homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.163.72.86
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

This 157 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 157 ( 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 > >     
"Mr. Anti-Google"
Our own Everyman is on Salon!
GoogleGuy




msg:147007
 5:22 pm on Aug 29, 2002 (gmt 0)

Haven't seen anyone else mention it, so I thought I'd point out that our own Everyman has an article in Salon today. The story has also been mentioned on geeknews and Slashdot.

The user comments are pretty negative, so I'll try to pull the balance back the other way. I always appreciate hearing Everyman's perspective, even though we've got different views of some things, e.g. how Google ranks internal pages from a site; I think we do a good job of that. If you haven't read Everyman's "search engines and responsibility" thread and his google-watch.org site, I encourage you to. That said, I do disagree with statements like "Eventually, a FAST-type engine should be administered by a consortium of librarians who are protected civil servants of a world government." :)

Anybody have thoughts on the Salon article?

 

Morgan




msg:147037
 10:09 pm on Aug 29, 2002 (gmt 0)

I just have to love people who think Google owes them somehow: "Google, in its algorithmic blindness, has given Brandt a lower page rank than he thinks he's entitled to." I guess that algorithmic blindness is what made Google so popular-- we all generally flock to the engine with the least relevant results.

Hopefully we can get a groundswell of support for some kind of United Nations run search engine, or at least some kind of government oversight on successful search engines; that'll solve everything.

An awesome thing about the Internet is that you can turn off your cookies, and there are other good search engines less than 15 keystrokes away. If Google's so bad you'll find a lot of people eventually using them, and you'll have the headstart you need to get to the top of their results.

Or alternatively, just keep crying about what you think you're owed.

hurlimann




msg:147038
 10:19 pm on Aug 29, 2002 (gmt 0)

Can someone please set out the arguements against caching. Google and all the others use peoples work without prior permission when they list a site. As few complain about that ( at least yet: class action to follow soon)what is wrong with a cache shot of what they crawled?

ikbenhet1




msg:147039
 10:31 pm on Aug 29, 2002 (gmt 0)

GoogleGuy, i just wanna say Google is the best, even if the toolbar is sending data and even if cookies were to be written to track custumer behavour. You give me results i seek, and that's what a search engine is about, Not about a what some journalist writes in his article.

Of course there will be people writing and saying things that do not sound good, but my assumpion is there losing hit's couse every body likes google and not the search engine where they (might) rank #1 and therefore do everything in their power to convice people otherwise.

Just want to add this:

I do not even submit to other search engines, cause for me there only exist one Searchengine: Google.

never ever ever ever stop google search-engine, cause the internet wouldn't be the same anymore, google is my friend :).

WebGuerrilla




msg:147040
 10:36 pm on Aug 29, 2002 (gmt 0)

Can someone please set out the arguements against caching.

The traditional use of a title and description in search engine listings falls under "fair use."

The search engine is not reprinting or redistributing the page. It is simply producing an excerpt.

The content of this web-site—graphics, text and other elements—is © Copyright 2002 by Company Name, Inc., and may not be reprinted or retransmitted in whole or in part without the expressed written consent of the publisher.

That copyright notice (or a variation of it) exists on millions of pages in Google's index. Google ignores that notice and proceeds to reprint and retransmit the page without obtaining the required written consent.

seth_wilde




msg:147041
 10:44 pm on Aug 29, 2002 (gmt 0)

"arguements against caching"

In addition to what WebGuerrilla said, How do think google would feel if a popular website cached all of their result pages? I'm pretty sure they wouldn't welcome the loss traffic and possible advertising revenue they would normally recieve from people using their site.

Filipe




msg:147042
 11:00 pm on Aug 29, 2002 (gmt 0)

Morgan, I totally agree. Once my boss wanted to sue Google because they banned us and was costing us traffic. Ridiculous.

Looking back at the article:

"I'm not saying there aren't some sites that are more important that others, but in Google the sites that do well are the spammy sites, sites which have Google psyched out, and a lot of big sites, corporate headquarters' sites -- they show up before sites that criticize those companies."

Absurd. Google is well known for NOT being spammy. It's the most anti-spam search engine there is, because sites aren't focused on merely content, but other's perceived reaction to that content (i.e., people "voting" for a site through links). In order for a site to successfully spam, and make it to the top keyword, they would require high quality votes. If they make it to the top, then their competition isn't quality, or they really put in some man-hours into it.

He's also suggesting here, that if I'm searching for something, the official resource in not the first thing I should find. We expect relevant results, and little would be more relevant than an official resource on something. I can see cases where this would not be true, but it doesn't defeat the fact that, wildly more often than not, official resources are the most relevant resources. If they weren't, they wouldn't be voted for as being a relevant resource.

In Brandt's ideal world, if you searched for "United Airlines," you would see untied.com -- a site critical of United -- before you see United's page. And if you searched for Rumsfeld, you'd see NameBase's dossier on him before the Defense Department's site on the "The Honorable Donald Rumsfeld."

Brandt wants us to trade one bias for another.

"It's democratic in the same way that capitalism is democratic," Brandt says. "You could have the cure for cancer on the Web and not find it in Google because 'important' sites don't link to it."

Important sites would link to it. That's the idea. Fundamentally the system is relatively very sound (relatively meaning far better than other search engines right now). If it REALLY was the cure, important sites would link to it - if it was up-in-the-air if it was real or not, it wouldn't get as much coverage. Having librarians look over it is his fix to this, but that's far more flawed than the system they have set up now.

Furthermore, his latter premise doesn't support his conclusion that "It's democratic in the same way capitalism is democratic." The correlation isn't there, and if one is assumed, it's a false analogy. I think what he's trying to suggest is that in Google right now, the big-wigs control the underdogs and decide who makes it big. This isn't capitalistic, it's part of the nature of anything becoming popular. Google itself is a testament to this. They were an underdog, and by providing an excellent product, they were noticed and picked up. If someone were to come up with a working cure for cancer, it would get the attention of the big-wigs. What he'd rather say is that militia in Georgia should be in power because lots of people agree with them, rather than because people whose opinions hold bearing do.

Google also is a testament to the effect (early on in their existence) that a good product can have growing among the underdogs. When it was still a geeks-only toy, Google grew in rampant popularity because it was agreeable to it's audience. We saw the same thing happen with Xenu (search for "Scientology" in Google) when bloggers and innumerable like minds around the Web linked to them.

If he's confident in his site, Brandt should petition for votes. Right now he has 54 links, 1/5 of which are from his own site, two from Dmoz and Google, one from a disaster preparation page, and then a few other relevant ones. The idea is that if you have a good service, you get linked to. If he has a good service, in time, it will get what it deserves. No reason to slander the organization that provides this for you at no cost to you.

We feel that PageRank has run its course.

Many of you may disagree that it's simple, but the fundamental simplicity of the PageRank system is part of what makes it a beautiful thing, along with the fact that it's so effective.

Google may be better than other search engines out there, but is it as good as a search engine can be?

This is idealistic, and I laud that - though there is no reason to target Google specifically for this.

Important to note:

[Google's Tyler] added that Brandt's view that PageRank is the most important part of Google's algorithm is off the mark. "It's also important to emphasize that page rank is only one of more than one hundred different factors we use to determine the relevancy of a page for a search query," he said.

Finally (phew!)
Brandt, though, is convinced that Google relies too much on PageRank, which he calls Google's "original sin."

He doesn't really offer any support for this.

Well, that's my 2 (thousand) bits. I admit that I am biased because I love Google and their "You don't have to be evil to make it big" policy (they actually say that somewhere on their site!). I was pretty upset when I read Brandts article.

He's a conspiracy theorist, it seems, and what it seems to me is that he's doing this to get his own sites attention, both of which seem to be down. I hope this isn't lashback for his article, because that would be unfortunate.

rubble88




msg:147043
 11:12 pm on Aug 29, 2002 (gmt 0)

Fyi, several excellent librarian created and annotated non-commercial web directories are in existence. Look for them to continuing growing. Additionally, the concept of a crawled database administered by librarians has also been discussed in the library community.

Here are four librarian compiled and managed directories.

