Talk:Prabhakar Raghavan

Edit request for Career

See More

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, amid a push to increase advertising revenue from Google Search.

References

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.

References

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)

Done! Penny75 (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@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)

Proposed removal

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.

References

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)

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)

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)

I am declining this request as there seems to be consensus against doing it, especially since Zitron now has an article here.

Should Wikipedia even be allowing paid PR firms to have a presence here - this has been discussed to death many times and the strongest argument against doing is is that the result would be to create a black market of undisclosed paid editors which would be harder to counter than the current situation. In fact, that black market already exists, and we should be proud of people like Inkian Jason for properly disclosing their paid statuses and doing the right thing, even if in this specific instance we disagree with them. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

@Pppery I appreciate your supportive comment. I should note, the article text has been changed since this request was submitted. Before, the article said "Zitron revealed...", instead of "Zitron claimed...", which makes a difference. Also, as you've mentioned, before there was no Wikipedia article about Zitron, which is also no longer the case. This article has seen a lot of vandalism and disparaging additions lately but hopefully the page protection applied by User:Callanecc will help, at least temporarily.

Does it seem reasonable to move the one sentence in the Criticism section to the Career section? Having a standalone section for a single sentence does not seem necessary. Also, I realize this is an essay and not a guideline, but Wikipedia:Criticism says: "In most cases, editors should avoid devoting a section to criticisms or controversies, as this violates neutral point of view. These sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints by giving them their own header; are not balanced, because they exclude positive information about the topic; create the appearance of a controversy, even if there isn't one; and often devolve into "laundry lists" of complaints, without regard for their notability or validity."

I have submitted two other edit requests below, if you have any interest in reviewing. Thanks. Inkian Jason (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to request that in a separate section -- it seems vaguely reasonable to me but not something I'm willing to do myself since this is rather far from my main area of expertise. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Proposed removal in Career

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)

Done! Penny75 (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@Penny75: Thanks again, I appreciate your help. Inkian Jason (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@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)

Revert request

Hello again! I would like to submit another request for this article, this time seeking to remove the recently added text "after a disastrous tenure as Head of Search in which search quality dropped immensely" from the "Career" section, which was added by an unregistered editor and appears to be vandalism. I don't edit the main space because of my conflict of interest, so I'm asking others to review and update the article appropriately.

Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

When I was reading this article, I saw this sentence and removed it before seeing this thread. It seems that a tendentious editor is repeatedly adding this to the page. Could someone more familiar with handing disruptive editing handle the situation? Pipoin (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Also, done. Pipoin (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Papers and patents

Hi again! I would like to submit another edit request seeking to improve this biography. According to The Economic Times, the subject has published over 100 papers in various fields and holds 20 issued patents. Therefore, I propose adding the following sentence to the article's Career section:

• "Raghavan has published over 100 papers in various fields and has secured 20 issued patents."

References

This is not a contentious addition, but I avoid editing the main space because of my COI and I'm asking editors to review this request and update the article on my behalf. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Introduction

For this edit request, I'd like to propose an improvement to the biography's Introduction.

Currently, the article says, "Prabhakar Raghavan is a business executive and former researcher of web information retrieval. He currently holds the role of Chief Technologist at Google."

It is not accurate to refer to him as a "former" researcher and his research is not exclusive to information retrieval. I propose changing the opening to the following, which is more accurate and reflective of the article body:

• Prabhakar Raghavan is a computer scientist and the Chief Technologist at Google.

Again, I generally avoid making direct edits so I'm asking other editors to update the entry on my behalf.

Thanks again! Inkian Jason (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)