Talk:Google/Archive 2

message: Revenue 10,604.92 million
Net income 3,077.45 million—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leohuang (talk • contribs).
:WP:CITE your source. ffm yes? 14:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Google's 2006 financial status

message: Ok.  First you killed the Google Hits article, merging it with this one.  Then someone killed all references to Google Hits in this article  Either restore the references, or I'll restore the original Google Hits article.  Mugaliens 20:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Google Hits

message: http://www.towers.fr/papers/culture%20performance%20and%20motivation%20review%20and%20the%20google%20case%20study%20success.pdf
This article examines the relationship that exists between organisational culture and performance, and how these factors influence employee motivation. The issues are discussed at length, firstly through a review of the current literature relating to the topic, and secondly by means of investigating the organisational culture of Google. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.80.66.213 (talk • contribs).
:Note: 89.80.66.213 resolves to dra38-2-89-80-66-213.dsl.club-internet.fr. It is quite possible that this suggestion posted is an advertisement for the site, posted from the person that maintains the site that hosts the article and the author of said paper (David Towers). Dr. Cash 00:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested article to include about Google's corporate culture

message: There was a spoof on Google Images where the images would be made of the letters used to search. 67.188.172.165 21:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When? CITE your sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Firefoxman (talk • contribs) 19:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Google Spoof

message: This page is getting extremely long, can somebody please archive this page so anyone who view this page would not crash their browsers--67.34.214.207 00:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. See above for the link to the archived information. Dr. Cash 21:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving the page

message: What it the point of this section? It appears to be somebody sounding off their opinion against the use of google hit counts to imply relevance. I have never heard of anyone using google hits as a measure of social relevance, is this really the case? I suggest that unless something is included with examples of google hits actually being used in this manner, the section should be deleted, as currently it is just a rant against a nonexistent issue. 60.226.114.146 01:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Googlehit Section

message: Just to be clear, Google has announced an agreement to acquire YouTube. The acquisition hasn't actually taken place (yet). See their own press release : "Both companies have approved the transaction, which is subject to customary closing conditions and is expected to close in the fourth quarter of 2006." Please wait for the deal to close before stating that YouTube "was bought" or "is owned" by Google. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: YouTube announcement

message: The Oxford English on Historical Principles, Vol. 1, defines "google" As a verb - of a ball or the bowler.   The same is described of an unknown origin of the by-gone era of 1904, and is a cricketing terminology of an off-break ball bowled with leg-break action
this definition was supplied as part of the Defence in a trademark dispute between Google Inc v Dot Name Communications  maybe contacting Lords (very old UK cricket organisation) would clarify this word definition
:No, that's Googly not Google, they're different words. Gwernol 14:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: lol User:friendly_troll 14:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Barney Google is an American cartoon character from 1919.  You  can find it via Google. :)
Talking of dictionary entries, I notice there is no link to the verb  to Google on the page at all. I think there should be at least some mention under Controversy... of the cease and desists allegedly served on some people using "google" generically. This is covered in more detail under  to Google, one sentence and a link to there would be sufficient?
Markowe 17:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Google Word Origin

message: I'm looking for a book about google and yahoo titled "Search."  Unfortunately I can't think of a unique string to search for it.  I was hoping it already had a wikipedia entry, and was mentioned on this page.  I think the author is Battel or something like that?  Mathiastck 16:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Search: How Google and Its Rivals Rewrote the Rules of Business and Transformed Our Culture --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Book titled "Search"

message: Also, from the first book of the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy¹ (1979), chapter 25, page 127, the correct spelling (rather than the number googol) is also found in the correct context:
"And are you not," said Fook leaning anxiously forward, "a greater analyst than the Googleplex Star Thinker in the Seventh Galaxy of Light and Ingenuity which can calculate the trajectory of every single dust particle throughout a five-week Dangrabad Beta sand blizzard?" 
To be honest, from the first day I saw Google I thought that this was where the word came from...
Briantist 21:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Googleplex word origin

message: Internet explorer 6 wasn't around in 1998. 86.140.139.252 22:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Version 6 was released on August 27, 2001 (from IE article) It certainly dosen't look like IE5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Internet_Explorer_5_WfW.png) - if you look down the left hand side of the IE page you can see the various versions.--Flutefluteflute 19:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Internet_Explorer_4.png IE4 does look like the picture - the difference with IE5 must be the OS. The wayback machine has two pages for google 1998 one is here http://web.archive.org/web/19981202230410/http://www.google.com/ and looks like the pic the other is here: http://web.archive.org/web/19981111184551/http://google.com/ and only a month before the other - dosen't. --Flutefluteflute 19:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about replacing it with this? --Flutefluteflute 17:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Google.com in 1998 Internet Explorer 6

message: This is a rather long article about serverfarms and Google is repeatedly mentioned; Wired Magazine 14.10: The Information Factories. Maybe there's information in it that could be added in this Wikipedia article or related articles? --Jambalaya 17:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article about serverfarms

message: In Google, why does Wikipedia always like end up in the top 10 search results if you search for practically any keyword?
Did Wikipedia pay Google or something? It is high PR of the individual pages and better relevance.--Johnhardcastle 11:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Top 10

message: Currently the article says Google.com was registered September 14th, 1997, however according to WHOIS information and the article at http://graphics.stanford.edu/~dk/google_name_origin.html, the actual date is September 15th, 1997.
75.28.17.146 16:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Correct the Date of Registration

message: I'm sorry that I do not have any sources to quote but, I know that Google bought a company writely.com in order to develop their technology  regarding the word processing part of docs.google.com. I used writely.com for a long time, then one day when I went there, it forwarded me to docs.google.com. I later looked into it and discovered that Google had bought the company a few months earlier.
An update to the "# 3 Acquistions and partnerships" Section?
Weareschizo 04:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Google bought writely.com

message: I've moved the 'acquisitions and partnerships' section to it's own section in the History of Google article, since it's more relevant as history to the company. There is a subsection in this article on 'acquisitions and partnerships' now, which is a brief summary of the complete information now in History of Google. Dr. Cash 04:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Acquisitions and partnerships

message: One of the founders is reported on this page to be worth $40B, while he is actually worth $14B.  Small typo.  63.224.188.143 21:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Founders monetary worth

message: A link should be included to the "Better Business Burea of Silicone Valley " in case anyone has a problem with Google and needs help to resolve it.
http://www.bbbsilicon.org/index.htm
:The Better Business Bureau of Silicon Valley has nothing to do with Google, so adding a link to this article would not be appropriate. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, an informational resource. It's purpose is not to provide a means and an avenue for consumers and citizens to direct complaints against various corporations. Dr. Cash 00:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On a less serious note, I'd love to know where, "Silicone Valley," is,... must be some really nice, ahem, "scenery," there,... ;-) Dr. Cash 00:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Silicone Valley" is the place in Beverly Hills, California, with all the plastic surgeons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.175.225.22 (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Better Business Burea of Silicone Valley

message: Link to a podcast from a presentation by Google and the City of San Francisco about their plans to build a free wireless network similar to what they already did in Mountain View:
http://www.usfmbapodcast.com
And yes, I tried to include this link in the main Google page but someone thinks that Wikipedia is not the place to put links... I disagree, I think Wikipedia is the best place to find information about any topic and if a link may be relevant to the topic, then it should be included. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tcalves (talk • contribs) 05:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Google's Free Wireless Internet in San Francisco

