document_title: Cigarette filter

question_text: when did filtered cigarettes come on the market

text: Cigarette filter

text: History[edit]

text: In 1925, Hungarian inventor Boris Aivaz patented the process of making a cigarette filter from crepe paper.[5]

text: From 1935, a British company began to develop a machine that made cigarettes incorporating the tipped filter. It was considered a speciality item until 1954, when manufacturers introduced the machine more broadly, following a spate of speculative announcements from doctors and researchers concerning a possible link between lung diseases and smoking. Since filtered cigarettes were considered "safer", by the 1960s, they dominated the market. Production of filter cigarettes rose from 0.5 percent in 1950 to 87.7 percent by 1975.[6]

text: Between the 1930s and the 1950s, most cigarettes were 70 mm (~2 3/4 in) long. The modern cigarette market includes mainly filter cigarettes that are 80 mm (in boxes; ~3 1/8 in), 85 mm (in softpack; ~3 3/8 in), 100 mm (~3 15/16 in), or even 120 mm (~4 3/4 in) long.[7]

text: Manufacture[edit]

text: Cellulose acetate is made by esterifying bleached cotton or wood pulp with acetic acid. Of the three cellulose hydroxy groups available for esterification, between two and three are esterified by controlling the amount of acid (degree of substitution (DS) 2.35-2.55). The ester is spun into fibers and formed into bundles called filter tow. Flavors (menthol), sweeteners, softeners (triacetin), flame retardants (sodium tungstate), breakable capsules releasing flavors on demand, and additives colouring the tobacco smoke may be added to cigarette filters.[8][9] The five largest manufactures of filter tow are Hoechst-Celanese and Eastman Chemicals in the United States, Solvay (Rhodia Acetow) in Germany, Daicel and Mitsubishi Rayon in Japan.

text: Starch glues or emulsion-based adhesives are used for gluing cigarette seams. Hot-melt and emulsion-based adhesives are used for filter seams. Emulsion-based adhesives are used for bonding the filters to the cigarettes.[10]

text: Health risks[edit]

text: In the 1970s epidemiologic evidence relative to tobacco-related cancers and data for coronary heart disease indicated a reduced risk among filter smokers for these diseases.[11] Between 1970 and 1980 some studies showed a 20-50% reduction in risk of lung cancer for long-term smokers of filtered cigarettes as compared to smokers of non-filtered cigarettes (IARC, 1986) but later studies indicated a similar risk for lung cancer in smokers of filtered and non-filtered cigarettes.[12]

text: Various add-on cigarette filters ("Water Pik", "Venturi", "David Ross") are sold as stop-smoking or tar-reduction devices. The idea is that filters reduce tar-nicotine levels permitting the smoker to be weaned away from cigarettes.[13]

text: Light cigarettes[edit]

text: The tobacco industry has reduced tar and nicotine yields in cigarette smoke since the 1960s. This has been achieved in a variety of ways including use of selected strains of tobacco plant, changes in agricultural and curing procedures, use of reconstituted sheets (reprocessed tobacco leaf wastes), incorporation of tobacco stalks, reduction of the amount of tobacco needed to fill a cigarette by expanding it (like puffed wheat) to increase its "filling power", and by the use of filters and high-porosity wrapping papers. However, just as a drinker tends to drink a larger volume of beer than of wine or spirits, so many smokers tend to modify their smoking pattern inversely according to the strength of the cigarette being smoked. In contrast to the standardized puffing of the smoking machines on which the tar and nicotine yields are based, when a smoker switches to a low-tar, low nicotine cigarette, they smoke more cigarettes, take more puffs and inhale more deeply. Conversely, when smoking a high-tar, high-nicotine cigarette there is a tendency to smoke and inhale less.[14]

text: In spite of the changes in cigarette design and manufacturing over the last 50 years, the use of filters and "light" cigarettes neither decreased the nicotine intake per cigarette, nor lowered the incidence of lung cancers (NCI, 2001; IARC 83, 2004; U.S. Surgeon General, 2004).[15] The shift over the years from higher- to lower-yield cigarettes may explain the change in the pathology of lung cancer. That is, the percentage of lung cancers that are adenocarcinomas has increased, while the percentage of squamous cell cancers has decreased. The change in tumor type is believed to reflect the higher nitrosamine delivery of lower-yield cigarettes and the increased depth or volume of inhalation of lower-yield cigarettes to compensate for lower level concentrations of nicotine in the smoke.[16]

text: Safety[edit]

text: Cellulose acetate is non-toxic, odorless, tasteless, and weakly flammable. It is resistant to weak acids and is largely stable to mineral and fatty oils as well as petroleum. It is biodegradable and the raw material is a renewable natural polymer expected to find application for other uses in the future.[17] Smoked cigarette butts contain 5–7 mg (~ 0.08-0.11 gr) nicotine (about 25% of the total cigarette nicotine content), children ingesting >2 whole cigarettes, 6 cigarette butts or a total of 0.5 mg/kg (~ 0,0035 gr/lbs) of nicotine should be admitted to a hospital.[18] Cellulose acetate is hydrophilic and retains the water-soluble smoke constituents, of which many are irritating (acids, alkali, aldehydes, and phenols), while letting through the lipophilic aromatic compounds.

