Talk:Googleplex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

[edit] location image

The photograph of the swastika-shaped buildings is misleadingly called the googolplex...it is only part of the googolplex (if that's even true) since

googleplex, Mountain View, ca

on google maps (for those who don't have google earth) shows

Google - more info » 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA (650) 253-0000

to be a complex with many building configurations not just 4 guildings together like in the photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.84.132.197 (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Word origins, cartoon reference

The reference about Rocko's Modern Life is true and researchable. Please do at least a google search before calling something "vandalism" from your high horse. Also, the fact that Rocko's Modern Life cannot be referenced as a scientific article, does not mean that it's not true.

I'll gladly provide reference if you tell me how.

I, personally find this fact very amusing (ie: that google's HQ is named after a cartoon parody of modern malls, even if inadvertedly).

Google search for reference

I am deleting that ridiculous sentence again as in violation of Wikipedia's core official policies: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of random information. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research that has not already been published elsewhere. Wikipedia takes a neutral point of view. And Wikipedia publishes only verifiable information that has been already published elsewhere. The burden of showing compliance with these policies is with the editor seeking to add or reinsert information. --Coolcaesar 18:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I advise you start deleting then, I'm pretty sure you can find other remarks on pop-culture all over the place. For example, you could continue by eradicating all references to television characters and then carry on by deleting all mentions of pop groups.

Anyway, how is pointing out something about the origins of the exact word of the article "Non-neutral", "Random", "Unverifiable" or even "Original Research"? It can easily be proven (and it has been) that it's a well known fact that the cited cartoon used the name for the mentioned complex. How is that irrelevant or (as you claim) "non-neutral"?

I would have been happy to move that segment to the back of the article, to the cultural references (seeing that the original sentence is not even accurate, Douglas Adams used the expression first), but eliminating it altogether is ludicrous.

It's always nice to see a young man taking himself so seriously.

Chop-chop, you have half the wikipedia to delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.146.110.190 (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

The burden is on you to prove that assertion. Your inability to provide verifiable citations and your childish ad hominem arguments only further illustrate the weakness of your position. Stick to the issues, please. For an example of a properly researched article, see Lawyer. For an example of what happens to editors who repeatedly insert information in violation of Wikipedia policies, see User:Ericsaindon2 (I managed to get him banned). Also, I add references to Wikipedia for all kinds of random pop culture things all the time. For example, in the Macy's article, I added the citation to the New York Times regarding the source of the red star in the Macy's logo. --Coolcaesar 21:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Googolplex

Is this any different from Googolplex? I though that "Googleplex" was Google (the search engine)'s headquarters and not a number.

Acegikmo1 16:01, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] formatting

I have reformatted this article significantly, cutting out most of the content. The biggest section I removed follows:

**the abbreviated name of a very powerful computer in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams:

'And are you not,' said Fook leaning anxiously forward, 'a greater analyst than the Googleplex Star Thinker in the Seventh Galaxy of Light and Ingenuity which can calculate the trajectory of every single dust particle throughout a five-week Dangrabad Beta sand blizzard?'

And I'm really not cool... :D I'm not sure whether the world used in this passage was actually "Googleplex". "Googolplex" seeÆms more logical. Can anyone confirm or refute this?

I also removed the reference stating that "Googleplex" means "Googolplex". I think the distinction is clear enough that the former is a play-on-words while the latter is a mathematical expression. As such, I highly doubt one would use the term "Googleplex" to refer to "Googolplex" (except inadvertently).

Acegikmo1 04:12, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Re 1: For what it's worth, this link (found by Google :-) contains the text of "Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy", and the computer is named "Googleplex", not "Googolplex". (Searching for 'Googolplex "Guide to the Galaxy"', I failed to find anything relevant.)
- I've re-inserted the text above. Acegikmo1 17:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Re 2: The article didn't say that "googleplex" means "googolplex". It simply defined "googol" and "googolplex", and continued to say that names of Google and Googleplex are based on them. (I agree that it may have been redundant.) See bellow. - Mike Rosoft 15:06, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- All right, it did. I was refering to the version before Alerante's edit. (I do not believe that there is any reason to turn this article into a disambiguation page.) - Mike Rosoft 15:11, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is the current version of the article acceptable? Acegikmo1 17:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks fine. - Mike Rosoft 10:59, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In mathematics, a googol is the name of the number 10¹⁰⁰ (a 1 with 100 zeroes). A googolplex is an even larger number, $10^{10^{100}}$ (a 1 with a googol zeroes).

I removed this "

Google has also been known to recruit employees via posting highly difficult mathematical and computer programming tests on the internet for the public to attempt. Those who successfully complete the test become eligible to work for Google.

". It has nothing to do with the Googleplex. It may belong on the [Google] page instead.

--Jdeboer 19:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Large rubber balls upheld?

"There are certain values that Google claims are upheld at the Googleplex, e.g. large rubber balls, shade lamps."

What is that supposed to mean? Chatoyant 21:22, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I reworded what I think was the original contributor's intention and switched some things around to make the article flow a bit better. Anifinder 6 July 2005 08:15 (UTC)

I also rephrased some sentences and deleted a few words that seemed less than objective (e.g. employees in the hallways discussing "arcane" IP adressing issues). Still, some of the article reads more like a brochure than an encyclopedia entry. Djones2387 9 Oct. 2005, 05:09 (UTC)

[edit] copyright?

