Talk:Google Sites

Although the lines between a webpage editor and wiki editor are blurred, I don't believe that Google Sites qualifies as a "wiki". Please discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.248.156.112 (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(proposed section)

There are 4 kinds of users that can access a google site, they can do different things:

• Owners - (describe)
• Collaborators - (describe)
• Viewers - (describe) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.174.37.50 (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposing Limitations section

• non-collaborators cannot add anonymous comments (only invited people can "write" to site)
• cannot clone/copy site

(see wishlist: http://groups.google.com/group/sites-help/web/wishlist)

• Cannot be used with IE 6, but it doesn't tell you this until you try to save the site you've created. 12:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

"cannot add arbitrary HTML to site"

It seems this limitation has been addressed, as it looks like it is now possible to switch to HTML mode and paste arbitrary HTML. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.93.6.69 (talk) 11:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.--Qfissler (talk) 10:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I propose merging the two. JotSpot is dead after being acquired by Google and is changed to Google Sites; no new information will come up for JotSpot. Someone want to take care of the merge to make it tidy? Gary King (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

:Sure, I'll do it. Oberiko (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the two things should be merged and I think that we may have jumped the gun on the merge process - after all there hasn't been time for any proper discussion yet. My argument to keep the JotSpot entry is that all that information on JotSpot (e.g. that it was honored as a startup to watch, Joe Kraus founded it etc etc) has gone. Please could we unmerge the articles while we are discussing wether or not to merge them please. Cheers. Wikikob (talk) 12:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

:That information is still there as part of the history section. I don't think there's any reason to keep JotSpot, as merging is pretty standard practice (ie. Writely) and all the data would be repeated in the history section regardless. Oberiko (talk) 17:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be very helpful if someone put together a simple comparison of what you can do with "Google Pages", as opposed to "Google Sites". For instance:

• Do you need to download and install Google Apps to create & edit a Pages website? A Sites webpage? As I understand it, "yes" for Sites and "no" for Pages, but I may be wrong.

• Do you need to download and install Google Apps merely to read a Google Sites website? A Google pages webpage? As I understand it, no for both, but I may be wrong.

• Google Sites describes itself as a website creation tool for businesses and schools, for example company intranets. Does this in any way limit its usefulness as a general webpage, available to anyone browsing the world wide web? (As far as I know, the answer is "no", but I may be wrong.)

• If we wish, can we make Google Sites, or Google Pages, readable only to those with company/school e-mail addresses?

• Is Sites meant to be more of wiki (i.e. editable by many or all users), while Pages is designed to be more or a traditional webpage (only editable by the site creator, or someone designated with editing priviliges.) ?

• For either kind of webpage, does one have to use Google Webmaster Tools? If not necessary, is it nonetheless highly reccomended?

• For either kind of webpage, does one have verify that you own your site? If not necessary, is it nonetheless highly reccomended? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RK (talk • contribs) 00:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

RK (talk) 14:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[http://code.google.com/p/google-sites-liberation/ backup your google sites] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.90.106 (talk) 09:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Blackdiamand (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Google Sites. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=782004486 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170226221424/https://support.google.com/spaces/answer/7326586?hl=en to https://support.google.com/spaces/answer/7326586?hl=en&ref_topic=6392842

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Google Spaces was shut down on April 17, 2017

Is this relevant? Please consider remove or edit this piece, this is confusing. Concho4chan (talk) 06:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Google Sites. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=806316634 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160928014024/https://apps.google.com/index__siteseap.html to https://apps.google.com/index__siteseap.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Fortunately, Wikipedia is one of the best websites ever awarded by the Google ranking. Unfortunately, this doesn't apply to third-parties non commercial websites built up with a Wiki-based solution as Google Sites is.

Point 8-"Make sure the page is valuable and unique" of [https://ahrefs.com/blog/google-index/#remove-noindex this useful free how-to guide] is totally foolish. A website no one can read is totally unesuful, as it would be totally unesuful to have a free and useful SW to build up websites that won't be indexed by Google nor read by anyone. This aspect risks to promote a lot of misuses of Wikipedia, e.g. to use its Google ranking to show and make readable our own point of view instead of providing readers with a WP:NPOV.

To reduce misuse of the free encyclopedia Internet users -and its abitual users as a first- need to be provided with a so simply and so useful web solution to easily build up website, but more appropriately to have them indexed in Google with the same simplicity with which the web pages can be published online.

Otherwise, Google Sites would become totally unesuful and the encyclopedia assumes a daily risk to be polluted with personal contributions not compliant with its internal policies and guidelines. Insuch a way, even basic textual web pages need to be taken into account by the Google's indexing process without any personal kind of sponsorship, apart of the pertinence of the textual contents themselves in respect of the string of key words searched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.51.12.101 (talk) 10:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

They should be held accountable for selling data and jeopardizing the United States democracy at the expense of their users that paid for their services. 172.112.131.171 (talk) 03:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)