DE
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Prabhakar Raghavan

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác

Edit request for Career

[edit]
Latest comment: 9 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hello! I'd like to propose some improvements to this article, which I am submitting on behalf of Google as part of my work at Beutler Ink. I've identified a few issues with the current article and will offer suggestions for editor review and implementation via the COI edit request queue. I generally avoid direct editing given my COI.

To start, I'd like to address the following sentence in the "Career" section:

  • In 2018, he was put in charge of Ads and Commerce at Google, and in 2020 he replaced Ben Gomes as head of Google Search and Assistant,[1] amid a push to increase advertising revenue from Google Search.[2]

References

  1. ^ Sterling, Greg (2020-06-04). "Google promotes Prabhakar Raghavan to lead Search, replacing Ben Gomes". Search Engine Land. Retrieved 2024-04-24.
  2. ^ AdExchanger (2024-04-24). "The Fin Tech Ad Tech Boom; Temu Tops Meta's Charts (But At What Cost?)". AdExchanger. Retrieved 2024-04-25.

I think this sentence could be more focused on Prabhakar Raghavan (instead of Ben Gomes, who does not have a Wikipedia biography) and based on stronger sourcing than AdExchanger. I propose replacing with the following, which clarifies Prabhakar Raghavan's roles and uses Wired instead of AdExchanger:

  • In 2018, he was put in charge of Ads and Commerce at Google and in 2020 his scope was expanded to include Search, Geo, and Assistant.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ Sterling, Greg (2020-06-04). "Google promotes Prabhakar Raghavan to lead Search, replacing Ben Gomes". Search Engine Land. Retrieved 2024-04-24. Prabhakar Raghavan, who was running Ads and Commerce (since 2018), will replace Ben Gomes as the new head of Search and Assistant... Many teams will now roll up under Prabhakar Raghavan: Search, GEO, Ads, Commerce and Payments.
  2. ^ "Prabhakar Raghavan Isn't CEO of Google—He Just Runs the Place". Wired. He runs search, ads, commerce, maps, payments, and Google Assistant, businesses that bring in the lion's share of the company's revenue.

If editors agree this is an improvement, I'd appreciate if the article could be updated appropriately.

Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Done! Penny75 (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Penny75: Thanks for reviewing and updating the article. I have a couple additional requests for this article below and on the way, in case you're interested. Inkian Jason (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
You have zero place recommending such changes given that you work for Google. All of your proposed recommendations should be reverted. ~2025-32099-37 (talk) 06:34, 26 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Proposed removal

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Next, I'd like to address the following problematic text in the Criticism section:

  • In April of 2024, the blogger Ed Zitron revealed that Raghavan was responsible for a massive decline in quality at Google following his takeover of Google search and subsequent focus on ad revenue in the prioritization of search results.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ "Report: How Prabhakar Raghavan Killed Google Search". Search Engine Roundtable. April 25, 2024. Retrieved January 12, 2025.
  2. ^ Frauenfelder, Mark (April 23, 2024). "How one power-hungry leader destroyed Google search". Boing Boing. Retrieved January 12, 2025.

This text is biased and seemingly included in an attempt to disparage the subject. I see no reason why the opinion of a non-notable blogger should be presented as fact that the subject was solely "responsible for a massive decline in quality" using questionably reliable sources (Search Engine Roundtable and Boing Boing).

I propose removal and would appreciate if someone could update the article appropriately.

Thanks again! Inkian Jason (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