text: Smoked cigarette butts and cigarette tobacco are toxic to water organisms such as the marine topsmelt (Atherinops affinis) and the freshwater fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas).[19]

text: Atmospheric moisture, gastric acid, light, and enzymes hydrolyze cellulose acetate to acetic acid and cellulose. Cellulose may be further hydrolyzed to cellobiose or glucose in an acidic medium, and eventually form valuable humus. Humans cannot digest cellulose and excrete the fibers in feces, because, unlike ruminant animals, termites, and some bacteria and fungi, they lack cellulolytic enzymes such as cellulase. Like wood, paper and cotton, cigarette filters in soil rot slowly over months to years.

text: Litter[edit]

text: Cigarette butts are the most common form of anthropogenic (man-made) litter in the world, as approximately 5.6 trillion cigarettes are smoked every year worldwide.[20] Of those it is estimated that 4.5 trillion cigarette butts become litter every year.[21] The cellulose acetate fibers used as the predominant filter material do not readily biodegrade because of the acetyl groups on the cellulose backbone which in itself can quickly be degraded by various microorganisms employing cellulases.[22] A normal life span of a discarded filter is thought to be up to 15 years.[23]

text: Many governments have sanctioned stiff penalties for littering of cigarette filters; for example Washington state imposes a penalty of $1,025 for littering cigarette filters.[24] Another option is developing better biodegradable filters, much of this work lies heavily on the research in the secondary mechanism for photodegradation as stated above. The next option is using cigarette packs with a compartment to discard cigarette butts in, implementing monetary deposits on filters, increasing the availability of butt receptacles, and expanding public education. It may even be possible to ban the sale of filtered cigarettes altogether on the basis of their adverse environmental impact.[20] Recent research has been put into finding ways to utilizes the filter waste, to develop a desired product. One research group in South Korea have developed a simple one-step process that converts the cellulose acetate in discarded cigarette filters into a high-performing material that could be integrated into computers, handheld devices, electrical vehicle and wind turbines to store energy. These materials have demonstrated superior performance as compared to commercially available carbon, graphene and carbon nano tubes. The product is showing high promise as a green alternative for the waste problem.[25] Another group of researchers has proposed adding tablets of food grade acid inside the filters. Once wet enough the tablets will release acid that accelerates degradation to around two weeks (instead of using cellulose triacetate and besides of cigarette smoke being quite acidic).[26]


document_title: Shell shock

question_text: when was the term shell shock first used

root

text: Shell shock

text: Origin[edit]

text: During the early stages of World War I in 1914, soldiers from the British Expeditionary Force began to report medical symptoms after combat, including tinnitus, amnesia, headaches, dizziness, tremors, and hypersensitivity to noise. While these symptoms resembled those that would be expected after a physical wound to the brain, many of those reporting sick showed no signs of head wounds.[4] By December 1914 as many as 10% of British officers and 4% of enlisted men were suffering from "nervous and mental shock".[5]

tag: p

text: The term "shell shock" came into use to reflect an assumed link between the symptoms and the effects of explosions from artillery shells. The term was first published in 1915 in an article in The Lancet by Charles Myers. Some 60–80% of shell shock cases displayed acute neurasthenia, while 10% displayed what would now be termed symptoms of conversion disorder, including mutism and fugue.[5]

text: The number of shell shock cases grew during 1915 and 1916 but it remained poorly understood medically and psychologically. Some doctors held the view that it was a result of hidden physical damage to the brain, with the shock waves from bursting shells creating a cerebral lesion that caused the symptoms and could potentially prove fatal. Another explanation was that shell shock resulted from poisoning by the carbon monoxide formed by explosions.[6]

text: At the same time an alternative view developed describing shell shock as an emotional, rather than a physical, injury. Evidence for this point of view was provided by the fact that an increasing proportion of men suffering shell shock symptoms had not been exposed to artillery fire. Since the symptoms appeared in men who had no proximity to an exploding shell, the physical explanation was clearly unsatisfactory.[6]

text: In spite of this evidence, the British Army continued to try to differentiate those whose symptoms followed explosive exposure from others. In 1915 the British Army in France was instructed that:

text: Shell-shock and shell concussion cases should have the letter 'W' prefixed to the report of the casualty, if it was due to the enemy; in that case the patient would be entitled to rank as 'wounded' and to wear on his arm a 'wound stripe'.  If, however, the man’s breakdown did not follow a shell explosion, it was not thought to be 'due to the enemy', and he was to [be] labelled 'Shell-shock' or 'S' (for sickness) and was not entitled to a wound stripe or a pension.[7]

text: However, it often proved difficult to identify which cases were which, as the information on whether a casualty had been close to a shell explosion or not was rarely provided.[6]

text: Management[edit]

text: Acute[edit]

text: At first, shell-shock casualties were rapidly evacuated from the front line – in part because of fear of their unpredictable behaviour.[8] As the size of the British Expeditionary Force increased, and manpower became in shorter supply, the number of shell shock cases became a growing problem for the military authorities. At the Battle of the Somme in 1916, as many as 40% of casualties were shell-shocked, resulting in concern about an epidemic of psychiatric casualties, which could not be afforded in either military or financial terms.[8]

text: Among the consequences of this were an increasing official preference for the psychological interpretation of shell shock, and a deliberate attempt to avoid the medicalisation of shell shock. If men were 'uninjured' it was easier to return them to the front to continue fighting.[6] Another consequence was an increasing amount of time and effort devoted to understanding and treating shell shock symptoms.