1) Librarians' Index to the Internet
[lii.org...]
Over 10,000 entries, All annotated by librarians.
Subject headings for each entry.

2) InfoMine
[infomine.ucr.edu...]
Over 23,000 entries. All annotated.

3) Resource Discovery Network (From the UK)
[rdn.ac.uk...]

Included in the Network is the impressive EEVL (Engineering) directory.
[eevl.ac.uk...]

4) The Internet Public Library
[ipl.org...]

Also, a new organization, Fiat Lux, is also working to share ideas and more from these and other directories.
Read here:
[ala.org...]

jdMorgan




msg:147044
 11:18 pm on Aug 29, 2002 (gmt 0)

From http://www.google.com/webmasters/3.html#B2 [google.com]

<META NAME="ROBOTS" CONTENT="NOARCHIVE">

will disallow Googlebot from caching a page - and any other robot that obeys this tag.

So, isn't the argument really that this is an "opt-out" rather than an "opt-in" method to prevent caching?

I suspect that in this case, the Google techys focused on what they could do technology-wise, and didn't consider the copyright aspect. After all, it is likely that almost every web page is cached in one or more caches whenever it is served. And the default "expires header" served with most pages means that in-transit caching is also "opt-out" rather than "opt-in". In this respect, Google's caching (at its technical core) is no different than all the other caching proxys on the web. But the complaint I see most often is that Google displays the page as what appears (if you don't read the disclaimer) to be part of their site - as a "stickiness" ploy.

The technical job of interpreting each and every copyright notice on every page on the Web is an impossible one to automate, since there is no <copyright></copyright> tag pair to designate what the page owner wants to allow and disallow at any but page level. Instead, Google puts the disclaimer on the cached page display.

The alternative would be to detect any instance of the word "copyright" (and "copywrite" too, I'm afraid :( ) and exclude those pages from the cache. But that would exclude the vast majority of sites whose webmasters were unaware of the this policy. The same would be true if the noarchive tag was changed so that it was required that you place an "doarchive" tag on each page that you wish to be cached.

So, I really think that the issue is that the cache-disable tag is "opt-out" rather than "opt-in".

I just like tightly-focused arguments, I guess ... :)

Jim

sean




msg:147045
 11:23 pm on Aug 29, 2002 (gmt 0)

is not, as Google says, "uniquely democratic" -- it's "uniquely tyrannical."

many people speak well of democracy on one hand, yet seek to impose their own agenda in the guise of democracy

democracy = tyranny of the majority

tyranny of an individual
tyranny of the minority
tyranny of the majority

pick one

wasmith




msg:147046
 12:53 am on Aug 30, 2002 (gmt 0)

My responce to his rant/rave:

I more than welcome new search engines and directories. My biggest problem with google is I depend on the traffic I get from it. I really would like to get more traffic from other sources but as soon as i get a link from a page with traffic, a month later google rings in with at least the same amount of traffic.

Although i can not fault google for being the best ... what would i be asking for? For google to provide poor quality results to give other search engines and directories a break?

Caching of pages: hmmm if we put google in the same catagory as an ISP, what about proxies? What about AOL? what about the internet backbone that transferes the copyrighted data? What about the browsers cache?

I am not sure where I stand on that issue. All i care about myself as a webmaster is the content is delievered as I created it, unmodified. I would like to have a count of people who viewed the page. But if I am not charging to view the page, and it is clearly identified as my page, Hmmm, just spliting hairs about the technology used to deliver a page I provide for free (or I don't charge for the page i pay to have it delivered)

As somebody searching google for information, I love the cached page. If i get a 404, the server is down, the server is slow, or the page is now about something newer; i hit the cache. The result of the cache is that when i search google i have no links to data that i can not view (I hate SERPs with content i can not view ! @%*$@& !)

Toolbar Maybe it is a bad thing to show to SEOs but for research. Life is not equal, Fair it should be but not equal. Different people statements get heard by more or less people depending on who it is ... blah, blah, blah ... As a webmaster i would rather George Bush talked about my site than a homeless person, nothing against the homeless person (and its not important if i like the homeless person more). When the leader of a superpower speaks lots of people listen. ... blah, blah, blah ... As a searcher, I like knowing if i am reading something that could be considered more [important¦viewed¦linked too].