The thing is, Search Engine Round Table (run by an organization online since 1994) only cites Mr Zitron, citing dozens reliable sources ( [1]http://wheresyoured.at/the-men-who-killed-google/... did you read it?) including some the world's #1 top news organizations, and USA DOJ, etc. What Mr Zitron writes seems well-researched, plausible. However, it's not how I'd describe it; Google declined in mid-to-late-'0s, and by 2014 was entirely broken, when an engineer wrote article he could no longer use it to find specialized parts. Search engines used to have philosophical-mathematical logic operators such as AND, OR, NOT, and matched phrases in quotation marks, then changed two to '+', '-', generally none of which works since then. It seems likely Mr Raghavan oversaw addition at top of more advertisements/sponsors, 'people also asked' & etc., artificial intelligence (AI), images/videos, etc., which now are above all but zero to two search results even on 4K screen small-to-medium text (you used to get 10 actual search results at top)... for some searches you might scroll down past dozens images/videos and other semi-related categories mixed in to see few sought results at all. I see how some would call that quality issue, but the quality issue was when logical operators stopped working such as for anyone understanding that basic logic (with serious problems for intellectuals, scientists/engineers) and Google was dumbed-down. What happened after 2014 was just adding masses of semi-related or unrelated extras above something that already had no quality. Despite my minor terminology disagreement, the section should be expanded (with all details of what he changed/added) and the true decline to zero-quality (caused/led by others) in 2014 belongs in other articles, though if you support Mr Raghavan, you could say he took over an already-dead Google Search, adding stuff to something that no longer worked correctly/reliably anyway--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 13:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Not only do I disagree with your take Jason, I think the wording you highlighted seems slightly biased against Mr. Zitron. Most of his work has been as a journalist published by various established news outlets like The Atlantic and the Wall Street Journal. While he does have an online newsletter, a format that can be considered a direct successor to blogging, his contemporaries – that is, newsletter writers with a professional background in journalism – such as Matthew Yglesias and Bari Weiss are described as journalists not as bloggers on their respective wiki articles. Also, the quality of Zitron's original article criticizing Mr. Raghavan (titled "The Man Who Killed Google Search") and subsequent articles are well-researched and the kind of investigative journalism I'd expect of WIRED, FastCompany, and other outlets that cover the tech industry. I do think that Google's response the original article and Zitron's counter-response to Google's should both also be detailed in this section, that's only fair, and I'd support such an edit. I also think that this article should only reference Mr. Zitron's original article, not Search Engine Roundtable or Boing Boing. If Bari Weiss's Free Press newsletter is acceptable as a reference on Wikipedia, Zitron's should be as well, no? But removing the text altogether is simply out of the question.
Really, and this bit here is simply my own opinion, should Wikipedia even be allowing paid PR firms to have a presence here? This is one of the only remaining not-for-profit, egalitarian institutions of the Internet. As in "meatspace," the unfettered use of money as speech is a risk to the integrity of the institution itself which is based on academic, journalistic, and scientific truth, reached by consensus among people of good faith. I think your criticisms in this thread have some validity to them, and you've been transparent about your conflict of interest, and that's why I'm taking your critique in good faith. However, there's a structural asymmetry at play here. Would, say, the Central Park Five have access to the same paid advocacy on Wikipedia if that 1989 case had happened today? No, they would instead be relying on the integrity of unpaid, uninvolved Wikipedians and moderators to present the facts fairly and accurately. I feel like that should be called out given the context of recent threats of informational warfare, a general environment of anti-intellectualism, and specific partisan threats against the Wikimedia Foundation itself. Xerces1492 (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
I am declining this request as there seems to be consensus against doing it, especially since Zitron now has an article here.
Should Wikipedia even be allowing paid PR firms to have a presence here - this has been discussed to death many times and the strongest argument against doing is is that the result would be to create a black market of undisclosed paid editors which would be harder to counter than the current situation. In fact, that black market already exists, and we should be proud of people like Inkian Jason for properly disclosing their paid statuses and doing the right thing, even if in this specific instance we disagree with them. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Pppery I appreciate your supportive comment. I should note, the article text has been changed since this request was submitted. Before, the article said "Zitron revealed...", instead of "Zitron claimed...", which makes a difference. Also, as you've mentioned, before there was no Wikipedia article about Zitron, which is also no longer the case. This article has seen a lot of vandalism and disparaging additions lately but hopefully the page protection applied by User:Callanecc will help, at least temporarily.
Does it seem reasonable to move the one sentence in the Criticism section to the Career section? Having a standalone section for a single sentence does not seem necessary. Also, I realize this is an essay and not a guideline, but Wikipedia:Criticism says: "In most cases, editors should avoid devoting a section to criticisms or controversies, as this violates neutral point of view. These sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints by giving them their own header; are not balanced, because they exclude positive information about the topic; create the appearance of a controversy, even if there isn't one; and often devolve into "laundry lists" of complaints, without regard for their notability or validity."
I have submitted two other edit requests below, if you have any interest in reviewing. Thanks. Inkian Jason (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Feel free to request that in a separate section -- it seems vaguely reasonable to me but not something I'm willing to do myself since this is rather far from my main area of expertise. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Proposed removal in Career

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I'd like to propose another removal of problematic text in the Career section. Currently, the section says:

  • In 2011, he was appointed as Yahoo!'s chief strategy officer by CEO Carol Bartz, who replaced the co-founder Jerry Yang in 2009 and was fired in 2011 as the company declined.