message: :Add    or    on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
*Strong oppose - Google has become so much more than a search engine.  The page Google should refer only to the company, with the services (including the search) on other pages. —Mets501 (talk) 02:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: FYI
*In late 2006, Yahoo began a campaign to upgrade their maps, to compete better with Google Local and other online map companies.  Several of the maps used in the survey were similar to Google maps. The online survey is here. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 06:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yahoo maps

message: The Google article is now over 31 kb in length. To solve this problem, I think we can improve its structure. If you look at the History section, it has several sub-sections, yet they all lead to the same article. Perhaps the History section can be a concise summary, leading onto the main History of Google article. At the moment, it almost seems pointless having a separate article... it just needs to be used more.
--Mambo Jambo 18:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 31 kb is hardly anything to worry about. I've seen articles well above that, some of which are even featured articles. Seeing as how most people are using broadband these days, why are you worried about 31 kb? Dr. Cash 19:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Size: Possible Solutions

message: "The domain google.com was registered on September 14, 1997, and the company was incorporated as Google Inc. on September 7, 1998 at a friend's garage in Menlo Park, California."
One does not incorporate their company (or register a domain name for that matter) at their place of business. One files for incorporation, and if they do it at any place it would be a corporate filing office. See Incorporation (business). Perhaps they used the address of the property (referred to as a garage) as their principal place of business? If so, that's what should be said, because it makes a hell of a lot more sense than "Google was incorporated at a friend's garage."
There are thousands of edits to the article, and this nonsensical sentence has survived every one. Please fix this because even though Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit," for some reason I can't edit it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.57.157.81 (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The company was incorporated "at a friend's garage?"

message: It seems that we should be increasingly worried nowadays given that Google is BY FAR the world's largest search engine, with no other company/competitor even coming remotely close to matching Google's unabashed dominance on the Internet (though some European companies are currently working on viable alternatives). Google also has customized search sites in dozens of languages and tailored to dozens of countries (google.de, google.fr, google.ru, google.cn, google.it, the list goes on and on -- strangely enough though, the Japanese Google is google.CO.jp…CO for COMPANY, as in google.[COM]pany in the U.S.), and I assume that they are largely dominant in those 'markets' as they are in the USA.
Even Google's supposed "competitors" all now seem to be 'enhanced by' or 'powered by' Google (as shown by the nifty little badge located to the right of so many search engines these days), thus making them nothing more than Google clones; who knows how many smaller search engines have now been swallowed by the ‘Googlith.’  I won’t be surprised if even Wikipedia's in-house search engine doesn't soon become 'enhanced by' Google. How has Google managed to transform the browsing of the Internet in to a business (one of the world's largest and most obscenely profitable) given that it didn't begin that way?  Do the words "Internet" and "business" even belong together in the same sentence when we web surfers aren't even trying to buy anything 99% of the time that we are using Google?  Shouldn’t it be google.ORG instead of google.COM; or maybe google.cor might be best, since Google is technically now a corporation and is thus “publicly held,” though we all of course know that this is indeed not the case given the price of the site’s shares.
Doesn't this trend (the 'Googlization' of other search engines on the web) worry anyone else, especially governmental agencies, law firms, colleges/universities, scholars/researchers, etc.?  Doesn't Google's undisputed pre-eminence on the Internet actually threaten the free-flow of information or impede the so-called 'marketplace of ideas,' (given that Google IS truly nothing more than an electronic marketplace/business that also happens to be the world's largest search engine: raking in BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of dollars a year on ads that people hardly pay attention to, much less click on). I thought that capitalism (remember: Google is still overwhelmingly a privately held company) required competition; however, it's clear that Google currently HAS no competition. This is why it seems that it is now a blatant monopoly (which is against American law) and, when it comes to the Internet especially, this could be a bit dangerous or 'shady' if you know what I mean.  Does anyone else agree? Where are the anti-trust lawyers when you need them?!
In fact (I'm not insinuating that they do this) but the people at Google could EASILY block and/or erase very controversial or 'socially threatening' sites from its servers that it doesn't want the world to see or notice, i.e. websites that some might deem threatening to the 'social order,' sites with instructions on how to make weapons, sites with information on notoriously reclusive yet very powerful people/groups, and so forth.  Or they could just as easily bury these ‘controversial search results’ on the 999th page of results that no one will obviously ever reach, thus keeping them very-very low in the results even if they contain highly relevant and useful information (even if these ‘Google-hidden’ sites are indeed 'controversial' or considered 'socially dangerous' it doesn’t mean that they do not deserve to be placed much higher in the results, that they aren't aren't valid and useful and deserve to be seen).
Is anyone else disturbed by this trend of Google utterly monopolizing the free-flow of ideas on the web?  Controlling (or directing us to) the websites we see because we rarely if ever go past the 5th or 6th page of search results when looking things up?  In a truly free and open society, shouldn't the entirety of the Internet be run by and for the PUBLIC GOOD with no centralized locus (Google is obviously now the Internet's hub, or locus); shouldn't the Internet be made fully transparent and a public service rather than having about a certain 10,000 Silicon Valley employees in a totally private and closed-off "Googleplex" manage and sort the information of the world, all the while reaping amazingly ridiculous profits for billions of tiny ads, most of which are largely ignored?  So, do you all think that Google is a monopoly (or quickly becoming one) and/or a threat to the freedom of information on the Internet?  --Pseudothyrum 10:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "strangely enough though, the Japanese Google is google.CO.jp" Some country code tlds don't give out names directly under the tld, i know uk is one and i'm pretty sure both jp and au are too. Plugwash 02:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No. It's just you. Arvindn 04:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Arvindn.  Pseudothyrum is clearly (1) a troll and (2) pushing original research, neither of which are appropriate for Wikipedia.  The last time I checked, GoogleWatch is the place for such silly speculation.  Furthermore, Pseudothyrum is clearly unaware of the powerful "deep Web" which coexists with Google, by which I mean the huge information services companies that keep a huge amount of information in giant private databases not directly searchable from the public Web unless one has a lot of money (see LexisNexis, ProQuest, Thomson West, etc.).  That's what most real intellectuals worry about, not Google (which can be easily dethroned by the next great search algorithm, just as Google dethroned AltaVista and Yahoo).  --Coolcaesar 23:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well yes, they are a monolopy, but the catch is they always have a smile, and there motto is "don't be evil", but a couple years ago googles guys were a private company, now there more public then walmart putting stores on mars. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.15.250.195 (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: We only object to monopolies when they act against the public interest and Google hasn't been deemed to be doing that yet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.129.209.151 (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A Monopoly?  Or Quickly Becoming One?

