Talk:Google/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

In addition to barges on East and West coasts, there is this from The Regime:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-10-31/google-oracle-engineers-enlisted-for-obamacare-tech-surge
 ;-) I'll leave it to others to consider adding. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Re this edit: The Washington Post article says "a sketch shows where the “Public Internet” meets the internal “Google Cloud” where their data reside. In hand-printed letters, the drawing notes that encryption is “added and removed here!” The artist adds a smiley face, a cheeky celebration of victory over Google security." The drawing says “SSL added and removed here!” which appears to be a reference to Transport Layer Security‎. Since this was done without the knowledge or consent of Google (which made the company furious) and Keith Alexander denied having access to the U.S. computers involved , it suggests that the material was decrypted and read while in transit between the data centers. There is also the possibility that this happened outside the USA, since Keith Alexander's response on Bloomberg TV has an element of non-denial denial.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

There's a bit of ambiguity with a lot of the press descriptions of what the NSA is doing. The drawing does say that SSL/TLS is "added and removed here," but it doesn't suggest that the NSA is doing the removal. This is WP:OR on my part, but my interpretation from reading both the Post and NYTimes articles is that Google wasn't using a VPN on the back end because they assumed they controlled the pipes between data centers. --JHP (talk) 10:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
And, actually, a new article from the Times seems to back up my assumption. They write, "Though tech companies encrypt much of the data that travels between their servers and users’ computers, they do not generally encrypt their internal data because they believe it is safe and because encryption is expensive and time-consuming and slows down a network." (Emphasis mine.) --JHP (talk) 10:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Also, according to the previous Times article, the NSA is collecting entirely overseas, but that effectively gives the NSA everything because Google is mirroring its data among data centers. --JHP (talk) 11:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Ars Technica also has an article describing how the NSA got access to Google's data. It also points out that Google was passing data unencrypted. "Within Google's internal network, these requests are passed unencrypted, and requests often travel across multiple Google data centers to generate results. In addition to passing user traffic, the fiber connections between data centers are also used to replicate data between data centers for backup and universal access." (Emphasis mine.) So, again, it wasn't the NSA hacking into Google's servers and turning off encryption. It was Google failing to encrypt data inside its own network. --JHP (talk) 02:0November

Yo, I can't change this page with registering apparently. Anyway this line at the end of the intro should be changed/got rid of:

'According The Economist, Britain, “The proportion of Google searches that include the word ‘porn’ has tripled since 2004.”' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.8.82 (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for the tip. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Google actually has more data centers than listed in this entry - Dublin wasn't mentioned as a European data center location. The sites are listed here - http://www.google.com/about/datacenters/inside/locations/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.44.183.37 (talk) 10:23, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

117.200.203.41 (talk) 08:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

If you are making an edit request, please read the notice above and state exactly which changes you propose. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Technical 13 (talk) 13:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Headline: "Shooting for the Moon, Google Hopes to Own the Future"

"Over the last year alone Google has acquired more than a dozen tech hardware outfits working on projects that might seem crazy today, but could be part of our not-too-distant future." — FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It leads to a page with no useful information on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:1000:1700:BAAC:6FFF:FE98:C127 (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

In 2011, Google announced Google Wallet, a mobile application for wireless payments. [201] Digital Wallet, Electronic Wallet (Google Wallet), intellectual property belong to (Gaston Schwabacher), the number of patent PI9500345 189.31.17.12 (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Google Wallet has a separate article, and it is mentioned in this article in the "Other products" section.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Under the image of Google at the top of the page it lists the Industries that Google mainly participates in, Would it not be a good idea to have 'Advertising' under Internet,Computer software and Telecoms equipment seeing as it is an essential part of their core business? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenobr100 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Under the Subsidiaries heading in the sidebar, it lists Motorola Mobility still as a subsidiary of Google, when in fact it was recently sold to Lenovo. 205.154.31.120 (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Headine: Joseph Malchow: Those Nonsensical 'Google Bus' Attacks
Subtitle: Why declare war on the tech workers who pour $14.5 billion of income tax into California?

