| 11:38 pm on Feb 4, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I'm finally seeing this after clearing cookies and restarting Firefox, but it's not at all what I expected. In fact, the average end user will never notice a difference. It's no faster, slicker, more attractive, or anything - just vanilla Google results.
In other words, there's clearly some motive here *other* than improving the user experience.
| 11:40 pm on Feb 4, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|I think it would be up to the browser manufacters to issue a patch to the browser to send the referal information with AJAX requests. This may in fact, be a good goose to them to get that done. I don't believe the referring page full url (after the #) is available to the website after the click. I don't think it is in the request anywhere - whether by js or http headers. |
if we can hope the browser makers patch their product to pull the referer info out of the url, can we also ask server-side product makers like Apache and the PHP team to do the same?
| 11:46 pm on Feb 4, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|can we also ask server-side product makers like Apache and the PHP team to do the same? |
As far as I'm aware, URI fragments were always a bit of an "add-on" to the URI spec, and thus there's is no real standardisation about what to do with them.
| 11:57 pm on Feb 4, 2009 (gmt 0)|
More information on the Fragment Identifier here...
Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax - 3.5 Fragment
|The fragment identifier is not used in the scheme-specific processing of a URI; instead, the fragment identifier is separated from the rest of the URI prior to a dereference, and thus the identifying information within the fragment itself is dereferenced solely by the user agent, regardless of the URI scheme. |
| 12:12 am on Feb 5, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I can't seem to get the results no matter what I try. Perhaps I will try from a different IP address.
| 12:21 am on Feb 5, 2009 (gmt 0)|
NICE: Top referrers / Top search phrases / TOP search engines data all missing. And all because PHD leveled marketing blend is scared for their job at Google. G, wake the el UP.
| 12:24 am on Feb 5, 2009 (gmt 0)|
PG, the Generic Syntax 'syntax' worked before...
| 12:32 am on Feb 5, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I personally would like to thank Google for letting every website I visit know that I have a Google account. Please tell us, why is your fabulous privacy feature only effective for those who anonymously search Google?
I guess the only solution is to log out and stay out until you Googlers get your priorities in order.
| 12:45 am on Feb 5, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I am going to take a chunk from 3.4
-- The characters slash ("/") and question mark ("?") may represent data within the query component. Beware that some older, erroneous implementations may not handle such data correctly when it is used as the base URI for relative references (Section 5.1), apparently because they fail to distinguish query data from path data when looking for hierarchical separators. However, as query components are often used to carry identifying information in the form of "key=value" pairs and one frequently used value is a reference to another URI, it is sometimes better for usability to avoid percent-encoding those characters. --
Now... does that brake the Google appliance indexing/desktop or those are absolute?
And then again, I have not seen Direct response from G at this point here, so may be it is a fluke...
| 12:58 am on Feb 5, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I love my raw logs. Just NOT loving them as much as I used to. What was odd in my logs it is non-USA google (eg goggle.de) came in blank. I'm fairly sure those of us here, or in SEO or related biz, are among the very few who know about these things... the vast majority out there have no clue. The hue and cry, therefore, would be lost in the wilderness of ignorance.
| 1:34 am on Feb 5, 2009 (gmt 0)|
As a matter of fact I would love MS to release a silent SP that Disables all referrer strings in IE Browser. Period.
| 1:58 am on Feb 5, 2009 (gmt 0)|
What a shame, Brett is right, I am seeing a very large % with no refer data coming in now.
| 2:15 am on Feb 5, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|Why? To keep users from making use of an improved search tool that gives useful, relevant Web pages an advantage over useless or irrelevant Web pages for a given search string? |
|How are webmasters supposed to load dynamic content based on user Intent now? |
|I expect this will break Brett's highlighting feature, which is a shame. That's just one of the implications beyond breaking all the competing analytics apps. |
Many uses for referrer string data, and only some are related to SEO.
Google may have every right to further their own interests and provide "an improved search tool". However, with a near monopoly in the search game, I am not sure that they have the unilateral right to "break the Internet" - meaning implementing something that quite literally turns things upside down for such a broad section of users.
Logs and referrer stats have been an important part of web development since the beginning. They are not used only to create useless or irrelevant web pages.
|In other words, there's clearly some motive here *other* than improving the user experience. |
Yes, it has looked for quite some time like G wants to do far more than "organize" the world's information...
| 2:40 am on Feb 5, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I haven't used Ajax yet but I used to see [google.com...] with no notice of keywords used in my site meter occasionally (not more than 1%) and I've seen this for many months and not known how they were doing this. I just checked and now and it's 10%.
| 2:53 am on Feb 5, 2009 (gmt 0)|
not more than 1% = I am Feeling LUCKY button, as far as I know ++++ Scraper bots
| 3:01 am on Feb 5, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|What was odd in my logs it is non-USA google (eg goggle.de) came in blank. |
Well, I have only a tiny jump in my .au site traffic that is showing as coming direct from Google's .com homepage and no change from the google.com.au homepage, so I was assuming this was a .us test so far - but perhaps in Europe too?