message: Image Search could have a link to Google Image Search. --190.48.101.55 15:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image Search link

message: Please add :mr:गुगल
:Done/wangi 10:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Interwiki

message: I suggest that we add a link to google.com/coop/cse?cx=011459247747130173317%3A-aw515pjxg4.  That is a page on Google that allows you to search pages created by Google.  For example, if you searched for history you would find only pages created by Google.com about History.  It is really a nice resource! Eric 02:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you never entered 'site:google.com' into your Google search to limit the results to a given site or domain (ie 'site:uk', 'site:nhs.uk')?  So you can search Google for it's history by entering 'history site:google.com'!!! Briantist 07:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that, however, there are many people that do not know that.  I believe that placing the link to a page where people don't have to enter "search term site:google" and they can just enter the search term they are looking for would be beneficial. Eric 14:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see core policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.  Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  That kind of "how to" information is more appropriate for Wikibooks, not Wikipedia.  --Coolcaesar 20:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure if you quite understand the question at hand here Coolcaesar.  I am only proposing the placing of google.com/coop/cse?cx=011459247747130173317%3A-aw515pjxg4 to the external links section of the Google article.  That link is a link that allows you to search pages on the Google website. Eric 23:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Google Link

message: Google is now partially censoring websites that are believed to have spyware or badware. You get a badware page about warning you and the text URL of the link but there is no link to continue on.
This should be added to controversy. Ie, what gives right google to decide what is badware and warn when they dont warn about other sites like smoking, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikitalk009 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit strange that you can't tell the difference between visiting a web site that installs unwanted software on your computer and a site with words about smoking on. ••Briantist•• talk 23:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not censorship, they ae still lettinng you go to the sites. It is just so that people's computers are safer. "Smoking on" is a social issue, and google is not censored, exept for porn and stuff like that. And in China. ffm yes? 16:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: badware.org blocking websites, google censorship

message: gogog google!
The creator of googles father was born in 1947 and he was in the vietnamese warIm sure many of you may have heard of this video by "Infinite Solutions" If not look it up on google blogs. They seem to show proof and show you a way that is is real and how to get it. Other people claim to have tried it, but very few people seem to be showing proof. My question is, is this a hoax?
- Yes. Technostalgia 23:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:CITE. We are not a directory of rumors, slashdot  is for that. We need reliable information, not speculation. ffm yes? 16:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Google Tv

message: Nice work!
I just noticed it and by the time i@d logged in it was gone!
The Adept 11:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit of Google by User:Grindingteeth at issue is this one.   This is a clear violation of several Wikipedia core policies, including WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOT.  I agree that Grindingteeth appears to be acting in bad faith and is possibly a vandal or a troll.  If he keeps up that nonsense he should be blocked.--Coolcaesar 04:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To whoever just got rid of the vandalism

message: Should the article mention the "swim across the Atlantic" easter egg within the easter egg section? See step 23 at  as an example. Tugttw 02:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trip Across the Atlantic Easter Egg

message: Whats up with the coordinates at the top right of the google article? I haven't seen this on any other article. IWhisky 15:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out Vancover. All of the articles that are cool enougth have one. Just kidding. It is for most articles that have actual locations, it is how google is able to intergrate the wikipedia into google earth. ffm yes? 19:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: In short: it is the coordinates of the headquarters of Google. --Iamunknown 04:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Google... Coordinates?

message: 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 01:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Straight from Google help (http://www.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=35891): " This number is the size of the text portion of the web page, and gives you some idea of how quickly it might display. You won't see a size figure for sites that we haven't fully indexed." --Iamunknown 04:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank YouJ.L.Main 19:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: I am removing the Google Holiday Logo from the article. The official Google Doodles page states: We've put them in this online museum for your amusement. Please do not use them elsewhere. As such, it is a violation of their image licensing uses, and should be removed. It does look nice, though.  –-  kungming·2 (Talk) 07:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Google Holiday Logo

message: Recently, the article's summary section has been dramatically increased in size and wording. I'm not certain on who made these changes, but I feel that it could hinder the nomination for being a featured article. There are also other changes that really need to be made to this article, because recently things have been unnecessarily edited, leaving just a bigger mess.
Does anyone else see the motive in me re-editing the changes to the summary section? Thanks. Mambo Jambo 16:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the edit history, it should be obvious that I edited the LEAD paragraph, trying to make it a better summary of the article conforming to standards in WP:LEAD. If you can improve this, please do. Dr. Cash 17:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Changes to Article Summary

message: I have added a section on the proposed Google Phone, along with references; it seems to be big news.
Also, these pages need a general cleanup (deleting discussion comments which have been noted and used, changing links etc.).
HiraV 19:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Information moved to the section on products. It is not notable enough for its own main section. Plus, it's largely speculation anyways, but considering that it got a decent amount of press coverage, a brief mention might be noteworthy. Dr. Cash 19:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Google Phone

message: Is that slogan real? Or is it vandalism..?Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver And The  Vandal Watchman (Talk) 16:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest you follow the link as it answers your question. --Bobblehead 16:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did, but that wasnt very convincing either, I've seen more compecated vandalism then that. Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver And The  Vandal Watchman (Talk) 12:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Slogan

message: I noticed that "The Google" (without the quotes) redirects here. I'm thinking it should have a separate article, as it is a Bushism. After all, Internets has its own article. What do you think about this? TanookiMario257 00:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, no. A separate article on that isn't needed. I hardly even hear the term, "the google." Maybe by Bush, I supposed; but then, it should just be added to the Bushism page. Dr. Cash 19:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "The Google"

message: :Isint that an all fools day joke ?
::It sure is. I actually fell for it but the obvious references to the bathroom finally made me realize what day it was. Good ol' April Fool's Day. - 75.35.237.117 10:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TiSP isn't the only april fool's day joke by google this year. Gmail also has a joke for Google Paper. Dr. Cash 18:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In order to do google tisp it would take an enourmous amount of work on google's part to put those things in the sewer pipes, its an april fools--Olavid 20:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Google TiSP

message: Monday, April 02, 2007
Newest Google guffaw: High-speed Internet through your toilet
By Associated Press
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Presiding over a company with a market value of
$143 billion apparently gives Silicon Valley's most famous
billionaires a good sense of humor -- and a case of corporate potty
mouth.
Senior executives at Google Inc. launched their annual April Fools'
Day prank Sunday, posting a link on the company's home page to a site
offering consumers free high-speed wireless Internet through their
home plumbing systems.
Code-named Dark Porcelain, Google said its Toilet Internet Service Provider (TiSP) works with Microsoft Corp.'s new Windows
Vista operating system. But sorry -- septic tanks are incompatible
with the system's requirements.
The gag included a mock press release quoting Google co-founder and
president Larry Page, a step-by-step online installation manual, and a scatological selection of Frequently Asked Questions. On some Google sites, the company's official logo -- a lticolored Google that changes according to the season and on holidays -- substituted a
commode for the second g. There's actually a thriving little underground community that's been studying this exact solution for a long time, Page said in the facetious statement. And today our Toilet ISP team is pleased to be leading the way through the sewers, up out of your toilet and -- splat -- right onto your PC.
Marissa Mayer, a Google vice president, called TiSP a breakthrough product, particularly for those users who, like Larry himself, do much of their best thinking in the bathroom.
TiSP is the latest April Fools joke at the Mountain View, Calif.-based company, where hijinks pervade cubicles all year long. In blogs, Google employees joke about the recent injection of green dye into milk in the cafeteria, while another talks about zany underlings
filling the vice president of engineering's office with sand.
Visit me at http://www.webdesigningcompany.net. Anyway Eric Raymond, a software developer in Malvern, Pa., and author of the New Hacker's Dictionary, said TiSP nailed several important tenets of hacker humor.
The concept of free wireless access parallels a legitimate, four-year
deal between Google and EarthLink Inc. to provide free wireless
Internet service throughout San Francisco starting in early 2008.
As part of the spoof, Google said TiSP would be offered in three
speeds: Trickle, The No. 2, and Royal Flush.
The leitmotif of hacker humor is precise reasoning from utterly
bizarre premises, and once you're in that groove, you're absolutely
fearless about going deeper, Raymond said. We also have a tendency to deliberately zigzag between highly intellectual humor and utter slapstick. The more zigzags you can manage in a single spoof, the funnier it is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Charlesmartinn (talk • contribs) 05:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: April Fool:Newest Google guffaw