text: By the Battle of Passchendaele in 1917, the British Army had developed methods to reduce shell shock. A man who began to show shell-shock symptoms was best given a few days' rest by his local medical officer.[5] Col. Rogers, RMO 4/Black Watch wrote:

text: You must send your commotional cases down the line.  But when you get these emotional cases, unless they are very bad, if you have a hold of the men and they know you and you know them (and there is a good deal more in the man knowing you than in you knowing the man) … you are able to explain to him that there is really nothing wrong with him, give him a rest at the aid post if necessary and a day or two’s sleep, go up with him to the front line, and, when there, see him often, sit down beside him and talk to him about the war and look through his periscope and let the man see you are taking an interest in him.[7]

text: If symptoms persisted after a few weeks at a local Casualty Clearing Station, which would normally be close enough to the front line to hear artillery fire, a casualty might be evacuated to one of four dedicated psychiatric centres which had been set up further behind the lines, and were labelled as "NYDN – Not Yet Diagnosed Nervous" pending further investigation by medical specialists.

text: Even though the Battle of Passchendaele generally became a byword for horror, the number of cases of shell shock were relatively few. 5,346 shell shock cases reached the Casualty Clearing Station, or roughly 1% of the British forces engaged. 3,963 (or just under 75%) of these men returned to active service without being referred to a hospital for specialist treatment. The number of shell shock cases reduced throughout the battle, and the epidemic of illness was ended.[9]

text: During 1917, "shell shock" was entirely banned as a diagnosis in the British Army,[10] and mentions of it were censored, even in medical journals.[11]

text: Chronic[edit]

text: The treatment of chronic shell shock varied widely according to the details of the symptoms, the views of the doctors involved, and other factors including the rank and class of the patient.

text: There were so many officers and men suffering from shell shock that 19 British military hospitals were wholly devoted to the treatment of cases. Ten years after the war, 65,000 veterans of the war were still receiving treatment for it in Britain. In France it was possible to visit aged shell shock victims in hospital in 1960.[3]

text: Physical causes[edit]

text: Recent research by Johns Hopkins University has found that the brain tissue of combat veterans who have been exposed to improvised explosive devices (IEDs) exhibit a pattern of injury in the areas responsible for decision making, memory and reasoning.  This evidence has led the researchers to conclude that shell shock may not only be a psychological disorder, since the symptoms exhibited by sufferers from the First World War are very similar to these injuries.[12]

text: Cowardice[edit]

text: Some men suffering from shell shock were put on trial, and even executed, for military crimes including desertion and cowardice. While it was recognised that the stresses of war could cause men to break down, a lasting episode was likely to be seen as symptomatic of an underlying lack of character.[13] For instance, in his testimony to the post-war Royal Commission examining shell shock, Lord Gort said that shell shock was a weakness and was not found in "good" units.[13] The continued pressure to avoid medical recognition of shell shock meant that it was not, in itself, considered an admissible defence.

text: Executions of soldiers in the British Army were not commonplace. While there were 240,000 Courts Martial and 3080 death sentences handed down, in only 346 cases was the sentence carried out.[14] 266 British soldiers were executed for "Desertion", 18 for "Cowardice", 7 for "Quitting a post without authority", 5 for "Disobedience to a lawful command" and 2 for "Casting away arms".[15]  On 7 November 2006 the government of the United Kingdom gave them all a posthumous conditional pardon.[16]

text: Commission of enquiry[edit]

text: The British government produced a Report of the War Office Committee of Enquiry into "Shell-Shock" which was published in 1922. Recommendations from this included:

text: Part of the concern was that many British veterans were receiving pensions and had long-term disabilities.

text: By 1939, some 120,000 British ex-servicemen had received final awards for primary psychiatric disability or were still drawing pensions – about 15% of all pensioned disabilities – and another 44,000 or so … were getting pensions for ‘soldier’s heart’ or Effort Syndrome.  There is, though, much that statistics do not show, because in terms of psychiatric effects, pensioners were just the tip of a huge iceberg.[7]

text: War correspondent Philip Gibbs wrote:

text: Something was wrong.  They put on civilian clothes again and looked to their mothers and wives very much like the young men who had gone to business in the peaceful days before August 1914.  But they had not come back the same men.  Something had altered in them.  They were subject to sudden moods, and queer tempers, fits of profound depression alternating with a restless desire for pleasure.  Many were easily moved to passion where they lost control of themselves, many were bitter in their speech, violent in opinion, frightening.[7]

text: One British writer between the wars wrote:

text: There should be no excuse given for the establishment of a belief that a functional nervous disability constitutes a right to compensation.  This is hard saying.  It may seem cruel that those whose sufferings are real, whose illness has been brought on by enemy action and very likely in the course of patriotic service, should be treated with such apparent callousness.  But there can be no doubt that in an overwhelming proportion of cases, these patients succumb to ‘shock’ because they get something out of it.  To give them this reward is not ultimately a benefit to them because it encourages the weaker tendencies in their character.  The nation cannot call on its citizens for courage and sacrifice and, at the same time, state by implication that an unconscious cowardice or an unconscious dishonesty will be rewarded.[7]

text: Development of psychiatry[edit]

text: At the beginning of World War II, the term "shell shock" was banned by the British Army, though the phrase "postconcussional syndrome" was used to describe similar traumatic responses.[11]

text: Society and culture[edit]

text: Shell shock has had a profound impact in British culture and the popular memory of World War I. At the time, war writers like the poets Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen dealt with shell shock in their work. Sassoon and Owen spent time at Craiglockhart War Hospital, which treated shell shock casualties.[17] Author Pat Barker explored the causes and effects of shell shock in her Regeneration Trilogy, basing many of her characters on real historical figures and drawing on the writings of the first world war poets and the army doctor W. H. R. Rivers.


document_title: We Don't Talk Anymore

question_text: who sings it's so funny we don't talk anymore

question_tokens: who sings it 's so funny we do n 't talk anymore

text: We Don't Talk Anymore

text: We Don't Talk Anymore may refer to:

text:
"We Don't Talk Anymore" (Cliff Richard song), 1979
"We Don't Talk Anymore" (Charlie Puth song), 2016

tag: ul

text:
Disambiguation page providing links to articles with similar titles
This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the title We Don't Talk Anymore.
If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.

tag: table

text: Disambiguation pages

text: Articles with short descriptionAll article disambiguation pagesAll disambiguation pages


document_title: History of Google

question_text: when did google go public and what was the price

text: History of Google

text: Early history[edit]

text: Beginning[edit]

text: Google began in 1996 as a research project by Larry Page and Sergey Brin, both PhD. students at Stanford University.[2]

text: In the search of a dissertation theme, Page had been considering—among other things—exploring the mathematical properties of the World Wide Web, understanding its link structure as a huge graph.[3] His supervisor, Terry Winograd, encouraged him to pick this idea (which Page later recalled as "the best advice I ever got"[4]) and Page focused on the problem of finding out which web pages link to a given page, based on the consideration that the number and nature of such backlinks was valuable information about that page (with the role of citations in academic publishing in mind).[3]

text: In his research project, nicknamed "BackRub", Page was soon joined by Brin, who was supported by a National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship.[5] Brin was already a close friend, whom Page had first met in the summer of 1995, when Page was part of a group of potential new students that Brin had volunteered to show around the campus.[3] Both Brin and Page were working on the Stanford Digital Library Project (SDLP). The SDLP's goal was “to develop the enabling technologies for a single, integrated and universal digital library" and it was funded through the National Science Foundation, among other federal agencies.[5][6][7][8]

text: Page's web crawler began exploring the web in March 1996, with Page's own Stanford home page serving as the only starting point.[3] To convert the backlink data that it gathered for a given web page into a measure of importance, Brin and Page developed the PageRank algorithm.[3] While analyzing BackRub's output—which, for a given URL, consisted of a list of backlinks ranked by importance—the pair realized that a search engine based on PageRank would produce better results than existing techniques (existing search engines at the time essentially ranked results according to how many times the search term appeared on a page).[3][9]

text: Convinced that the pages with the most links to them from other highly relevant Web pages must be the most relevant pages associated with the search, Page and Brin tested their thesis as part of their studies, and laid the foundation for their search engine.[10] The first version of Google was released in August 1996 on the Stanford website. It used nearly half of Stanford's entire network bandwidth.[11]

text: Some Rough Statistics (from August 29, 1996)

text: Total indexable HTML urls: 75.2306 Million

text: Total content downloaded: 207.022 gigabytes

text: BackRub is written in Java and Python and runs on several Sun Ultras and Intel Pentiums running Linux. The primary database is kept on a Sun Ultra II with 28GB of disk. Scott Hassan and Alan Steremberg have provided a great deal of very talented implementation help. Sergey Brin has also been very involved and deserves many thanks.

text: – Larry Page[12]

text: Late 1990s[edit]

text: Originally the search engine used Stanford's website with the domain google.stanford.edu. The domain google.com was registered on September 15, 1997. They formally incorporated their company, Google, on September 4, 1998 in their friend Susan Wojcicki's garage in Menlo Park, California. Wojcicki eventually became an executive at Google and is now the CEO at YouTube.

text: Both Brin and Page had been against using advertising pop-ups in a search engine, or an "advertising funded search engines" model, and they wrote a research paper in 1998 on the topic while still students. They changed their minds early on and allowed simple text ads.[13]

text: By the end of 1998, Google had an index of about 60 million pages.[14] The home page was still marked "BETA", but an article in Salon.com already argued that Google's search results were better than those of competitors like Hotbot or Excite.com, and praised it for being more technologically innovative than the overloaded portal sites (like Yahoo!, Excite.com, Lycos, Netscape's Netcenter, AOL.com, Go.com and MSN.com) which at that time, during the growing dot-com bubble, were seen as "the future of the Web", especially by stock market investors.[14]

text: In March 1999, the company moved into offices at 165 University Avenue in Palo Alto, home to several other noted Silicon Valley technology startups.[15] After quickly outgrowing two other sites, the company leased a complex of buildings in Mountain View at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway from Silicon Graphics (SGI) in 2003.[16] The company has remained at this location ever since, and the complex has since become known as the Googleplex (a play on the word googolplex, a number that is equal to 1 followed by a googol of zeros). In 2006, Google bought the property from SGI for US$319 million.[17]

text: The Google search engine attracted a loyal following among the growing number of Internet users, who liked its simple design.[18] In 2000, Google began selling advertisements associated with search keywords.[2] The ads were text-based to maintain an uncluttered page design and to maximize page loading speed.[2] Keywords were sold based on a combination of price bid and click-throughs, with bidding starting at $.05 per click.[2] This model of selling keyword advertising was pioneered by Goto.com (later renamed Overture Services, before being acquired by Yahoo! and rebranded as Yahoo! Search Marketing).[19][20][21] While many of its dot-com rivals failed in the new Internet marketplace, Google quietly rose in stature while generating revenue.[2]

text: Google's declared code of conduct is "Don't be evil", a phrase which they went so far as to include in their prospectus (aka "S-1") for their 2004 IPO, noting that "We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served—as shareholders and in all other ways—by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains."[22] In 2008, Google launched Knol, their own equivalent of Wikipedia,[23] which failed four years later.[24]

text: In 2011, the company launched Google+, its fourth foray into social networking, following Google Buzz (launched 2010, retired in 2011), Google Friend Connect (launched 2008, retired by March 1, 2012), and Orkut (launched in 2004, retired in September 2014[25])

text: As of November 2014, Google operated over 70 offices in more than 41 countries.[26]

text: In 2015, Google reorganized its interests as a holding company, Alphabet Inc., with Google as its leading subsidiary. Google continued to serve as the umbrella for Alphabet's Internet interests.[27][28][29]

text: Financing and initial public offering[edit]

text: The first funding for Google as a company was secured in August 1998 in the form of a US$100,000 contribution from Andy Bechtolsheim, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, given to a corporation which did not yet exist.[30]

text: On June 7, 1999, a round of equity funding totalling $25 million was announced;[31] the major investors being rival venture capital firms Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Sequoia Capital.[30] While Google still needed more funding for their further expansion, Brin and Page were hesitant to take the company public, despite their financial issues. They were not ready to give up control over Google.

text: Following the closing of the $25 million financing round, Sequoia encouraged Brin and Page to hire a CEO. Brin and Page ultimately acquiesced and hired Eric Schmidt as Google’s first CEO in March 2001.[32]

text: In October 2003, while discussing a possible initial public offering of shares (IPO), Microsoft approached the company about a possible partnership or merger.[33] The deal never materialized. In January 2004, Google announced the hiring of Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs Group to arrange an IPO. The IPO was projected to raise as much as $4 billion.

text: Google's initial public offering took place on August 19, 2004.[34] A total of 19,605,052 shares were offered at a price of $85 per share.[35] Of that, 14,142,135 (another mathematical reference as √2 ≈ 1.4142135) were floated by Google and 5,462,917 by selling stockholders. The sale raised US$1.67 billion, and gave Google a market capitalization of more than $23 billion.[36] Many of Google's employees became instant paper millionaires. Yahoo!, a competitor of Google, also benefited from the IPO because it owns 2.7 million shares of Google.[37]

text: The company was listed on the NASDAQ stock exchange under the ticker symbol GOOG. When Alphabet was created as Google's parent company, it retained Google's stock price history and ticker symbol.

text: Growth, 2003-2006[edit]

text: In February 2003, Google acquired Pyra Labs, owner of the Blogger website . The acquisition secured the company's competitive ability to use information gleaned from blog postings to improve the speed and relevance of articles contained in a companion product to the search engine Google News.

text: In February 2004, Yahoo! dropped its partnership with Google, providing an independent search engine of its own. This cost Google some market share, yet Yahoo!'s move highlighted Google's own distinctiveness,[citation needed] and today[when?] the verb "to google" has entered a number of languages (first as a slang verb and now as a standard word), meaning "to perform a web search" (a possible indication of "Google" becoming a genericized trademark).[citation needed]

text: After the IPO, Google's stock market capitalization rose greatly and the stock price more than quadrupled. On August 19, 2004 the number of shares outstanding was 172.85 million while the "free float" was 19.60 million (which makes 89% held by insiders). Google has a dual class stock structure in which each Class B share gets ten votes compared to each Class A share getting one. Page said in the prospectus that Google has "a dual class structure that is biased toward stability and independence and that requires investors to bet on the team, especially Sergey and me."

text: In June, 2005, Google was valued at nearly $52 billion, making it one of the world's biggest media companies by stock market value.[38]

text: On August 18, 2005 (one year after the initial IPO), Google announced that it would sell 14,159,265 (another mathematical reference as π ≈ 3.14159265) more shares of its stock to raise money. The move would double Google's cash stockpile to $7 billion. Google said it would use the money for "acquisitions of complementary businesses, technologies or other assets".[39]

text: On September 28, 2005, Google announced a long-term research partnership with NASA which would involve Google building a 1,000,000-square-foot (93,000 m2) R&D center at NASA's Ames Research Center, and on December 31, 2005 Time Warner's AOL unit and Google unveiled an expanded partnership—see Partnerships below.

text: Additionally in 2005, Google formed a partnership with Sun Microsystems to help share and distribute each other's technologies. As part of the partnership Google will hire employees to help in the open source office program OpenOffice.org.[40]

text: With Google's increased size came more competition from large mainstream technology companies. One such example is the rivalry between Microsoft and Google.[41] Microsoft had been touting its Bing search engine to counter Google's competitive position. Furthermore, the two companies are increasingly offering overlapping services, such as webmail (Gmail vs. Hotmail), search (both online and local desktop searching), and other applications (for example, Microsoft's Windows Live Local competes with Google Earth). In addition to an Internet Explorer replacement Google designed its own Linux-based operating system called Chrome OS to directly compete with Microsoft Windows. There were also rumors of a Google web browser, fueled much by the fact that Google was the owner of the domain name "gbrowser.com".[citation needed] These were later proven when Google released Google Chrome. This corporate feud boiled over into the courts when Kai-Fu Lee, a former vice-president of Microsoft, quit Microsoft to work for Google. Microsoft sued to stop his move by citing Lee's non-compete contract (he had access to much sensitive information regarding Microsoft's plans in China). Google and Microsoft reached a settlement out of court on December 22, 2005, the terms of which are confidential.[42]

text: Click fraud also became a growing problem for Google's business strategy. Google's CFO George Reyes said in a December 2004 investor conference that "something has to be done about this really, really quickly, because I think, potentially, it threatens our business model."[43]

text: While the company's primary market is in the web content arena, Google has experimented with other markets, such as radio and print publications. On January 17, 2006, Google announced that it had purchased the radio advertising company dMarc, which provides an automated system that allows companies to advertise on the radio.[44] Google also began an experiment in selling advertisements from its advertisers in offline newspapers and magazines, with select advertisements in the Chicago Sun-Times.[45]

text: During the third quarter 2005 Google Conference Call, Eric Schmidt said, "We don't do the same thing as everyone else does. And so if you try to predict our product strategy by simply saying well so and so has this and Google will do the same thing, it's almost always the wrong answer. We look at markets as they exist and we assume they are pretty well served by their existing players. We try to see new problems and new markets using the technology that others use and we build."

text: After months of speculation, Google was added to the Standard & Poor's 500 index (S&P 500) on March 31, 2006.[46] Google replaced Burlington Resources, a major oil producer based in Houston that had been acquired by ConocoPhillips.[47] The day after the announcement Google's share price rose by 7%.[48]

text: Updates and Evolution of Ranking System[edit]

text: Early Updates[edit]

text: In its infancy, very little was needed to fully optimize on page content in the eyes of Google.[49]  With an inverse relationship between query position (in the HTML tag hierarchy) and weight, it simply boiled down to putting one’s important keywords higher on the HTML tag hierarchy.[50]  With this relatively simple algorithm in place, webmasters quickly discovered tricks to vastly boost their SERP (Search Engine Ranking Position).  One of the first instances of deceitful SEO came in the form of link keyword stuffing under on page content. As a response, Google removed these sites from its index, a practice it occasionally reverts to as a way of punishing disingenuous webmasters looking to cheat the system. The seemingly arbitrary changes to Googles PageRank algorithm however, led to both community outrage (“many declaring the “death of PageRank”) and a noticeable decline in precision of search results.[51]  Google was also constructing its index via a large monthly crawl.  Not only did this lock search results to this one month window, it also meant that results would show stale content.  An update dubbed “Everflux” introduced fresh crawling (daily crawls) to supplement the larger, primary crawl.[52] Daily crawling added another layer of relevancy (based upon date and time), to content ranking.[52]  The inconsistencies of index versions across data centers during the early implementation of Everflux panicked webmasters, who saw their SERPs fluctuate wildly from day to day.

text: Boston/Cassandra/Dominic (2003)[edit]

text:
Google's “Boston” update in February 2003 saw major algorithmic changes and the promise of frequent index updates.[53]  “Cassandra” marked a much more aggressive attack on shady SEO techniques like hidden and disguised keyword links, by emphasizing link quality[53]
This was taken a step further in “Dominic”, which sought to analyze the quality of all backlinks to prevent the then emerging practice of splogging (the practice of creating nonsensical offsite content to boost SERP of another site).[54]  To combat practices like “Googlebombing” (putting irrelevant, often negative anchor text linking to popular websites) Dominic tinkered with the weighting of anchor text while stringently scrutinizing back links and internal linking.[55]  An exploit where webmasters would link to the same site using different anchor text (thereby allowing both links to unfairly contribute to sites PageRank) was addressed by allowing only one site (given duplicate site links with differing anchor text) link to flow to PageRank.[56]

text: Fritz/Supplemental Index/Florida (2004)[edit]

text: Fritz finalized the “Everflux” implementation, meaning Google's index would receive some degree of updating every day.[53] Daily crawling added another layer of relevancy, (based upon date and time), to content ranking.[52]  The creation of a supplemental index was designed to house content Google felt didn’t quite fit in its main index (due either to a low PageRank or shady linking practices).[57]  Storing some sites in a separate index that was to be searched only when no good match was found in the primary index, Google hoped would seamlessly filter out duplicate and untrustworthy content.[58]  Questions about the efficacy of a multi-index system (particularly on improving recall) arose, and it remains unclear as to whether Google has retained this system.

text: Google's “Florida” update looked to be the proverbial “nail in the coffin” for SEO abusers.   With Florida, context and relevancy were determined not just by the appearance of keywords, but of synonyms and supporting vocabulary throughout the page.[59]  This sought to eliminate keyword and inbound anchor text dumping.[60]  Features that had long been experimented on, like phrase proximity and keyword stemming, became official and users were now being penalized for overly using commercial/popular keywords.[59]  With Florida coming down hard on SEO, many webmasters with commercial presences on the web took a drastic hit.  The real estate community in particular, was hit hard by Florida’s changes to Google rankings.  In its attempt at wide spread reform, the quality of results took a hit and many site owners felt they took undeserved drops.

text: Personalized Search (2005)[edit]

text: To create seamless personalization of search (beyond manual filtering) Google began tapping into users browsing histories to deliver more relevant, personal results.[61]  Promising to grow with the users browsing history, Personalized Search added a new dimension to search by incorporating past user behavior.[61]  The implementation of personalized search was a blow to those relying on SEO techniques, as user browsing history was an element outside of their control.

text: XML Sitemaps (2005)[edit]

text: By allowing webmasters to create and submit XML files dictating URLs to be crawled as well as procedural information regarding how the page should be crawled, Google expanded the scope of its index.[62]  Providing an additional method of organically increasing site exposure, Google hoped, would decrease the need for shady SEO practices.

text: Big Daddy (2005)[edit]

text: Big Daddy was less an algorithmic change as it was a change of Google's crawling and indexing infrastructure.[63]  Pages with superfluous, reciprocal linking schemes and irrelevant outbound and inbound links would be demoted in the new crawler.[63] Whereas previous updates handled the issue of link reliability through algorithmic changes, the Big Daddy modified how many pages a site would have crawled, and subsequently added to the index.  The number of pages crawled on a site was again dependent on the relevance and quality of its links.[63]

text: Universal Search (2007)[edit]

text: In May 2007 Google implemented Universal search to its standard web results page.[64]  Search results were now a compilation of all relevant results across all of Google’s “vertical” search engines, (Google Images, Google Video etc.).[65]  With the implementation of Universal Search, coverage of all types of content (not simply text) rose significantly.  It now became important to optimize all forms of on-site content, not just on-site text content, increasing the complexity and breadth of SEO.

text: Google Suggest/Instant[edit]

text: Google Suggest marked the addition of real-time query suggestion.  As users began to enter a query, a list of possible query matches would dynamically appear beneath the search bar, allowing for quicker and more accurate searches.[66]  According to Google, only about 2% of all user queries were tracked and monitored, in an effort to better improve the service, quelling concerns over privacy.[66] The addition of instant suggestions added yet another dynamic to SEO, as webmasters now vied to associate their site with high ranking instant suggestion queries.[67]

text: Real Time Search (2009)[edit]

text: In December 2009, Google integrated real time search results to its main SERP.  Newly indexed, relevant content from social media and news sources would be dynamically inserted into a user’s SERP, thus providing “real time content.”[68]  Google also announced its desire to prioritize original, user driven social media over authoritative, corporate social media.[69] Additionally, a separate “updates” filter was added, allowing the user to receive all incoming content from social media, sports, and news sources.[68]

text: Caffeine (2010)[edit]

text: Google’s Caffeine was the result of a complete overhaul of Google’s indexing structure.[70]  To accommodate for the explosion of new forms of content (video, real-time content, images) and growing user expectations, Google ditched its old linear system of indexing in favor of the more flexible Caffeine, capable of indexing thousands of pages in parallel.[70]  Google would no longer execute lengthy crawls supplemented by smaller daily crawls, but instead dynamically add to its index whenever new information appeared.[70]  Caffeine was reported to offer 50% fresher content than Google’s previous index, and required around 100 million gigabytes of storage.[70]

text: JCPenney SEO Incident (2011)[edit]

text: In February 2011, the New York Times published an article titled “The Dirty Little Secrets of Search” detailing back link purchasing by the clothing retailer JCPenney.[71]  By purchasing thousands of backlinks (often on unrelated sites), JCPenney dominated Google’s SERP across many clothing related queries, and even queries specifying a brand (JCPenney topped Samsonite for the query “Samsonite carryon luggage”).[71]  Given Google’s previous updates and their emphasis on backlink analysis, the JCPenney incident revealed that flaws still existed within the Google ranking algorithm.  Google quickly demoted JCPenney’s search position, crippling online sales.[71]  Google has since lifted the demotion.

text: Name[edit]

text: The name "Google" originated from a misspelling of "googol",[72][73] which refers to the number represented by a 1 followed by one-hundred zeros. Page and Brin write in their original paper on PageRank:[74] "We chose our systems name, Google, because it is a common spelling of googol, or 10100 and fits well with our goal of building very large-scale search engines."

text: There are uses of the name going back at least as far as the creation of the comic strip character Barney Google in 1919. British children's author Enid Blyton used the phrase "Google Bun" in The Magic Faraway Tree (published 1941) and The Folk of the Faraway Tree (published 1946),[75] and called a clown character "Google" in Circus Days Again (published 1942).[76] There is also the Googleplex Star Thinker from Douglas Adams' The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. In March 1996 a business called Groove Track Productions applied for a United States trademark for "Google" for various products including several categories of clothing, stuffed toys, board games, and candy. The firm abandoned its application in July 1997.[77]

text: Having found its way increasingly into everyday language, the verb "google" was added to the Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary and the Oxford English Dictionary in 2006, meaning "to use the Google search engine to obtain information on the Internet."[78][79] The use of the term itself reflects their mission to organize a seemingly infinite amount of information on the web.[73] In November 2009, the Global Language Monitor named "Google" No. 7 on its Top Words of the Decade list.[80]  In December 2009 the BBC highlighted Google in their "Portrait of the Decade (Words)" series.[81] In May 2012, David Elliott filed a complaint against Google, Inc. claiming that Google’s once distinctive mark GOOGLE® has become generic and lacks trademark significance due to its common use as a transitive verb. After losing to Google in UDRP proceedings involving many “Google-related” domain name registrations that he owns, Elliott later sought a declaratory judgment that his domain names are rightfully his, that they do not infringe any trademark rights Google may own, and that all Google’s registered GOOGLE® marks should be cancelled since “Google” is now a common generic word worldwide that means “to search the Internet.”[82]

text: Philanthropy[edit]

text: In 2004, Google formed a non-profit philanthropic wing that gave all the details to the user with a non profit aim and determination unlike, Google.org, giving it a starting fund of $1 billion.[83] The express mission of the organization is to help with the issues of climate change (see also global warming), global public health, and global poverty. Among its first projects is to develop a viable plug-in hybrid electric vehicle that can attain 0.24 litre/10 km.[84]

text: Partnerships[edit]

text:
Google has worked with several corporations, in order to improve production and services.
On September 28, 2005, Google announced a long-term research partnership with NASA which would involve Google building a 1,000,000-square-foot (93,000 m2) R&D center at NASA's Ames Research Center. NASA and Google are planning to work together on a variety of areas, including large-scale data management, massively distributed computing, bio-info-nano convergence, and encouragement of the entrepreneurial space industry. The new building would also include labs, offices, and housing for Google engineers.[85] In October 2006, Google formed a partnership with Sun Microsystems to help share and distribute each other's technologies. As part of the partnership Google will hire employees to help the open source office program OpenOffice.org.[40]

text: Time Warner's AOL unit and Google unveiled an expanded partnership on December 21, 2005, including an enhanced global advertising partnership and a US$1 billion investment by Google for a 5% stake in AOL.[86] As part of the collaboration, Google plans to work with AOL on video search and offer AOL's premium-video service within Google Video. This did not allow users of Google Video to search for AOL's premium-video services. Display advertising throughout the Google network will also increase.

text: In August 2006, Google signed a $900 million offer with News Corp.'s Fox Interactive Media unit to provide search and advertising on MySpace and other News Corp. websites including IGN, AmericanIdol.com, Fox.com, and Rotten Tomatoes, although Fox Sports is not included as a deal already exists between News Corp. and MSN.[87][88]

text: On December 6, 2006, British Sky Broadcasting released details of a Sky and Google alliance.[89] This includes a feature where Gmail will link with Sky and host a mail service for Sky, incorporating the email domain "@sky.com".

text: In 2007, Google displaced America Online as a key partner and sponsor of the NORAD Tracks Santa program.[90][91][92] Google Earth was used for the first time to give visitors to the website the impression that they were following Santa Claus' progress in 3-D.[93] The program also made its presence known on YouTube in 2007 as part of its partnership with Google.[94]

text: In January 2009, Google announced a partnership with the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, allowing the Pope to have his own channel on YouTube.[95]

text: In January 2013, Google announced a partnership with Kia Motors and Hyundai. The partnership integrates Google Maps and Place into new car models to be released later in 2013.[96]

text: .mobi top-level domain (2007)[edit]

text: In coordination with several of the major corporations, including Microsoft, Nokia, LG, Samsung, and Ericsson, Google provided financial support in the launch of the .mobi top level domain created specifically for the mobile internet, stating that it is supporting the new domain extension to help set the standards that will define the future of mobile content and improve the experience of Google users.[97] In early 2006, Google launched Google.mobi, a mobile search portal offering several Google mobile products, including stripped-down versions of its applications and services for mobile users.[98] On September 17, 2007, Google launched "Adsense for Mobile", a service to its publishing partners providing the ability to monetize their mobile websites through the targeted placement of mobile text ads.[99] Also in September, Google acquired the mobile social networking site, Zingku.mobi to "provide people worldwide with direct access to Google applications, and ultimately the information they want and need, right from their mobile devices."[100]

text: Legal battles[edit]

text: Gonzales v. Google[edit]

text: On Wednesday, January 18, 2006, the U.S. Justice Department filed a motion to compel in United States district court in San Jose seeking a court order that would compel search engine company Google Inc. to turn over "a multi-stage random sample of one million URL’s" from Google’s database, and a computer file with "the text of each search string entered onto Google’s search engine over a one-week period (absent any information identifying the person who entered such query)."[101] Google maintains that their policy has always been to assure its users' privacy and anonymity, and challenged the subpoena. On March 18, 2006, a federal judge ruled that while Google must surrender 50,000 random URLs, the Department of Justice did not meet the necessary burden to force Google to disclose any search terms entered by its users in Google.

text: Bedrock Computer Technologies, LLC vs. Google, Inc[edit]

text: A jury in Texas awarded Bedrock Computer Technologies $5 million in a patent lawsuit against  Google.[102][103] The patent allegedly covered use of hash tables with garbage collection and separate chaining in the Red Hat Linux kernel. Google and Bedrock later settled the case and the judgment was vacated by the court.[104]

text: UK tax avoidance investigation[edit]

text: In November 2012, the UK government announced plans to investigate Google, along with Starbucks and Amazon.com, for possible tax avoidance.[105]  On 20 January 2016, Google announced that it would pay £130m in back taxes to settle the investigation.[106] However, only 8 days later, it was announced that Google could end up paying more, and UK tax officials were under investigation for what has been termed a "sweetheart deal" for Google.[107]