QUOTE: “... Dubbed "Google buses," the shuttles remove thousands of cars from San Francisco's madcap streets and allow coders to continue building the enterprises that help to keep the city's jobless rate at 4.8%. ...But leftists in San Francisco see daggers in Google buses, which they insist are symbols of growing inequality.” [Public perception is important, even to those lacking facts.] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It won't be long before Joseph Malchow has his own Wikipedia page. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Neither the High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation (which shouldn't be capitalized) nor the class-action suit here (if different) is relevant to "employee relations", nor particularly relevant to Google. Google is one of 4 companies named in the first reference, and one of 5 named in the antitrust legislation above. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

It is far too short to have a section of its own and involved four companies, not just Google. Someone seems to have a bee in their bonnet over this, despite the issues with WP:DUE and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. The action was settled out of court, so is not a big deal in the history of Google. It would have been a bigger deal if Google had fought and lost.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Implication of google with PRISM illegal surveillance is a must. It seems being censored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.141.9.215 (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

This is covered in Criticism of Google and PRISM (surveillance program). It is also important to realize that PRISM applies to any company with server computers in the USA, not just Google.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Under "Financing and initial public offering" there is an image of Google's first production server with the caption "Google's first production server. Google's production servers continue to be built with inexpensive hardware." The citation is a page of photos of this historical first server but no argument is made suggesting that Google continues to use inexpensive hardware today. Google may have encouraged the use of "cheap" hardware as far back as 2003 but to say their production servers "continue" to use cheap hardware today is quite misleading. I suggest removing this AntJ103 (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see this anywhere in any of the articles. All products are blocked -- no gmail, search, news, maps etc. -- all. Pretty major. Could someone please add this to the articles? Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China and List of websites blocked in China are separate articles, and would have some WP:TOPIC issues here. It is hard to prove with certainty that Google services are blocked in China because the government does not admit to it openly, but visitors report that access to certain websites in mainland China is limited.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, although one would think that if all their products were unavailable to a 5th of the planet, it maybe ought to be in the main article, but okay. Thanks for the reply. I won't click the above two articles because I am in China and it may cut my connection for a while. Also, I never click anything that has anything to do with anything like that. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

197.164.9.74 (talk) 08:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The sidebar image is getting old. I'd like to suggest changing it to this image that I contributed for the Googleplex article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googleplex#mediaviewer/File:Google_Campus,_Mountain_View,_CA.jpg

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Nice image though.  NQ  talk 13:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The portal bar should go below the navigation templates. Could someone do that? Mahnifez (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC).

It leads to a page with no useful information on it.

Actually, the page does have useful information about why they named it "BackRub". However, the link is from some kind of archive or something weird, and there is a much better link. I have replaced the link with the better link. Feynman1918 Talk 09:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC).

Google Street View is one of the most important products of Google. It should be mentioned, as also other products like Panoramio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.59.4.217 (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Google Maps and Google Street View were added to the see also section. There are so many Google products and services that it is hard to mention them all in this article, which is about Google as a company. Maybe there should be a separate article for List of Google products and services.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
There is such as list. It is called List of Google products, which also includes their services. Feynman1918 Talk 09:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC).

I was looking for some indication of revenues, profits, not mentioned at all.

There are some financials in the infobox, and they have been there for a few years now. However, perhaps you just missed them because they are not in the article body. Also, next time leave a signature on talk page posts by typing ~~~~ (as per WP:SIG).
Feynman1918 Talk 09:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

This is all the info on the page Catull and I feel it would be best suited to just add this to this article.

"Catull is an old style serif typeface designed by Gustav Jaeger for the Berthold Type Foundry in 1982. It has been used in the Google logo since May 31, 1999." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.240.194 (talk) 05:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Google logo has its own article, and the typeface is mentioned there.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

213.140.59.144 (talk) 09:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Please change:

The technology in RankDex would be patented[34] and used later when Li founded Baidu in China.

to:

The technology in RankDex was patented[34] and used later when Li founded Baidu in China.

because the existing version uses present tense subjunctive mood. What is clearly intended is past tense indicative mood. Li actually got the patent in the past, he is not "possibly" or "hypothetically" in the process of getting it now.

24.17.218.82 (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

[1]

122.252.236.68 (talk) 08:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Page is already semi-protected.No need to request again--Chamith (talk) 08:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone explain why all criticism of Google was shunted off into a WP:POVFORK? This is not normal procedure for pages on corporations, and you'll note that, for instance, Apple Inc. has criticism of Apple integrated into the article.

I would like to reintegrate some of the contents of Criticism of Google into this article. Criticism of Google can probably remain as an article (it's extremely long, and moving all the information in it over to this article would lead to severe balance issues,) but the current state of the Google article seems wholly unacceptable. You can't just make a "Criticism of X" article and then move everything negative about X into it, keeping the main article "clean". That is not how Wikipedia works.

Please consider this an RFC: it's going to be a big job, and I'd appreciate help with it! Input regarding how best to go about this would be much appreciated. --Ashenai (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

How would you suggest we integrate a "Criticism" section to the Google page with the information from the Criticism of Google page without making it too lengthy? As you stated, moving all the information over would create a substantial imbalance and violate WP:UNDUE. How will we measure the importance of the criticisms and decide what deserves to be moved and what doesn't? No doubt the page should note the company's criticisms. The Apple Inc. page does not have a "Criticism" section but there are criticisms of the company scattered accordingly throughout the article. I would like to hear other user's thoughts on this. Meatsgains (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Ashenai to integrate core contents of Criticism of Google into this article. I agree with Meatsgains concern of weighing importance, but one just has to start somewhere (us 3 for example). I am neutral as to whether there needs to be a criticism section or if criticism can be scattered into history, environment sections etc.
One thing i´d like to see updated ( but cant at this point due to semiprotection) is the following info for the environment section:
Google cut ties with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) after pressure from the Sierra Club, major unions and Google´s own scientists, because of ALEC´s stance on climate change and opposition to renewable energy. (Google pulls out of conservative group amid environmentalist pressure, by EVAN HALPER, 23 September 2014, LA Times) Thanks.Wuerzele2 (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, these figures are artificially low so that Google has a basis for lowballing strong talent. They refused to lower their salaries because they can't lowball new talent to that extent. Google claims to want the best but, when faced with the best, rapidly turns tail: one person close to me who is a world-class expert in security and has experience far broader and deeper than Google's was of enough interest to them that four of their top engineers spent more than seven hours on the phone with him—only to have HR summarily phone him and say he was "underqualified." R-i-g-h-t . . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.49.1.133 (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Please change the most recent nexus phone to Nexus 6 under other products. Here's a link to the image. http://demandware.edgesuite.net/aahb_prd/on/demandware.static/Sites-Motorola_US-Site/Sites-Motorola_US-Library/en_US/v1413521308933/Nexus%206/MOTO-NEXUS-MORE-ROOM-CARD-540nyxtuy59%20(1).png Chipset95 (talk) 04:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi I think under "key people" entire list of executives name are unnecessary/redundant. If you look other company articles like walmart, HP, Dell mainly chairman & ceo of the company's names are mentioned.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 15:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Why is not Google's purchase and ownership of Android with the first paragraph? 213.112.70.181 (talk) 02:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The article already Android in the lead, as well as the fact that it has made acquisitions. Stickee (talk) 02:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't have the necessary privileges to edit the article as I just created my account and don't have 10 edits, but while I was messing around with a Wikipedia parsing script I made, I noticed that a space was needed in one spot.

"Most of its profits are derived from AdWords,[9][10]an online advertising service that places advertising near the list of search results."