In summary, _^_Catch up alternative search engines_^_.

cminblues




msg:147047
 1:09 am on Aug 30, 2002 (gmt 0)

I completely agree with Everyman, only apropos the Googlebar issue.

But it's not a "yadda yadda" [From the Googlebar Agreement], like, I fear, most people think.

The fact is that, with the Googlebar Adv-Features enabled, your internet browsing is logged, in fact, like none of all the well-known spywares [M$ included] do.

I think, moreover, that the only way to force Google at least to rethink its point of view about "Do you want to see PR? Ok, but you must agree to being completely logged", is:

- To making publicly available some little scripts or so [multi-OS], able to retrieve the PR of a gived list of URLs. [Enhanced, of course, with the use of a 'find-working-proxy-now' feature].

It's obvious that G. can't let's this happen.

So, G. must upgrade the toolbar in user PCs, each time the above mentioned script come out.

Please note 1 important thing:

The only way G. may use to stopping the above script, is [and, in fact it's what Googlebar now accomplish] to insert some checksum algo code in the windoze googlenav.dll.

Now I'll explain.

When Googlebar phone home and says:

/search?client=navclient-auto&ch=5608682811&features= Rank&q=info: http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Emicrosoft%2Ecom%2F

Google-home answer with a little bunch of bytes of data, like i.ex with the above example: "Rank_1:2:10"
Which IS (10) the actual PR, in 0/10 scale, of www.microsoft.com

Here, we see that the only thing remaining mysterious, is how "http://www.microsoft.com/" are converted in "5608682811".

If we're able to reverse-eng. this, we've all is needed.

Of course, as stated above, G. may update, every time, the googlebar automatically [without user knowledge of this, and this is another big issue with the googlebar].

But we may reverse-eng. also this new one..

Ok, the tools needed are:

1] A windoze debugger
2] A good knowledge of [Intel] Assembly.
3] A good knowledge of how digest [some non-standard CRC ,in this case, I think] algos work.

Nothing against Google's S.Eng-way.
Only a big, privacy issue.

pleeker




msg:147048
 1:09 am on Aug 30, 2002 (gmt 0)

I'm sorry, but the whole thing seems silly to me.

As has been said, the cookie issue is nothing in relative terms. And if you don't like it, don't accept the cookie.

PageRank is bad because the guy's sites/pages aren't listed highly enough? Ha!

PageRank discrimates against new sites? One of our clients had a top 20 ranking on their #1 keyword the first time they got into Google, and they're now up to #12 in the rankings. In about 3 months now. With a grand total of ONE other site linking to theirs.

The only thing I could possibly agree with the Toolbar issue. We all became infinitely more focused (frenzied?) when you could see PR on the toolbar. Which I suspect is something that pleases Google very much. :)

Jane_Doe




msg:147049
 1:20 am on Aug 30, 2002 (gmt 0)

Agrees with Jane_Doe. Perfectly reasoned argument, she has. Maybe Jane will care to partner with me in my latest venture: Anarchists-United-To-Overthrow-The-Orthodoxy.org.

Partnership accepted! I bet we could even get ranked first in Google for the set of keywords in your URL. ;)

cminblues




msg:147050
 1:34 am on Aug 30, 2002 (gmt 0)


The Googlebar privacy issue is not at all a 'cookies' issue.

The logging happen without the use of cookies.

Perhaps you don't know it, but, if you have Googlebar-PR enabled,
then all your browsing, also when you type in the "main" bar, is logged, even without cookies..

I'm still convinced that most people don't know what's happen.

Sorry if i'm so pedantic. ;)


PaulPaul




msg:147051
 2:01 am on Aug 30, 2002 (gmt 0)

The Googlebar privacy issue is not at all a 'cookies' issue.
The logging happen without the use of cookies.

Perhaps you don't know it, but, if you have Googlebar-PR enabled,
then all your browsing, also when you type in the "main" bar, is logged, and not using cookies..

I'm still convinced that most people don't know what's happen.

Sorry if i'm so pedantic.