This seems like another attempt to include unnecessary detail in an attempt to disparage someone. I propose removing the following text, which is not about article subject Prabhakar Raghavan:

  • who replaced the co-founder Jerry Yang in 2009 and was fired in 2011 as the company declined

My goal with this request is to remove biased, unnecessary text and keep the entry focused on the subject. Thanks for reviewing and updating the article appropriately. Inkian Jason (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Done! Penny75 (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Penny75: Thanks again, I appreciate your help. Inkian Jason (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Penny75 Might you be able to take a look at this most recent change and the above request? I'm trying to get feedback on potentially problematic content. Thanks Inkian Jason (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Revert request

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello again! I would like to submit another request for this article, this time seeking to remove the recently added text "after a disastrous tenure as Head of Search in which search quality dropped immensely" from the "Career" section, which was added by an unregistered editor and appears to be vandalism. I don't edit the main space because of my conflict of interest, so I'm asking others to review and update the article appropriately.

Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

When I was reading this article, I saw this sentence and removed it before seeing this thread. It seems that a tendentious editor is repeatedly adding this to the page. Could someone more familiar with handing disruptive editing handle the situation? Pipoin (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Also, done. Pipoin (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Papers and patents

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi again! I would like to submit another edit request seeking to improve this biography. According to The Economic Times, the subject has published over 100 papers in various fields and holds 20 issued patents. Therefore, I propose adding the following sentence to the article's Career section:

  • "Raghavan has published over 100 papers in various fields and has secured 20 issued patents.[1]"

References

  1. ^ "This Indian-origin executive is Google's new chief technologist". The Economic Times. October 17, 2024. He has over 20 years of research spanning algorithms, web search and databases, published over 100 papers in various fields, and holds 20 issued patents, including several on link analysis for web search.

This is not a contentious addition, but I avoid editing the main space because of my COI and I'm asking editors to review this request and update the article on my behalf. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Done Encoded  Talk 💬 22:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for reviewing and updating the article. Inkian Jason (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Introduction

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

For this edit request, I'd like to propose an improvement to the biography's Introduction.

Currently, the article says, "Prabhakar Raghavan is a business executive and former researcher of web information retrieval. He currently holds the role of Chief Technologist at Google."

It is not accurate to refer to him as a "former" researcher and his research is not exclusive to information retrieval. I propose changing the opening to the following, which is more accurate and reflective of the article body:

  • Prabhakar Raghavan is a computer scientist and the Chief Technologist at Google.

Again, I generally avoid making direct edits so I'm asking other editors to update the entry on my behalf.

Thanks again! Inkian Jason (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Done Encoded  Talk 💬 22:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thanks again, Inkian Jason (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2025

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Recently, a workshop celebrating the technical contributions of Prabhakar Raghavan had many talks from many distinguished scientists.

IMHO, it would be useful to mention it in this page (possibly, under "Awards and honors"): "In June 2025, scientists from around the world gathered for a Festschrift celebrating his technical accomplishments."

Thanks. Flavio82~enwiki (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't see how this is notable. I cannot find any reliable secondary sources talking about what "PRFest" is, and how it relates to the article subject. LizardJr8 (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. also borderline promotional — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 20:04, 21 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Coverage of Ed Zitron's blog post

[edit]
Latest comment: 24 days ago6 comments4 people in discussion

An unregistered user has been repeatedly changing the wording in the "Criticism" section from "In April of 2024, the blogger Ed Zitron wrote a piece claiming that Raghavan was responsible for a massive decline in quality at Google" to "detailing how". This edit doesn't seem to respect W:NPOV and WP:BLPSPS. Could the unregistered user explain their reasoning, or anyone else confirm this? Thanks! Cixtpide (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

They've been doing this for over a year, presumably don't have much else going on. They won't explain their reasoning, even though they've been asked multiple times to. The page has been protected multiple times to get them to stop (eg. [2], [3], [4]) but they just wait it out and do it again. If you want them to stop I'd recommend going to WP:RFPP and asking for something long-term. BugGhost 🦗👻 17:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your answer! My request at WP:RFPP has been declined. I have tried another wording to comply with WP:CLAIM. Cixtpide (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Because wikipedia tend to deepthroat every big corpo/gov. That's why.
Anyway, the (Personal attack removed) ruined google. ~2026-26739-62 (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Are you sure this is just one unregistered user? I would expect many people to want to publicize his alleged role in the decline of Google. I did it myself, once, but only once. Joemathes (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I'm certain that it is the same person doing these specific edits - they were restoring basically identical versions every time and they were doing it for a very long period of time. Your change different - it was well meaning but also not great, you cited reddit as a source in two different places. BugGhost 🦗👻 15:02, 20 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Request to give more air to criticism

[edit]
Latest comment: 9 hours ago10 comments3 people in discussion

Editors who claim they're making the article less biased almost always do so by removing critical content, not by making it more objective.

