Talk:Google Search/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Googletestad

Googletestad redirects here but there is nothing on this page about it. Was there once content which was subsequently removed?

Adult Content

On the Bing.com [[1]] page there is a section about adult content you can watch in the video section. You can do the same thing on google.com. Why no mention? I think either include it here or delete it on the bing page. Thoughts? Below is what the bing page has. --Brian Earl Haines (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Adult content [edit] Video content Bing's video search tool has a preview mode that could potentially be used to preview pornographic videos.[42] By simply turning off safe search, users can search for and view pornographic videos by hovering the cursor over a thumbnail, since the videos and audio in some!!!!! bullshit !!!!! cases is cached on Microsoft's Server[citation needed]

Since the videos are playing within Bing instead of the site where they are hosted, the videos are not necessarily blocked by parental control filters. Monitoring programs designed to tell parents what sites their children have visited are likely to simply report "Bing.com" instead of the site that actually hosts the video. The same situation can be said about corporate filters, many of which have been fooled by this feature.[43] Users do not need to leave Bing's site to view these videos.[44][45]

Microsoft responded in a blog post on June 4, 2009, with a short term work-around.[46] By adding “&adlt=strict” to the end of a query, no matter what the settings are for that session it will return results as if safe search was set to strict. The query would look like this: http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=adulttermgoeshere&adlt=strict (case sensitive).

On June 12, 2009, Microsoft announced two changes regarding Bing's Smart Motion Preview and SafeSearch features. All potentially explicit images and video content will be coming from a separate single domain, explicit.bing.net. Additionally, Bing will also return source URL information in the query string for image and video contents. Both changes allow both home users and corporate users to filter content by domain regardless of what the SafeSearch settings might be.[47]

[edit] Regional censorship Bing censors results for adult search terms like "sex" for some of the regions including India, People's Republic of China, Germany and Arab countries.[48] This censoring is done based on the local laws of those countries.[49] However, Bing allows users to simply change their country/region preference to somewhere without restrictions – such as the United States, United Kingdom, Ireland or Australia – to sidestep this censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianearlhaines (talk • contribs) 02:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

New layout

Google changed their layout a couple of days ago and did it again yesterday. The changes seem to be tests of the new design. So I guess the logo image should remain unchanged until these changes are permanent. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 01:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

FWSE

Redirects here, but is not explained in the article, could someone please rectify that? Paradoctor (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, FWSE stands for famous Web search engine, which is a pathetic redirect query, in my opinion.--ATDC Raigeki (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

This should not redirect hereGreeninventor999 (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Add a History/Timeline of Search's development

Has anyone read the recent Wired article that goes in-depth into how Google Search's algorithm works and has been improved over the years? I wanted to add some significant events in Search's development but there's no real section for that right now.

Examples of what I'd like to add are at the top of this page. Things like the complete rewriting of the algorithm in 2001, moving to continual updating of the index in 2003, and real-time search in 2009. The last one is already in the article (Caffeine) under the "functionality" section where it doesn't actually belong.

So do I hear any objections to a History section?

--Qwerty0 (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I added a link to the article. Very interesting reading! Best, Sam nead (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Add Criticism section

The internal article "Criticism of Google" [2] focuses on the Google corporation, but contains many sections and references to the content and nature of the search engine, which should be listed in this article.

Criticism section should include that needed search tools are buried so that to access the crucial necessary date-sorting options, a click through a "more search tools" link is necessary every. single. time. No option accessible to open with the crucial necessary date sorting tools available. And it isn't like there's no space available for the needed date sorting links. The cryptic, crippled, unhelpful 6-link non-changeable user standard interface appears above a giant column filled with white space where the needed date sorting tools can and should go.

Criticism section should include that new Google logo looks ugly, amateur, and hard to read compared with the one it replaced. The Google corporation is suffering from the lack of someone with an eye who understands fonts and readability. It needs a Steve Jobs.

Criticism of the Google web search should also discuss the nontransparent filtering. There are manual and automatic penalties which may hide certain documents completely from the public with not judge or notification. We cannot just assume these penalties are justifiable. This becomes crucial even more when most of the online users rely on the neutrality of Google's web search and can't be aware there are arbitrary filters in place not depending on pure relevance. Compare the article to YaCy for example. Every search engine gets a lot of disadvantages and criticism rubbed under their nose. If there are no downsides discussed in this article, it's not neutral, but actually is written by and for naifs. --88.70.174.114 (talk) 22:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

New search page?

