Difference between revisions of "Talk:Google"

Revision as of 17:45, October 2, 2016

First, I just joined so I apologize if I'm doing this wrong but i thought it was worth noting that today Google chose to run a "doodle" celebrating Cesar Chavez's birthday instead of Easter. Fnarrow 12:16, 31 March 2013 (EDT)

Can this be that same Google which submitted willingly to censorship by the oppressive, godless, communist regime in China? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cas194 (talk)

I think you probably would too if it put an extra $50 million straight into your pocket. Besides, most internet-savvy Chinese are good at using Proxies. --Hojimachong^talk 21:22, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Google has a liberal bias? That's like accusing a hammer or a wrench of having a liberal bias; The google search engine is just a tool. -- Todd

Ya i agree with Todd. Sounds funny that a search engine has liberal bias on it. i think that needs to be taken out. --Will N. 11:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

If the hammer or wrench is causing damage to something conservative then it has a liberal bias.

"And he hath filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship;" (Exodus 35:31)

JC 11:02, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

If no one can find a citation for the liberal bias soon then yes, it should be removed. --JamesK 11:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

ok? what has the bible verse gotta do with google. and also if you punch it in practically every website with the words of the search come up. that is not liberal bias. it is what is on the websites that is liberal. google is just helping you find what you need. --Will N. 11:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Google Bombs & Miserable Failure

Since this section had got increasingly messy and didn't make sense anymore I rewrote it.

(Edit, thanks for the correction Hojimachong) --JamesK 12:53, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Nice job! I added some more, in fact, "french military victories" doesn't take you to a Google page, but a page on AlbinoBlackSheep.com which is designed to look like a Google page. The link it directs you to (french military defeats) is hilarious. --Hojimachong^talk 12:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Any sources for the "miserable failure" Google bomb being done by Democrat supporters? Otherwise that should be taken out, as should the part about conservative response.--Smedricksman24 18:30, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

There actually is a news story; 31 liberal bloggers made lots of links to influence the PageRank. I'll go pull out the story from Gnews. --Hojimachong^talk 18:33, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Could Google kill the cell phone industry?

This is very interesting: http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9747799-7.html DanH 20:28, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Democrat google prank

This article describes the source of the google prank against George Bush. I added it in response to a fact tag. PheasantHunter 00:08, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

"Much of Google's business depends on pornography."

Hello, I think this phrase is ambiguous because it could be applied to search engines in general.Sporean 00:15, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

Also, Google doesn't put advertisements on pornographic search results, thus earning them no revenue. This is a pretty dubious claim and the source doesn't relate to Google specifically. Removing this line; we need to do better than this.editman 6:55, 21 December 2013 (EST)

Conservative answers not allowed on Google

Due a search for 'McCain abstinence only legislation'. Every Dick and Harry from liberal websites. Page 5 number 43, ahh one conservative article- National Review. --jp 02:42, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Google v. anti-obama blogs

JP--would you mind if I either reworded or removed this section? The way it is currently written---i.e. asking a question that would seem to be controversial concerning Google, only to say it never happened---seems more appropriate for the Enquirer than the encyclopedia. I think the information is important to set the record straight and bring forward new information about the rating system, but we just need to make that the lead. Perhaps we can put something together on the talk page.--Jareddr 23:26, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

Android blocks VoIP?

Skype is available for Android, although Verizon has a deal with Skype so that the software only runs on their network. Earlier versions of Android did not support any VoIP - that was a technology constraint, not a move to harm Skype. I learned this by reading the cited articles, so I'm not sure how this ended up being concluded in the first place. --User:mattmag

Should we modify the statement about Google competitors?