message: I've rephrased the wording of the lead paragraphs a bit, hopefully to make it a bit shorter and more concise. Let me know how it looks. If you have any ideas, please leave them here or feel free to edit the lead. Dr. Cash 18:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article summary

message: Hello,
Does anyone know whether Google is concidering starting a webhosting project, offering webspace for people to host their site?
It seems as a good idea and logical step for Google to take.
Thank you,
LAUBO 17:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article's talk page is not the appropriate place to discuss such things, but you might want to look at the article on Google pages, as it would probably answer your question. Dr. Cash 19:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Web Hosting

message: The revenue numbers listed in the sidebar are different than the revenue information listed at the bottom of the page.  Can someone tell me why, or better yet, fix it with whichever number is the correct one?  --Micah Hainline 21:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revenue

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

message: I'd add that but I think the page is locked. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.68.90.97 (talk) 10:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Google Personalized Pages now iGoogle

message: Hi guys, I recently wrote a piece that aims to better explain the acquisitions by Google and have posted it as an external link on the Google page. The edit section on the site asked me to mention it here so... here I am! I hope the community finds it useful.
-B —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Babar54 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition

message: There has been a new Google web page posted on about Monday, May 7, 2007
The link to the photo is located here:     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Newgoogle.png
Lookatme2 21:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we please stop adding **every** incarnation of the google homepage to the article. The homepage has hardly changed since the company started, and this particular one adds such minor differences and is so horizontally oriented that it really won't add anything to the article. Dr. Cash 03:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: new google homepage

message: Google Earth really ought to be listed under "acquisitions" since it was acquired by purchasing Keyhole, the company that originally developed it... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.79.186.127 (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Google Earth

message: I think the article should mention something about google former domain, deja.com
Interestingly, navigating to deja.com brings you to groups.google.com
Bgbop15
Will, NJ
:Google did not originally own deja.com. Their "original" domain has always been google.com. What happened, is that they purchased the usenet news content from DejaNews, which is why deja.com now points to google groups. See this link for more information on that. Dr. Cash 19:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: googles former domain: Deja.com

message: "All Google engineers are encouraged to spend 20% of their work time (one day per week) on projects that interest them."
:No engineers at Google work more than 5 days a week? --Dreaded Walrus  t c 01:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Twenty percent" time

message: Is Google's purchase of Feedburner worthy of being put into the acquisitions section of the article? --Jmccorm 03:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Acquisition of Feedburner

message: I would like to place a reference to US Patent 5,748,954, which is relevant to the Google technology.
Specifically, I would like to change the last sentence in the first paragraph in the History section to read: "A small search engine called Rankdex was already exploring a similar strategy[7] and Michael Mauldin, a researcher at Carnegie Mellon University who later founded the search engine Lycos, had already patented a similar technology covering link popularity and anchor text within US Patent 5,748,954.[8]
The footnote reference [8] could link to the patent at the following link to the USPTO:
Gculliss 03:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request to add a reference to US Patent 5,748,954, which is relevant to the Google technology

message: Where it says "assorted video games, Foosball, a baby grand piano, a pool table, and ping pong. In addition to the rec room, there are snack rooms stocked with various cereals, gummy bears, toffee, licorice, cashews, yogurt, carrots, fresh fruit, and dozens of different drinks including fresh juice, soda, and make your own cappuccino," EVERY OTHER WORD is a link.  Seriously, who doesn't know what yogurts or carrots are?  I don't know how an article can be considered "good" when there is such excessive and irrelevant linking.--143.58.196.120 12:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Overlinking under "Googleplex"

message: hi:गूगल —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.94.136.199 (talk • contribs).
:Done. :) --Dreaded Walrus  t c 18:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: add interwiki link

message: I would like to add an Environmental Records Section to the Google Wiki Page.  I feel that it is relevant to the company's image and moto. Here are a few sample programs at Google that support environmental issues:
*$5,000 subsidies for employees buying hybrid cars.
*Company dining facilities that serve organic sustainable foods.
*Charitable contributions to organizations that fight global warming.
*On-site farmers markets.
*Composting of food waste and use of compostable plates and silverware.
*Use of green fuels and solar power.
*Fully subsidized employee bus pools for commuting employees.
Thanks. --Orcasgirl 19:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Orcasgirl, I agree. I have gone ahead and started an "Environmental Record" section, beginning with the basic information about google.org. Please feel free to incorporate some of the information that you have outlined above to the now existing section. Sea.wolf4 01:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Environmental Records Section

message: Isn't the Google's motto "Dont'be evil" instead of "You can make money without doing evil"?
The aricle states:
Google's corporate philosophy includes statements such as, "You can make money without doing evil,"
But there is no source for that. Google gives us more results for the first version of the motto (click) than for the second (click). Google Story (a red link? impossible :>) —  and  (Amazon link) also tells us it's the first version. Any ideas? Andrij Kursetsky ⊗ 20:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, and there is also an article about the motto... Andrij Kursetsky ⊗ 20:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The motto...

message: It's weird to me that this article doesn't even list their various locations and labs, or at least the major ones. Is a short section on this appropriate? — brighterorange (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Nearly all large corporations have many, many locations; have you ever worked for one?  Should we list the hundreds of GE or IBM locations in those respective articles?  Wikipedia is not a directory, a yellow pages, an indiscriminate collection of random information! See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. --Coolcaesar 20:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: locations?

message: Needs a complete re-write. -CKL
:Please be more specific. I completely disagree with you; while the article could certainly be improved, I wouldn't say, "it's a mess." And I definitely wouldn't say that without adding a few details about WHY? I thought it was a mess. Dr. Cash 06:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article is a mess.

message: See http://www.google.com/search?q=number+of+horns+on+a+unicorn . I found it mentioned on reddit, it seems that the easter egg that churns out 42 is not the only one using this medium. The 42 easter egg is probably considered more notable, but I think it should mention that others exist...? - Zero1328 Talk? 11:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of horns on a unicorn

message: Hello, I'm trying to reach a human at Google that knows where once can make a request to have a bot do automated searches (the TOS are clear that this is a no-no without permission).  The help email addy gives no joy (they simply quote the TOS back).
I've had an offer from Kylu to resend the request from a Foundation email address, but we're still laking a destination for the request.
I'm guessing here that Google employees check this page out every so often.  If you are, please contact me.  — Coren (talk) 03:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Slightly unorthodox request

message: Should they turn their user's info to the Government of Brazil or should they protect Pedos?
*Brazil Threatens To Shut Down Google.br.  It's a slippery slope, they do turn over some info to the US Government to deal with "Terror" so shouldn't they turn over info to the Chinese Government and Brazil governments too? CaribDigita 23:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Google in another scandal.

message: I am just curious as to what the reason may be for using the "non-shadowed" logo  as opposed to Google's "official" shadowed logo. It does not appear that using the image of their official logo  violates any copyright law. Am I missing something? --207.61.219.218 15:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Logo?

