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

"ungoogleable"

About 147,000 results

(0.26 seconds)

"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

googlemaidai ?

"ungoogleable"

About 147,000 results

(0.26 seconds)

"ogooglebar"

About 341,000 results (0.23 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

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.

I have deleted an off-topic post about a convicted peadophile.

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.

to google or not to google thats the question

ah now i see

"ungoogleable"

About 147,000 results

(0.26 seconds)

"ogooglebar"

About 341,000 results[/size] (0.23 seconds)

"googlemaidai"

4 results

(0.10 seconds)

"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

_{Oh the importance of this news is beyond measure.... yawn... sorry, I think I dozed off there for a moment...}

_{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.

Oh god! How petty the chair board of google is!!! I would've been delighted if google was my company!!!

_{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??? ;-)

_{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, 201313 yr by retell

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, 201313 yr by attento

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, 201313 yr by JetsetBkk

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

"ungoogleable"

About 147,000 results

(0.26 seconds)

About 414,000 results (0.15 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

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.

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

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.