george Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Google Pressures Sweden To Drop The Word "Ungoogleable"The Language Council of Sweden has dropped the term "ungoogleable" from its list of new words, following pressure from Google to adapt its definition to something more flattering for the company. According to Sveriges Radio, Google wanted the meaning of the term ogooglebar — which describes something "that you can't find on the web with the use of a search engine" — to be altered so that it would only describe searches performed using Google's own search, something that the Language Council was not willing to do.Language Council head Ann Cederberg said engaging Google's lawyers took "too much time and resources," prompting it to remove the phrase from its 2012 list of new words. But that won't be the last you hear of it. Cederberg is well aware that "ungoogleable" is already a popular word in Sweden, and Google will not be able to stop locals from using it.Full story: http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/26/4148062/google-forces-sweden-to-drop-word-ungoogleable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post PoorSucker Posted March 27, 2013 Popular Post Share Posted March 27, 2013 "ungoogleable" About 147,000 results (0.26 seconds) 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retell Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 "ungoogleable" About 147,000 results (0.26 seconds) but still they go praise them self that they are the best and biggest search engine so ungooglable is a right definition if cannot find on google for sure jeeves bing ask etc. will not have it for sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Phronesis Posted March 27, 2013 Popular Post Share Posted March 27, 2013 googlemaidai ? 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaddeus Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 "ungoogleable" About 147,000 results (0.26 seconds) "ogooglebar" About 341,000 results (0.23 seconds) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neek Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 but still they go praise them self that they are the best and biggest search engine so ungooglable is a right definition if cannot find on google for sure jeeves bing ask etc. will not have it for sure Rather sounds like you didn't read the original post. "Google wanted the meaning of the term ogooglebar — which describes something "that you can't find on the web with the use of a search engine" — to be altered so that it would only describe searches performed using Google's own search" .. they weren't objecting to the use of the word to refer to not being able to find something using Google, they wanted to definition to explicitly state that it was Google's engine being used when something could not be found. There's no such thing as bad publicity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maestro Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I have deleted an off-topic post about a convicted peadophile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maestro Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 To fully understand the OP it is necessary to click on the link for the full article and read this: the company has fought to protect its name so that it can avoid it becoming a generic trademark, something that zipper, escalator, and aspirin have all fallen foul of. It is a simple question of protecting the trademark, something that the management of every company has an obligation to do. Individuals using a trademark with a generic meaning is one thing and would probably be difficult to prosecute as a trademark violation, but a state agency using it is another thing and if not opposed by the trademark owner will weaken the owner's ability to defend the trademark effectively in other situations. Unless a trademark is defended vigourously and steadfastly from the beginning there is no way of stopping it from becoming indefensible in the long term, just like what happened to others like Aspirin, Hoover, Formica, etc. According to Sveriges Radio, Google wanted the meaning of the term ogooglebar — which describes something "that you can't find on the web with the use of a search engine" — to be altered so that it would only describe searches performed using Google's own search Taken out of context the above looks like Google is insisting that the Language council of Sweden must establish that something "that you can't find on the web with the use of a search engine" must be defined as something "that you can't find on the web with the use of the Google search engine". The opposite is true. Google says "Don't use Google if you don't mean Google", ie don't make Google a generic term, but if you insist on using the word Google then make it clear that it refers to Google and nothing else. Google has made the same opposition in other countries where the publishers of dictionaries wanted to define the verb "google" to give it a generic meaning. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retell Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 to google or not to google thats the question ah now i see 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsetBkk Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 "ungoogleable" About 147,000 results (0.26 seconds) "ogooglebar" About 341,000 results[/size] (0.23 seconds) "googlemaidai" 4 results (0.10 seconds) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
