Template talk:google

Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Template talk:google. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Template talk:google, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Template talk:google in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Template talk:google you have here. The definition of the word Template talk:google will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTemplate talk:google, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.

Should groups option restrict to Usenet?

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Google Groups now searches all sorts of fora, not just Usenet, so, if one wants to restrict to Usenet, he must check the option "search only Google Groups" and also specify group:*.* (I think). Perhaps template:google should be adjusted so as to restrict to Usenet? (Or are all Google Groups durably archived by Google? If so, perhaps the template should restrict to "search only Google Groups".)—msh210℠ 17:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Until we vote to explicitly enlarge the universe of "durably archived", I would think it should default to Usenet. It might be time to revisit what might be worth deeming durably archived (and accessibly so). That would seem to be a BP matter before a vote. This is as good a place as any to test the waters. DCDuring TALK 17:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Instead of modifying {{google|type=groups|…}}, it might be better to add {{google|type=Usenet|…}}, or even have a separate {{usenet|…}}. But, I'm fine with any of these three approaches. —RuakhTALK 18:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Ooh, yeah, I like the type=usenet approach. Definitely better than losing backward compatibility by changing links in old discussions. (Perhaps we should add "Usenet" to template:googles then, too.)—msh210℠ 18:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
So I've just tested, and sadly, it doesn't seem that group:*.* has any effect; check out <http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=%22i+can%27+t+find+something+about+redirection+on+server+side+like%22+group:*.*>. So, it seems like we can't restrict Google-Groups searches to just Usenet. In which case I think we might as well stick with just the one type, and have {{google|type=groups}} restrict itself to Google Groups proper, as its name suggests. (Do you think the backward-compatibility is much of an issue? Honestly, I haven't seen too many people using this template, and it's nearly always in the context of RFV, where the narrower-scope search is more relevant anyway.) —RuakhTALK 01:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
I agree: if group:*.* is useless, then backward compatibility is unimportant, and type=groups can restrict to Google Groups.—msh210℠ 17:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Done, thanks! —RuakhTALK 03:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Requires update for some search updates

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Some of Google's Search Services uses different types of URLs than before:
https://google.com/search?q=images search string&tbm=isch //Old one doesn't work
https://google.com/search?q=videos search string&tbm=vid //Old one doesn't work
https://google.com/search?q=news search string&tbm=nws //Old one still works and different than this, but this isn't an option
https://google.com/search?q=finances search string&tbm=fin //Old one redirects to here
https://google.com/search?q=patents search string&tbm=pts //Old one redirects to here
The other ones seem to be working and fine, expect blogs, I have no idea about that one.
Tudi20 (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia