: The article says that the patent for Pagerank was assigned to Stanford U- but doesn't that mean they control it? If so, doesn't that mean Google would've needed to license it from Stanford? If so, for how much, and how? --maru  (talk) contribs 05:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting point. Though I suspect with all the money google has made, they probably have bought the rights to it from them by now. But this would definitely be something worth looking into,... Dr. Cash 07:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the original patent application showing Stanford as the assignee. According to this article Google has an exclusive license of the patent. --mtz206 13:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pagerank patent 

message: I think we need to arrive at some kind of consensus as to what kind of links belong in the "Other links" subsection of "External links." Should these be non-Google sites about Google? Sites offering deeper understanding of Google? Sites offfering critical views on Google? What kind of Other links would add value to an encyclopedic article about Google? Thoughts?
Meanwhile, there has been a minor revert war on whether www.google-watch.org or www.scroogle.org should be there. Often when these are deleted, the link to Google.vc (for "very cool") remains. IMO, if any of these should remain it would be Google Watch, with some kind of description like "site critical of Google." A link to Scroogle seems perhaps more appropriate for the Google and privacy issues article, although I'm not even sure about that. The Google.vc link seems entirely superfluous to an encyclopedic article about Google.  --mtz206 20:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: removed link to google-watch.  It has been blacklisted and the link was preventing me from saving the page --Straif 17:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: And I just removed the Google Watch and Scroogle links from the See also: list.  The list is too long as it is, and there are links to those to articles in the Google Inc. box.  There are probably several other links that could be safely removed from that list since they are in that box.   --19:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus on Other links 

message: I know this article was recently 'cleaned' up, but I wonder why the section "Specific searches" (see [Feb. 18th version) is missing.  There are now no links whatsoever from this article to Google Maps, Google Earth, and other google products.  Seems to me, the brief section on google searches (products) should be readded, so those links are present in the article.  -Aude (talk | contribs) 00:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article at once had links to every single google subdomain and product that they offered, which I found to be cluttered and unnecessary. There is also a specific article, List of Google services and tools, which contains information (and links) to all of Google's products and services. This is where this information should go. Dr. Cash 04:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree on this.  I looked through the article and missed List of Google services and tools buried at the bottom among all the "See also" links.  Certainly a list of products isn't the right format.  But we should be using summary style and give a brief summary of their products and services in prose form.  Like maybe, discuss when the *key* products were introduced and their impact/significance.  Some like Google Maps had a major impact, with their use of Ajax and on market share versus MapQuest (AOL), Yahoo!, etc.  Google Print sparked some heated debate between Google and the publishing industry over copyright issues.  Gmail, Froogle, and Google News are also in my opinion, worth a brief mention.  Do we need to list every Google product in this main article? No, but a brief summary with a ? Yes.  Certainly discussion of their products and services is more noteworthy for inclusion here than discussion of "April Fool's Day jokes". -Aude (talk | contribs) 15:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I see your point. This is actually somewhat important information. Though I don't really like the name 'specific searches'. I've added a 'Products and Services' section, right under the 'History' section. I don't really want this to end up as merely a list of links and sorts, and I've added a main link to List of Google services and tools. Dr. Cash 22:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Google searches

message: Hello. I wrote an article about a related topic, Google Groups. As a new Wikipedia writer, I would appreciate any feedback on my article. Please help me by posting your feedback at the Wikipedia:Article Feedback Desk. If you wrote an article and are seeking feedback on it, please post your article at the Article Feedback Desk as well. If you could suggest better ways for me to seek feedback on my article, do leave a note at my talk page.  --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Seeking feedback on [[Google Groups]] article

message: Following a suggestion from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam, I added the following comment to the external links section:
:
Openly discussing the merits of a particular link is a good thing. --Straif 15:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controlling well-meaning links as well as pointless links and link farming