After the "9][10]" and before "an" there should be a space. My parser removes anything in brackets or parentheses which is why I noticed this. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxmarchuk (talk • contribs) 02:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! PS: You should sign your talk page messages with ~~~~ ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I've made a timeline that shows the most important steps in the Google history and how they changes during the time and how they are connected. I think that this timeline will give a big picture of the entire page. Feedbacks appreciated, thanks!

Google timeline

--Nicolettabruno (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this adds anything significant, and there is a similar timeline added at The Pirate Bay by User:FrancescoBia, which is hopefully not a WP:SOCK.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
They're not sock puppets, are students from Politecnico di Milano. Since they registered using university wireless, they all share the same IP. --Mikima (talk) 10:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
As User:Mikima said we are not sock puppets but students of Politecnico di Milano. Why do you think that this timeline won’t be helpful? All the datas are based on this page List of Google products, and this one too List of mergers and acquisitions by Google. I matched these informations with the official google timeline (http://www.google.com/about/company/timeline/). Google has a history full of events, as you can see in those pages I’ve linked, and it’s impossible not to get confused. This timeline will help to make clear the most important stages in Google's history in a very clear and simple way.--Nicolettabruno (talk) 11:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Firstly apologies if I wrongly implied WP:SOCK. The main reason for not adding this to the article is that it does not work well as a thumbnail. As the image on the right shows, it doesn't work well as a thumbnail on a web page. Even the clickable version is not easy to read as the text is too small. It would work best printed on an A4 sheet of paper.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Forms of Advertising

Their is no discussion of how advertising is different from organic search order ranking - on the google search page. Google has an observable policy for labeling advertisements. It is not clear whether influencing the rank order of the organic search section, through googles licensing and partner programs, should not also be considered a subliminal for of adversing, i.e selective product placement. Perhaps a trivial mention of the issue and a link to Criticism of Google, with discussion there would be sufficient. This issue is not google specific: applies to all search providers: Bing, Yahool.. LarryLACa (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. Added 'search neutrality' to criticism list in lead section. LarryLACa (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC) google — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F07:91FF:FFFF:0:0:4F73:9521 (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Change:

In 2011, the company had announced plans to build three data centers at a cost of more than $200 million in Asia (Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan) and said they would be operational within two years.[151][152]

To

In 2011, the company had announced plans to build three data centers at a cost of more than $200 million in Asia (Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan) and said they would be operational within two years.[151][152] In December 2013, Google announced that it had scrapped the plan to build a data center in Hong Kong. [2]

Azortje (talk) 10:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Done  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Reference link [1] leads to 404 (http://www.google.com/intl/en/about/corporate/company/). I believe the right link is (http://www.google.com/intl/en/about/company/). Please change. Freopen (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Imran hossain chowdhury (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 14:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I was doing a quick search and Google has a new product called Google Domains BETA. This new product allows people to purchase domain names through Google. I was just wanting to let anyone know, should somebody create a new article about the product, or at least add it to the List of Google products? The website is https://www.domains.google.com. CookieMonster755 (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC).

Workforce Demographics (Data source: Google, Jan 2014- http://www.google.com/diversity/at-google.html)

Gender:
Men: 70%
Women: 30%

Ethnicity:
61% = White
30% = Asian (Most based on H1b: See Google H1b History )
4% = Two or More (Mixed)
2% = Black
1% = Others



Having a diversity of perspectives leads to better decision-making, more relevant products, and makes work a whole lot more interesting.

74644p (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information--Chamith (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a request to add a section titled 'Google Internships' to this page:

What's it really like to be an intern? In 2012, The Internship was released, a movie starring Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson, who decide they want to take a shot at the tech industry and miraculously both score internships at Google. The movie sparked interest in the life of Google interns, and more students than ever applied to have their own shot. However, an internship at Google isn't exactly like the movie might depict it to be. Yes, it looks the same, given that it was filmed on the actual Google Mountain View Campus, but there are many differences. A Google internship entails mostly individual projects, although the interns are encouraged to learn about other interns' work. There isn't a big competition where teams of interns are pitted against one another, or nights where interns go out to strip clubs. However, there is a lot of fun. The free food is real, the nap pods are real, and the general relaxed and motivated attitude among Googlers is real.[1]