Without speculating about the motive of these editors, it's objectively true that these edits make the page less informative and less useful. Almost everyone who reads Wikipedia regularly uses (or used) Google search. Content about a decline in quality might be the most universally relevant content on all of Wikipedia.

The lack of coverage of the criticism suggests that it's not relevant or important, which is a deception, if inadvertent one. This page, in its current form, risks damaging Wikipedia's reputation. Users will wonder how many other controversies are minimized, and how many potential bad actors have glowing wikipedia pages. Joemathes (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi Joemathes. If you are looking for general criticism of google, see the Criticism of Google article. If there are other specific points you think should be in this article, please post them here with sources. The Ed Zitron article already mentioned in this article. BugGhost 🦗👻 15:12, 20 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I am not trying to find criticism of Google nor to add any specific criticism of Google to this article. Why would you think I don't know how to find criticism of Google?
It seems odd to misunderstand my comment as such. It seems even more odd to suggest that my goal is to add specific criticism of Google, rather than of Raghavan, to Raghavan's page.
Raghavan's potential role in damaging Google search is, to most people, by far the most relevant thing about him. There is quite a lot more to the story than simply the fact that Zitron wrote an article. Suggesting that mentioning Zitron's article is just as good as including content from it is nonsense. Everything in every article came from a source, but sometimes Wikipedia articles contain content from those sources instead of just mentioning them.
I suspect that editors of this page have hidden motive against being critical of this powerful man. I do not think this problem can be addressed until it's out in the open. Yes, this article seems prone to edits biased against Raghavan. It also seems prone to edits biased against criticism of Raghavan. The former group is effectively banned from contributing, but the latter demonstrably isn't. Joemathes (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Can you at least add a link to Zitron's follow-up article? https://www.wheresyoured.at/requiem-for-raghavan/ Joemathes (talk) 02:48, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Look, it seems like you are dancing around the idea that I (or other people who have reverted the long-term vandal) are paid by Google and/or Raghavan to block any criticism of him, so I'll just say:
  • I don't particularly like the guy, I haven't used google search in years (partially because of how terrible it became, but partially because of how Google operates generally), and I like Ed Zitron and have followed his blog for a while now.
  • The reverts on this page are not trying to hide information or criticism, they are merely to stop the article descending into a wall of shit-slinging. The only reason why this article is on my watchlist is because it came up at wp:recent changes and I reverted some pretty obvious non-neutral emotive-adjective changes. Editors shouldn't just come along and write subjective things into articles. You can't write "this guy's work was disasterous", but you could write "a lot of people consider this guys work was detremental to xyz" - as long as you back this up with reliable sources, which the LTA did not do. The only reason why the article is protected is because the editor who really wanted to include the word "disastrous" was doing stuff like that for over a year and a half, and it was annoying editors who do cleanup work.
  • No, not going to link to Ed Zitron's follow-up post, because of the policy around self-published sources being used in a biography of a living person. Posts written by Ed Zitron on Ed Zitron's website don't count as a reliable source, because anyone can buy a domain and publish whatever they want on it, so they aren't generally considered a good source. That does not necessarily mean that the content of that post is not relevant - if you want to find another source, one that is considered reliable (in the Wikipedia sense, so like a newspaper or news site), please post it here and explain exactly how you want to change the article.
  • You aren't being specific about the actual changes you want. You say this article is missing criticism, but it contains references to the criticism you are talking about already. If you think it should be more prominent or include more info, please say (with sources) what exactly you want to change. I promise you I do not have any reason to care about protecting this guy's image - if you have anything specific (as in, draft the exact words you want to add, along with relevant reliable sources that back those claims up, assuming they don't violate some policy) then I or someone else here will add it to the article.