message: There's nothing in the article about Google's history of giving in to the demands of some groups.  The Church of Scientology demanded that they demote anti-Scientology websites in favour of the official ones.  George W. Bush demanded that a site critical of his policies be demoted on searches for the phrase "dumb motherfucker".  China demanded that Google remove links to sites appearing in searches about "freedom" or "democracy".  Google has consistently acquiesced to the demands of these groups and others.  --Darth Borehd 23:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of your points are addressed in the article on Censorship by Google, I would assume. If there are still things that you feel should be included, feel free to bring them up on that talk page. :) --Dreaded Walrus  t c 23:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Google caving in to the demands of some groups

message: 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" "gúgle" and very few "gágl" (pronuncieted all in Spanish). Can someone put an pronunciation mp3 for non-english speakers? thanks. Comu_nacho, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.222.251.235 (talk) 05:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation?

message: News : Iran blocks google http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=42402  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.108.67.119 (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Google in Iran

message: Is there any reason Google Search Appliance or Google Mini isn't listed in the section? --soum talk 10:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Enterprise products

message: This article doesn't seem to mention google's new offering of Android which is a mobile phone operating system based on linux and is opensource. It was announced today (Monday November 5th 2007). There was a conference call today announcing it. I read about it on the engadget blog who was part of the conference call.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.20.208 (talk) 01:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Android

message: The wiki on Google states that Google.org is a not-for-profit organization, however the Google.org wiki states it is a for-profit organization. The correct answer is that Google.org is a for-profit organization, that is why they are able to lobby and fund beneficial commercial sector initiatives, they do however support and help finance other not-for-profit organizations.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Animelion (talk • contribs) 01:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Google.org

message: Reference one looks screwed, maybe someone that knows what they are doing could fix it? Sancassania 00:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: This doesn't seem to need a separate article, so I have suggested merging it to here. --Trödel 23:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. per nom. Dr. Cash 01:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thx - just realized I never checked back to see the views of others etc. :) --Trödel 15:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge [[Project 02]]

message: In a letter to H.N.Swanson dated 14 March 1953 Raymond Chandler wrote:
"I had exactly four seconds to hot up the disintegrator and Google had told me it wasn't enough. He was rght."
p 188 'The Raymond Chandler Papers' Eds Tom Hiney & Frank MacShane, Hamish Hamilton 2000.
While of no great significance in the history of Google it seems worth adding to the History section of the Wiki page. Sj65 08:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see how that quote either (a) makes any sense whatsoever or (b) has anything to do with this corporation. Dr. Cash 19:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Google" used as a proper name by Raymond Chandler

message: Propose merge because this is a very minor aspect of Google's service in just one country and it could easily become a couple of sentences in the main article; making things much easier. Itsmejudith 14:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Animated Google page has been redirected here. There's still no significant content, so nothing has really been "merged". All of the sources it's citing are just bloggers, and blogs do not meet Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines. In other words, this is non-notable. Dr. Cash 19:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Animated Google

message: What's the I'm Feeling Button do?Roxy2k7 06:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take you directly to the first result, without seeing the other results on the google.com page. Matan 13:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I'm Feeling Lucky

message: The Google.org subsection was not deleted from the article, it was moved and rewritten to a subsection under history, entitled 'Philanthropy'.
The Google.mobi section was deleted outright because it was stupid. It was poorly written, and made it look like Google was the main proponent behind this new TLD, which is bull. It's not a significant part of the company, and nobody is even using .mobi domains anyway. This section violates WP:NPOV and has been removed. Please do not readd it to the article without a major rewrite or organization,... and even then, it probably doesn't even need to be there, as it's not even a major part of Google's company. Dr. Cash 17:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should also be pointed out that the Google.mobi section was added by John Appleseed, who states on his user page that he is, "a writer for an online Mobile Tech magazine", and therefore has an obvious conflict of interest on the topic. Dr. Cash 17:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Google.mobi information has been moved to the History of Google article in the 'Partnerships' section. A brief, paraphrased version of this is also now in the main Google article, under 'partnerships'. It seems to fit best here and I don't believe that it deserves its own main section in the article, as it's just one minor facet of the company's operations. Dr. Cash 18:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Google.org & Google.mobi

message: I could not find any mention of what's covered in this article anywhere in this article or on the list of Google products. I don't know whether it's actually been implemented yet, but it should probably be mentioned somewhere. -Mike Payne  (T • C) 20:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Google Maps at gas stations?

message: Someone has proposed a merger (see History of Google), which seems to me to make not much sense. But the underlying logic is not debatable - the "History" section in this article is way too long, and probably has massive duplication with the article.  It would be great if someone more interested (I'm just passing by) would shorten the History section of this article per WP:SS, and then remove the merger proposal. Your username goes here 15:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge of [[History of Google]] into this article

message: Forgive my ignorance but is the comma really relevant in context here ""Work should be challenging and the challenge should be fun", illustrating"? Should it be removed? Why not? Google's corporate philosophy includes statements such as "Don't be evil" and "Work should be challenging and the challenge should be fun", illustrating a somewhat relaxed corporate culture.
Thank you. __Kushalt 21:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: comma usage

message: "Google's initial public offering took place on August 19, 2004. 19,605,052 shares were offered at a price of $200 per share.[25]"
I believe the offering price was $85 per share.  The cited article [25] only mentions the offering price range.  Oddly, the next sentence is correct, and the next cited article [26] clearly states the offering price was $85. Multiply total shares: 19,605,505 x $85/share = 1.67 billion.  
"Of that, 14,142,135 (another mathematical reference as √2 ≈ 1.4142135) were floated by Google and 5,462,917 by selling stockholders. The sale raised $1.67 billion, and gave Google a market capitalization of more than $23 billion.[26]"
The "History of Google" article has the same content but with correct price-per-share amount.
A more authoritative source for IPO information would be:
investor.google.com/pdf/2004_AnnualReport.pdf
or the prospectus filed with the SEC.
Cbfedits (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed this... I wonder who made the change... ~ PaulC/T+ 18:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Google IPO price

message: In the "Googleplex" section, the article describes all the different snacks and drinks there are, fine, but isn't it a little too detailed? 
In addition to the rec room, there are snack rooms stocked with various cereals, gummi bears, toffee, licorice, cashews, yogurt, carrots, fresh fruit, and dozens of different drinks including fresh juice, soda, and make your own cappuccino.
Do we really need to know all that? BunnyFlying (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Simplified. --Aseld (talk) 04:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice. Thanks. BunnyFlying (talk) 05:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so, I think that who ever created the part was trying to get the point across that there is so much for the employees to have. Weirdude (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Too much detail?

message: Currently Google Earth is mentioned in the 'Applications' section as an application developed by Google.
The origin of Google Earth is in a product developed by Keyhole ().
Keyhole was acquired by Google in 2004 (another missing fact in the article).
Keyhole's product had the base functionality of Google Earth still as a product of Keyhole - taking this in mind, I think it would be more appropriate to be placed in the acquisition paragraph as not to mislead people to think it was actually crated by Google.
Thedrs (talk) 09:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Google Earth should be in aquisition paragraph (keyhole)

message: Someone should include the new holiday logos, the ones that show the Google logo being constructed for Christmas.
Agreed. What would be better is a list of the logos. 204.11.191.49 (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Or rather, a link to Google's own list, since such a list is not particularly encyclopaedic. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 21:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The new holiday logos?