message: Googleplex seems to make out Google is a great place to work. POV. 212.135.1.49 08:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are any of the stated facts in dispute?  It is a rather glowing description (makes me want to work there), but how does that make it POV?  What are the drawbacks to working at the Googleplex (are they specific to Googleplex, or are they about working for Google--if the latter, then perhaps the tag should be moved).  The description does seem a little unbalanced, but is there good, verifiable information that could be added to moderate the tone?  Basically, what I'm saying here is that saying the section "seems to make out Google is a great place to work" doesn't convince me that it it is POV.  I need more explanation than that.  --Straif 12:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree. I don't think it's POV at all. Providing information about a companies corporate headquarters is ok for articles. And what are you going to say that's negative anyway, "the bathrooms stink and the basement is filled with rats?" I do think that it would help to add a reference to this text, which would back up the claims. Most of the information in the paragraph seems to have been taken from Google's own Corporate Culture page. I would think an independent reference from another publication or website would be a better reference, however. Dr. Cash 20:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It also only cost a very small amount per click to the websites that advertised this way. ... Compared to what? I've advertised with Google's service. Some search terms sell for over $10. How is that a small amount. I'm removing this. --66.87.184.227 13:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Several weeks ago, the Time magazine cover story had a lot of good things to say about the Googleplex.  The Mercury News has also said many good things in various articles in the past.  I don't have the time to dig up the citations right now, though.  --Coolcaesar 02:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think it's POV, but I agree that references must be made in order for the section to survive.--Sheeo 08:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: There's a problem with the template for Google that appears on the bottom of many Google products - it lists many programs and services that were not created by Google - some in fact violate Google's terms of use. 
I suggest taking out all non-Google pages from that template and keeping only articles on subjects which are directly related to Google.
Kungming2 23:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. --Coolcaesar 04:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I've created a new box at Template:Google_services - pending corrections and some changes, it will be submitted to replace the template at Template:Google Inc.. Kungming2 01:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: That one is much better! Dr. Cash 05:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Issue resolved! All Google pages that link to the new Template:Google_services have been changed! Whether or not Template:Google Inc. should be up for deletion is up to the Wikipedia community. Thanks, Dr. Cash for the help. :) Kungming2 07:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Google Template Box 

message: I am conducting a poll of Wikipedians to see whether this particular template, Template:Google Inc. should be nominated for deletion. Please note that the navigational functions it provides have been superseded by Template:Google_services and that the template itself provides links to unnecessary information - for example, the links to the Google Hacks book and the miserable failure article, which have nothing to do with the company itself. So vote - should it be nominated for deletion? –-  kungming·2 (Talk) 05:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support deletion of the template.  I know the Wikipedian who created it, and I don't know why he did what he did, but I know his intentions were good.  Nonetheless, it's unnecessary.  (Oh, and please change your sig in your prefs so that it subst's the template.) --M@thwiz2020 20:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Delete Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 20:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete [[Template:Google Inc.]] 

message: The article is biased in that it does not contain any reference to the contoversy to do with google china.  Also, it does read like it's an advert for google ltd.
:Information about the Google China controversy is here (in the History of Google (Criticism and controversy) section. The link to this is at the bottom of the History section in the main article (this article). Having all the controversies and criticisms in this article was making it a bit too long, so it was moved. Dr. Cash 19:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I quickly scanned the Google article, it does not seem sufficiently neutral. I'd like a section w critisism, like on Firefox and MSIE. I do not think the "see also" section is enough. Perhaps this main article should have a summary of the others embedded. PER9000 09:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: controversy / Advert

message: In the history section of the page, every occurence of the word Google has been replaced with "Boob Hull."
Now it seems okay. Check it anyway. Feanor981 16:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism in History Section 

message: I am building a minimalistic but comprehensive list of Google products and services (intended to be more complete than the specific article). It can be found at User:Tacvek/Google. While I will try to keep it up to date, I would appricate having others look over that page, and updating it as nessisary. Please do read the notes at the top of the page before editing. Thanks. Tacvek 22:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More complete list of products and services. 

