Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
Today we're helping people get better search results by extending Personalized Search to signed-out users worldwide
That's a staggering statement meaning that every computer accessing Google is now being personalized, signed in or not, so any desktop, laptop or kiosk will start tracking everything everyone does and you won't be able to access the same search results from any two machines.
The possible impact to all is staggering.
In the UK Google have to comply with the Data Protection Act. If we all write to them and ask them to provide a copy of the information they hold on each of us they must provide a copy of it.
They will probably say that Google U.K. Ltd. does not store any data about you at all (as the data is stored by Google, Inc. in Mountain View, California). This leads nowhere.
Does anyone know what Google's current policy is about anonymizing their log data? The last statement I remember is from 2008:
Previously, we kept this data for as long as it was useful. Today we're pleased to report a change in our privacy policy: Unless we're legally required to retain log data for longer, we will anonymize our server logs after a limited period of time. When we implement this policy change in the coming months, we will continue to keep server log data (so that we can improve Google's services and protect them from security and other abuses)—but will make this data much more anonymous, so that it can no longer be identified with individual users, after 18-24 months...Update (April 2008:) After the explanation above concerning our decision to anonymize our server logs after 18-24 months, we subsequently decided on 18 months
Official Google Blog [googleblog.blogspot.com]
Following the links in that blog post you can find other public statements from Google about data retention and privacy. I'm all for getting specific about the current situation and knowing what Google has told us - we can and should hold them to those public assurances, at a minimum. Also see:
1. Google's Privacy Center [google.com] for details about the current privacy policies in 42 of Google's products and services.
2. Our discussion of Google's Dashboard [webmasterworld.com] - the one-stop-shop that Google released in November for working with your personal privacy information across many products.
I can't quite see that happening. Google's been serving personalized results for logged in users for quite a while and nothing even close has been seen so far. If things did go that way, Google would VERY rapidly lose market share. It's sure that other search engines would not make the same mistake and they'd be happy to serve the refugees!
They will probably say that Google U.K. Ltd. does not store any data about you at all (as the data is stored by Google, Inc. in Mountain View, California). This leads nowhere.
Exactly, these people (Gorg) and other corporates spend unimaginable amounts of money on the very best lawyers all over the world in order to be able to do whatever they want when they want.
The only thing that will hurt the G-brand is a boycott of the product, and funnily enough I still can't bring myself to do this. Why not I wonder?
The only thing that will hurt the G-brand is a boycott of the product, and funnily enough I still can't bring myself to do this. Why not I wonder?
If nothing else, it can be a quite interesting experience. I've been on Google de-tox for a while now, and think it's positive.
1) Go get a Firefox browser.
2) Make Bing your default search engine (top right).
3) Disable all the Google default settings (which takes some work) and have Cookies deleted when you close the browser.
4) Go look for a popular Ad Blocker in the mozilla.org plugins.
5) Customize that Ad Blocker to block anything (images, scripts) from doubleclick, googlesyndication, and google-analytics.
Then comes the difficult part - when ever you want to search something, you need to overcome the reflex of wanting to type in Google's address [yes, it's THAT bad]. Use Google ONLY if you are getting nowhere with the alternatives. This will be difficult at first, but it can be done.
Within a week or two, you will be pretty much de-toxed from Google.
Each time I log back in my logged out preferences change. Each time I use gmail I have to log out, go back to Web History and disable it again! How are you guys getting Google to permanently disable your logged out preferences? Or is the system designed with this nag level to ensure I eventually give up?
On a different matter, is anyone using a service such as TrackMeNot [mrl.nyu.edu]? If enough of us use such a muddying-Google's-water service won't that have an impact?
If you really have the time: A Tack in the Shoe: Neutralizing and Resisting the New Surveillance [web.mit.edu] - from 2003 and before Google's tentacles got this long.
I have not used TrackMeNot, but another ad blocker (look for the most popular ad blocker at mozilla.org) that lets you even see all blockable items for each page. A true eye-opener.
"binging" something doesn't have the same ring to it :P
Actually, I like it better. I've heard people tell someone to "Bing it" which is actually easier to say, and the person they were speaking to understood, so I think it's catching on.