message: The lead should be longer than it is. One more paragraph would be enough, but probably twice its current length would be ideal. As is it's borderline GA failure material. Richard001 (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Better? —  X  S  G  19:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: The page is uneditable, and therefore dated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.156.230.157 (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, it's editable. Just not by you. Get an account if you want to make edits. Dlong (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Most popular/important Wiki pages are protected from guests without an account AP Shinobi (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: what do you mean by "dated" Machete97 (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Uneditable

message: I spent close to $200 buying videos from these people, and in August 2007 they closed the servers.  Now I can't watch the various movies I purchased.
And wikipedia acts as if the event never happened?!?!?  Apparently this article was "cleansed" by the google police to erase that negative publicity.  Congratulations Wiki for helping to promote & sell Google even when they block their customers from watching the movies legally purchased.  (Yes I am angry.)  Theaveng (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Calm down. The information you seek is at Criticism of Google. --ZimZalaBim talk 19:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Assuming good faith" is fine if wikipedia was only edited by people.  But it's also edited by Google and other corporations in order to erase bad publicity.  I've seen it happen over at HD Radio - an executive came along and replaced "users complain it doesn't sound good (with ref)" with "many users are surprised how great it sounds" and a link to the HD website.  Corporations come in here and erase negative views, trying to turn Wiki into their personal advertising forum.  ----  Theaveng (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a straw man argument.  Just because it has happened elsewhere doesn't mean that it has happened or will happen here; I see no need to change or disband the policy of "Assuming good faith".  This article has enough people monitoring it for POV edits that bad-faith edits to the Google article will be reverted quickly.  I also suspect that you'd be hard-pressed to find Google as a corporation intentionally and systematically slanting Wikipedia articles by making POV edits.  If you can, the information ought to be added to the Controversy section or Criticisms page... —  X  S  G  16:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: This could be prevented if Wikipedia refused to advertise websites in their "free" encyclopedia which in my opinion is rather restricted as well contradictive (I'm not saying it's possible to have a truly free online dictionary). I have no doubt, by the way, that Wikipedia are receiving some nice compensation for advertising large websites such as Google in their dictionary, which would also explain why any bad criticism is removed.213.114.169.144 (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: No mention of Google Video []ing customers?

message: Reference "howgoogleworks" returns 404 error
Ps ttf (talk) 08:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken link

message: Google was subpoenaed by the Department of Justice to hand over user searches in 2006, along with Yahoo, MSN, and AOL. Google was the only search company to say no and stand up to the U.S. government's invasion of user privacy. This should be noted alongside criticisms of Google's storage of search queries (used for targeted advertising, personalizing search results, and to improve search algorithm, but never released or disclosed to 3rd parties).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Subversive.sound (talk • contribs) 16:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 2006 DoJ Search Data Subpoena

message: I added a few  to the Introduction, only to have them removed.  I figured I would post it here, so the correct citations could be added without placing impurities on the Article page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Google&diff=191355967&oldid=191315261
--HockeyInJune (talk) 13:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations Needed

message: We need to acknowledge the fact that Google was founded by two Jewish people, Larry Page and Sergey Brin. 24.174.48.155 (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Significance being....?? 64.69.123.132 (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

text: There's no significance in the Google article.  There may be significance on each of the founders' pages, however while I know that Brin is at least culturally Jewish, I'm not sure that he's religiously Jewish, and Larry Page being Jewish comes as news to me... —  X  S  G   —Preceding comment was added at 04:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ethinically they are Jews. I think this is a very important fact to submit. Also, Larry is categorized under Jewish business. Stop censoring stuff you guys. 24.174.48.155 (talk) 05:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Methinks you have some kind of agenda. --ZimZalaBim talk 05:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Interestingly, the claim of censorship comes from our reversion of a reference to the founders being Jewish.  This causes me to question what the agenda is (though not that there is an agenda). —  X  S  G  07:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Founded by Jews

message: The censorship by google is not discussed in this article and there is no link to the atricle "Censorship by Google". There is one mention of censorship but it is hyperlinked to the wiki-article of the concept "Censorship". Can sombody fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.34.83 (talk • contribs) 
:The intro currently links to censorship, while the lower section on Criticism links specifically to Censorship by Google. However, I'll change the intro to link to Censorship by Google, too. Thanks for pointing this out. Dreaded Walrus  t c 11:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Censorship by Google

message: Google your way to a wacky office.
If your ideal workspace includes a slide, a games room, a 'chill-out' aquarium and plenty of free food then you had better get your CV into Google. Dotcom companies were defined by beanbags and pizza but Google, a company that came to prominence after the bubble had burst, has taken that image to a whole new level. Meeting 'pods' in the style of Swiss chalets and igloos, fireman poles to allow easy access between floors and a slide to ensure that people can get to the cafeteria as quickly as possible are all part of a design of its new European engineering headquarters in Zurich Switzerland. The building was designed for - and partly by - the 300 engineers who will work there. They are best served, according to the vice president of engineering, by both a creative work environment and a flat, open working structure. The wacky office is both a showcase for Google's unconventional approach to business and a symbol to prove that Google is no longer a US-centric firm. From (BBC News 03/13/08) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7290322.stm
192.31.106.34 (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly is the point you're trying to make ? Machete97 (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Google moved HQ to Switzerland

message: Google's cooperation with the governments of China, and to a lesser extent France and Germany (regarding Holocaust denial) to filter search results in accordance to regional laws and regulations has led to claims of censorship.
I was under the impression that Google had removed pages discussing the holocaust (and was thus denying the holocaust, since that seems like a more legitimate criticism), when they were actually removing pages that are White Nationalist/Neo-Nazi. Perhaps the sentence is worded correctly, but it still reads a little ambiguously. -98.209.101.146 (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Censorship section

message: No one has started anything on this new OS yet?
So i might aswell atleast get something going.
So my question is. can google andriod be used on any phone with uptodate capabilities?
i.e. color screen. internet, etc.
but the real thig is can it be used with any phone from any carrier?
 like for instance a sidekick?
just wipe my phone clean and replace it with andriod?
that all?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.233.222 (talk) 03:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Google Android

message: Does anyone have insight into this:
 Google Inc. is a company incorporated under the laws of Delaware.
http://www.google.com.au/intl/en/contact/index.html
There doesn't seem to be any info about it on wikipedia.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.5.212 (talk) 08:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorporated by the laws of Delaware?

message: Can someone who's able to edit this fix it. You can't take ads off Gmail unless you pay 50 USD/user/year for the premier apps edition: http://www.google.com/a/help/intl/en/admins/editions.html
Thanks!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silviagomez (talk • contribs) 03:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Dreaded Walrus  t c 03:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: It's not true that Gmail ads can be removed free of charge

message: I often read this article and normal get the gest of things but why the massive jump in revenue from 2006 - aprox $10B to 2007 $16B.
Surely YouTube isnt bringing billions when half the time I'm on it the ads dont even load.
Any suggestions  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.164.63 (talk) 08:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Google Revenue

message: http://www.google.com/tisp/index.html
Anonymously 26.06.2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by FxJ (talk • contribs) 14:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Google's hoaxes#Google TiSP. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: And what with Gogle TiSP?

