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.
I have decided not to block the Accellerator.
A person that decides to install the AW, also decides to share browser informations to some extent with Google. This eventually means that Google decides what the end user sees on his monitor - be it a live version of the page or a cached version from either the AW buffer cache or the Google prefetch server cache.
It is entirely a Google decision whether to override 403 error messages and serve a cached version in its place. The cached version could in theory be taken from another users AW buffer cache, since AW theoretically has two ports open for operation.
In my point of view, the Google Accellerator is not about saving time, that is just the sales gimmick, the Google Accellerator is about creating a Googlenet prior to Microsoft creating their own net.
Now, if you could suggest to your engineers a way of either opting in or out of this Googlenet, it would be much appreciated.
GoogleGuy ....Good afternoonAfter reading WA privacy statement (bellow), I wish to ask you:
Does WA honor the contents of publishers who exclude Googglebot (through robots.txt) and don´t wish neither to be indexed in Google nor to share their sites or their visitors information with Google?
GoogleGuy:
DoppyNL and philaweb, I'll pass this on, and I appreciate the feedback.
Did Google take it offline? for whatever reasons?
Thanks
"or their visitors information with Google? "
I'll ask your other questions as well, but I'd ask people to give it a little time before jumping to a conclusion that the accelerator is bad for your sites--it's been less than two days since the Labs demo was put up.
GoogleGuy. You really expect me to hang around and watch the damage being caused? I analysed what the app was doing and did some thorough testing.
Once discovering how badly written it is, I had to jump on the phone to my clients and tell them not to download it because it will delete pages on their web site if they use DA with the Content Management System they have.
You really expect me to sit around for a week or so and let that happen? How do you think they would react to that? It certainly won't improve business that's for sure.
Or would you prefer me to wait for it to happen and inform them that I had taken the advice of a Google employee and they should seek damages from them?
You also expect me to happily sit by knowing that one of my eCommerce sites doesn't work properly with the DA!
Can I please suggest that the next time Google opens pandora's box and releases its contents on the Internet, that they do a bit of open consultation beforehand?
By the way, I've been scouring through the HTTP docs all day and I still can't find anything that would give the impression that it's okay to ignore robots.txt unless there's a question mark in the URI. Any chance you could get the guy that passed you this information to be a bit more specific?
AdBehaveWordstm News In this issue: New Features: Expand your market reach with behavior targeting. What is this: Now thanks to our really-smart data mining algorithms you can display your ads to users who might subconsciously be interested in your products. Consider the following example: Our research has shown that with %73 CF (confidence factor) users browsing automobile related sites are actually looking to buy a toothpaste; so by selecting this option your toothpaste ad will be displayed to automobile website surfers. And the good news is that you not only do not have to think about these ARs (association rules; our algo does everything) but also your CPC will be discounted by the automatically determined CF. Of course as usual we only let ARs with min.Support of %90 to engage automatically. If for branding purposes you are interested in min.Support of less than %90, your account manager would be more than happy to assist you with that.
April 2006
AdBehaveWords
You might jest; but i'd love to be able to buy AdWords on $keyword where the user is known to be interested in $industry (perhaps as well defined as by having visited $site in the past).
At the moment, there is a particular keyword that I would like to target, but I can't, because it is mainly used in searches relating to a completely different industry, and so I can't get CTR on it at all.
The question is at what cost? overloading the web, breaking sites, total disrespect to user's privacy?
It's like if I build a tool tomorrow to earn webmasters few more pennies but at the end, steal their wires.
Reseller: "Who knows who will be the next Jim to lead us all as publishers in our fight for privacy and control of our own contents."
Yep, you got it, that was my reason for thanking Bill, Brett and Claus for giving us publishers the code to block this dreadful invention so quickly.
GG says it's only been wild for two days, and I've had it blocked for both of them thanks to WebmasterWorld.
Hey IncrediBill: Where's your redirect code and G WA tutorial?
Give us the tools and we'll finish the job.
I reckon it's a very good time to sell G stock.
Once discovering how badly written it is, I had to jump on the phone to my clients and tell them not to download it because it will delete pages on their web site if they use DA with the Content Management System they have.
I've been scouring through the HTTP docs all day and I still can't find anything that would give the impression that it's okay to ignore robots.txt unless there's a question mark in the URI.
If you've been scouring through the HTTP docs, you would know that:
In particular, the convention has been established that the GET and
HEAD methods SHOULD NOT have the significance of taking an action
other than retrieval.
PS, robots.txt is for robots, not proxies.
I suspect that there will be MANY people who disagree with your company line if this catches on.
[edited by: davidgautier at 7:02 pm (utc) on May 6, 2005]
User comes into the page with the WA… the WA automatically adds Google Ad Links to the page on selected keywords that it thinks the user is interested in.
If they could tie it into the Adsense account of the page and share the profit… it wouldn’t be such a bad idea… but if they started monetizing my page content without giving me any return… then bad things, very bad things.
It's a metaphor.
In general I don't think that's true, especially if you turn off referrers in your browser. Please see [desktop.google.com...]
webmasters can choose to just ignore prefetch requests if they so choose.
GG, this is not specific enough. Please define "ignore". IMO the logical thing to do is to send a 403, but that's not acceptable if there's a chance the end user will be shown that same error.
If you mean rejecting the request outright, please suggest a mechanism to do that. I specifically asked about this here and the only method proposed was based on IP address (obviously not an ideal solution).
FWIW, I don't have a bandwidth problem and don't intend to block prefetching unless it causes problems. My main concern is that I specifically bar robots from executing scripts in my /cgi-bin/ and /scripts/ directories, because of server load issues, not to mention unexpected and undesirable results in some cases.
I just read few days ago somewhere, maybe it was at SEW, it is DEFAULT to send info out, not the other way around.