message: I stumbled upon a website that said Google donated bandwidth and servers to the Wikipedia.   There is a lot of speculation from the announcement, but I couldn't find what was actually donated.  Does anyone know of a reference?  Might be a good thing to add to the partnerships section. I found it interesting, but maybe it's not really notable. Mattedm 23:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I'd call it a true "partnership", but more of a, "sponsorship", or actually, a corporate donation would be more appropriate. It might be useful to the article to have a section on corporate donations and philanthropies,... Dr. Cash 21:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google and Wikipedia 

message: :With a market cap of 117.16 billion as of early 2006, Google is the largest Internet search company in the world.
What's 117.16 bil mean? Dollars? Reletive size? I have no idea what exactly it does mean. Can anyone who has a clue fix it (btw. I don't think their market capitalisation is actually anywhere near $117b atm) -- drrngrvy tlk @ 00:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ATM it's 111 billion dollars see [this. BrokenSegue 00:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. It's all better now :) -- drrngrvy tlk @ 02:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First paragraph sentence is ambiguous 

message: The article does briefly mention that employees are supposed to spend 20% of their time on other projects, but it doesn't mention the rest of the time breakdown (70% on main work, 20% on relevant but tangential stuff, and 10% for fun random stuff that might work out to be something important).  The way it's written, actually, it seems like that 20% is referring to the 10% fun stuff. Delta Echo Romeo 17:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Employee work percentages 

message: It is allowed to have one fansite per page. I would like to add http://googlefansite.com at google external link page.  Lowe Gray 09:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: [User blocked as spam sock. WikiProject Spam case - (permanent link) Femto 16:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Who says that is allowed? (ESkog)(Talk) 04:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure this qualifies as a "major fansite" quite yet. SubSeven 05:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Here are a few others.  The first two get quite a bit of traffic.    SubSeven 17:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Heh.  I'm familiar with fansites, but thanks.  I'll make one more point on this.  Just the mere existence of a fansite doesn't mean it should be linked in the article.  If the site is considered a valuable resource, it will find its way in there.   You now know of course from reading WP:EL that you shouldn't add links to your own site.   Nominating it on the talk page is the right thing to do.  SubSeven 08:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: And I oppose that nomination.  Your poor English and the defects of your site as already pointed out by others make it grossly unqualified.  When your site gets covered by the New York Times or some other respectable newspaper, then it will be worthy of mention on Wikipedia.  --Coolcaesar 19:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google Fansite

message: Can any of you answer this question?  If you do not have a "gmail" account may you still upload videos onto www.video.google.com?   Please respond if you know the answer to my question, much appreciated Max.pwnage 22:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think so. You can have a Google account without having a gmail account. --Alvestrand 19:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you can upload video without a gmail account jak 23:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video Google 

message: http://www.forbes.com/2006/06/09/google-0609markets09_print.html --SkyWalker 15:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GBuy 

message: From the article:
: In 2000 Google began selling advertisements associated with the search keyword to produce enhanced search results for the user. This strategy was important for increasing advertising revenue, which is based upon the number of hits users make upon ads.
Did Google have any advertising revenue before then? If not, this needs to be reworded (e.g. "establshing a revenue stream").--Eloquence* 05:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been digging around, but its hard to find much since they were private back then. It's possible they were using untargeted advertising. So far, all I know is that they lost $14.9 million in 2000 and $6 million in 1999. I'll keep looking. BrokenSegue 16:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Increasing revenue 

message: A question about google company: since google is mainly a search website, and when people (like me) search a certain word in the box of google homepage, there is no charge at all, then how can google company get a profit to feed their staff?
In other words, what are the sources for google company to get income and profit?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Korenzhang2244 (talk • contribs) 
:Advertising revenue: see, for example, AdWords and AdSense. --mtz206 (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Profitability

