Talk:Google search technology

Learn more about this page

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Google

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GoogleWikipedia:WikiProject GoogleTemplate:WikiProject GoogleGoogle articles

WikiProject Google To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Articles for most of the other products listed here and here.
Assess : All articles in the Category:Unknown-importance Google articles and Category:Unassessed Google articles using the project's assessment scale
Expand : Google Mapathon, Google Talkback
Maintain : This WikiProject
Merge : Google mobile services into List of Google products
Stubs : Category:Stub-Class Google articles and Category:Google stubs
Update : List of features in Android and Gmail interface#Product integration. Update logos of Google Marketing Platform products
Other :
- Add more stuff to this to do list if you like! (click here...)
- create:
- Help the Google article for a good article status
- Improve the Outline of Google
- Get more members using :
{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Google/Invite Members}}
- Infobox Images with transparent areas needing a different background color

Why? edit

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

While the grammatical errors in this article are not inconsequential, I am flagging this because I question the very need for its existence. Is this about the technicalities of Google's search engine? Is this article just a list of unsubstantiated theories about Google? Does this article serve any purpose whatsoever? --Roguelazer 04:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

That's a very good question. Try to make the same question to EVERY other article.

There is no such reason. The article is good as long as it answers people's questions and keep growing into that sense.

It's not just because you can't see some question of yours answered that it doesn't exist. It would have helped me to have it here before I did it.

I'm not trying to start a fight here, just trying to make a point.

Please, I'd like to be corrected if I'm going way too far here, but I believed wikipedia suppose to just have as much informational stuff as possible, and I truly believe if you're removing this is just because of that donation problem on the top, which could be reason good enough, but it would still be a bad reason.

--Cacumer 03:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I believe an even better question would be "why was it removed". I really did not enjoy to see User:AxelBoldt making it a redirect and thinking it is better approached in google plataform while it isn't. They're just different subjects.

The plataform is just trying to state what google is. What I was trying to do was to inform about "google revolution", and maybe that would be a better name. Just trying to start an informational article about how the google phenomnem could have happened and what is different between google and the other search engines. Not just technical stuff that shows almost nothing like the plataform article, but a real informational approach attempt.

But I do completly agree the article was bad written and needed to be reformulated, although I was hoping someone else to do that I can see if I want it done I'll probably need to do it myself. Maybe it can grow up better after a better basis is done.

Thanks for your insight, Roguelazer.

--Cacumer 03:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Add topic