Parts of this appears to be copied directly from one of google's pages...

[1]

That might also explain why it looks a bit like a recruitment brochure. Willhsmit 22:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] hmm, search queries in real-time?

I bet that if you look long enough, you'll see some x-rated searches. :P --Ixfd64 09:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC) The list is probably scrubbed of x-rated queries, otherwise you probably wouldn't have to wait very long! Jrmski 04:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overhaul

Truthfully, the article has good information but it flows very badly. And the first time I saw this page I knew a google worker had to have made it. Anyone for reorganization? - Illnab1024 15:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I started to try and re-organize the article slightly, so it looks a bit neater. It still needs a lot of work, though.--CjSo09 02:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category

Why does this article have the "Fictional computers" category?

[edit] No longer requires cleanup?

I've edited the article to remove some of the obvious advertising material - hopefully what remains is true, neutral and verifiable. I doubt the article is going to be made much better without the aid of a Google employee, so I've removed the cleanup tag, but further improvements could certainly be made. I also removed the following sentence, which is clearly on the wrong page: "Googolplex is often considered a cardinal number, which like any other number could represent quantity and not order." - Terraxos, 19:52, 23 January 2006

[edit] Pictures?

Yo everyone:

Does anyone have any pictures of the Googleplex? I mean exterior (like the pictures I posted for Yahoo!) and not just interior.

If no one has any, I'll try to take some the next time I'm in Mountain View, but that could be a while.

--Coolcaesar 00:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just drove by there. It turns out they're in the old SGI complex along Charleston Road. Unfortunately, most of their trees are deciduous, so there are no leaves and therefore the place looks awful. I will try to swing by north Mountain View again in two or three months and I hope they will have leaves on the trees by then! --Coolcaesar 01:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The leaves have grown in around some of the buildings but not around the main one at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway. So I took some pictures (two which I added yesterday to this article) but the pictures of the main building look awful with half the trees still in hibernation. Will try again in another month. --Coolcaesar 05:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I finally got some good photos, but when the leaves grew in, they make it almost impossible to photograph the Googleplex from the road. And they have those security guards sitting at all entrances to the parking lot, so I can't go in to get a better view!

The funny thing is that they obviously get so many tourists driving down Amphitheatre Parkway that one of their Google signs says (below the logo) "DRIVE SAFELY." But I didn't get a good shot of that one. --Coolcaesar 04:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I visited googleplex on friday because my aunt works there, and I wanted to take a picture of the Dinosaur skeleton with the tacky plastic flamingoes around it and in its mouth, but I forgot to.--He Who Laughs Last 04:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More information

This article seems barely more than a stub. More information would be much appreciated. And be sure to keep it building related. ie. I hear their kitchen is nice, or maybe their gym. Tell us more.

[edit] I am planning to eventually purge the data on non-Mountain View facilities

This is an article about the Googleplex in MOUNTAIN VIEW, not Google Inc. facilities. If no one gives me a good reason why other Google facilities are relevant, I'm purging all that "cruft" (as our British editors call it) in a month. Some of it is already in the main Google article! --Coolcaesar 05:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It's been 2 weeks and no reply. I'm deleting the cruft now.--Coolcaesar 09:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Googlunaplex

Googlunaplex redirects here

[edit] Stinky Uncle Diapers

So is that the actual name of the company —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.241.37.140 (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] How rude...

Ardo191 just inserted a new photo in place of my photo without any warning. This is really rude especially since Ardo191's photo has a variety of problems. The biggest problem is that it is in shadow with the sun directly behind the subject of the image, which is a huge no-no in photography. Okay, I didn't exactly have the sun to my back when I shot my photo, but at least it was to my side. Another big problem is that of all the buildings in the Googleplex, Ardo191 had to pick one that's having solar panels installed in the parking lot, so there is some really unsightly temporary construction fencing in the background. --Coolcaesar 18:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Googleplex the network

A NYT story calls Google's global network of computers the Googleplex.Mike Linksvayer 02:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted weird sentence

Several months ago, someone put in a mention of Apple Inc., which makes no sense. I can think of 20 other companies within a ten-mile radius of the Googleplex that are also significant, like Yahoo and Symantec. Are we going to put all of them here? No. Eventually we will end up with company articles clogged with mentions of companies that are not even close neighbords, which makes no sense. That's what the article on Silicon Valley is for! --Coolcaesar 20:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The googleplex and the googleplex

Bold textA google plex is also a number. It could be called the biggest number ever discovered. The number "Googleplex" means like one thousand zeros or something like that. That is so big a number, that it couldn't fit on a three foot white dry erase board. The article dosen't make sense because, yes, there is a place called the "Googleplex", but I never heard of it. The first definition that comes to my mind when someone says, "Googleplex" is the number —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.23.92.22 (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You're confusing it with a googolplex. This is addressed in the first sentence of the article. Nick Fel (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Opening of the Article

Shouldn't the fact that it is the name of Google's headquarters be the first thing mentioned in this article? This is surely the key piece of information in the article, but it isn't actually mentioned until after the contents table. Nick Fel (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 'Other uses' section

I'm not sure this section is really needed. The only other use it mentions is a line from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - but I don't think that's particularly notable, as it's more likely that Douglas Adams just misspelled Googolplex than actually intending to invent a new word. Unless anyone can show why this usage is important enough to be worth mentioning, it should be removed. Terraxos (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)