message: Are there any (or, does anyone knows that) lawsuit prosecuting the individual sellers for their selling counterfeit brand-named shoes (e.g. PRADA, Gucci, BAPE) on the ebay? Or, the shoe companies just prosecute the ebay company as supplying a platform for people to sell fake/counterfeit PRADA, Gucci shoes through ebay?
Are there any laws set up in the USA, Uk and other European countries against the counterfeit Gucci/PRADA shoes on ebay? Or, those genuine companies are just not aware of this yet?
But, will it be reasonable and right to ban for selling the fake shoes on Ebay, as a online e-commerce platform? Would it be practically possible to supervise the listings on ebay, and suppose one really get genuine brand-name shoes, and want to re-sell it on Ebay, what type of proves do they need to put on the listings on ebay? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Korenzhang2244 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try asking at the Refefernce Desk. Wizrdwarts (T|C|E) 17:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: What does this have to do with Google? Stev0 19:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't. The editor has posted this same question in several different locations. Road Wizard 21:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a rhetorical question. Stev0 06:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know your question was rhetorical. I was just pointing out the editor had asked the same question in multiple places to avoid other people wasting their time by answering here. Road Wizard 12:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Please read our policies on what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia isn't an online forum for debating the wider implications of issues that have nothing to do with the content of our articles. You are allowed a little leeway in asking such questions at the Reference Desk, but if you want to just have discussions, please find another, more appropriate website. Thank you. Road Wizard 12:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I have responded on your talk page. Please ask any further general knowledge questions at the Reference desk. Thanks. Road Wizard 14:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any cases prosecuting individual sellers for selling counterfeit brand-named shoes? 

message: I have added the Merriem Webster info today.  Great news that it's FINALLY a verb, and I don't get people correcting me "oh, "google it" isn't proper english".  AllanVS 22:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the information to the opening paragraph, where it talks about the definition, and being a derivative of googol. I think this is a more appropriate location for it. I also added a few references as well. Also, I cleaned up the Google (verb) page which deals in greater detail with the definition and use as a word. Dr. Cash 00:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can find an article on this at Wikinews . FellowWikipedian 23:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google a Verb 

message: For some weird reason the article tells me that I have to discuss a external link here before I add it. So here is my external link candidate: How Google Works. This article gives a lot of extra information about google that I don't find anywhere else. After adding this article as external link we can use this information to improve the wikipedia-article and then use the article as a reference instead of a external link.
Opions please. --Garo 09:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The link is really not an 'external link' for the external links section, and would have little value there. There could be information in it that could be incorporated into the article, and referenced using the 'ref' tags (references section). Listings in external links should actually be more for links that have more broad and wide-ranging information on the subject and not just merely for a listing of a bunch of journal articles. We also have to be very careful with making links to journal articles, since different online publications have different policies regarding how long something is available publicly; yahoo news, for example, deletes news articles much quicker than many other sites. So if you add the article as a reference, rather than merely a link, and add it using the guidelines provided in WP:CITE, even if the link is deleted, we still should have author, publication, date, title, and other information regarding the article that you're referring to, so someone using wikipedia for actual research has some sort of 'paper trail' (for lack of a better word) to follow if they want more information. A '404 not found' doesn't really help much here. Dr. Cash 17:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: See example. The link has now been added to the article as a reference. Interesting stuff. It probably needs to be used to improve the Google platform article as well. Dr. Cash 18:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link proposal 

message: There's a little edit war whether Google is a play on words or a misspelling.  While Google's official history say it's a play on words , apparently that's a PR move and it really was a misspelling  Stev0 20:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google vs. googol 

message: The article told me that I should discuss a external link here before I can add it. So here is my external link candidate: 
*Google Your Race
70.225.75.58 20:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, NO. Completely and totally 'non-notable', not to mention stupid. Whoever put that site up is probably a racist, too. Dr. Cash 21:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Scores of orcmagazine links have been deleted as spam. Please don't start re-adding them. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link proposal 

