Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
System Requirements
Operating System: Win XP or Win 2000 SP3+
Browser: IE 5.5+ or Firefox 1.0+
Availability: For users in North America and Europe (during beta testing phase)
Press Release:
Google Web
Accelerator significantly reduces the time that it takes broadband users to
download and view web pages. The Google Web Accelerator appears as a small
speedometer in the browser chrome with a cumulative "Time saved" indicator.Here's how it works. A user downloads and installs the client and begins
browsing the web as she normally would. In the background, the Google Web
Accelerator employs a number of techniques to speed up the delivery of
content to users.
Looks like some of the Mozilla hires are paying dvidends.
could've used your help a few days ago..I got hammered on Google's "search history" thread. [webmasterworld.com...]
I'll try to stop by this weekend; not sure if I can answer questions, but I'll try.
not sure if I can answer questions
We've been formulating opinions about that and I'm in the lead in the fantasy game pool.
Just kidding, your input has been STELLAR under the circumstances, I'm a fan, you've performed above and beyond.
Even if I'm a cynic at heart :)
Perhaps meaninglessly, but I wonder what happened during the alhpa test phase of this product. Was it confined to Google Labs employees who worked on it during thier 20% free time? It has that feel about it. As if they consulted each other, and the published specs, but completely failed to realize that we don't all understand and/or follow specs, and some of us even (gasp) intentionally break those specs - for any number of reasons. A simple example: http://www.google.com/accounts/Logout?continue=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com
For the most part I don't see how this app is going to hurt me. There are a few things about it that concern me and which remain as unknowns - particularly in the area of log-on/log-off screens, shopping cart and a few admin scripts that I've developed. I've read the horror story of someone deleting database records because the GET action of a link was performed by the prefetch. And I've read where this is totally debunked. So while I don't know yet what to make of this particular scenario, I do know that I have employed regular links on my admin pages to perform database operations. And I do know that I would be highly highly upset to discover those actions were performed as a result of a prefetch. The intent was that I (or someone with the proper authority) actually CLICK the link, with a reasonable expectation that only by clicking would the action be performed.
So this weekend, I get to:
It would have been nice, as in Not Evil, to have had some advance knowledge and time to consider the implications and to render fixes. Instead, I'm forced to wade thru literally thousands of posts in dozens of forums across the web to try to discern what is most critical and what is bunk. That's just not nice. May the chef burn the cookies next week! ;-)
Another aspect of this application this causes me to have a little concern. It seems as if Google itself is undecided about releasing this app. I tried to access the page and could not. Got the toolbar page instead. Then the page comes back. Then it disappears.. what's up with all this? Either it's in release or it isn't. This shows (to me) more than a little bit of indecision on part of the decision makers. Or maybe this is a case of too many chiefs. Whatever, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
Blocking is not the same as opting out - blocking is something you have to do because you can't opt out (as a webmaster).
And, it should be "opt in" in the first place, not "opt-out" (just like for users).
Some might work for your server while others might not.
he said if you use the "Cache-Control: private" HTTP header then we don't serve it from our servers because we obey the http spec.
Just saw this - sorry for posting three times in a row. Imho, the above is close to an opt out, although it is not specific to the WA.
As using this header might conflict with something else, it could turn out to be an opt out you can't use - but still, it's better than nothing.
Claus had a great post (#130) which got me thinking....
WHAT would keep Google from using this to serve UNWANTED advertising?
Kind of like links in about.com and others, where they are served back as a page within a page'.
(If I'm making sense, now we're up to the question:)
What's to keep them from serving YOUR page to a user in a frame, surrounded by ADWORD ADS FROM YOUR COMPETITORS?
Imagine if you will someone goes to your site and is served the following by Google:
-------------------
¦ ¦
¦ Competitor ¦
¦ Adword Ads Here ¦
¦ ¦
-------------------
¦ ¦
¦ ¦
¦ You Webpage ¦
¦ Content Here ¦
¦ ¦
¦ ¦
-------------------
What's to keep them from serving YOUR page to a user in a frame, surrounded by ADWORD ADS FROM YOUR COMPETITORS?