BugGhost 🦗👻 07:12, 21 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I appreciate the commitment to keeping an open mind. FWIW I never thought you or anyone else was keeping the article criticism-free because of a conflict of interest. Google does a good job of identifying itself when it sends people to edit articles. I didn't and don't really know why there appeared to be a bias against any kind of negativity.
Here's a proposed Google Search section. It steers clear of Zitron's content, borrows some of Zitron's sources and uses a few more he didn't use. As written, this section doesn't mention Zitron at all. Most of it rests on court exhibits, which Wikipedia treats as primary sources. Editors often prefer secondary sources that do the interpreting, rather than doing the interpreting in the article, but the main potential secondary source is Zitron's article, whom the editors seem to wish to avoid. I tried to keep the tone neutral.
Apologies if this isn't the preferred way to suggest an edit when the page is locked down.
== Google Search ==
In February 2019, Google advertising executives Jerry Dischler and Shiv Venkataraman declared a "code yellow for Search revenue", an internal emergency, after seeing "steady weakness in the daily numbers". They gave three causes. The first was that "Search query growth is significantly behind forecast, particularly on desktop", and they suggested that Chrome might be a factor. The other two were revenue launches running behind schedule and weakness among some advertisers and sectors.[1] The emails were later made public as exhibits in the antitrust case United States v. Google LLC (2020).[2]
Leaders of the search team debated how far to take part. Search executive Nick Fox wrote that Search was "the revenue engine of the company" and that, with revenue weak, meeting the demands "seems like this is our new reality of our jobs". Ben Gomes, then head of Search, replied that "we are getting too close to the money" and "too involved with ads for the good of the product and company". He added, "I could be persuaded either way, but I am getting concerned that growth is all we are thinking about." Another search executive, Shashi Thakur, noted that one of the company's objectives for 2019 was to increase commercial queries by 2%. He pointed out that making searches more efficient for users could reduce the number of queries in the short term.[3]
Google ended the code yellow on March 22, 2019, after meeting its exit criteria. That day, Prabhakar Raghavan, then head of ads, wrote that the revenue shortfall "was addressed by heroic RPM engineering, but the core query softness continues without mitigation". He warned that "at this rate the full year plan is a bad miss and will need drastic steps on the query side". In a draft reply, Gomes wrote that the search team cared about growth. He said queries could be raised quickly only "in user negative ways", for example by turning off spell correction or ranking improvements, and that he was "deeply deeply uncomfortable with this". He also wrote that "short term revenue has always taken precedence" over organic shopping features he had pushed for.[4] In May 2019, Dischler asked Chrome executive Anil Sabharwal to consider reversing a Chrome address-bar change that had reduced queries. Dischler said the ads team was short of its revenue plan. Sabharwal declined for the time being, writing that "we all agree" the rollback "is worse for users and product usability". He launched other query-increasing changes to Chrome instead.[5] At trial in 2023, Gomes testified that he had opposed using query volume as a measure of success, and that the teams later agreed to track groups of queries instead. Google told Bloomberg News that "the organic results you see in search are not affected by our ads systems".[2]
In the same period, Google made changes to the search results page. Data from search-tracking firms suggested that the March 2019 core algorithm update partly reversed the effects of an August 2018 update. Many sites that had lost visibility in 2018 recovered, and many that had gained lost ground. Google would not say whether the update was a reversal.[6][7] In 2024 Google said the update "was designed to improve the quality of our search results, as all core updates are designed to do".[8] In January 2020, Google redesigned desktop results so that ads were marked only by a small black-and-white "Ad" label, styled like the site icons next to organic results. The Verge wrote that the redesign "blurs the line between organic search results and the ads that sit above them".[9]
In June 2020, Raghavan replaced Gomes as head of Search, and Gomes moved to Google's education products while remaining a technical advisor to Search.[10] A 2024 study by researchers at Leipzig University and Bauhaus-Universität Weimar monitored Google, Bing and DuckDuckGo for a year. It found that "all search engines have significant problems" with search-optimized affiliate content.[11] In April 2024, Raghavan told employees that "things are not like they were 15-20 years ago" and that Google faced a "new operating reality".[12] In October 2024, Google moved Raghavan to the role of chief technologist and named Fox head of Search and ads.[13]
