This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography India This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. United States This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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'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]