A supernova backlash from the webmaster community that would make this one look like a party popper. Google employees would probably walk, too. I wouldn't worry about it though, i'm sure this is ultimately about improving search results more than anything else.
At the end of the day, everyone here knows that Google is facing a harder time producing good quality search results, and the one thing that would help [any search engine] improve thier results is access to good quality surfing habits that shows where real users spend time on the web.
Personally, I think if they want to do that they should get into bed with ISP's and factor in data off their proxy servers rather than try and re-route the entire Internet through the Googleplex.
The problem was that when I disconnected from the internet, I was not able to reconnect. My explorer would not bring up the auto dial dialog box. I tried everything to get mypc to dial.
I have all the latest Explorer updates as well as XP Professinal. Appeared as though the software was looking for something on my pc. I tried all the standard procedures, finally had to remove the only new piece of software I had.
When removing, the software tried to do somthing on the web, however I was not connected. I suspect the software was trying to inform google and maybe ask a survey "Why are you leaving me" qustion.
The software does not appear to have been fully tested.
It will then display the IP addresses of all such people, and then the country, location, city, locality, home address, bank account, family details, girlfriends, ... think more.... chat details...... and what not! just because you said "I Agree" .
Are we ready for throwing ourselves in the open for googles hunger for data?
The Google WA only works on Windows XP, 2000 platforms. Anyone with a Win XP, 2000 OS already has thrown themselves into the Microsoft hunger for data.
Google has the capability, it is in the search and display business.
I guess the 'person search' from google is not far behind. Think when google implements it in its search engine.
The issue is not what webaccelarator is doing, the issue is what is google aiming at, as web accelarator is not a commercial product.
Fear the unknown
This WebAccelerator is anti-internet. It goes directly against everything that the internet stands for, and it offers no more value than the IE specific "marquee" tag, or the Netscape specific "blink" tag.
Forget about supernova backlash. Some people will indeed see all this as a benefit, and the GoogleNet will probably be perceived as "better" and "faster" than the internet itself.
Yes, and with a large penetration it will actually slow down the real internet as well. So, you're f*cked with it and f*cked without it. Unless you kill it before it grows.
Here's how you can strip ads, insert your own, and get the whole world to like you: First you offer a feature to strip all ads completely, leading to "even faster pages", and then you offer a feature to display AdSense in the places where something is now missing ("adding relevant content").
Don't like it? Don't participate. You want users to see your content? Accept that Google makes all the rules. If you're lucky you can find a way to "opt out" but you can't change a thing. If you "opt out" your page will not get the "Google approved" special links that people click, but your page will still be there (probably slowly fading in SERPs).
So, if you're a webmaster, welcome to the Hotel California. You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.
For users, what you do is to create switching costs so that it will be perceived as "worse" in some respect if you do not use Google. You build a walled garden in which you have 100% control, and hence can add or subtract "features" as you see fit. Features, as in "the internet is not our common platform, it is a product that you can extend as you see fit, regardless of W3C and similar bodies".
Hey Google, AOL tried that and we did not like it! - we all went for open internet in stead.
Only, in this case you can't prove anything, as there's no guarantee that "your GoogleNet" will look like "my GoogleNet" - you can't link to your proxied version, as when i click the link i will see my proxied version in stead - this is not the internet, it is a proprietary extension of the iternet.
Now all that "dark fiber" talk makes sense to me.
Or, what about introducing special tags that webmasters can use, in order to get their pages to do something that can only be done on the GoogleNet?
Hey Google, IE tried that and we did not like it! - we all went for open standards in stead.
Well, at least not yet. :)
I think the WA is Google's way of preparing for a Googlenet - similar to Microsoft's attempt with the upcoming OS and browser to strengthen the end user dependency on a Microsoftnet.
Google does not have their own browser, yet... So, the only way to tighten relations with the end user is to sell the idea of accellerating web speed. I mean, what else is there to offer to make people install a Google application that could give Google insight and access to browser habbits?