message: I have added a brief Controversy subsection within the History section: , which makes general mention of some of Google's controversies, and points users to the articles that provide more detail. Whether we should specifically mention China here, I'll leave up for discussion. (I have not removed any other content from the article that might now be redundant if this new section remains). --MichaelZimmer (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop reinserting the material without adding any new rationale. There is strong consensus on this talk page (really, everyone but you) that this material does not belong in the article's introduction. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have already compromised once. I will do it again (hopefully it will get us somewhere). I appretiate Michael Zimmer's constructive response, creating a section about controversies where the Chinese censorship and other relevant issues can be discussed and accessed easily. I would be happy to remove 'self-censored' from the introduction and substitute that by the words 'controversial site', linked to the 'Controversies subsection'. --129.67.89.102 22:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Speaks volumes. Dr. Cash, may I suggest you publish your cheesy leaflets about Google's clean and innovative products elsewhere? Wikipedia is not a shop window. Back to the edit war. --129.67.89.102 22:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Civility, please, 129. Please assume good faith with Dr. Cash's edits & reasoning, and work with consensus, not against it. If you persist, you very well might end up being blocked, esp in relation to the three revert rule. Keep in mind, this article is not meant to be your soapbox, either. Cheers. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I have made big efforts to work with consensus. Consensus consists of compromising on all sides so a middle ground is established. I have reduced my original point to a shadow of its original concept-- THAT is working towards consensus. We were making some progress with the new subsection, and that was unilaterally deleted by Dr Cash (who has deleted all previous entries referring to the Chinese censorship for the last few months in whichever format and location, as pointed out by Igloolily). It is very hard to assume any objectivity (let alone good will) in those actions, which go very much against the spirit of Wikipedia (and indeed one of Google's ten points-- democracy on the Internet works). With regard to your last sentence, I am very saddened that this is becoming my personal soapbox. Believe me, attention is not what I am seeking. --Spet1363 22:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While wikipedia encourages all editors to be bold in editing articles, if what you add to the article is reverted by someone else, the consensus guideline does not tell you to start an edit war over it by reverting the reversion! Consensus means using the talk page to come to an agreement regarding your addition or material that you've added BEFORE directly adding it! But you seem to think it's the other way around: add what you want added and then debate it's validity on the talk page and meanwhile keep reverting anyone that takes what you want added out. Unfortunately, I don't think that's the way wikipedia operates,... Dr. Cash 23:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy subsection 

message: Cheating Google article
I have made an article on how webdesigners and other Internet related people can imporve their Google Page rang using Accessible design.
Please note that this article really has nothing with "real" cheating.
Please review it:-) Hope you'll like it!
Borislav Dopudja 11:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See search engine optimization. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: And after reviewing some of your other contributions (mostly links to your website), you might also want to read Wikipedia:Spam#How not to be a spammer. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I would urge you to help contribute content to the encyclopedia, not links. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MichaelZimmer is right.  If you link to your website, it will be edited out faster than you can say "spam".  If you put in the article what you write on your website, it will be read by way more people than if it just stays on your own personal site. Stev0 01:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cheating Google 

message: I can't figure out what this means:
"It registers about a billion requests per day, which it records with no time-limit "to improve its search engines."[6]"
"...records with no time-limit..." ?? 
Leotohill 21:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it means that logs are not deleted, ever. --Alvestrand 22:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, that's the meaning. I've made some copy edits to the opening paragraphs to hopefully clarify this and a few other parts. Gwernol 23:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  huh? Time limit. 

message: I'm not sure about this. But the name given in the article seems random?
The one used on Chinese Wikipedia seems to be 公司 so someone might want to check these details.
--203.130.124.42 02:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 公司 is Chinese for "company". It's probably a suffix, like "Inc.". --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese Name of Google 

message: This video seems to keep being inserted as a reference for the statement about 50% of new product launches coming from 20% time:
:
The problem I have with it is, is that it's allegedly a video of a course lecture at stanford university and not published in any professional media sources. The video link alone is not acceptable, as stanford is likely to delete the video soon after the course completes, and then we're stuck with a link to something that doesn't exist. So I think we really need to find a more acceptable source here. Something that is also a text-based source that we can read, and don't have to depend on our PCs ability to play windows media player files to verify the source. Dr. Cash 16:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A little discreet, but still hard to find (sort of a tertiary source). Anyway, I went ahead and added the original video as a reference, but also added a bit more details on the source, and provided a link to an audio podcast version as well. Hopefully, this should be a bit better. Dr. Cash 18:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Need a better reference here

message: The article has gone through a good deal of revisions since its rejection from FAC, as well as it's last peer review. I was wondering what editors feel still needs to be done before renomination for FAC? Dr. Cash 18:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to put how Google is being censored in China in the opening paragraph.  (Just kidding) Stev0 18:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh no! Not that shiat again! ;-) Dr. Cash 18:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Not the opening paragraph.  According to WP:LEAD, significant controversies should be summarized in the lead section.  As it is now, more parts of the lead don't summarize anything else in the article, and there are vast sections of important information which aren't summarized in the lead.  Don't blame me the messenger; with the lead section the way it is now, you'll never get through FAC.  The policies are the policies (and during FAC review, the style guides are the policies, too, almost all of the time.) Publicola 05:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured article candidate?

