Talk:Google

Google to discontinue Site Search

On February 22nd 2017, Google announced it would discontinue sales of the Google Site Search - . MarigoldDuncan (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi @MarigoldDuncan: Thank you for bringing attention to this! I will add this to the article soon! :) LocalNet (talk) 06:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

"AtGoogleTalks"

Hi everybody! I was just taking a look at the article and noticed a section called AtGoogleTalks. I noticed a few things about it, the first being that it features no decent sources, with the only actual source present being a questionable-looking personal website. Two, I tried searching Google for actual information on the presentations, and found a strikingly low zero reliable sources discussing it. I tried searching over and over again with different search terms, and yet, nothing. This does not seem to be a notable topic that is discussed by the media. Rather than sitting and gathering dust, with the "citation needed" tag present since March 2015, I just want to remove it. It's obviously not a big deal. The topic has its AtGoogleTalks Wikipedia article, again lacking even a single decent source, with a citation needed tag present since May 2008, which just reinforces my point: This is not notable. I want to remove it. But I thought I'd ask here first, properly explaining my reasoning, and see if I receive any responses. :) LocalNet (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Update: Going just a little further down reveals a "CodeF" subsection. Again, no sources, just a citation needed tag. I did, however, find a source for that, but only a single publication that published a report in March 2012. I tried doing research to find updated information and other sources, but was unable to. In my opinion, this qualifies as a news event rather than notable encyclopedic content and fails to meet notability requirements. I want to remove this subsection as well. LocalNet (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd normally wait maybe 48 hours for a reply, but past experiences in advancing a potential edit on the talk page have shown me there aren't active people watching this article, so I will go ahead with the edit now. This post serves as a deeper explanation of my thinking. :) LocalNet (talk) 06:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@LocalNet: The AtGoogleTalks article has just been deleted. Thanks for participating in my deletion discussion! DBZFan30 (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@DBZFan30: Thank you for the notification now and thank you for nominating the article! Teamwork, yay! :) LocalNet (talk) 04:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Full Re-write

I'm planning to attempt a full copy-edit of the article later this week. Out of an abundance of caution, I want to point out that I worked at Google from 2007-2013, but no longer work there and own no stock in the company. I plan to rely mostly on I'm Feeling Lucky (book) and Googled: The End of the World as We Know It as sources for any additions. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Power~enwiki: Uhm, why? Putting aside the conflict-of-interest, which is enough to raise concerns on its own, what in the article needs to be fixed? I believe it would be easier to try to fix those elements rather than making a "full copy-edit of the article". LocalNet (talk) 06:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The history section is filled with a hodge-podge of news stories. Some years have a lot of news coverage, others have none, and I don't see that corresponding to any actual difference in the rate at which Google did news-worthy things. Acquisitions is particularly bloated. Also, some references to "corporate revenue" should probably be moved to the Alphabet Inc. article. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

There are also a few "facts" which are incorrect. For example, "In July 2012, Google's first female employee, Marissa Mayer, left Google to become Yahoo!'s CEO" - Marissa was the first female engineer, but not the first female employee. [1] Power~enwiki (talk) 06:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: Thanks for the info. Sounds like you know what you are doing, so I'll leave you to fix it, but if there is something I can do, let me know. Also, for full disclosure: Out of concern, I will be monitoring your edits due to the old COI. Not personal, just want to make sure the wording isn't unintentionally biased. LocalNet (talk) 06:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

David Foster

This person is not notable on his own (no Wikipedia page); and a single employee's six-month tenure at Google is not notable to justify coverage in this article. Google has hundreds of executives at his level, he may be the only one who has engaged in public self-promotion enough to have media coverage but he is still not notable. Also, only being at Google six months, it is incredibly unlikely that he ever *did* anything notable in that time.

An article-length treatment of hardware devices by Google *might* justify his inclusion, but I wouldn't support it even there. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Power~enwiki: Thank you for coming to the talk page! First off, you keep mentioning David Foster as a person not being notable enough of his own. There's no objection there. I am disputing the fact that his position within the company, specifically aimed at its new hardware direction, isn't notable. He was hired during Google's efforts to create new hardware products, and then he leaves after only six months, and without the public knowing his replacement or how committed they are to the new devices launched while he was working there? Until more information is available, I personally see that as a notable aspect of Google's hardware direction. Also, please be aware that "it is incredibly unlikely that he ever *did* anything notable in that time" is editorial speculation. As far as I know, there isn't any information about how much he did or didn't accomplish, but having the position within the company that he did and then leaving after a short time after hardware product release seems justifiably important to me. LocalNet (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2017

96.4.9.71 (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

google rocks and fuking bing sucks ass