From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver


I'm assuming the delete means people would actually like a serious article on google? I'm sure I could manage that given a week or two, maybe focusing the issues of privacy, surveillance, copyright issues and personal freedom. Make it mission relevant whatever way I can basically. --Danfly (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. ТyTalk. 22:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
By definition any mission-relevant article is welcome.--BobSpring is sprung! 22:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I deleted the redirect to encourage the writing an article. Blue Talk 22:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


Shouldn't some mention be made of SEO? It seems to be a point of great interest to some people, specially dingbats & wingnuts. Google canada porn and check out #2. --Scream!! (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead if you see anywhere you can fit it. It's a wiki after all :) --Danfly (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I was doing an Ed. Suggesting someone else do the work.Help.gif --Scream!! (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Too much fancruft[edit]

At the moment, this is mostly a re-telling of the Wikipedia article with some on-mission stuff thrown in. (Seriously, the majority of the references point to the different sections of the Wikipedia article.) I'll try to improve it tomorrow, but it will involve cutting stuff. Points I'll try to cover at least briefly:

  • Censorship and Google's conflict with the Chinese government
  • The people who hunt for anomalies in Google Maps/Earth (such as Atlantis and alien bases)
  • Google Sky probably will need a separate article (here's why)
  • Street View: the privacy concerns, the people who claim that it shows UFOs
  • The current stuff about Google Books will stay
  • What is Google Scholar and why it includes crap

Any other ideas?--ZooGuard (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. ТyTalk. 20:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Go for it. It was only written to get rid of annoying red links in the first place. --Danfly (talk) 12:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Government requests[edit]

Following from here:

January to June 2011
United Kingdom
The number of content removal requests we received increased by 71% compared to the previous reporting period.
United States
We received a request from a local law enforcement agency to remove YouTube videos of police brutality, which we did not remove. Separately, we received requests from a different local law enforcement agency for removal of videos allegedly defaming law enforcement officials. We did not comply with those requests, which we have categorized in this Report as defamation requests.
The number of content removal requests we received increased by 70% compared to the previous reporting period.
The number of user data requests we received increased by 29% compared to the previous reporting period.
Scream!! (talk) 07:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Google Scholar[edit]

There was a campaign about a year ago to get Google Scholar to top listing creationist sites. That campaign seems to have fallen off the news and blog desks - what's the state of play now? Rennie McGreet (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about the official status, but one problem with getting only websites removed is that Google scholar also lists books. Google Scholar searches on any topic, not just evolution/creationism, will usually turn up one or two crank tracts. Which is why I cross-check with databases like Web of Science and SSRN when it comes to topics I'm unfamiliar with. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

An idea for the trivia section[edit]

Maybe we could include something about Australian sci-fi author and atheist Greg Egan and his misadventures with the Goog? Note: WebArchive because reaching his site proper can fail sometimes. Towards-the Unknown (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)