We will all eventually be assimilated [en.wikipedia.org]...
I also think that a couple of years ahead, the GoogleNet might in fact be a very nice internet for the average consumer. But, it will be another internet. There might be a Yahoo!Net and a MSNet as well.
Neither of them will be the real thing, but all of them will make the real thing more "difficult" to use somehow. As in: Will offer all kinds of nice proprietary standard "widgets" to make life on their particlar net easier, while increasing machine-only traffic on the normal net - in the extreme to something like constant DDOS-attacks on the average website.
Personally, I hope the rest of you will wake up soon. We don't need this - we specifically don't need this from a player as big as Google. On the contrary, if Google does this we really need Google to become a whole lot smaller.
We need to actively encourage more competition in the SE area right now!
IncrediBill tapped:
"Maybe by Sunday I can write coherent paragraphs again and will post an anti-GWA manifest :)"
Look forward to, it Bill.
Send the tab to GG, his bonus should just about cover it.
*Health Warning*: Reading WebmasterWorld can seriously damage Bill's Liver + Wallet
Those MSN and Y! search bods must be loving this thread.
This as well as the scanning of private messages so they can know which adds to pitch at you. Storing everything electronic bit of data about you for life, and the desktop search? I'm sure the days are not far off when I go to open an excel file with my business projections and I see adwords in there slinging accounting services.
Google is really starting to creep me out. They need to stop getting a pass on all these invasions of freedom and personal privacy just becuase they do things with a smile.
-----------------------------------------
Header always set Pragma no-cache
Header always set Cache-Control private
Header always append Cache-Control no-cache
Header always append Cache-Control no-store
-----------------------------------------
These headers will disable all caching of your pages for User-Agents that respect the HTTP specs, so if that's not what you want, don't use them.
More info: mod_headers [httpd.apache.org], and RFC 2616, section 14.9 [w3.org]
[edited by: claus at 2:35 pm (utc) on May 7, 2005]
me:
Huh?
[informationweek.com...]
"Privacy advocates, however, expressed concern over storing people's web browsing activities. Such information could be subpoenaed later by law enforcement agencies investigating criminal cases or by lawyers in civil cases.
"Google promises never to rent or sell the information to third parties, but it's still subject to handing over information through the subpoena process," Kurt Opsahl, staff lawyer at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a privacy-rights group in San Francisco, said."
Yeah, if the server belongs to you.
Not recommended for virtual hosts.
Just tried to insert the headers from my message above on two different sites. It didn't work, it only gave "500 internal server error" errors. I tried both on Apache 1.33 and Apache 2.0.
I'm not sure what i did wrong, but i thought i would tell you all that those rules give errors as they are. So, don't try that at home.
Perhaps someone more experienced in Apache headers can tell what's wrong?
Added: Philaweb - you're right, both were virtual. You know what went wrong?
Yes. Sysadmin has not permitted individual HTTP settings of virtual hosts. Default is according to the httpd.conf settings of the server.
However, several problems arrising from Google's newest programmes and tools have given rise to the fact that there is little to no room left on the web for "mom & pop" webmasters such as myself.
What you are all talking about doing is Greek to me. Not only do I not understand what some have suggested as a means of blocking the web accelerator, but I have no interest in learning such things.
I do not want my photos cached by Google so that others can steal them (bypassing my site) and linking directly to Google's cache ... only to have Google turn around and credit the thief's site with my images!
The whole redirect business is something I can't wrap my head around and there are many other issues I just don't get.
So, as of today, I have decided that I will have to put my site in the hands of a professional who does know what they are doing!
Oddly enough, all these things are creating new work avenues for capable webmasters, so I woud think you would all be happy that folks like me are finally throwing in the towel!
My site is out for tender ... but no, I am not interested in SEO, package deals, hosting or anything else. I just want the following things stopped.
Sticky mail me if you want some work fixing my site to prevent prefetching, preventing cacheing of my photos and other images and writing a new form so that my e:mail address stops getting spammed!