I've been using Bing, and I'm actually finding sites I never knew about that I really like. They either aren't listed in Google, or they are buried, and I can't imagine why.
"...They're dynamite real estate from now on."
Wondering?
Elaboration please.
Just to reiterate, I am no more concerned about Privacy today than I was last week. Which is to say, about as concerned as most of you appear to be now. Using data in a helpful way (for users) is at least a benign reason for collecting it. The reason I welcome this development is that end users will have the evidence of data collection shoved in their face.
The argument that "people will only have their on prejudices reinforced" doesn't wash, either. I'd rather the close-minded were left in their own little world, than the open-minded be subjected to carefully sifted propaganda that would subtely shape their opinions. Not that Google do this, but they could.
Which brings me to "Utopian". I'd be far more concerbed about faceless individuals subverting the indexing and ranking processes to their own end, than I would be about a centralised corporation that at least has shareholder oversight.
I mean, if someone took it upon themselves to start deleting all "Big Bang" pages from their local index, a proportion of searchers would no longer find it. Think of the damage a militant, organised group could do for their own vested interest.
There was a project not long ago in the UK where a group was encouraging the exchange of store loyalty cards. The theory was that if the stores suddenly found grannies buying ten packs of condoms every weekend, city workers buying saddles on Wednesdays and students buying nappies during the morning (instead of attending classes) ... it would cause a great deal of havoc and potentially cause the stores to scrap their tracking. I don't know what came of that but if anyone has a link...
It's been my default browser for years and is very easily customisable with no plug-ins required, in fact the latest version is absolutely fantastic and I've converted many people to it recently since it's so much easier for them than it used to be plus it seems to render even badly coded pages well now!
They will probably say that Google U.K. Ltd. does not store any data about you at all (as the data is stored by Google, Inc. in Mountain View, California). This leads nowhere.
The data is collected in the UK. Google U.K. Ltd is registered as a Data Controller and the Data Protection Act applies.
Where it leads is to adverse publicity. Google can't easily be stopped, by legislation, from using the data it holds on each of us but the brand can be damaged if this becomes a news item. Adverse publicity is Google's biggest threat.
Cheers
Sid
That's a good example of the pinch that various laws put on search engines. Some countries require a certain minimum time for data retention and others say remove it if the person requests it. We really do need international standards, don't we?...and...
They will probably say that Google U.K. Ltd. does not store any data about you at all (as the data is stored by Google, Inc. in Mountain View, California).
Here's an example: Let's say that it's illegal for the CIA to listen in on the phone conversations of a USA citizen without a special warrant, which in all likelihood they cannot get from a court (for one thing, they don't want their fingerprints on the case, which would happen in a formal request). But let's also say that it's not illegal for the Brits to listen in -- even without the special warrant -- on the grounds that the information gathered is for the protection of the UK. So, the Brits listen in, then share the intelligence gathered with the CIA, which allows them (the CIA) to say that they did not break the law. From my own research, this is very common.
My point is this -- it is up to the data gathering organization to put up the roadblocks, which in the case of this discussion, means for Google to not gather anything more than is absolutely necessary to do their job. I do not design or work for search engines, but even so, I can't see why they need my history to give me the best possible SERPs based on my current query. To me, it's counter-intuitive. They are doing this because in today's world personal information is as good as gold. All the other explanations are smokescreens. Personal information is valuable, which means more money, and that in-and-of-itself is the motivating force -- privacy be damned.
ps. I just now got a message from Google that says "At Google we believe information is the key to success...".
Ha, the universe has a sense of ironic humor!
.................................
I do not need to see ads for electronic thermostats, heating/air conditioning systems, air filters, or the like. I've already purchased all that, and won't be interested in such things for a very long time.
Meanwhile, my interests have now changed to Christmas gifts, and since the ads are about thermostats, I'm not seeing ads for cameras, books, etc., which is what my current interest is. There's no way Google can know that. How many ads will be wasted before they figure it out?
