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.
Using a different noun other than "Pope" WOULD DO EXACTLY THAT!
;)
Require a window or page to appear whenever a site tries to plant a tracking cookie for any reason.
.......................
it got to be a real pain after awhile because there are SO MANY cookies coming at you ALL the time.
Yes, the number of cookies that get planted these days is phenomenal. Still, if the warning had a "[ ] Don't show this message again" option, as browser warning messages often do, users who didn't care about cookies could opt out of future warnings with a single mouse click. And at least they'd have been made aware of tracking files (a better term for laymen than "cookies") instead of having to discover them by clicking on a tiny "Privacy Policy" link in a page footer somewhere.
Require a window or page to appear whenever a site tries to plant a tracking cookie for any reason.
This has always been a great feature in Opera and very easy to switch on and off. My default browser is Opera however I use Firefox for those sites which insist on a cookie when I use them, once finished I go straight back to Opera.
After a while it becomes totally second nature...just like typing bing.com instead:-)
If you're listening, Google (and you sure as heck should be listening right now), YOU NEED TO PROVIDE A SIMPLE & OBVIOUS WAY for users to SWITCH OFF personalization. I believe Tedster is right on target: That you can program something doesn't mean that you should.
Ahh there it is.
bing.com
My cable company is developing a head-end-based DVR database to accomplish just that. I really think Google is looking to do the same.
And, by the way, I'm sure 99 % of all users won't even realize that Personalization is turned on by default. It's really only those who make their living on the Internet, that care about this infringement.
I'm sure 99 % of all users won't even realize that Personalization is turned on by default. It's really only those who make their living on the Internet, that care about this infringement.
Why would that be? Self-interest, perhaps? Given the number of tracking cookies that I see in my browser, I'd guess that most people who make a living on the Internet would rather impinge on my privacy than protect it. I don't plant tracking cookies myself (my site doesn't even have a way to serve cookies), but my ad networks do, my affiliate partners do, and for all I know, maybe my hosting service does.
Who invented the cookie, anyway? That person has a lot to answer for. :-)
I wonder if J. F. Cookie is getting any residuals from Google, for his patented technology :)
I'm sure 99 % of all users won't even realize that Personalization is turned on by default. It's really only those who make their living on the Internet, that care about this infringement.
no-one wants default opt in tracking .. no matter whoever is doing it ..thats what everyone says and has said every time they've been asked ..
so now those who are doing it dont tell them ..
and then say there are no complaints so the people are either happy or dont care ..
******
that's right up there with no-one want's polluted water ..
so we wont tell them it's polluted ..
so they must be happy with polluted water ..
because no-one is complaining ..
doublespeak unlogic at it's finest ..
Do I make sense?
There's a pretty good list on Wikipedia:
[en.wikipedia.org...]
See also* Google Ventures
* Mergers and acquisitions
* List of acquisitions by Yahoo!
* List of companies acquired by Microsoft Corporation
Nothing new... on the West.
All that use AdWords, if you're checking on changes in organic results, see also if there are any changes in conversion, volume, etc. on PPC side.
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place," Schmidt tells CNBC, sparking howls of incredulity from the likes of Gawker.
[theregister.co.uk...]
Oh, well. At least we know where Google stands.
Do you mind telling us what was discussed at the always private, highly secretive, and HEAVILY ARMED Bilderberg meetings you've attended?
All about DISCLOSURE and TRANSPARENCY eh?
Big Brother Gorg the moral police, as well now?
That statement says it all.
Told you this guy fears no consequences and so he arrogantly speak his real thoughts
(see other threads about Eric's thoughts of the "future of Gorg")
As always, I wonder what the Employees at GOOG think about his comments
or are they all just under the "simply following orders" mindset, as well?!
On the one hand this change has potentially made the task of transitioning those stalwart clients over to traffic based KPI's and on the other hand it has opened a Pandoras Box of questions.
1. How important now is the first click?
2. What impact does this have on webmasters and site owners that don't have robust generic term coverage with this change?
3. Are back clicks to SERPS pages being evaluated in the personalisation filters?
4. What protections are there against distributed malware targeting personalisation 'triggers' to force results?
Lastly, I am not legally trained at all but would have thought that the personalisation as opt-out is surely against privacy laws in the European Union?
I am not legally trained at all but would have thought that the personalisation as opt-out is surely against privacy laws in the European Union?
It is ..illegal in the European Union..
And as a side note ..today ..French President Mr Nicolas Sarkozy has personally told them on prime time TV what they can do with gorgbooks :)))
Translating from his speech .."They do not respect the rights of publishers nor authors ..it's not just because it's cute ,it's google or it's American that it is a good idea ..I am definitely not in favour of google books scanning any of our national or university archives ..our literary heritage is not up for grabs" ..
the word he used for "cute" ( "chouette" ) can also be translated as "cool" used with heavy irony in the context he used it ..francophones will get the nuance..
[edited by: Leosghost at 12:03 am (utc) on Dec. 9, 2009]
...it is “hard to imagine an issue that could imperil the trust Google has achieved as quickly as could privacy.” He adds: “One Google executive whispers, ‘Privacy is an atomic bomb. Our success is based on trust.’ ”If users, Mr. Auletta writes, “lost trust in Google, believed their private data was being exploited and shared with advertisers (or governments), the company regularly judged one of the world’s most trusted brands would commit suicide.”
Yep, says it all, and reaffirms, as we've been saying here, that privacy is not just relevant -- it's at the core.
..........................
You see Google are now in the business of NOT showing relevant result$$$$.
"Personalized search"...a darn poor excuse for greed and questionable power manipulation!
I just wished bing will realize the opportunity here and will start offering webmasters the bing search box with a proper paying affiliate program to go with it (webmasters world wide, just like google did with Adsense). Google will turn into Alta vista withing 1 year if they did.
Wake up Bing, Wake up Yahoo. This thing is easily "win-able" if you just start offering some proper incentives to webmasters to put your search box on thier pages. This is the TIME!
My 5 cents.
Do you mind telling us what was discussed at the always private, highly secretive, and HEAVILY ARMED Bilderberg meetings you've attended?
"...Data breaches and bloopers are drawing attention. Earlier this year, for instance, Google Inc. (GOOG) inadvertently released private information about a small number of people using its online search engine. Mobile wireless use is another concern, with wireless companies collecting 600 billion "data points" a day about their customers, including their physical location..."
Online-Privacy Protections Get Closer Scrutiny From FTC
Dow Jones, December 07, 2009: 04:36 PM ET
[money.cnn.com...]
...tomorrow's?
It is ..illegal in the European Union...
I find it difficult to believe that Google hasn't had personalized search vetted by its lawyers.
Moving on to more mundane matters: What are the cost and time constraints that might affect the degree to which search results are personalized? Are there practical limits to how much personalization can be applied to SERPs in terms of data storage and the time required to process a search query?
Lawyers dont decide what is legal or not judges do ..ours already have ..one of the relevant laws was posted earlier in this thread by dstiles ..IIRC
The UK is already in trouble with the EU over similar privacy laws that are already ratified ..and apply to Gorg ..the UK's partner in privacy violation was PHORM .
Microsoft thought it had checked with it's lawyers each time too ..
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place," Schmidt tells CNBC [...]
This is a truly disappointing statement.
I've read update threads and others before where there was a great deal of animosity, but usually, for every site or page removed there was one replacing it and even if there were more posts by the disgruntled there seemed to be more balance and usually a positive note to offset the negativity.
This is a totally different cup-o-tea, so to speak, and I really think they helped usher in the competition with implementation of this idea...