message: Is there any? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.223.59 (talk • contribs) 
:I don't know. You may want to check the history. I would suspect that this has been a GRAWP target, and frequent IP vandal target. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NO justification for protection of the article

message: It appears that in the last couple of days Google has changed its favicon. This the small icon that appears in the address bar of the browser.  The new design is a lower case letter g, as opposed to the previous capital G. See  for a look at the old and new favicons.  May be worth a mention in the article. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've noticed this as well, but it's rather trivial and probably not worth including in this article   itself. Possibly in the article on the Google logo, though. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Trivial, unless reliable sources make a big deal over it. --ZimZalaBim talk 19:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could theoretically indicate a possible a change of logo, or a new design, to move up with the way operating systems and modern programs are attempting to make themselves "Prettier" for lack of a better term. Google has always employed a policy of keeping their website very minimalistic, so it's unlikely, but the favicon change is a possible "Dry run" of a new logo in the works. It could be interesting, but I agree not possible in the article until there's sources. Neuro√Synapse ▪ ∆ 08:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is interesting that the new lower case g design contradicts the current Google logo.  This may indicate a future change to the main logo, but at the moment it is not a major issue. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New Google favicon?

message: Why isn't there anything written on IGoogle? The personalized Home Page to compete with Windows Live! and My Yahoo! It has totally changed the web product strategies for both Microsoft and Yahoo!
:FWIW, MyYahoo existed for many years before iGoogle. --ZimZalaBim talk 17:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: IGoogle

message: This article is not very accurate. I noticed many mistakes that seem to have gone unnoticed. Since I cannot edit it I suppose you users should reread it and check your sources.141.155.170.45 (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you be a bit more specific?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wow mistakes...

message: theres a video on you tube that says how to hack webcams and cctv cameras using google should that be mentioned?81.108.233.59 (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, I wouldn't say so. See WP:NOT#GUIDE. Also, this article about the company Google, and I assume that that video would be talking about the search engine Google, so discussion should probably be brought up there if you want further input. :) Dreaded Walrus  t c 15:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: hacking

message: This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.
:1) The article contains a number of claims that are not cited (see  tags). Please, add citations.
:2) The lead is too short. It should be at least 3 paragraphs long. The statement that Google is not part of  Dow Jones Industrial Average is not mentioned in the main text.
:3) Please, find substitutes for the two dead links.
:4) The word Google in some references should be unbolded.
:5) Generally, the article is not well structured. There are lots of stubby sections and paragraphs. It may need a thorough copy-edit.
I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are being addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Ruslik (talk) 08:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps&mdash;on hold

message: Isnt it funny how the two founders are Jewish? Its amazing actually, one in a million; did they have a cabal too do you think? Just a thought lolz. :) ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(Ταλκ) 06:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Jewish

message: Google has two official names. In China, it is called "谷歌".Kongyi (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Two names

message: Maybe we should make a template for this :( Procedure (talk) 10:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While that action is technically legal (I think, but IANAL) due to the GFDL and creative commons licenses, I don't think we should be encouraging it. For one, there's already several wikipedia mirrors that copy content from wikipedia to begin with (and they do it by copying the database dumps directly, not with templates -- much easier. Secondly, I don't think the purpose of Google Knol should be to simply mirror wikipedia. If it takes off with good articles by verified experts, which is what [I think] Google wants, it should be able to compliment Wikipedia very well, and some Knols may even be able to be used as citations for Wikipedia articles (particularly those written by verified experts). Dr. Cash (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Copied verbatim into Google Knol...

message: Good day.  Under the Acquisitions subheading is the following text:  "In 2004, Google acquired a company called Keyhole, Inc., which developed a product called Earth Viewer which was renamed in 2005 to Google Earth."   Perhaps one might consider http://www.google.com/press/pressrel/keyhole.html or http://www.google.com/press/pressrel/google_earth.html as these are the official press releases by Google for each of these events.Ddcorkum (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the text "Google was added to the Standard & Poor's 500 index (S&P 500) on March 31...", the citation could be the same as the one in History_of_Google. The text are excatly the same as "Growth" part.wd.acgrs (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested citation

message: * Google was made by two close friends (kind of like Lucy Ricardo and Ethel Mertz on the TV sitcom I Love Lucy starring the Lucille Ball-Desi Arnaz comedy-real life husband and wife team, don't you think?) Sergey Brin and Larry Page in late 1998. Today, it has grown to become the largest American-used website for research, images, shopping, books and more.
It's still expanding.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingerandfred (talk • contribs) 21:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Google's history

message: The Google page is lengthy and covers a lot, including that which is quite trivial. This shows the flaw mentioned - that fashionable, 'new', American entities are favoured over less hyped and 'old' entities, something that wouldn't happen in an edited encyclopaedia. For example, look how sketchy the page for BHP Billiton is in comparison, despite this being the world's largest diversified mining company with earnings and profit well beyond Google's.
Gmelina (talk) 07:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So fix it...at BHP Billiton --ZimZalaBim talk 13:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comprehensive, but shows the flaw in Wikipedia

message: I have not found any reference to the Google Language Tool, making translations of texts or web pages and allowing users to search in other languages than their own. Also, I think there should at some location be a reference that Google now owns the YouTube site.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.68.136 (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Web based programs

message: I started the article for the new GBrowser at Chrome (web browser). Happy editing! --Azertus (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Google browser

message: Placing a "spot price" for the Market Capitalization of an organization like Google doesn't seem to reflect very useful information.  It was > $150B two weeks ago and now it's below $140B, and who knows where it will be tomorrow.  My point being that I think readers of Wikipedia would find more value in knowing a reasonable range for Google's Market Capitalization rather than the amount at this very moment.  Perhaps presenting the highest and lowest Market Capitalization from the previous quarter would be more valuable?  Any thoughts on this? —  X  S  G  19:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Market Capitalization updates...

message: Why is the article using British dates? 98.226.32.129 (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ? 

message: It appears that Google has been quietly de-listed from the London Stock Exchange. GGEA(.L) is no longer a registered stock ticker. 88.151.55.11 (talk) 10:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: LSE Listing

message: Founder should be changed to founders, in the info box thing at the top. --24.136.141.30 (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the way the Template:Infobox Company shows it. Changing the field name in the article itself would result in the "Founder" field not showing up at all, so it's going to stay "Founder" until someone changes the template. This is pretty unlikely, since the template is indefinitely protected. Phlyght (talk) 12:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Founders

message: Didn't read this article very thoroughly, but mentioning Doodle 4 Google might be nice. For info, type in Doodle 4 Google on, well, Google.
:Perhaps in the introductory paragraph. Game Lord z (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Doodle 4 Google

message: Google is listed on the September_27 page as being founded on 27 Sep 1998.  However, in this article it states that Google was incorporated on 7th Sep 2008.  Which is correct?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.2.22 (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Listing on [[September_27]]

message: From tomorrow (17th October 2008) Google will again allow Gambling ads on its UK search pages, source:( http://www.latitudegroup.com/weblog/permalink/google_relax_gambling_laws_for_the_uk/ )  —Preceding unsigned comment added by LukeR1981 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this a necessary addition?Spitfire19 19:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Google to allow UK Gambling Ads

message: The current version has profanity above the box on the right side.
The article is semi-protected, otherwise I would've removed it.
Thanks to whoever cleans it up. :)
Amperehelion (talk) 03:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Version Profanity

message: the link to "ten years of google" needs to be fixed. it didnt work for me, but this one does:
http://searchsiren.com/google/10-years-of-google/ Masakrovat (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "ten years of google"