(For those who don't know, you should always expect a small amount of this sort of referer, as an 'I feel lucky' button landing will look like this!)
| 4:08 am on Feb 5, 2009 (gmt 0)|
One very importaint issue to take from this is the fact that Google's only concern from a serp point of view is the searcher. Any referal data is simply a bi-product.
Some users have spoken in terms of this breaking the internet, lets be honest. Google have shaped the entire internet to suit its own business model and so long as it doesnt hurt us, we let it happen.
Look at how Google has altered the online ad business. popup ads, how many businesses went under due to Google starting the ball rolling with pop up blockers. The Gogle toolbar alone did a good job of killing that industry.
Another example of Google shaping the web and how linking (the fundimental flow of the web) should work was rel=nofollow.
Is this realy any different to the above examples. Legaly does a search engine need to allow a browser to forward referal data? No.
What we are seeing is another example of Google making a change for its own gain, and ignoring what possible effect this will have for other businesses.
Personaly it will effect me because I manage my own stats using a script I wrote. If Google do go ahead with this my own app will become virtualy useless. I am not alone.
| 4:12 am on Feb 5, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I'm confused now.
I search Google, I get the # in the browser address bar, but...
The URLs of the search results themselves don't have an "#". They show the old style Google referer URLs (NOT regular URLs like [webmasterworld.com...] Won't this allow searches to be tracked, because the individual URLs have the old style links?
| 4:23 am on Feb 5, 2009 (gmt 0)|
does than not mean it will show the Google search page as referal, but won't show the actual keyword. Its the # in the actual search url that is causing the problems.
| 4:26 am on Feb 5, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Okay, I see, the individual URLs don't have the query in them.
Since I'm not getting any other functionality, there isn't any possible positive in this for webmasters, not for Google either since if a webmaster has no clue that [steamy red widgets] is a good search term they won't buy adwords for it.
| 4:30 am on Feb 5, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Or the adwords keyword tool will give then all the info! once they create an account.
| 4:37 am on Feb 5, 2009 (gmt 0)|
That's true if they know to look for that. If you broad match [widgets] you can find things, but even if you are in the widget business you don't know everything people search for that is about widgets without using the word.
One thing for sure, this change will hurt new webmasters more than experienced ones who have years of legacy data. I certainly know what people in my niche search for. Someone new in the industry will not know that people search for [red steamy widgets] far more than [steamy red widgets], and they will have to use the exact match adwords tool to find that out... assuming Google won't also break the adwords tool too.
| 5:20 am on Feb 5, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|Another example of Google shaping the web and how linking (the fundimental flow of the web) should work was rel=nofollow. |
Yes, that was a real eye opener - even more so when they started expanding upon the originally stated intent/use, things like "paid links", PR sculpting and such.
It was probably at that point where I started developing a healthy suspicion of the company. I suspect that what is legal or illegal now may come under increasing scrutiny and/or regulation in the future. Monopolies are not looked on favorably in many areas of the world, including the US. MS stands as only one example.
Google has fundamentally altered the net in any number of ways, virtually all self serving when one looks closely...
| 10:00 am on Feb 5, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Well that's just plain mean. I'm starting to see a lot more direct (i.e. no referals) in my referals report. The .co.uk server still seems to be proving referal data.
I guess if you're big enough you can do just about anything you want to.
|brotherhood of LAN|
| 10:30 am on Feb 5, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|The .co.uk server still seems to be proving referal data |
I know people are also getting the AJAX version in the UK. redirects to normal SERPs when I try from my IP though.
| 10:35 am on Feb 5, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Yes, boL, when I try .co.uk from Bangkok I get the normal SERPs.
| 11:53 am on Feb 5, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I haven't been able to see this from Spain yet, and I can't figure out exactly how it looks like. <snip>
[edited by: Receptional_Andy at 12:10 pm (utc) on Feb. 5, 2009]
[edit reason] No screenshots please, see ToS [/edit]
| 12:05 pm on Feb 5, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|I can't figure out exactly how it looks like |
There's no visual or functional change whatsoever - just when you click search the results are retrieved in the background via ajax, as opposed to via an additional page request. if you don't watch for it, you'd probably never notice. As I mentioned above, my theory is that it's a "proof of concept" technology test.
[edited by: Receptional_Andy at 12:18 pm (utc) on Feb. 5, 2009]
| 12:06 pm on Feb 5, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Getting the results in the UK, by logging out of my Google account, forcing the .com not to redirect, using /ncr fix, and then just using it as normal. In Firefox without resetting cookies.
| 12:16 pm on Feb 5, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|There's no visual or functional change whatsoever |
[edited by: SteveJohnston at 12:17 pm (utc) on Feb. 5, 2009]
| 12:30 pm on Feb 5, 2009 (gmt 0)|
The fp parameter seems to be connected with this - without it I get redirected to the traditional GET results.
Incidentally, using a US IPand with cookies disabled, I can consistently retrieve AJAX results by visiting a URL with the following syntax:
The value of fp appears to be irrelevant as long as it's present. Google also adds an additional parameter (e.g. &cad=[a-z]) for the AJAX searches.
| This 174 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 174 ( 1 2  4 5 6 ) > > |