I agree. Alot of people barely understand what a cookie is, let alone what it is used for. It makes me pretty upset, when people, including IT professionals, talk about technologies they are not sure about.

I doubt Google would store any of its valuable information, on a client side cookie. This would make no sense. On the other hand, storing: Language, SafeSearch Filtering settings, Number of Results per page, etc. settings would make sense to be stored in a cookie. If the user wants to delete them, let em, its their info.

But yet, to store crucial Google proprietary information on a client-side cookie seems ridiculous. :) Certainly, real-time processing going on there.

cminblues




msg:147052
 2:24 am on Aug 30, 2002 (gmt 0)

Hehe, I'm going more and more pedantic.. ;)

This is what happen if you have Googlebar PR [-> Advanced Features] enabled:

1] You type [or click on a link], in your main browser bar:
www.someexamplesite.com/blah.html

2] The Googlebar-PR stuff on your PC, because you want to know the PR of www.someexamplesite.com/blah.html [this isn't the reason you've installed the PR Googlebar, after all ?], need to give you the PR of this page.

3] Googlebar phone Google-home, asking for the PR of 'www.someexamplesite.com/blah.html'.
While asking, Googlebar send your IP to Google-home.

4] Googlebar give you the PR of 'www.someexamplesite.com/blah.html

5] Google-home know, at least, your IP and your main-browser-bar requested URL.

6] Next url-link, same process.

All that, completely apart from using cookies.


SmallTime




msg:147053
 2:38 am on Aug 30, 2002 (gmt 0)

Everyman's first complaint, that Pagerank favors large, established sites (assuming incoming links are there) is patently true, and in general should favor commercial over non-commercial, but for the fact that incoming links can be easier for non-commercial sites, a factor that can even out the equation. Basically, the gripe is whether the internet should favor the non-commercial or commercial interests, a question that at the current time, at least in the U.S.A. I would rather not have in the hands of the government.

Googles current success, I believe (with Skibum)is very closely tied to the fact that they have not gone public. In that they have avoided the mistake that has sunk many promising companies in the last five years. Until investors abandon dreams of high short term profits and display a discipline that is unlikely today, an IPO would only hurt them.

Concerns about privacy and Google are not trivial, but in the current climate there are far more serious issues to worry about.

Allowing and encouraging minority opinion is an essential element in democracy, because it may well contain a truth overlooked by the majority. For that alone, Everyman's stance deserves credit.

mbauser2




msg:147054
 3:05 am on Aug 30, 2002 (gmt 0)


The article makes him sound more like a cry-baby than someone taking a stand against a mighty foe.

Brandt is a crybaby. A big, huge, gigantic crybaby who just keeps moving his crying from forum to forum until he finds some sucker to believe him. I've already had to argue with "Google Watch" at SEF and alt.internet.search-engines. (I haven't even looked at Slashdot yet. He's probably there, too.) I'm getting tired of this, and him.


So his site doesn't rank well for all his keywords, and he's done "a lot of work" on his site.
Boo-hoo.

There are many sites that should be ranked high, that aren't.

Brandt's site shouldn't be ranked high. It's junk.

I want everyone to re-read the top of the second page of the Salon article [salon.com], where Brandt somehow convinces Salon that Namebase's page about Donald Rumsfeld belongs higher up in Google's results.

Now, go read Namebase's page about Donald Rumsfeld [namebase.org]. It doesn't say a damn thing about Donald Rumsfeld. It's a list of books and articles (not a comprehensive, or even systematic list, just the list of what Brandt has read), and list of other names that have appeared on the same page of an article as Rumsfeld's.

If you can convince me that the thousands of people who search Google for "Donald Rumsfeld" every year are thinking "I want to know how many times Rumsfeld's name has appeared on the same page as Gerald Ford's", I'll believe that Google's algorithm is flawed. Until then, I'm just going to assume that Brandt is a crackpot and a crybaby who's vastly overestimated the importance of his magazine-clipping hobby.

