This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Google Chrome article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Google Chrome was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Google ToneGoogle Tone was merged into this article. The discussion was closed on 13 October 2023 with a consensus to merge. The original page is now a redirect to this article. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GoogleWikipedia:WikiProject GoogleTemplate:WikiProject GoogleGoogle
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinuxWikipedia:WikiProject LinuxTemplate:WikiProject LinuxLinux
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
Hey guys, whats going on with the software infobox? I have no clue how to fix this, how is this happening for such a high activity page? Kyelerw1 (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears highly improbable that this page is among the most read Wiki pages day after day the past couple months. Is anyone aware of what might be going on? Is bot-filtering failing for some reason only on thisnpage? TheLostPariah (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would guess that perhaps Google has introduced some kind of automated tour for new users (perhaps of new features), in which Wikipedia was seen as a suitable site for demonstration. It would not be all too surprising if they chose their own browser to be the subject of the article they pick. On the other hand, they might of course intentionally choose something completely unrelated for such a feature, such as Google Assistant on Samsung Galaxy phones having used Cleopatra as an example. See: Talk:Cleopatra/Archive_5#WHY IS THIS STILL TRENDING?!?!. BlockArranger (talk) 23:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TheLostPariah as someone who is moderately involved in bot-filtering efforts, I will say that a bot of some kind is a very plausible explanation. It's not that bot filtering would be failing for this page particularly; it's just that bot filtering is difficult and historically hasn't been a top priority, so it has been and remains possible for significant amounts of bot activity to come through.
But in the past couple of years, bot activity has grown significantly, due mainly to scraping content for AI training, so it is now a top priority. If you're curious, here's a summary of a bot filtering improvement we made just a few month ago. You can read a brief summary of the work generally in the current Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan (search for "key result SDS 1.3"). So more improvements will be coming in the next 3-6 months, although they won't necessarily fix all the anomalies like this one because (1) bad bot operators continue to get more sneaky and (2) as @BlockArranger pointed out, it might be a case like Cleopatra instead of a bot. Neil Shah-Quinn (WMF) (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Neil Shah-Quinn (WMF) but that wouldn't explain why that particular page is being visited more than any other, right?
the same is happening on German Wikipedia, where the page about long span bridges is consistently in the top 5... no one has ever found an explanation as far as I know (I'm just a user) Schutzesel (talk) 07:21, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Schutzesel Yes, that's true—I was responding to the question "Is bot-filtering failing for some reason only on this page?" (answer: no, but a bot is still a very plausible explanation), but if it is a bot, why a bot would choose to hit a single page over and over again? It's a good question!
Maybe it's not actually a bot, maybe it was randomly picked for some kind of automated test, maybe someone's trying to game the top-read list (unlikely in this case or in the case of long-span bridges, but it has definitely happened). If you can think of a good explanation, I'd be interested to hear it!
But, as you might imagine, questions about specific anomalies like this one tend to be unanswerable (with notable exceptions like the purple daisy and Cleopatra), so we're more focused on coming up with finding concrete signals we can use to tag or, if necessary, block bot traffic generally. Neil Shah-Quinn (WMF) (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The latest browser versions have been successfully patched (cracked) for several years (since 2023) and run on Windows 7. Google engineers are well aware of this hack, but prefer to remain silent.
There is a detailed technical article on how they did it. ChromeUser777 (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Fixed. –CWenger (^ • @) 13:45, 20 July 2025 (UTC)