Today 5/5/10 Google seems to have a new format when you do a search. Is there any news about this? (And why do software companies keep changing the interface when no one seems to want a new one?)

Č<ref</ref> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.176.113.164 (talk) 06:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

auto-part.in Srs mani2003 (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

More details about Google calculator

I added the fact that Google calculator calculates 0^0 as 1, which most people find rather odd. I'll remove the addition if any objections arise. Reuben2011 (talk) 08:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Malware

"if the site is known to install malicious software in the background or otherwise surreptitiously." I think this is rather sweeping, not to say risky. However it needs replaceing with a more careful wording rather than removeing. Rich Farmbrough, 03:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC).

DecorMyEyes

I came to Wikipedia to see about any significant information on a website/company called DecorMyEyes that's apparently involved in some fraudulent business practices. See http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/business/28borker.html And was redirected to Google Search. With nothing in the discussion here about why. Anyone care to explain why this is, and why the company does not have its own Wikipedia entry? Cheers. Pär Larsson (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Instant Search Section

This section includes the line:

"In concert with the Google Instant launch, Google disabled the ability of users to choose to see more than 10 search results per page."

This does not appear to be correct to me, or at least, it's not clear. But rather than change the page and find that I'm wrong, I thought it better to put a comment here. When I go to the Settings/Preferences page for Google, I still see a choice to display 10/20/30/50/100 results per page. The key is, you can only change this setting successfully if you disable Google Instant. It's an either/or proposition.

The next sentence states:

"Instant Search can be disabled via Google's "preferences" menu, but autocomplete-style search suggestions now cannot be disabled. "

Again, this appears to be a bit unclear at best, and incorrect to some degree. I agree that it does appear that for users who go to google.com, there is no longer a way (or at least not one that I have discovered yet) to turn off the autocomplete or "suggested search" feature. However, for people who use the Google Toolbar (myself included), it is still possible to turn off "suggested search" by unchecking the appropriate box in Google Toolbar Options (Search tab). I can't find anything on my Google Toolbar to tell me what version I'm using, so I don't know whether I may have an older version, and perhaps newer versions no longer offer this option. It's important to note that when you turn off "suggested search", that impacts only the search window on the Google Toolbar, and once you land on the search results page, if you attempt to change your search terms, you don't appear to have any way to turn off "suggested search". But for folks who do most of their searching from the Google Toolbar, it's nice to be able to turn off this feature.

Baroness of Ballymote (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Google +1

I was just wondering why nothing exists on Google +1. I would have added a section or atleast a couple of sentences if I was familiar with the technology. Is WP:Notability under question? Or is information unavailable? Afaik, it is personalisation of Google Search, so a mention would help. --Kknundy (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

References

I second this!--Hontogaichiban (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

And now? — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Answering my own question, (and half of your question), if you do a FIND in the Article for '+' you will find eight hits; and if you do a FIND on '+1' you will find NO hits. What does this tell you? One of the '+' hits links over to Google+ which is the WP Article on Google Plus. Does this answer your question? — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Reference does not seem appropriate

Reference \ Citation 56 is a power point which does not include any validation or proof of the statements made.

56. Google, Web Crawling and Distributed Synchronization p. 11.

The content of slide 11 includes the following:

What needs to happen when you… Click on “purchase” on Amazon?

Suppose you purchased by credit card?

Use online bill-paying services from your bank?

Place a bid in an eBay-like auction system?

Order music from iTunes?

What if your connection drops in the middle of downloading?

Is this more than a case of making a simple Web Service (-like) call?

It is used under the section "Search products" in support of this sentence: "In 2006, Google has indexed over 25 billion web pages,[56] 400 million queries per day,[56"

I would suggest flagging this for removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.11.65 (talk) 05:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Google dance

"Google dance" redirects to this article. But what is it?

193.140.194.148 (talk) 12:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Click & Read: Search_Engine_Strategies#.22Google_Dance.22 — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Boolean search

Google has removed the "+" (AND) functionality from its search. [3] - (apparently "do no evil" and "batshit insane decisions" are not mutually exclusive).

