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.
"Yeah, if the server belongs to you.
Not recommended for virtual hosts. "
In any HTML document you can use this code:
<meta http-equiv="Pragma" content="no-cache">
But, the User-Agent can be set to override this code.
First I had my /etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf this way:
#LoadModule headers_module modules/mod_headers.so
In other words, this module was commented out. I put this in the .htaccess of one domain:
Header set Cache-Control private
and I got an internal server error.
Then I uncommented the LoadModule line above, and did a httpd restart. Now it works -- I can see this coming out now in the headers of that domain:
Cache-Control: private
But you know what? Even though I'll do it this way for my cgi-bin directories because it's a good general practice, I'm still going to block WA because it makes me feel good.
Marissa Mayer said that that click-stream data from Web Accelerator is not associated with the computer's cookie. "To date, we're not doing anything with this data in terms of market research. We have no plans, but should that change we would aggressively notify our users and give them some escape hatch," Mayer said.
Yeah, okay. Is there a serial number in WA that's sent to Google in the URL? I gotta know and I cannot install this thing with my hardware!
Can someone post or sticky me a URL from WA to the Googleplex that was grabbed from a sniffer? I suspect there's a serial number in it, or else Google would have a hard time keeping track of who has what cookie. If there's a serial number, then it's already been linked to your cookie ID -- even if they're using a static IP address at the plex for WA, they got your cookie when you first downloaded it.
If WA causes problems with your site, then it is not WA that is breaking it. Your site is already broken. Fix your site.
And again, Google decides to launch a new spyware program as a "benefit," and i'm the one at fault because I haven't hacked my site to block them yet?
BigDave:
Accusing someone of Evil for making a tool is not reasonable.
Obviously, it's not the true definition of the word "evil," as I explained in previous posts. BUT, they are "doing evil" according to the definition that they have, themselves, adopted for it.
And last, it doesn't freakin' matter if it's evil or not anyway. When you are as large as Google, have as much market share as they do, you simply can't release products that has this many unintended consequences.
[news.com.com...]
"Google's Mayer said the Web Accelerator is not a market research tool. Rather, the company built the application to give people the same fast experience they have at Google--most search pages are returned in a fraction of a second--while surfing the Web at large."
I'm glad people are waking up. NO matter who does it, whether Google, MFST, Claria or Yahoo, it's just wrong. Don't assume because X does it's ok.
... 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
OK, then I am happy (our dynamic pages are all Cache-control: no-cache). I still wish we could opt out of prefetch without having to send a 403 to any and all prefetch requests.
Do I agree with their implementation - NO.
Do I believe they are intentionally trying to break sites - NO.
Do I believe they are intentionally trying to make site owners pay more money for bandwidth - NO.
Do I believe they are intentionally trying to skew site owners traffic logs - NO.
Do I believe they are intentionally trying rob affiliates of their money - NO.
Do I believe they were intentionally trying give site rippers another avenue with a fast proxy service - NO.
Just so happens to be what it does. It is a poor product that should not of even been shown to anyone outside the plex until it was thought out and tested. I have blocked it from being used on my sites, but to each their own.
There isn't any need to jump on GoogleGuy, he didn't create or release it. I doubt I would even reply if I was in his shoes as there's not a whole lot he can do except relay messages. They would be better off putting a feedback form on the webaccelerator page, and let people submit their problems. It would at least give GG a break and let him enjoy the weekend a bit ;)
I still wish we could opt out of prefetch without having to send a 403 to any and all prefetch requests.
You can send them to whatever page you want to using mod_rewrite.
0. turn on the WA
1. go to any web site that you are a member of
2. and their login is NOT https but HTTP (like this very prestigious forum)
3. and then enter your password and ID.
I mean if you haven already done this :-)
They would be better off putting a feedback form on the webaccelerator page, and let people submit their problems.They have
Amen
Uh, no. How big do you want the monster to grow?
I absolutely hate this, and I'm on the side of Claus and the others who see absolutely no benefit (except to Google) and a LOT of potential negatives.
As for 'surfer habits', am I going to be penalized because my site is laid out BETTER than my competitors? A customer can come to my site and find what they want within 2 clicks or 30 seconds. On another site, they'll be spending more time and/or viewing more pages. Is my site going to be penalized for being EFFECIENT?
No way to opt-out of something we don't believe in. Try to block it, and there's a better than average chance your site will disappear from the Google index completely, or at least be, uh, 'penalized'.
Like Claus mentioned in his Hotel California analogy - 'You can checkout any time you like, but you can never leave'.
In the 8 years I've been doing this, I've seen Search Engines do many things I don't agree with, but this tops it all.
I am seriously considering making a call Monday to let them know I'm pulling all Adwords advertising and will not give them another dime if they continue on with this. The only thing that will get their attention is $$$.
Since all the politicians are right now 'supposedly' fighting for everyone's privacy rights, I wonder if any of them actually understand the negative possibilities of this thing?
Try to block it, and there's a better than average chance your site will disappear from the Google index completely, or at least be, uh, 'penalized'.is pure conjecture on your part and you are passing it off as fact. There is also no proof at this time that it will have any influence on search results, but I wouldn't be against that. Human use of a link is a good way to determine how much of a vote the webmaster (of the page the link is on) wants to give.
The 'fact' is we don't know what's going to happen. We don't know how they're going to use this. We don't know what other companies will 'copy' the idea and what they will do with it.
We've got about 400 posts dealing with potential negatives. And many of those are VERY valid arguments against it.
In business, I prefer to head off problems before they start. Unable to do that, I prefer to catch something and deal with it while it's small, before it gets out of hand.
If this thing catches on, and any of the negatives are indeed true, then what?
0. turn on the WA
1. go to any web site that you are a member of
2. and their login is NOT https but HTTP (like this very prestigious forum)
3. and then enter your password and ID.
Powdork in response to Leo...
That doesn't work for all of us. Or, maybe, it does work for some of us. Anyway, my access to this site hasn't been affected when using it. At least as far as I can tell.
I believe Leo's point was not about access to forums in general or WW in particular. It was that there are forms everywhere that are sent in plain text. How many forms will we have to fill out before Google knows quite a bit? (If that wasn't your point, Leo, my apologoies... I'll claim it, myself.)
From their WA privacy policy...
Page requests and data sent in encrypted form using an HTTPS connection will not go through Google. It is possible that some personally identifiable information could be sent to Google, if the information is sent without using an encrypted (HTTPS) connection.
It is possible? Huh? Not clear at all. Seems like a yes or no thing to me, on regular form input being collected and stored.
So in effect then a customer fills out detail about a widgets order on my site, wants 50 orders of X and 50 of Y then pays on HTTPS when he enters his visa, the concencus is that Google will know everything about the order, the customer, frequency of the order etc only bit missing will be his credit card number from the https payment side?.
If this is the case its time to kill big brother now. This is a step to far.
The web host news.google.com is not accessible.
Possible sources of this error:
* The host name is invalid
* There was a DNS error
* The web site may be unavailable
* You may not be connected to the internet
Please edit the URL, or search for it using Google.
Google Web Accelerator version 0.2.52.65-pintail.a
Windows XP 5.1
So in effect then a customer fills out detail <snip> that Google will know everything about the order, the customer, frequency of the order etc
Yup.
What's more, thanks to PRE-FETCH, as the customer may mouse over a few "add to order" buttons or links while surfing your store it has been reported that Google puts them in your cart without your action! Imagine the customer hysteria over "my cart had someone else's items in it, your site is not secure!" and the resulting lost sales.
Thanks Google! ;)
News.Google.com is down