Google has not judged Brandt's site as a lacking; Brandt's peers (whom he considers "the petty bourgeoisie") have. PageRank is a quantification of peer review. You and me and every other webmaster in the world make choices about who we link to. Not a lot of us think that an incomplete indexing of obscure magazines is worth linking to. That's not Google's fault. That's the voice of the people. That's democracy in action.

I'll say this before, and I'll say it again. Brandt is not the friend of democracy. There's one search engine in the world that gives the people a major say in the results, and Brandt is throwing an extended tantrum over the people not liking him. He doesn't want democracy; he doesn't want the people to have a voice; he want's a more tyrannical system where a smaller group of people (his 'magic librarians) tell the rest of us what's important.

I object to that, and so should everybody else. It's a giant step backwards, and veiled argument for dictatorship. It would favor the few at the expense of the majority. Brandt's position on this isn't just technologically wrong, it's morally wrong, and I'm really disappointed that more people haven't seen through his rhetoric yet.

Key_Master




msg:147055
 3:06 am on Aug 30, 2002 (gmt 0)

I agree. A lot of people barely understand what a cookie is, let alone what it is used for. It makes me pretty upset, when people, including IT professionals, talk about technologies they are not sure about.

Hmmm, let me explain because you don't seem to understand how powerful a tracking cookie can be. For example, I'm on a dial-up ISP. My IP will change each time I connect online. This doesn't matter to a site that uses cookies for tracking purposes. Even if my IP changes, the tracking ID stored on the cookie on my computer will still remain the same. That tracking cookie can be logged (with other info) on the receiving server and every query I made to that server can be retrieved at any time using the tracking ID set on the cookie. Toolbar data could be used in essentially the same way. Everyman's point was that this information could be used against you if Google was ever compelled to legally release this information.

Sure, being an "IT professional" I can turn cookies off but most Web surfers aren't IT professionals and do not know what a cookie is- much less how to turn them off.

cminblues




msg:147056
 3:12 am on Aug 30, 2002 (gmt 0)

SmallTime, I agree at all.

The very major concern, is that Internet doesn't have to be owned.
Not by big companies, not by governments.

I hope Google will not use its logging features to make alliances with some of the 2 above mentioned entities.

lawman




msg:147057
 3:28 am on Aug 30, 2002 (gmt 0)

>>I always appreciate hearing Everyman's perspective, even though we've got different views of some things, e.g. how Google ranks internal pages from a site; I think we do a good job of that.

Do you say that because you're a company man or because you have some special insight? :)

lawman

PaulPaul




msg:147058
 3:32 am on Aug 30, 2002 (gmt 0)

Hmmm, let me explain because you don't seem to understand how powerful a tracking cookie can be. For example, I'm on a dial-up ISP. My IP will change each time I connect online. This doesn't matter to a site that uses cookies for tracking purposes. Even if my IP changes, the tracking ID stored on the cookie on my computer will still remain the same. That tracking cookie can be logged (with other info) on the receiving server and every query I made to that server can be retrieved at any time using the tracking ID set on the cookie. Toolbar data could be used in essentially the same way. Everyman's point was that this information could be used against you if Google was ever compelled to legally release this information.

Sure, being an "IT professional" I can turn cookies off but most Web surfers aren't IT professionals and do not know what a cookie is- much less how to turn them off.

I dont want to seem rude, but have you ever written a cookie?? If you have, then please explain why you would store a clients previous search's or sites visits, on a client-side cookie.

I could probably come up with over 5 key reasons why this is not the way to track users.

Another key thow off is, why the use a toolbar?? Cookies could be stored on regular web searches, just like Yahoo does. hmm. Any IT professional would recognize that the reason Google uses a toolbar is to provide real time data, similar to the likes of Aol's AIM.

lawman




msg:147059
 3:35 am on Aug 30, 2002 (gmt 0)

>>I do not even submit to other search engines, cause for me there only exist one Searchengine: Google.

Makes me think of the Steppenwolf song "Tighten Up Your Wig" :)

lawman

Key_Master




msg:147060
 3:38 am on Aug 30, 2002 (gmt 0)

I dont want to seem rude, but have you ever written a cookie??

Sure, I write software that writes cookies on the fly. If you need a see a reason why cookies would be used in this fashion, visit Amazon.com

By the way, the tracking ID on the cookie is used to identify the user. The real info is stored on the server that set the cookie.

cminblues




msg:147061
 3:54 am on Aug 30, 2002 (gmt 0)

Key_Master, you've noticed that the Googlebar send a cookie each time a HTTP request is made even in the "main" bar ?
[I don't know this, not checked]

I think that this is the true issue about 'cookies-Googlebar'.


chiyo




msg:147062
 4:05 am on Aug 30, 2002 (gmt 0)

Of all major Se's Google's is the closest to being able to rank sites according to relevance rather than commercial interests. Google being eveyman's target, is more due to google's high profile than comparative malevolence.

The problem with having a group of "librarians" or people seen as "objective" is that no "absolute authorities" are 100% objective. The current "world government" (UN), set up precisely for the sentiments of fair and objective and democratic world government, is seen by many as being "unfair". Any "web page exposure government" will be seen as unfair by many.

Google is the closest of all SE's to being "democratic" though still highly imperfect. Im happier with this "voting for links" process rather than being governed by a group of "arbiters of objectivity" who may come from a totally different culture, history, and value set than me. Democracy itself is a value based concept, but Google's decomcratic SE is the closest we get to getting useful, fair results so far.

[edited for mega spellos]

[edited by: chiyo at 4:20 am (utc) on Aug. 30, 2002]

Key_Master




msg:147063
 4:07 am on Aug 30, 2002 (gmt 0)

Yes, the Toolbar phones home with the tracking cookie.

More info:

[news.com.com...]
[webmasterworld.com...]

prowsej




msg:147064
 4:08 am on Aug 30, 2002 (gmt 0)

Mr. Anti-Google does reveal a major problem with the internet as it stands: it's too easy for a whacko crank to get attention.

This guy has little technical knowledge and even less common sense. He appears to belive he is entitled to whatever he wants and shouldn't have to do any work to customize his browser or enable it to reject cookies.

His web site is a far out joke that should be lambasted, not revered.

If it weren't for his attitude, I'd think he were joking.

pgrote




msg:147065
 4:10 am on Aug 30, 2002 (gmt 0)

Even if I had something negative to say about Google I wouldn't. I rely on their results to pay real bills in the real world.

I feel Google does what they do well. Could it be better? Sure. You're looking at a service that has only been around for what, four years, and have plenty of people trying to beat it.

Google is quickly becoming, if it hasn't already, the dominate force in the internet search arena.

To put this into perspective I was at the local library the other night. A guy was teaching a Beginner's Internet course. He gushed about Google, about how you can find everything on it. It became the internet to those people. That's how it's getting to be.

I'm happy with Google and don't agree with the article at all. Folks like Brett and Google Guy say page rank is but a small measurement used when determining where a page or site falls. I believe them.

Brett_Tabke




msg:147066
 4:12 am on Aug 30, 2002 (gmt 0)

PaulPaul, I don't think any one has suggested Google is storing searches or previous searches in the cookie. What is suggested is that there is a tracking code in the cookie. That code could be matched to a cookie/log file on Google. Here is a cookie I just got from Google:

Cookie: PREF=ID=5d699a4b06c63f08:TM=1030680317:LM=1030680317:S=g0L0J8vshno

See that Pref ID? That's appears to be a tracking code. The TM and LM look to be unix time, while s could equal a hashed search value(?).

If Google were ever compelled to open it's log file on you, it could easily associate 100% of the searches associated with your tracking code. So what? That's their business.

As many others have said, the whole cookie thing is a nonissue to me. What I do and how I use Googles services at Google.com is 100% Googles business. If they can use the data to build a better search engine, so much the better.

It's once you leave Google.com and start surfing the web, with the toolbar parked over your shoulder thats a bit too much for me. It's not just a Google issue either. Given IE's problematic security history, there's more to consider.

Filipe




msg:147067
 4:21 am on Aug 30, 2002 (gmt 0)

mbauser2, let's try not to get belligerent. It devalues your argument altogether...

But on the flip side, way to go on saying what some of us had too much restraint to say, but actually think.

This 157 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 157 ( 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved