JAB_Creations - 5:45 am on Nov 23, 2011 (gmt 0)
Thanks for the responses thus far and more are welcomed of course. Today I would say roughly a third of my Google referrers were anonymous to me (though clearly not anonymous to Google). To be frank I think the protecting people's privacy is a huge load of bull; if you can't see what people are searching for then you can't work on getting that item or advertising for that specific service. If you don't really sell the item or provide the service then there are ways for consumers to report fraudulent websites and businesses. I think this is the one person does something wrong so an authoritative source uses it to justify punishing everyone instead of addressing the issue sort of situation.
Here is a good question: if you thought that denying visitors such as say redirecting them to a website explaining the issue stood a chance of convincing Google to reverse this clearly flawed decision would you in part or whole?
I can see this as Google potentially trying to wall out anonymous users (to force people to sign up to Google+ in example) in the way Facecrook has tried to wall-off people's information from Google. That's not my war and if Google decides to force me and my visitors in to battle then I will decide how to respond and act accordingly.