I still think if someone is on a sewing site, chances are they are interested in sewing things, not the acrylic paints they searched for yesterday and have already purchased. They are done with that for now. Just because I searched for thermostat information yesterday, doesn't mean I want to see it today while I'm on an automotive site.
To me, the real issue with this is for one, yes, how it will affect the position of my business in a search. When I look at "similar" results for my shop, what I see doesn't look very similar to me. I wonder if this is the same algorithm they are going to use to provide personalized results. It's like a certain movie distributor's choices for me. If you like this intellectual movie about a historical murder, then surely you will want to watch this teen movie about a town of cannibals. I mean, they're both about killing, right? So there's that.
There's the fundamental logical error that what you want to find is what you have found already. I do a lot of research online, and it's nice to dig and dig and come across those weird little site in Romania or somewhere that has EXACTLY the information I was looking for. This seems to me to mean that finding those little nuggets of goodness is going to be really hard. Seems like it means more homogenization. How it will be possible to get around that I have no idea. But using Bing as an solution to any of these issues? Ha.
for example, if google can work out that you support Manchester United, from all the Man Und sites you visit, and then you visit a general football site, or a sports site, then it would make sense to change all the ads to Man Utd ones, because they are related to the site you are visiting.
but personalised search is a different kettle of fish. because you are telling google want you want. they already know what you want to see. how does merging your new query into one you made a few days ago make it better?
they can't put up Man Utd websites when the user searches for sport sites, because if he wanted Man Utd sites that's what he would have searched for in the first place.
[edited by: oddsod at 3:54 pm (utc) on Dec. 8, 2009]
but personalised search is a different kettle of fish. because you are telling google want you want. they already know what you want to see. how does merging your new query into one you made a few days ago make it better?
Depends on how it's implemented. If personalized search is just a weighting factor (along with many others), it could be useful. For example, when I'm searching on "hotel whatsit," I have no interest in seeing booking pages at OTA or affiliate sites. I want to see the Hotel Whatsit's Web site (whose URL may not be as obvious as "hotelwhatsit.com") and maybe some hotel reviews. If Google can discern, over time, that I'm more interested in hotel sites and hotel reviews than in booking pages when I'm searching on a phrase with the word "hotel," I'll see more of those and fewer pages from sites like cheap-hotels-in-elbonia.com. That may not be good news for cheap-hotels-in-elbonia.com, but it will improve the quality of my search experience and keep me happy with the search engine.
If, on the other hand, personalized search becomes nothing more than a bookmarking utility dressed up as a search engine, it won't please me and I'll do my searching somewhere else.
.....thats what I thought ;)
Remember when this forum was ablaze with flames against Universal Search? Members were complaining that searchers had to wade through YouTube videos, maps, and other clutter on a SERP before reaching the Web search results.
With personalization, Google should be able to configure Universal Search pages based on the searcher's habits. If Joe User never clicks on business listings, YouTube videos, or Google News stories when using Web search, then it's reasonable to assume that Google will serve fewer such results to him as it learns his preferences (not unlike the menus in Microsoft Word that learn which features a Word owner actually uses).
If Joe User never clicks on business listings, YouTube videos, or Google News stories when using Web search, then it's reasonable to assume that Google will serve fewer such results to him
And pigs might fly fly over the plex towing adwords on ripsilk banners..
accept and embrace Gorgs default optin personalised search .so as to avoid Gorg products in and around serps..
and the more I use Microsoft products ..the more open source will come out of redmond ..
some of us are obviously not posting from planet earth ..and it aint me
[edited by: Leosghost at 5:15 pm (utc) on Dec. 8, 2009]
If Joe User never clicks on business listings, YouTube videos, or Google News stories when using Web search, then it's reasonable to assume that Google will serve fewer such results to him
doubt it. google is trying to increase their product's exposure.
they aren't going to suddenly start taking them off and increase the visibility of the non money-making links in the serps.
they aren't going to suddenly start taking them off and increase the visibility of the non money-making links in the serps.
In my admittedly informal testing (using my logged-in account on one computer and non-personalized search on a brand-new laptop), I've noticed less "clutter" on the personalized SERPs than on the non-personalized SERPs. So I'm inclined to think that user preferences are taken into account.