You may want to update the lead section. ie "Google Search provides many options for customized search, using Boolean operators such as: exclusion ("-xx"), inclusion ("+xx"), alternatives ("xx OR yy"), and wildcard ("x * x")." 77.86.12.113 (talk) 20:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It's BACK! At least in this very moment Google seems to accept the + operator again. I don't get that warning message and the results pages look like before. Hope the don't change it back. For my work with minority languages it is very useful to find the few hits in those languages quickly. Does Google have something like a Developers' Blog? Maybe you can find a reference and add it to the article. --Kazu89 ^ノート 18:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe not? At least the message's gone... Can anybody tell? --Kazu89 ^ノート 19:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like AND is no longer implied. Looks like this is part of Google's making things "easy" to use for uneducated masses or is it their new philosophy of "we know better"? Who thinks Google search has jumped the shark?

I added CN and dubious tags. Please find NEW reference to Google's implied AND or change the para to indicate change.

180.148.127.197 (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the + operator was deliberatly removed by Google purely for commercial self-interest. The only alternative on offer is repeated " " - of little or no use. On the other hand - does still work. Shaemfully, yhey have degraded their own search engine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.212.28 (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Google new look.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Google new look.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 1 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Google web search.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Google web search.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Google web search.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

History/Origins of the company?

There is nothing about the origins of the company, why they used the word "google", etc; i.e. some history; while the article is too extensive about the functionality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.50.1.25 (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

See the main article, Google. This page is intended to only cover Google Search itself.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the first person. What bout Google Search Beta?

Advertising

Amazingly, the main article in no way deals with Advertising Policies on the Google Search pages. Seeing as the policies dealing with the mixing of Advertising and Google Search results were formative of Google as a company, these certainly should be included here.

Also a history of the advertising policies would certainly be interesting and informative as Google search started it out with the Google Founders specifically separating advertising and search results. However, now there is often advertising at the head of the Google Search results which looks very similar to the search results. The political and economic forces which brought about these changes would certainly be uniquely informative and interesting, and appropriate to a high quality encyclopedia entry on the topic of Google Search. 99.22.94.80 (talk) 08:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Is this the same as Google?

Is this the same search engine as Google?ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Google-Search is 68% of the market, and Search_engine notes further breakdown: "According to Hitwise, market share in the USA for October 2011 was Google 65.38%, Bing-powered (Bing and Yahoo!) 28.62%, and the remaining 66 search engines 6%." Does this help? — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done — Your answer is, "No." Google search is not the same as 'Search engine'. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC) Yahoo used Google search-engine at first, but not now.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved per unanimous opposition.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

---

• Google Search → Google
• Google → Google Inc.

– We should go by the same logic as Facebook becaise there is a separate page on Facebook Inc. . The main use of “Google” to refer to the company is in news articles. TheChampionMan1234 05:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I disagree with the comparison. Facebook focuses on mainly one service, social networking, while Google is known for multiple services (Google Maps, Google Chrome, Google TV, etc), some nearly as important as its search engine, so Google Search is a necessary disambiguation. "The main use of “Google” to refer to the company is in news articles" is exactly the reason why it should remain where it is. Titles should be located at names commonly used in reliable sources.--SGCM (talk) 01:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Google calls it Google Search, and breaks that down further into Web Search, Blog Search, Image Search etc. LittleBen (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. As per reasons given above.--Southronite (talk) 03:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Microsoft is not at Microsoft Inc.. The only reason Facebook Inc. exists is because there is no better name for Facebook. Google Search, however, is a perfectly fine name. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 13:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Google search is different than the company Google. (Reasons already explained by the previous editors)--ZooFamily (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Google is more than just a search engine. This move may have made sense at one point but not now.--70.49.81.140 (talk) 03:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Google has multiple products. VIncent Liu (something to say?) 03:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I would tune the proposal. The existing Google page should be moved to Google Inc. and a new Google disambig page created that lists all the Google services we have different pages for, search, GMail, etc. Hcobb (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Alexa ranking

Which one of these is nr. 1 now, Google or Facebook? This shows that Facebook, but if we look these sites: [4][5], then Google. --Stryn (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The list of top sites gives the site's rank over the last month whereas the others give the last three months. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Email!!!