message: Shouldn't the history section mention who funded Larry Page and Sergey Brin original research project.
NSF Rethinks Its Digital Library Jeffrey Mervis, Science 2 January 2009: Vol. 323. no. 5910, pp. 54 - 58, DOI: 10.1126/science.323.5910.54 and the references there in.
--128.231.88.4 (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: The official name of the company is "Google Inc." not "Google, Inc." (It may seem strange, but there is no comma.)
There are two places on the page that say "Google, Inc." -- both of these should be changed to Google Inc. without the comma. You can look at any of its SEC filings (e.g. http://www.secinfo.com/d14D5a.tvTt.htm) to verify that there is in fact no comma. I would change this, but sadly i'm not able to edit as it's semi-protected.
Ifette (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. This search returns only articles without a comma in them, except this one. Also, search "GOOG" brings up Google's stock entry (or something financial like that) which is listed as "Google Inc". Greggers (t • c) 15:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccuracies in company name

message: When I open google.com  or any of its services on firefox the tab shows a different symbol. It shows a red, green, blue and yellow background behind a small caps g unlike the blue capital G with the white background. ??? --KnowledgeHegemony talk 19:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See Google_logo#Favicon. --ZimZalaBim talk 19:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The symbol of Google has been modified?

message: Is it true that Google has a country named "Googland"?
http://www.googland.com/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.126.6.17 (talk) 12:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, this is unusual, although it looks like a spoof article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

text: It was an April Fool's joke. -- Fluteflute Talk Contributions 16:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it true that Google has a country named "Googland"?

message: * I understand that Google has a motto which is "Don't be Evil." Where in the article would be a good spot to place Google's motto?  Nhl4hamilton | Chit-Chat 
:Don't be evil has its own Wikipedia article.  This could be in the infobox of Google. Can anyone figure out a way of adding this? Unfortunately, Template:Infobox Company has permanent protection.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Changing the template to Infobox Dotcom company caused the "Don't be evil" slogan to appear correctly, but it also removed other parts of the table, so I had to revert the change. YouTube uses the Infobox Dotcom company but Google does not, so YouTube is able to have the slogan "Broadcast yourself" in the infobox.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Google motto

message: thumb|Searching for "Google" on Google
On 31 JAN 09,  every search result, including "google" has returned with a "this site may be harmful to your computer." Is this considered a notable event? Wiki worthy? There are are blogs referencing it, but I have not seen any news articles. 71.126.98.43 (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering how much people rely on Google for their searches today I would probably consider a large outage like this to be notable. How about anyone else? Canterbury Tail talk 15:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely worth a small note somewhere, but I'm not too sure about making an entire article about it. 85.228.66.40 (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is likely to be covered in the tech blogs, but a Wikipedia article requires mainstream media coverage to establish notability. The fault is definitely occurring at the time of writing, but the article should hold off on this issue until things become clearer.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

text: It's definitely worth it's own section, I reckon, once the media notice. And judging by your IP's and my location it's spread throughout at least North America and Europe. Shocking. I wonder who's responsible? --ADtalk 15:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

text: This must have been going on for over half an hour. The effect is global, it affects at least English and Finnish language interfaces. I have include a screnshot from Finland. Before we can add this to the article in fact I think this needs an article of its own, we need sources. Please list them here. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Aaand it's over. 85.228.66.40 (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This happened just after I visited Encyclopedia Dramatica.  OMG what did that site do to my computer! But, now I see it is just a coincidence, and it's happening to everyone. --Aude (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

text: In the past few minutes the fault seems to have gone away, so please don't add anything to the article at the moment. For a screenshot of the fault in action , click here. The main issue here is not whether the fault occurred (it did) but whether it is notable enough for the main Google article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Reported by the BBC here. Dooky (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's another one. 85.228.66.40 (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The fault is now mentioned in Google search with a citation. This is a better place than Google, which is primarily about the company's structure and business operations.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Hack or Error?

message: Please list sources here.
:In the past few minutes the fault seems to have gone away, so please don't add anything to the article at the moment. For a screenshot of the fault in action , click here. The main issue here is not whether the fault occurred (it did) but whether it is notable enough for the main Google article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Reported by the BBC here. Dooky (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's another one. 85.228.66.40 (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The fault is now mentioned in Google search with a citation. This is a better place than Google, which is primarily about the company's structure and business operations.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: 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)
thread_title: Popular Culture

message: 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)
replies: text: I can't oblige you with mp3, Señor(a) anónimo/a, but your first 'gúgul' version is close enough, providing you pronounce the '-ul' like Catalán 'el' (as in el nen). Now, if you like the place, why not Register as a Wikipedia User and have more fun. Maybe Gugul or Gugulesp is available as a name.  Ombudswiki (talk) 09:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation?

message: 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)
replies: text: In January 2006, Google received criticism in the media when it announced that it would filter its search results in China.. 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Google in China

message: 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.
Why? I don't think that you can congratulate Microsoft for Google's success. The internet was on the cards way before Microsoft went global with an internet ready operating system. The fact is that Microsoft and Google are obvious competitors. All the founders can breathe air - should we mention that also? Jacobsdad (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison with Microsoft

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 
: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)
replies: text: I agree. Why have it? Anything that isn't historic shouldn't be included in an encyclopedia. Jacobsdad (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: market cap

message: If you want to put the office locations into the main article, please do so, and then you can cite the link that you put at the bottom - that's the correct way to do things, apparently. Luminifer (talk) 03:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Office Locations

message: Wikipedia needs to change the logo because Google reinvented the logo in a contest for Doodle4Google.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkquest21 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Google company blog announced the results of the 2009 Doodle 4 Google competition yesterday..--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Logo

message: I removed some text mentioning the departure of a Google Product Manager, which implied that Product Managers were senior executives.  At the time, Google had over 100 Product Managers , and the firm now has over 200 .  The departure of people in these positions is not inherently notable. -- Thirteenity (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Product Managers

message: Needs to be edited so the dates used reflect American usage (month, day, year) instead of British (day, month, year). 24.24.244.132 (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you go back to research what dialect it was originally written in? Who's to say it wasn't rewritten in this fashion? Which is why the country of origin is much simpler. Because if you want to go with "b/c wikipedia is international" then all articles dealing with international companies finances should be converted to US dollars, as it currency most often used (in the case of oil, solely used). See how complicated this gets then? 24.24.244.132 (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: American company, why British dates?

message: *sigh* Can someone please edit this section so it doesn't open with "an interesting"? It's conversational, not NPOV, and doesn't specify who finds it interesting (likely the editor who inserted it). I'd do it myself, but you know... accounts. 70.91.178.185 (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Then register and become autoconfirmed, then edit. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have an account. I'm choosing not to use it. Was there even a glimmer of something constructive in your comment here? 70.91.178.185 (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Changed "As an interesting motivation technique [...]" to "As a motivation technique[...]". Words to avoid specifically talks about this kind of stuff, and even mentions "interesting", in MOS:OPED. Thanks for pointing it out, guy. :) Dreaded Walrus  t c 14:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for taking care of it. :) 70.91.178.185 (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: Could someone with more information than I have incorporate some text into the article describing how paid advertising works?  I've heard that there is an auction system based on selected keywords and a budget... —  X  S  G  07:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertising - more info needed