It's worth noting, too, that Google historically has been willing to sacrifice short-term profits in its pursuit of long-term goals. Unlike Inktomi/Yahoo, for example, Google eschewed PFI, and over the years, Google's AdWords/AdSense operation has introduced smart pricing (which reduces Google's earnings per click), has closed accounts of click arbitrageurs (which cuts ad revenues in the short term), and has tightened its definition of a "valid click" (which has an obvious impact on revenues). So, based on history, I'd guess that Google isn't interested in compromising the user experience for its core product and cash cow (Google Search) just to get more people looking at YouTube, Google Earth, or Product Search results.
In my admittedly informal testing (using my logged-in account on one computer and non-personalized search on a brand-new laptop), I've noticed less "clutter" on the personalized SERPs than on the non-personalized SERPs. So I'm inclined to think that user preferences are taken into account.
And I have found the precise opposite ..the only "refinement" if one can call it that is the smaller adwords users are less evident ..the shopping site ads are back to the "get your dead popes" here level of "quality"..and Gorg insists on leading me up total blind alleys ( with evermore inaccurate guesses of my searches ..but evermore insistence based upon their interpretation of previous ones ) but anyway larding the serps ( to the tune of 40% or more of each serp page ) with youtube , gorgnews, images from gorg ..and half of the rest are B2B directories ( with sign up to see ) sites or outright spammers ..and trademark abusers ..
"Personalised search blocked" mode however has less gorg product ( athough still some ) ..and the same very restricted ( but "dead pope" spammy ) range of Gorg approved adwords shopzillas, ebays and leprixmoinscher ( the latter apparently can guarantee that they have the cheapest planet pluto,marsupials,and snotballs or whatever the search term is you type ) ..don't know what they call themselves in the USA..but Gorg love their QS ..and in personalised mode they think that so do I.
they fade out after page 2 in "personalised search blocked mode" ..with personalised search not blocked they just keep coming ..they are omnipresent .."click me" or your dog will die and your house will catch fire ..
[edited by: Leosghost at 6:32 pm (utc) on Dec. 8, 2009]
LOL Leosghost!. I had to check it out, and sure enough, I too can, "Find Dead Popes at Great Prices."
Well, some people do collect saints' relics. Got any bones in your attic? :-)
Seriously, though, personalized search is likely to evolve (just as other aspects of the Google search experience have evolved), so it's probably a bit early to draw conclusions about how well or badly it will perform over the long haul. We'll just have to wait and see.
Back to the privacy issue, which has been a major topic of this thread:
Google's personalized search is only one small aspect of the privacy issue, both on and off the Web. Since Webmaster World is specifically about the Web, let's explore two possibilities that would have a huge (and beneficial) impact on privacy, albeit with some sacrifice of user convenience:
1) Ban cookies outright. Or, more practically...
2) Require a window or page to appear whenever a site tries to plant a tracking cookie for any reason. The user would be told "This site wants to store a tracking file on your computer," along with a message that explained why, e.g.:
"The tracking file will be stored on your computer indefinitely and used to personalize Google search results based on your search history and habits. We will not use any stored tracking data for other purposes or share it willingly with outside organizations, although it could be made available to law-enforcement agencies in the event of a court order.
"May we store the tracking file on your computer? [ ] Yes [ ] No"
or:
"This tracking file will be stored on your computer for 45 days. If you make a purchase from us during that time, a commission will be paid to the site that referred you. We will not use any stored tracking data for other purposes or share it willingly with outside organizations, although it could be made available to law-enforcement agencies in the event of a court order.
"May we store the tracking file on your computer? [ ] Yes [ ] No"
What do you think? Wouldn't this be more effective in securing privacy for Web users than simply trying to hobble Google would be?
"Find Dead Popes at Great Prices."
Gee, I was half afraid to even type in this query for fear that somehow that data were be interpreted as wanting the Pope dead
and the information would be sent to the "appropriate" intelligence agencies.
Using a different noun other than "Pope" WOULD DO EXACTLY THAT!