Extended content

Hello.......how can I create Email??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.46.245.50 (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC) This page is for discussing improvements to the Google Search/Archive 3 article. Talk pages on Wikipedia aren't meant to be used as forums for conversations about the topic of the article. General questions on the use of Wikipedia may be asked at the teahouse. read more about talk pages.  drewmunn  talk  13:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

ik hou van australie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.80.183.66 (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

New logo

Flatter Google logo in case Google sticks with the change: https://www.google.com/images/srpr/logo6w.png. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 07:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Someone put the Bing logo in as the Google homepage (top-right of article) not nice! — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done — Never mind; Google is back! Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The hummingbird makes a nice logo also. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the hummingbird logo now;

• Would look good at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Search#Conversational_search_and_Hummingbird_update

Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Burying wikipedia

There is one company whose wikipedia entry does not rate getting onto the first page of their google search. Worth noting? Hcobb (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like it would be original research without a source, and in any event, Google search results change depending on various factors. For me, Wikipedia is the number one hit on Google when "Wikipedia" is searched.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

What do you get when you search for "google"? Hcobb (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Google at number one position. I'm not sure why you ask. Did I misunderstand your post? I thought, given the headline "Burying wikipedia", that you meant Wikipedia was not coming up first for you. Actually now that I'm reading your original post more carefully, I see you're apparently referring to a specific but unnamed article on a company. Not all Wikipedia entries go to number one. There's no consistency and it depends on lots of factors that are rather opaque (as well as that as I mentioned it's not always the same for each person) so you could never say Google is targeting one Wikipedia article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Added note to article with generalized ref about EU finding that Google pushes Google to the expense of other sites, without any mention of WP. (The ultimate example begin that WP's Google article does not show up when using Google to search for "Google".) Hcobb (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem with that reference I can see, and wouldn't you expect that? Of course they will and do. On the other hand, your ultimate example seems to me to show nothing at all because first, Wikipedia's article on Google (for me) is the eighth result, and regardless, you can't draw any conclusion unless you actually know how its algorithm works and then had all the data it crunched to provide the search result--which none of use do. For all you know the reason it's the eighth result for me is related to how many hits each page gets from my region of my country (or something utterly different and 100 other factors).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

'+' prefix currently works

The statement under the Search Syntax heading "a prefix such as... (no longer valid, the '+' was removed from Google on October 19, 2011)" is false because the plus operator is working now. For example, the searches (without quotes) 'abraham lincoln' gives about 43,000,000 results and 'abraham +lincoln' gives 138,000 and the latter search does not look for a plus character.

The citation for this information, http://www.frag.co.uk/blog/2011/10/googles-changes-the-operators/ says that instead of "+" you should include the word in double quotes, but that also currently is not true. ('abraham "lincoln"' gives 43,200,000 results again.) Also, that citation says that you get a warning when you use '+' which is false as well.

I can't find a citation acknowledging that + works now or when it was added back and google's help doesn't mention it, but it is definitely working. SesquiZed (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The '+' sign works on words (stop words) that would ordinarily be dropped: [+An important concept] for example. Otherwise, the '+' sign before words is assumed by the Hummingbird (and prior) search algorithm (and, hence, not ordinarily needed.) — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I consistently see substantial differences when I use + on a non-stop word vs. when I don't use it. Compare red book blue with +red book blue. They're really different. However, what you said confirms that the citation is obsolete (the reference says + is ignored). However, I don't know the correct information to replace it with. SesquiZed (talk) 02:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

'~' prefix was dropped under Hummingbird?

Now that Hummingbird replaces everything, and uses semantic searching (includes similar terms), the need for '~' has disappeared. The '~' is stripped off before the search is conducted. That is my understanding and I can research the date this happened. You can test it also by entering the search keywords: [~Wikipedia -Wikipedia]. You would expect information 'similar' to Wikipedia to be on the search results, but not any entries including 'Wikipedia' as a word. Try it and you will see that the effect of what you get is nothing because it stripped off '~' and submits [Wikipedia -Wikipedia]. Can you confirm or deny?  :-) Hope This Helps, — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Google Search

Cyberbot II has detected links on Google Search which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.change.org/petitions/larry-page-unblock-the-word-bisexual

  Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Google Search

Cyberbot II has detected links on Google Search which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.change.org/petitions/larry-page-unblock-the-word-bisexual

  Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Google Search. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110902225802/http://www.google.com:80/help/faq_filetypes.html to http://www.google.com/help/faq_filetypes.html#what
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080627114009/http://www.google.com:80/support/bin/answer.py?answer=35889 to http://www.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=35889#stemming
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090616160419/http://www.law.emory.edu:80/law-library/research/advanced-legal-research-class/finding-aids-and-searching/google.html to http://www.law.emory.edu/law-library/research/advanced-legal-research-class/finding-aids-and-searching/google.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080731100051/http://www.google.com:80/support/bin/answer.py?answer=15661 to http://www.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=15661
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100708013913/http://blog.stopbadware.org/2009/01/31/google-glitch-causes-confusion to http://blog.stopbadware.org/2009/01/31/google-glitch-causes-confusion
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110717193934/http://securityblog.verizonbusiness.com/2009/01/31/serious-problems-with-google-search/ to http://securityblog.verizonbusiness.com/2009/01/31/serious-problems-with-google-search/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100821215629/http://www.siivo.com:80/blog/2010/07/what-does-google-caffeine-mean-for-my-website/ to http://www.siivo.com/blog/2010/07/what-does-google-caffeine-mean-for-my-website
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100115202211/http://blog.cube3marketing.com:80/2009/07/31/bing-the-new-search-engine-from-microsoft-and-yahoo/ to http://blog.cube3marketing.com/2009/07/31/bing-the-new-search-engine-from-microsoft-and-yahoo/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100115202740/http://blog.cube3marketing.com:80/2009/08/27/caffeine-the-new-google-update/ to http://blog.cube3marketing.com/2009/08/27/caffeine-the-new-google-update/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120330084310/http://www.google.com/language_tools?hl=en to http://www.google.com/language_tools?hl=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

New Google Page

I have a picture of the new Google Page, however, I'm a guest, and since I was in a rush to get this to Wikipedia, I took the whole screen of the page and I didn't fix the tiny blurness.

Below is a link that must be put in the URL box, however, the page may not work.

file:///C:/Users/Ray.Rico/Downloads/new_google_page.webp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.52.11 (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

That's a link to your local file and not to the internet, so we can't access it. But I'm curious, what does "new Google page" even mean? LocalNet (talk) 04:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

yes, that's not accessible you could upload the link to a cloud service (e.g. google drive) so then it could be checked? (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

android

more detail on android operating system necessary. Csprime (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Google Search. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080912104253/http://searchenginewatch.com/showPage.html?page=3630718 to http://searchenginewatch.com/showPage.html?page=3630718
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://google.stanford.edu/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Expanding on the "Possible misuse of search results" section

Hi fellow Wikipedians,

The phenomenon described in the « Possible misuse of search results » section comes close to what has been coined as the «filter bubble» by the internet activist Eli Pariser although this section does not mention « personalized searches » explicitely. Filter bubble refers to a danger that people do not get exposed to viewpoints different from their own. Pariser work also consisted in highlighting the existence of tailored search results given to the user, effectively isolating them in their own bubble.

That being said, do you think that filter bubbles should be mentionned in the « Possible misuse of search results » section, in another section of its own such as « personalized searches » or not at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexandreZouaoui TPT (talk • contribs) 22:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @AlexandreZouaoui TPT: That's interesting! I took a look at the PDF you posted and it does raise some interesting points. It looks to be based off a book, and the book has been mentioned by multiple media organizations, so we know it's notable. Provided that we manage to find a simple way to describe it, I'm open to putting it in the "Possible misuse of search results" section. :) LocalNet (talk) 06:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Search syntax

It seems you can no longer use syntax like "define:<word>" or "stocks:<symbol>", although "define <word>" works. Can someone verify? 213.205.251.253 (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Change apps

Google play store Itsarawutspk27 (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Bias

The fact that Google Search is listed as a mirror website seems biased. Can I take it off the list? ThePRoGaMErGD (talk) 21:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Special interactive features

Recipe suggestions should be added with a note that they were later removed. Source: https://www.wired.com/2011/02/google-recipe-semantic/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.209.29.222 (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2020

Google LLC is an American multinational technology company that specializes in Internet-related services and products, which include online advertising technologies, search engine, cloud computing, software, and hardware. It is considered one of the Big Four technology companies, alongside Amazon, Apple, and Facebook. 71.169.165.216 (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2020 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Google search parameters