What are some of the different internship opportunities that Google offers for students?
  • Technical Internships
  • Product Management Internships
  • U.S. Business Internships - BOLD
  • Global Business Internships
  • User Experience Internships

Click here to learn more and/or apply. [1]


Csscogginss (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: This isn't an advertising platform for Google interns, and they really don't need much in the way of advertising. Cannolis (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I propose merging Criticism of Google with Google the result will be a stronger NPOV article of Google, if the article gets too long we can divide it in ways besides POV ( IE Praise Vs Criticism )Bryce Carmony (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like a good idea - there is simply too much information on the Criticism article to merge it with this one(which is also quite large already). It may be a good idea to organize some of the criticism already on this article into its own section though, and link to Criticism of Google there. Cannolis (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
If the criticism article is really big it's possible that we are giving Undue weight to it, but also by keeping it out of the Google article we are creating 2 Articles addressing the same topic, which is not the best. If after adding the 2 articles together the Google Article is too long. we can look at spinning off articles on topics ( IE: Google Litigation, History of Google, etc ) I know it is a lot of material but we can look at the Criticism article. get it improved to where it is lean, dense, and accurate. then it'll be easier to merge into the main google article and the better the google article is, the easier spin offs become. Bryce Carmony (talk) 04:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the article might become a little big. but Size is only a guideline, Nuetral point of view is a core pillar. which is more important than size. Does anyone have any disagreement that isn't the size guideline?Bryce Carmony (talk) 06:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not generally a fan of separate "criticism of X" articles, but Google is large enough to justify one because of the wide range of issues involved. I don't think that it could all be dealt with at the current level of detail without WP:SIZERULE becoming involved.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think any article is "Big enough" to justify violating NPOV with a content fork. now, we can get spin off articles down to size breaking down google by various topics. The current level of detail may be giving undue weight to google criticisms. I really feel like Size is not one of the 5 pillars since it is subordinate to the corner stone neutral point of view. Bryce Carmony (talk) 07:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
So looking closer at Criticism of Google there's a lot there that we can easily merge. Section 1- "Page Rank" There is an entire article on Page rank we can merge that into. "CopyRight Issue" can go into Google. if it gets to long we can spin off "Google Search Results" that can contain Copyright issues, and censorship. "Privacy" can go into google. if it is so big we can make an article "Google Privacy Policy" where we can cover Google's Privacy policy and not just 1 POV of "Criticisms" Accusations of Monopoly can easily fit inside Google Article. and the "Other Section" is mostly. Apple inc is a big company that focuses on products. so each product that warrants it has a article ( iPod,iPhone,iPad, etc) google has a lot of services we can make articles for any services that have enough info ( including criticisms and non criticisms ) like Gmail, Search ( which might get sub articles even ) my point is the way we tackle big articles is breaking them down by Topic not by Point of View. It'd be a lot of work but it'll be worth it. Bryce Carmony (talk) 07:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree. I 've always felt this division was a WP:content fork and hence objectionable. I am glad that someone else, Bryce Carmony thinks the same way. It may not be easy to merge, but it certainly will make a fairer, stronger and more informative article for the reader.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Wuerzele, thanks for your input, you're right it will be a lot of work but I agree 100% that it'll be worth it.Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose - Merging would create a serious neutrality issue; best kept separate. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Shunting the criticism off to another page on any article creates a biased shallow summary in most cases even if that is not always the goal. Here we haved detailed discussion of things like the Easter Egg cruft while there is no section or even any discussion at all of their privacy issues. Also criticism articles tend to become inflated list cruft and hard to read since any time anyone reads something they dont like or has a gripe they add to it. Better to include a shortened summary of the main controversies here and then delete new additions to the article which are trivial. AaronY (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Looking at that criticism article all of the youtube stuff belongs in articles related to youtube so not including that here is one good way to keep the size down. AaronY (talk) 12:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Google have had an increasing involvement in the life sciences recently via their venture fund and their spinoff 'calico'. I propose that we create a section dedicated to googles role in the life sciences in this article 12usn12 (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we can add info on google's mistake to stop supporting google chrome for Mac Cocoa 32-bit devices.