message: Someone recently added a screenshot of google's personalized homepage to the 'History/Growth' section of the article. The screenshot is a little wide, and at 400 px wide might make the section look a little odd to someone viewing the article at 800x600 screen resolution. The real question, though, is, does this really add anything to the article, and specifically the section in which it was added? We've already got a screenshot of the main page earlier in the article, and what does this specific image have to do with the 'growth' of google? I'm not so sure this is necessary. Dr. Cash 22:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was me. How are two screenshots too many? I thought it, along with the other illustrated how the google website has evolved over time. *Growing* from a small site to a multifaceted empire. anyway, I've moved it to the services section. Perhaps you should get better hardware - Jack (talk) 01:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The Google homepage screenshot needs to be updated... Google has changed it. 67.168.171.148 21:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It is my personal belief that every article needs exactly 7 screenshots. No more, no less. Dlong 00:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How many google screenshots do we really need?

message: Can somebody tell me where should the Google's Chinese name writing? Aleenf1 09:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese name 

message: this should go somewere. --Striver 03:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Privacy

message: How many billion pages does the Google index now contain, and should this be mentioned in the article? Where is this information available? Does Google publish these figures anymore? ---Majestic- 09:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of index? 

message: Google just anounced a new product [Google Apps for your Domain]. I don't know much about it my self, but we should try to get some information up about it as soon as possible
:Google Apps for your Domain has now been added.
: But, about the new Google apps in 2006 -- there are many more that were lunched this year, besides Calendar and GAfyD.  Spreadsheets and Notebook are the most notable ones, IMO. Search for "2006" in List of Google services and tools for the rest.  So the last paragraph in this section should be reworded. -Olegos 22:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Products and services 

message: I deleted the text "Google has also been criticised for censoring material on its Chinese service, including sites on Falun Gong, human rights abuses in Tibet and the Tiananmen Square Massacre" since it's covered in the paragraph in the sentence "Google's cooperation with the governments of China, France and Germany to filter search results in accordance to regional laws and regulations has led to claims of censorship."  Note the link to the article Google censorship which has all that information and more. Stev0 15:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: China again

message: It appears that Google has the star in the top right corner indicating it's a featured article. However, the discussion page does not state that Google is a featured article, and it does not appear in the featured articles list. So is Google a featured article or not? If not, please remove the star. Thanks. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An anonymous editor added it several days ago, escaping notice until now.  Thanks for pointing this out.  The star has been removed. --Aude (talk contribs) 04:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome. Actually, it'd be great if Google became a featured article, as I'm a Google fan. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article? 

message: Today on my time GMT+100, Google said it was the 8th anniversary. So does this mean that Google was founded on Sept 27 1998?
Well... google tells it has birthday today (and in the calender of wiki this also is noted) but on the page: nothing... only 7 september... Missing 2? Or just missing data?
Google does have an exact date when google was founded, just September, 1998. They pick a date when everyone wants cake =D--jonphamta 12:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  27 September  

message: Have you ever googled Google? Don't go do it...just reflect on the mystery of it all. Ponder these things. Holy Crap!! Why is there so much discussion going on here about a search engine?? You guys need to get a job, or something. User:hxc ryan
:No, we all wonder how cool it would be to work in a place like that with an executive chef and an on-site doctor and tons of other luxury perks, plus the chance at getting stock options.  I noticed the last time I drove around Google to take the pictures for the Googleplex article that they have luxury shuttle buses from Bauer's (a Bay Area limousine service) that shuttle Google personnel between the Googleplex and the dozens of satellite buildings.  But the constant pressure to invent the Next Big Thing must be a real killer, though.  --Coolcaesar 03:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Million-Dollar Question