Talk:Criticism of Google/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Wrong Search Results - bad links

There are many Wrong Search Results type of complaints on the Web. This particular problem may be related to Google's recent results-page changes. (Search engine results page: SERP.)

Bad link from "cache"
After searching, on Google's results page, when one hits "cache," rather than going to that keyword-highlighted cached page, one gets one more (another) results page with still more choices! ...about 1/3 of the time.

(This has only been the last few days (as of August 2, 2011). I google about 20/day, (advanced search) and use cache most of the time. I also have my defaults set for 100 results. (using WinXP & Firefox))


possibly unrelated. Have I been "bucketed" by google? (I am a test subject?) Are most people now seeing the old results page changed...with the URL and "cache" no longer at the bottom of the hit? (see amazon.com example below)


EXAMPLE:
My first google gave me this : for the keywords: most OR best wear resistance OR resistant metals About 5,620,000 results (0.23 seconds)

===========here's one of the results:

what is the most wear resistant metal askville.amazon.com/wear-resistant-metal/AnswerViewer.do?... - Cached 5 answers Wear can come from impact or oxidation or corrosion or abrasion...

...So far so good. BUT, when I click on "Cached," I go to:

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:un33FSBUDD8J:askville.amazon.com/wear-resistant-metal/AnswerViewer.do%3FrequestId%3D6422005+most+OR+best+wear+resistance+OR+resistant+metals&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com&nucr=CAEQyLWwlLez6eRwGKbR4PEE

...which is NOT amazon.com! The resulting search term is listed as: cache:un33FSBUDD8J:askville.amazon.com/wear-resistant-metal/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=6422005 most OR best wear resistance OR resistant metals

and:

Web Results 1 - 30 of about 5,670,000 for cache:un33FSBUDD8J:askville.amazon.com/wear-resistant-metal/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=6422005 most OR best wear resistance OR resistant metals. (0.05 seconds)

........the first three hits on that wrong page are:

Surfacing for Wear Resistance: Part One KEY to METALS Articles The World's Most Comprehensive METALS Database. Key to metals .... The hardfacing alloys of Groups 2A and 2B are more wear resistant, less shock resistant, ... www.keytometals.com/articles/art139.htmCached
what is the most wear resistant metal -5 answers Wear can come from impact or oxidation or corrosion or abrasion or other sources. Different metals and alloys hold up better at some of these than others. ... askville.amazon.com/wear-resistant-metal/AnswerViewer.do?...Cached Get more discussion results
Armoloy, Wear Resistant Coatings, Metal Plating, Thin Dense... Armoloy's anti-corrosion wear resistant coatings are used to protect both plastic and metal molds even, in the most severe conditions. ... www.armoloy-wpa.com/Cached - Similar

.....snip


IOW, Google is lost. ...or is it? Notice that the wrong results page is old-style with the URL and "Similar" at the bottom of the hit.

possibly related: I found this:

"Google Experimenting With Redesigned Search Results Page" 10 May 2011
"The most peculiar thing regarding the new test page is that it provides much less information on the screen. Gone are the familiar "cached" and "similar" links -- tools that empowered a user to obtain related pages and "snapshots" of pages that have been saved by Google in the event that the actual link was down for any reason. This indicates that... referred to as a "bucket test" -- experimenting with changes by only making them visible to some users." http://news.ebrandz.com/google/2011/4034-google-experimenting-with-redesigned-search-results-page.html

--69.110.91.98 (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Wikipedia isn't the place for discussions not related to the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
you had me at Wikipedia isn't the place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.0.68 (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Links no longer valid

The link "Clear your Google Web History Before New Policy Implemented" pointing to "http://www.tahaali.com/#/news/2012/03/01/clear-your-google-web-history-before-new-policy-implemented/" no longer points to the referenced article. Selecting the link results in a directory listing.

132.79.7.15 (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC) Dave

 Done. I flagged the link with a "Dead link" template (we can delete the dead link after a few weeks, if no one fixes it) and added a new link to a similar article from the EFF. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 Done. I deleted the dead external link today. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Invalid/Dead Link

Citation #137, http://www.winsupersite.com/blogs/entryid/76091/daily-update-googles-do-not-track-solution-apple-stuff-crysis-2-demo-more, has a blank page and does not support the statement in the article.

BYK (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

That ref has a "Retrieved April 22, 2011" on it. So the question is, did the ref support the statement in the article back then. Since no one objected to the statement or the ref since then, the assumption should be that it did. We should try to find a replacement ref or a new ref if we can. Or we might be able to find the original post in an archive somewhere. -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 Done. This URL seems to work: http://winsupersite.com/news/daily-update-googles-do-not-track-solution-apple-stuff-crysis-2-demo-more. I'll update the ref in the article. -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Purpose of "Alternatives to Google and monopoly power" section? It is very POV.

I don't see a purpose of this section other than an excuse to quote Schmidt. It certainly deviates from the world-wide perspective and focuses on a single conversation between Schmidt and a US Senator. Until such a time as the article is rephrased, or perhaps grouped with a more relevant section and balanced with other sources, I will put a POV tag up. Basically the point of the section seems to be: "If you don't like Google, you could always visit another website!" While that may be true, it an argument from the lips of the CEO of Google and thus it is pretty out of context in an article that is about "Criticism of Google." Maybe we need a section titled "Responses to criticism of Google regarding Antitrust?"66.220.250.160 (talk) 12:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I made some changes that I hope address these concerns. I reordered some of the content, combined two sub-sections, adjusted a sub-heading, and added some additional content from the Senate hearing. I changed the NPOV tag to be an NPOV section tag and added an NPOV-inline tag to the specific content that seemed to be the cause of concern. I left the NPOV section tag for now, but hopefully it can be removed shortly, if these concerns have been addressed.
I don't agree that the sub-section as it was was "an excuse to quote Schmidt". Senator Kohl was quoted too and I don't think Google comes out of the exchange with Kohl very well since Schmidt admitted publicly that Google is likely subject to the special antitrust rules that apply to firms with monopoly power in the U.S. But, in any case, in criticism articles we need to present both the criticism and any rebuttal or response. Hopefully, the reworked sub-section does a better job of that now.
--Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
It is definitely a large improvement. I do take issue with the intro paragraph, just because it seems out of place and does not serve as a summary or introduction to the criticism.
"According to Joe Wilcox of Microsoft-Watch, Google has increased its dominance of search, becoming an information gatekeeper, despite the conflict of interest between information gathering and the advertising surrounding that information. His colleagues do not share the same view."
Maybe something more along the lines of "Google has been criticized for ____" -- basically mirroring the format of the rest of the page (see the intro paragraphs of censorship and privacy).66.220.250.160 (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Streetview not Illegal in Germany

I live in Berlin and I use streetview quite often, even though the article mentions it is still illegal here (there were just some discussions about it a few months ago). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.0.106.159 (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done I fixed this (finally). Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 12:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

updated Germany's concern over Google. Rim sim (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of sentence from monopoly power section?

The following paragraph in the sub-section on "Alternatives to Google and monopoly power" in the "Monopoly, restraint of trade, and antitrust" section has been deleted and restored twice:

Being a monopoly or having monopoly power isn't illegal in the United States. It depends on whether that power is used in ways that violate the special rules that apply to monopolies.[1][2]
  1. ^ "Is Google A Monopoly? 'We're In That Area,' Admits Schmidt", Matt Rosoff, Business Insider, September 21, 2011
  2. ^ "Competition law does not make merely having a monopoly illegal, but rather abusing the power a monopoly may confer, for instance through exclusionary practices" from the Law section of the Wikipedia article on Monopoly, accessed November 11, 2011

Here is the history:

  • 14:49, 6 September 2014‎ 66.220.250.160 . . (143,024 bytes) (-498)‎ . . (→‎Alternatives to Google and monopoly power: this sentence does not really belong. if it were to be included, it needs to be phrased as directly in terms of Google.)
  • 23:51, 6 September 2014‎ W163‎ . . (143,522 bytes) (+498)‎ . . (Undid revision 624446627 by 66.220.250.160 (talk) restore, I think it does belong. it gives context for the discussion. If this is a big issue, we should talk about it on the talk page.)
  • 09:28, 7 September 2014‎ 66.220.250.160‎ . . (143,024 bytes) (-498)‎ . . (Undid revision 624496207 by W163 (talk) -- sentences need to be rephrased in terms of Google, rather than generics of US monopoly law.)
  • 09:53, 7 September 2014‎ W163‎ . . (143,522 bytes) (+498)‎ . . (Undid revision 624537502 by 66.220.250.160 (talk) restore deleted content; rephrase if you wish or take discussion to talk page, but simply deleting content is not a solution)

For my part, I don't see what is wrong with this paragraph. It is sourced. The first reference is specific to the Google situation. The paragraph has been in the article for a long time (almost 3 years, since 01:54 on 18 October 2011). It provides context to the preceding quote from Eric Schmidt's testimony before the U.S. Senate committee. It would be fine to rephrase it, if that would improve things. I am not comfortable simply deleting the sentences, at least not without a better explanation about why the content "does not really belong" and "need[s] to be rephrased". --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

  • It's not the job of Wikipedia to state ultimatums about specific issues, such as making judgement claims about the legality of of something. Stating the duration of how long a sentence has been there is not a valid argument, either. It's actually irrelevant. If a wrong piece of information is somewhere for X years, it should still be deleted.
  • The business insider reference is essentially a blog/opinion piece, and thus is not really a NPOV source. The consequences of being a monopoly is complicated, not simple. See the "don't oversimplify" section from WP:TECHNICAL.
  • The second reference is to a wikipedia article, seemingly making a point about the legality of something. This is clear bias, and also not NPOV.
  • This is not an article about monopolies in general and/or their legality, thus any specific conclusions should be phrased in terms of Google or the direct sources that you are citing. We should not be making arguments one way or another. Wikipedia is not a legal blog or forum.66.220.250.160 (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I see that the paragraph was deleted for a third time at 14:35 on 7 September 2014 by IP 66.220.250.160, this time with an edit summary that says: "Wikipedia is not for stating original conclusions. Also, see "don't oversimplify" from WP:TECHNICAL)". I would have preferred to have the discussion here to see if we can reach a consensus about what, if anything, should be done. Or failing that, the material in question could be rephrased rather than completely removed. Completely deleting something tends to sweep the issue off the table where it can easily be forgotten. We should not do that until we have a consensus that it is what we should do.

I agree that the duration of how long a sentence has been in an article is not a strong argument that something should be kept or removed. It is, however, an argument that there is no urgent need to do something major quickly, such as completely deleting something, since delaying a change for a few days or even weeks to see if a consensus can be reached or even just to be sure that the arguments on all sides for and against a change are understood is unlikely to cause serious problems. In fact, waiting a bit after another editor has objected to a change is only polite.

I don't see anything here that is an original conclusion. I don't see anything that I would describe as an "ultimatum". I don't even see any conclusions about the legality or illegality of Google's position being drawn. All I see is a more general statement being made that tries to help put Eric Schmidt's comments into context in terms current U.S. law related to misuse of monopoly power: that is, even if a company is found to be a monopoly, the legality or illegality of its actions depend on larger questions related to its behavior and not simply upon its status as a monopoly. The two references support this general view. Because the issue is complicated, I think the statement is helpful. The second reference can lead readers to more information if they are interested. If the paragraph can be easily misunderstood to be making a claim as to the legality or illegality of Google's position here, then by all means it needs to be reworded.

Business Insider is not a blog and there is nothing to suggest that the BI article cited is a blog or opinion piece. BI and the article's author, Matt Rosoff, should not be labeled anything but reliable third-party sources.

I don't see an NPOV issue here, but that is probably because, as described above, I don't see any conclusion for or against Google being made. In fact, deleting the paragraph may raise an NPOV issue. In criticism articles of this sort, it is important to have due weight to all sides. We should not leave readers with the incorrect assumption that Google is engaged in illegal activities if that is not the case. Since the issue is up in the air, we need to tell readers that and give them a sense of where things stand and upon what they depend.

I'll wait a few days before restoring the paragraph for a third time. Hopefully other editors will join in the discussion. If a consensus that the paragraph should be deleted does not emerge after a few days, I will almost certainly restore it again. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 01:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If you restore the paragraph again without rephrasing it in a NPOV fashion, I of course will simply delete it again. Business Insider is absolutely a blog, thus why it is given awards in the "blog" category in the exact article that you linked. Citing wikipedia is also not exactly the most valid thing to do, especially since the article on monpolies on Wikipedia has nothing at all directly to do with Google. It would actualloy constitute original research, eg the construction of an argument in defense of Google. The statement "Being a monopoly or having monopoly power isn't illegal in the United States." is not neutrally phrased. I find this obvious, and I 100% dispute your opinion that it is not. This is not an article about the generics of monopolies. Wikipedia is not a legal blog, and it is not our job to make and construct arguments one way or another.66.220.250.160 (talk) 12:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't see anything about blogs on the Business Insider article page that is cited or on the BI home or Tech home pages. The Wikipedia article on BI doesn't say that it is a blog, just that its "Clusterstock" and "Silicon Alley Insider" sections have won some awards for blogs or are mentioned as blogs by others. The cited article appears in the "Tech" section. The BI Wikipedia article is in the Category:News websites. The Wikipedia article does say that "Business Insider is a US business and technology news website" and "[t]he site provides and analyzes business news and acts as an aggregator of top news stories from around the web. Its original works are sometimes cited by other, larger, publications such as The New York Times and domestic news outlets like NPR." And in any case, while I don't think that the cited BI article is part of a blog, news blogs can be used as sources, see WP:NEWSBLOG.
I don't see what is non-neutral about the statement that "Being a monopoly or having monopoly power isn't illegal in the United States." Read the words literally. It is a fact of U.S. antitrust law. It isn't an argument for or against Google. Google isn't mentioned. But we could probably make it clearer by expanding the statement a bit. Would wording something like this help?
Simply being a monopoly or having monopoly power by itself isn't illegal in the United States. Monopolies are subject to special antitrust rules. Illegality depends on weather monopoly power is used in ways that violate those special rules.
I'm sure we can find a reliable third-party source outside of Wikipedia for this without too much trouble.
Including one or two sentences that talk generally about an aspect of U.S. antitrust law doesn't turn this article or Wikipedia into a legal blog or forum. Individual statements are not required to be directly about or written specifically about the subject of the Wikipedia article. The tests are: Does the content improve an article? Is it relevant to the article? Is it verifiable using reliable third-party sources? Is it written from a neutral point of view or does it contribute to the neutrality of the article? I believe that the paragraph in question here passes all of these tests. That doesn't mean that some rewording couldn't make it better.
--Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
How about "being a monopoly in the USA subjects you to strong treatment within antitrust law." Merely pointing out that being a monopoly isn't illegal by itself is, while factually true, fairly irrelevant and very POV given the context of what they are talking about. Do you think Senator Kohl believes that being a monopoly is automatically illegal? Or the readers of this article? What, exactly, are you trying to convince people of?66.220.250.160 (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggested reorganization of first section

I wonder how "Possible misuse of search results" by users of Google Search belongs in an article entitled "Criticism of Google". Any type of service or device can be misused to the disadvantage of the user or others. The provider of the service is responsible only for refraining from misleading the user about the benefits or risk of injury from the service or device. If that is what is meant here, it should be made explicit. It's a problem in public education if many people believe that they can learn all they need to know from search engines.

Furthermore, I think this first paragraph fails to adequately introduce the significance of the apparently ominous remarks by Eric Schmidt reported in the news items cited in the next paragraph as [6] and [7]. Schmidt seems to be expressing the ambition that future users will no longer feel the need to think for themselves—they will become Google-bots, trusting Google to tell them "what they should be doing next". His statements implying this are worth quoting. This ambition appears to reach far beyond the issue of "Page Rank", the title of this section. The weak first paragraph seems to undermine the importance of the second, which may deserve a more appropriate location in the article.Layzeeboi (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Web store blocking?

I don't see anywhere in the article a mention of the fact that Google now forces you to use their site to host extensions for Chrome. Supposedly for fighting malware, but conveniently blocks plugins they disagree with and competing stores. This is an obvious antitrust law violation but good luck enforcing it. 73.3.211.0 (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

YouTube and Viacom

What is the criticism here? there is a lawsuit, and there is a possible controversy with privacy, but 1 - what exactly is being criticized, and 2 - who is criticizing? the information there is already in Youtube I vote we just remove this. Bryce Carmony (talk) 13:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Google Nest

This section had 2 paragraphs that were word for word identical to Nest Labs this is a duplication I moved ( to the main article ). If anyone would like to show me the words that are different ( since they were exact matches to me ) I'd be happy to see the difference. Bryce Carmony (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Criticism of Google

Cyberbot II has detected links on Criticism of Google 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:

  • https://www.change.org/petitions/google-change-the-youtube-comment-section-back-to-its-original-form#
    Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist
  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 17:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Get ready for the flood when people realise right click language selection in edit boxes is gone from chrome.

This is big. Where you were able to right click and select the language you were typing in only a general language settings entry remains. There is now an amalgamated spell checker checking all languages you subscribe to. This is only useful for people who only use a single language on a daily basis. Europeans for example who use a lot more are appalled. Having multiple languages with a lot of words with similar spelling French , Spanish , Portugese , Italian ... come to mind result in suggested corrections being in another language than the one you're typing in. A google search within the month of december will show hundreds of people reacting to this change. Exasperação is growing exponentieel. 83.101.79.241 (talk) 07:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


How did this happen? must know more! also, this page needs a lot of work. for one there have been a lot of developments in the EU antitrust case Masonpew (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Google Watch

We should clarify what Google Watch is (an organization)? Also, the next paragraph states "Daniel Brandt started the Google Watch website and..." and that sentence is followed by "Chris Beasley, who started Google Watch and disagrees...". I am confused: are they co-founders of the same website? I did find Google Watch Watch which was started by Chris so maybe this is what was meant to be said here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Criticism of Google. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Make Scroogle an article

Italian Wikipedia has a scroogle article, I don't see why we don't. I don't really understand how the existence of a competitor is a "criticism" or anything. is the existence of Pepsi a criticism of coke? are planes criticisms of boats? Scroogle as an article may be small. but it makes more sense as an article then it does as a "criticism" or google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryce Carmony (talk • contribs) 01:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC) Support Bryce Carmony (talk) 13:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Support ChristopheT (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@ChristophThomas and Bryce Carmony: Scroogle is already a redirect page that points to a relevant section, so I don't think it needs to be turned into an article. Jarble (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

discontinuing products/services

Google has the nasty habit of discontinuing prodocuts/service regardless of users and popularity, the list is really long and thoroughly documented here: List_of_Google_products#Discontinued_products_and_services and here are two inforgraphs showing some discontinued products: Google Products Graveyard & All The Useful Products Google Has Killed Off.

Commentary about this:

The biggest thing I remember was over Google_Reader#Discontinuation, but maybe canceling other services had a bigger effect on local/specific groups (e.g. Orkut#Shutdown).

There is a dedicated website that tracks Google products and the possibility of them shuting down: DidGoogleShutdown.com.

This is about everything I have, someone should write it up and add it to the "Other" section. --DelftUser (talk) 09:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Criticism of Google. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Criticism of Google. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Intellectual property section?

Google is recently going wild with intellectual property controversies, for example:

- balloons: https://www.wired.com/story/the-lawsuit-that-could-pop-alphabets-project-loon-balloons/ https://www.theverge.com/2016/6/15/11945318/google-project-loon-space-data-patent-lawsuit-trade-secret/

- Eli Attia architect: https://www.theverge.com/2015/2/17/8048779/google-x-eli-attia-lawsuit-flux-architecture http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/06/google-accused-of-racketeering-in-lawsuit-claiming-pattern-of-trade-secrets-theftt/

- ANS: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/google/google-accused-of-trying-to-patent-public-domain-technology/ http://www.pap.pl/en/news/news,1037604,polands-oldest-university-denies-googles-right-to-patent-polish-coding-concept.html

- Levandovski: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/23/anthony-levandowski-google-uber-self-driving-cars-lawsuit Google baseless patent bullying Uber: https://www.wired.com/story/eric-swildens-uber-waymo-lawsuit-patent/

Maybe Google have earned a dedicated section of criticism article? 188.146.172.97 (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Criticism of Google. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Christian Post

When did The Christian Post become a non-reliable source, as claimed in this removal of content? Some other sources verify that Alexa is biased, such as New Statesman. That said Alexa is an Amazon product, and thus it does not fall within the scope of this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Removal of criticism published by Chicago Tribune & Bloomberg

@Ronz: I am deeply concerned about the usage of the WP:ROLLBACK tool to revert my edit, also doing so without an edit summary. The edit which was reverted is not covered under Wikipedia:Rollback#When to use rollback. It is not obvious vandalism, nor I am not banned or blocked. Or is it that including criticism published in reliable sources not seen as helpful to the encyclopedia. Please revert the reversion, to correct the apparent mistake.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Done. --Ronz (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
@Ronz: I see the edit was still reverted. My talk page is not a relevant talk page for discussing content about this article, per WP:TPG. Moreover the criticism of my usage of Chicago Times & Bloomberg as "...poor sources for content...", is questionable? When did Chicago Times & Bloomberg become poor sources, when verifying directly the concerns stated by Leonid Bershidsky.
If the goal is to ensure that I no longer edit Wikipedia, or that my edits are not seen as good faith edits, this is a bigger issue.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
If the goal is to ensure that I no longer edit Wikipedia Please retract or better yet refactor all comments that do not focus on content. --Ronz (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

2018 Google walkouts

I just started this article about the recent protests. I believe it should be added to the criticism of google article? Victor Grigas (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Victorgrigas: agreed. I just did it. -- RobLa (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Bias Against Conservatives

Shouldn't the recent allegations of Google having anti-conservative bias in their search results be on this page? Google's CEO, Sundar Pichai, will be facing a GOP-led Congress over this. 2601:642:4201:D231:7561:4F3D:FAFF:A33F (talk) 05:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Such arguments have very little traction outside USA, so you would need to frame the topic in a way that can include the criticism from all around the world. Probably it would be something about privatised enforcement/policing of free speech (https://edri.org/theme/self-regulation-2/ ) with a cursory overview of the main or most visible examples of perceived bias in various countries. Nemo 05:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_Google/Archive_4&oldid=1075761066"