[1]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[2]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13] Joemathes (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
makes you wonder why you still haven't received a response ~2026-53825-97 (talk) 15:46, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ a b "Plaintiffs' Exhibit UPX2043: email from Jerry Dischler, "CONFIDENTIAL: Search revenue code yellow" (February 5, 2019)". United States Department of Justice. United States v. Google LLC, No. 1:20-cv-03010-APM (D.D.C.).
  2. ^ a b c Alba, Davey; Nylen, Leah (October 31, 2023). "Google's 2019 'Code Yellow' Blurred Line Between Search, Ads". Bloomberg News.
  3. ^ a b "Plaintiffs' Exhibit UPX2044: email thread among Ben Gomes, Nick Fox and Shashi Thakur, "Re: Getting ridiculous.." (February 2–6, 2019)" (PDF). United States Department of Justice. United States v. Google LLC, No. 1:20-cv-03010-APM (D.D.C.).
  4. ^ a b "Exhibit PSX00204: email from Ben Gomes to Nick Fox and Shashi Thakur, "Ads cy" (March 23, 2019)" (PDF). United States Department of Justice. United States v. Google LLC, No. 1:20-cv-03010-APM (D.D.C.).
  5. ^ a b "Plaintiffs' Exhibit UPX0522: email thread among Jerry Dischler, Anil Sabharwal and others, "Re: Important SQV Update" (April 30 – May 3, 2019)" (PDF). United States Department of Justice. United States v. Google LLC, No. 1:20-cv-03010-APM (D.D.C.).
  6. ^ a b Schwartz, Barry (March 18, 2019). "Early data on Google March 2019 Core Update show an interesting pattern". Search Engine Land.
  7. ^ a b Montti, Roger (March 14, 2019). "Florida Update 2 Insights". Search Engine Journal.
  8. ^ a b Schwartz, Barry (April 25, 2024). "How Prabhakar Raghavan Killed Google Search; Report". Search Engine Roundtable.
  9. ^ a b Porter, Jon (January 23, 2020). "Google's ads just look like search results now". The Verge.
  10. ^ a b Sterling, Greg (June 4, 2020). "Google promotes Prabhakar Raghavan to lead Search, replacing Ben Gomes". Search Engine Land.
  11. ^ a b Bevendorff, Janek; Wiegmann, Matti; Potthast, Martin; Stein, Benno (2024). Is Google Getting Worse? A Longitudinal Investigation of SEO Spam in Search Engines (PDF). European Conference on Information Retrieval (ECIR 2024).
  12. ^ a b Elias, Jennifer (April 23, 2024). "Google search boss warns employees of 'new operating reality,' urges them to move faster". CNBC.
  13. ^ a b Elias, Jennifer (October 17, 2024). "Google CEO names new search and ads boss, slides predecessor to role of chief technologist". CNBC.
Thanks Joemathes for drating this. Apologies for taking a while to look at this, it's a lot longer than I thought it would be and I haven't had a lot of free time to look at it and check references etc. I still intend to look at it but I've also added a {{SPER}} template so other editors can see it as well because I don't think this talk page gets many views (apart from the anonymous editor who is calling people "retard" and "shill" 🙃 ), which may speed the process up. BugGhost 🦗👻 08:30, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Joemathes I have reviewed and added the content - even though the references check out, I don't think it's a perfect change, because it is very long and probably too detailed, but I've added it on your behalf anyway because without the edit restriction (that is only in place due to the repeated vandalism over the last year, thanks to the other participant in this discussion) you would have been able to add it yourself. BugGhost 🦗👻 18:57, 10 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for adding it. I agree that there's room for improvement and I'm willing to put more effort into it now that it's clear that it wouldn't be wasted. Would you want to give me some more detail about what'd you'd have preferred? Here's what I'd suggest:
I think in terms of raw amount of space devoted to talking about Google Search, it's reasonable, again because of what's most likley to be relevant to the reader. But, I'd have liked the earlier part of the Google Search section, to be more relevant to Raghavan's involvement. I think being clearer about why it's relevant, or making it shorter or briefer, would both be improvements. Joemathes (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Could we pin a warning in the talk section?

[edit]
Latest comment: 8 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It seems like most comments and edits in the last few years have been either:

1. A person who wants to include more information about the decline in google search results

2. A person not paid by google who claims to be keeping the article unbiased by removing a comment from group 1

3. A person paid by google who claims to be keeping the article unbiased by making it more favorable

It seems as though group 1 is consistently losing. Maybe we can at least save them some time. Joemathes (talk) 04:07, 6 October 2026 (UTC)Reply