[Q]Major competitors of Google include Yahoo!, DuckDuckGo, and Microsoft's Bing.[/Q]

It appears to me that yahoo is the same as Bing, MS having bought the Yahoo search. And DuckDuckGo seems to be tied to Yahoo. So that possibly leaves only 1 major competitor, except would you add on Yandex? And isn't there some Chinese search engine? Maybe we need a search engine by conservatives, not to censor liberal sites, not advertised as conservative. Problem is IMHO that Google is so much better than the competition for some purposes, if not for searching for guns & ammo. Maybe what is needed is a search engine which specializes in listing sites blocked by Google; in fact it might advertise itself as listing Google blocked sites. (Thunkful2 (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2016 (EDT))

There are plenty of competitors, but Bing and Yahoo are the biggest ones in the U.S. There are plenty of others, though. As you pointed out, some are partners. DuckDuckGo is partnered with Yahoo, ixquick is partnered with Google, etc., but there are plenty of independent search engines still. Ask.com, webcrawler.com, yippy.com, all seem to be independant competitors as well. I would count Yandex as a big one as well, since although they are not as big in the U.S., they dominate the market in some other parts of the world.

You're right, an unbiased search engine is needed, but Google is the censoring king, so until something better comes along, you're best off with almost anyone else. As for a "blocked by google" search engine, (which sounds sort of like deletopedia for web searching), it would be very hard to do this, since Google isn't forthright with their filtering and censoring. It's a neat idea, if it were possible, but I also doubt many people would use it, since Google blocks a lot of sites for good reason, too. --David B ^(TALK) 13:07, 26 August 2016 (EDT)

Murder of Seth Rich

This is not a good example. The reason why this page has not shown up on Google is at least partly because Google hasn't been able to "see" it.

Just for a frame of reference, the page "Chinagate fundraising scandal" is the fourth top item in a Google search.

I created the page on August 5th, and two wikilinks pointing to it the same day. Google didn't catalog the page until mid august, and it wasn't at least until a week after that when the page appeared in search.

Before Google could "see" the Chinagate page, it needed to refresh the other pages that linked to it.(Bill and Hillary are the two pages I created links on) Once Google could "see" it, it cataloged the page and now it is in search.

The point is this; The Seth Rich is going to show up in Google, sometime soon, I just don't know when. The Hillary page has refreshed and the link now appears there.

My best guess is that by mid-late September, that page will show up in Google. But I don't know Google's actual formulas, I can only come to conclusions based on observation. Three things currently influence how and when. The Seth Rich page is a longer page than the Chinagate page is. It also has more revisions, and it only has one link to it instead of two. That provides less opportunity for Google to "see" the page and then more work to catalog it and compare key words for use in the search algorithm.

If anybody would like to test this out with a new page creation and attempt to detail more specifically the how and the when, I would be happy to be a part. I've seen some of the pages that I create, that are very small and with multiple links to them, show up in search as soon as roughly two weeks. Longer pages with less links pointing to them take longer. Progressingamerica (talk) 11:51, 4 September 2016 (EDT)

I thought there is an MediaWiki extension to automatically build XML site maps that guide search spiders in crawling the site. We we use them? JDano (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2016 (EDT)

You make a good point, Progressingamerica. It takes time to get new pages crawled. The could be manually submitted to search engines to be qued for crawling, but that might not really help much.

JDano, I don't believe we do. CP currently has the following extensions:

• AntiSpoof (Unknown)
• CPSearch (0.1)
• CheckUser (2.3)
• Cite (Unknown)
• Cologne Blue (Unknown)
• ConfirmEdit (1.3)
• Disable Special Pages (Unknown, 76615)
• Mantle (Unknown)
• Math (2.0.0)
• MobileFrontend (Unknown)
• Modern (Unknown)
• MonoBook (Unknown)
• Nuke (1.2.0)
• Oversight (Unknown, 76615)
• ParserFunctions (1.6.0)
• Renameuser (Unknown)
• SidebarDonateBox (1.2.0)
• Title Blacklist (1.5.0)
• Vector (Unknown)
• WikiEditor (0.4.0)

I'm not exactly sure what some of those do, though, so I could be wrong. --David B ^(TALK) 23:24, 4 September 2016 (EDT)

This page is now cataloged in Google and shows up if you search for it. Progressingamerica (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2016 (EDT)

Adding the categories is an important step for Google (don'task me why).RobS^{#NeverHillary} 13:45, 2 October 2016 (EDT)