Why aren't the Google search parameters mentioned?--Malore (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Malore: Well the search operators are. Aren't [moz.com/ugc/the-ultimate-guide-to-the-google-search-parameters the parameters] just the operators and search terms translated into Google's syntax? What's the use of explaining/dissecting these then? Maybe you have a suggestion what exactly you'd like see added to the article? --Fixuture (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Search syntax

Most of the operators listed in this section have not worked, or not worked consistently, for several years. Section needs to be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.176.249 (talk) 02:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Url

Shouldn't the url be removed? aren't external links banned on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.107.172.181 (talk) 06:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

External links are not banned on Wikipedia. El_C 06:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

"Famous web search engine" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Famous web search engine. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 25#Famous web search engine until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Advanced search limitations

The current WP article briefly concerns the advanced search operators with this source. A broader list is provided here, updated to 2019.

Multiple operators may be combined (for instance, the string site:wikipedia.org intitle:religion intitle:God to research titles with more than one word), risking to be blocked by the internal filters of Google. Maybe what was a free service for any website, now it has become a subscription service linked to the ranking, sponsorship and so on. It would be useful to cite the full list and the related freemium limitations in the WP article.Philosopher81sp (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2020

which acts like OR () parentheses which let group multiple operators and control their order of execution filetype: which allows for searching for a specific file type like filetype:pdf intitle which allows for searching for keywords that are in the title of the web page like intitle:google help

Here is the URL to cite: https://seosly.com/google-search-operators/ 79.191.37.155 (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2020 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 00:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm feeling lucky

Accordingo to the article, "In 2012, "I'm Feeling Lucky" was changed to serve as an advertisement for Google services; users hover their computer mouse over the button, it spins and shows an emotion ("I'm Feeling Puzzled" or "I'm Feeling Trendy", for instance), and, when clicked, takes users to a Google service related to that emotion."

I just tried it and it doesn't work. Did Google remove this? WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 19:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure? I just tried it and it worked fine for me. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Interesting, I had to change my region to United States for it to work. Otherwise it wouldn't work and would always redirect to the doodles page. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 19:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Add RankBrain to the See also list

It was an update to Google's algorithm. It was the third most important signal in their ranking at one point in time (may still be, no one knows)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RankBrain — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.134.35.2 (talk) June 12, 2021 (UTC)

Edit request, moving from WT:ADMIN

(This was posted at WT:ADMIN, where it doesn't belong. Moving this here without comment on the merits of the request one way or the other. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC))

Under the category of Google Optimization:

Change "This field, called search engine optimization, attempts to discern patterns in search engine listings, and then develop a methodology for improving rankings to draw more searchers to their clients' sites." to

"This field, called search engine optimization, attempts to discern patterns in search engine listings, and then develop a methodology for improving rankings to draw more searchers to their clients' sites. Google has said that their algorithm looks at over 200 factors when deciding on page rankings.Each factor holds a different amount of weight when evaluating pages, so having a mix of tactics is the most successful when generating better rankings. Cgelp100 (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: This is not a reliable source, and in fact, the link use would be promotional. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

"Http://www.google.com" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Http://www.google.com and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 27#Http://www.google.com until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 18:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Change date to September 15, 1997

The Google domain was registered on September 15, 1997 so you should change the creation date to that DumbAAC7784 (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you DumbAAC7784 (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Reverted this change. Registering a domain is not equivalent to launching a website. Google Search was originally hosted under a different domain on Stanford's servers, and before that was active as BackRub. IceWelder [✉] 19:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Safesearch

I think that the Safesearch part should be added to or removed entirely as it currently does not add to this article. I would add it but I have not made enough edits.

Thanks,

. Blutankalpha (talk) 12:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

 Removed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Project Mercury

Many reliable sources are writing about the functioning of Google Search in the wake of United States v. Google LLC (2020), see also Megan Gray. This should help add information about the quality of search results, which is a familiar topic. Nemo 17:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi Protected Edit Request 20/12/23 - SGE

Suggestion for addition to the Search Generative Experience section

Google have now extended testing of Search Generative Experience into 2024, having originally had an end date of December 2023 - https://uk.pcmag.com/ai/150145/google-quietly-extends-testing-of-ai-generated-search-results Majortony866 (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2024

Blogger

2001:44C8:4117:6AB7:1:0:8EB1:2E85 (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2024 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NotAGenious (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)