narkeddiver Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 "ungoogleable" About 147,000 results(0.26 seconds) "ogooglebar" About 341,000 results[/size] (0.23 seconds)"googlemaidai"4 results(0.10 seconds) Almost a googlewhack if I remember the term correctly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greer Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Oh the importance of this news is beyond measure.... yawn... sorry, I think I dozed off there for a moment... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsetBkk Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Oh the importance of this news is beyond measure.... yawn... sorry, I think I dozed off there for a moment... Ooh, I know. It's so hard to ignore this news without posting how much you wish you'd never read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pacovl46 Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Oh god! How petty the chair board of google is!!! I would've been delighted if google was my company!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pacovl46 Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Oh the importance of this news is beyond measure.... yawn... sorry, I think I dozed off there for a moment... Ooh, I know. It's so hard to ignore this news without posting how much you wish you'd never read it. I'm merely replying to you because I fricking love the emoticon you put at the end of your reply!!! Where can I get it??? ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retell Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 (edited) Oh the importance of this news is beyond measure.... yawn... sorry, I think I dozed off there for a moment... Ooh, I know. It's so hard to ignore this news without posting how much you wish you'd never read it. I'm merely replying to you because I fricking love the emoticon you put at the end of your reply!!! Where can I get it??? ;-) just type what it says when you hoover the mouse over Edited March 27, 2013 by retell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
attento Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 (edited) Is one to presume that anyone cares ? If they have enough spare to worry about this, they could go and watch icicles melt ......................slightly more interesting Edited March 27, 2013 by attento Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsetBkk Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 (edited) Ooh, I know. It's so hard to ignore this news without posting how much you wish you'd never read it. I'm merely replying to you because I fricking love the emoticon you put at the end of your reply!!! Where can I get it??? ;-) just type what it says when you hoover the mouse over Hoover? That is very apt typo! Google want "ungoogleable" to be "unable to find using Google", as opposed to "unable to find using a search engine". Hoover made vacuum cleaners but you didn't hear people talking about "vacuuming the carpet" so much as "Hoovering the carpet". Edit: And now the BBC have caught up with the news... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21956743#TWEET690550 Edited March 27, 2013 by JetsetBkk 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retell Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Ooh, I know. It's so hard to ignore this news without posting how much you wish you'd never read it. I'm merely replying to you because I fricking love the emoticon you put at the end of your reply!!! Where can I get it??? ;-) just type what it says when you hoover the mouse over Hoover? That is very apt typo! Google want "ungoogleable" to be "unable to find using Google", as opposed to "unable to find using a search engine". Hoover made vacuum cleaners but you didn't hear people talking about "vacuuming the carpet" so much as "Hoovering the carpet". Edit: And now the BBC have caught up with the news... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21956743#TWEET690550 same with "stanley"knife and bacho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheWalkingMan Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 "ungoogleable" About 147,000 results (0.26 seconds) About 414,000 results (0.15 seconds) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rakman Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 but still they go praise them self that they are the best and biggest search engine so ungooglable is a right definition if cannot find on google for sure jeeves bing ask etc. will not have it for sure Rather sounds like you didn't read the original post. "Google wanted the meaning of the term ogooglebar — which describes something "that you can't find on the web with the use of a search engine" — to be altered so that it would only describe searches performed using Google's own search" .. they weren't objecting to the use of the word to refer to not being able to find something using Google, they wanted to definition to explicitly state that it was Google's engine being used when something could not be found. There's no such thing as bad publicity. Unless you're Carnival Cruise Line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDGRUEN Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 Considering Google stole the term in the first place — kind of a bit chutzpah for them to complain ... "In 1938, Edward Kasner’s nine year old nephew, Milton Sirotta, coined the term googol which is 10100, then proposed the further term googolplex to be “one, followed by writing zeroes until you get tired”. Kasner decided to adopt a more formal definition “because different people get tired at different times and it would never do to have Carnera be a better mathematician than Dr. Einstein, simply because he had more endurance and could write for longer”.[1] It thus became standardized to 1010100. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googolplex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave111223 Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 Sometimes I read a story like this and it makes me so happy that I live in Thailand, where I'm not paying taxes for someone to sit at a desk and debate with lawyers the definition of "ungoogleable" ...European tax *dollars* hard at work. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now