68.184.63.98 (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 21:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Unprotect the page

Needs a extensive rewrite

Google is now owned by Alphabet, Inc. Add that to Google's parent organization. Sources: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2015/08/google-alphabet.html RobertWebb38 (talk) 02:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Already done -- Chamith (talk) 03:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Just because Google is now a subsidiary of Alphabet does NOT mean Google is defunct. It means it's still there, but owned by a different company. Please remove the false "Defunct" thingy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:8C00:EE:8038:A7DD:CA19:6455 (talk) 04:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Some people have been rushing to kill off Google on the basis of news reports. The change to ownership by Alphabet has not taken place yet and the article should make this clear.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

203.196.145.98 (talk) 07:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC) CEO of google is now Sundar Pichai.please change

Nevermind, it was done by someone else. -- Chamith (talk) 08:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I've added a citation needed tag to the claim. Tcrow777 Talk 08:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
No he isn't. Not yet. He will only assume that position once the restructuring process is completed. At this moment, it is still in progress.  --Lambiam 11:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The restructuring process is complex and will take a considerable amount of time. As of today

  • Larry Page is still CEO of Google;
  • Google is not a subsidiary of Alphabet;
  • the stock traded under GOOG and GOOGL is still Google stock.

Let us refrain from reporting the envisaged changes as if they have already been implemented. Most likely the process will largely unfold as planned, but there may well be some modifications, so precog reporting in the style of "The Minority Report" can result in misleading inaccuracies.  --Lambiam 11:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this Lambiam. It's tragic how some people fail to realize that this whole situation is a work in progress. It's not like everything is restructured with a click of button. The process takes time.--Chamith (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Fully concur with ChamithN. It takes a lot of paperwork to complete such a dramatic corporate restructuring, especially for big public companies like Google. What they announced yesterday will take months to implement. --Coolcaesar (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
It will be fully implemented by the beginning of the fourth quarter. StudiesWorld (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Changing the Larry Page (CEO) to Sundar Pichai (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundar_Pichai ) Cs.mukulgarg (talk) 15:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

CEO Sundar Pichai Bishesh Naik (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Bishesh Naik: Please see Wikipedia:CRYSTAL Iady391 | Talk to me here 18:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

" and the browser-only Chrome OS for a netbook known as a Chromebook."

this is not very accurate or explanatory and can be phrased much better:

" and the cloud focused Chrome OS for a netbook class known as Chromebooks" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:648:3044:3800:D4DB:8648:F901:6E9D (talk) 08:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Partly done: I took a third option and decided on something in the middle: "and the browser-only Chrome OS for a class of netbooks known as Chromebooks." Tcrow777 Talk 10:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Itechjunkie (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The change of ownership by Alphabet is ongoing and this article needs to be updated to reflect that. The stock swap hasn't happened yet. Don't post future and present events as past events unless you have reliable sources that the changes have already happened. Tcrow777 Talk 06:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

This whole thing is confusing. I wonder for which articles this new ownership is going to affect. Do we have to change the |parent parameter of every single article concerning Google subsidiaries? Because, as some sources point out some subsidiaries will continue to remain as a part of Google. Such as Youtube -- Chamith (talk) 06:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's true. Basically, everything directly Internet-related will remain with Google, including Android, Chrome, YouTube, Maps, etc. Google X, Google Capital and Google Ventures will move to Alphabet. I don't know whether Google Fiber will be transferred, as it's an ISP, not just an Internet service. Tcrow777 Talk 09:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
From the SEC filing

On August 10, 2015, Google Inc. (“Google”) announced plans to create a new public holding company, Alphabet Inc. (“Alphabet”), and a new operating structure to increase management scale and focus on its consolidated businesses. Under the new operating structure, its main Google business will include search, ads, maps, apps, YouTube and Android and the related technical infrastructure (the “Google business”). Businesses such as Calico, Nest, and Fiber, as well as its investing arms, such as Google Ventures and Google Capital, and incubator projects, such as Google X, will be managed separately from the Google business.

Tcrow777 Talk 09:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, the change in organization is now official, per their 8-K filing with the SEC. "Google" is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of "Alphabet Inc". Which means, among other things, that "Google" doesn't own (e.g.) Nest Labs; Nest is another, separate, subsidiary of Alphabet. And there's no such thing as "Google Stock" any more--now GOOG and GOOGL are two classes of Alphabet stock. So yeah, some rewriting gonna happen. — Narsil (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
thanks for that info. would be hilarious, if it wasnt so serious. they're bracing for the worst.--Wuerzele (talk) 02:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is the citation needed for atGoogleTalks: http://googletechtalks.net/google-tech-talk/ Goldhrs (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Citation for other U.S. cities

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2015

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2015

New directions

NSA data center surveillance

Intro Change Suggestion

Data Centers

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2014

Will Google 'own' the Future ?

Link in footnote 38 is broken.

Digital Wallet, Electronic Wallet (Google Wallet), intellectual property belong to (Gaston Schwabacher), the number of patent PI9500345 - Fonte INPI Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2014

Google is in Advertising Industry also

Google and Motorola Mobility

"Google Bus" Attacks

Antitrust suit

Why no PRISM?

So called 'inexpensive' hardware

Blocked in China

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2014

New sidebar pic

Portal bar

Link in footnote 38 is broken.

Why no Street View?

Why no financials?

Add this info to this article

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2014

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2014

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2014

See also: Criticism of Google?

Brin's and Page's salaries

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2014

Key people section

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2014

Space needed to be remove

Google Timeline

Advertising Section

Info in the lead

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2015

Edit request

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2015

New Google Product Google Domains BETA 2015

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2015

Add Google Internships Section to Google Page

Google Internships

Merger Proposal

Google Life Sciences

Google's mistake to stop supporting Google Chrome for Mac Cocoa 32-bit devices

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2015

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2015

Google Died?

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2015

Not so fast, it's all in the future

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2015

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2015

there's more than one chromebooks

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2015

Alphabet

Citation for atGoogle Talks

Google Tez

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2017

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2017

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2017

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2017

supply and chain management

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2017

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2017

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2018

Missing information on 'Hardware'

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2018

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2018

Organize Google services in a table?

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2018

Semi-protected request of added information on 30 March 2018

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2018

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2018

Add?

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2018

Possible text issue

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2019

"Simple design", "little experience", dubious comment?

Misplaced paragraph under the Acquisitions and Partnerships headline

Semi-protected edit request

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2019

Criticism - Jon von Tetzchner

Examiner report of blacklisting

Shouldn't "Advertising" be added as "Industry"?

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2019

"Don't be evil" was not removed from the company's code of conduct around per the source linked in the page

Project Veritas

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2019

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2019

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2019

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2019

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2019

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2019

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2019

What is Google's digital magnitude?

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2020

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2020

Removed quantum supremacy section

"Googer" listed at Redirects for discussion

"Guugle" listed at Redirects for discussion

"Googke" listed at Redirects for discussion

"Googlit" listed at Redirects for discussion

"Goolge" listed at Redirects for discussion

"Googers" listed at Redirects for discussion

This article is missing a few information about the history of Google.

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2020

"Don't be evil" in lead

Pointless use of zeros in financial figures

Top US Tech Giants Face Grilling

Correct use of "Google"

"Gstatic.com" listed at Redirects for discussion

Should we mark Google as a conglomerate?

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2020

WP:NOTFORUM

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2020

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2021

"AutoDraw" listed at Redirects for discussion

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2021

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2021

Split Article Google LLC

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2021

Edits to Early Days section

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2021

Stock price history & quarterly earnings

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2021

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI