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.
I have no problem with the privacy concerns, I have a problem with the worse search results.
I imagine that whether they're worse or better is in the eye of the beholder, but the concept behind personalized search certainly makes sense. The notion that a "one size fits all" search solution is practical on today's Web strikes me as being naive.
In 2008, this statement appeared in The Official Google Blog:
"We've known it for a long time: the web is big. The first Google index in 1998 already had 26 million pages, and by 2000 the Google index reached the one billion mark. Over the last eight years, we've seen a lot of big numbers about how much content is really out there. Recently, even our search engineers stopped in awe about just how big the web is these days -- when our systems that process links on the web to find new content hit a milestone: 1 trillion (as in 1,000,000,000,000) unique URLs on the web at once!"
That's a lot of pages--and those pages are being searched by an increasingly varied population of users, from academics to shoppers to children. It seems to me that personalizing search results based on a user's history is simply a way to increase the likelihood that the search results which are most relevant for that user will make it to the first page or two of that user's SERPs.
Obviously, personalized search isn't going to make everyone happy (SEOs have good reason to resist it, for example), and finding the sweet spot between maximum personalization and no personalization may take time. (Come to think of it, maybe Google should provide a personalization slider control that lets users choose that sweet spot themselves!) But the goal is reasonable, and the market will decide whether personalized search is a useful tool or an annoyance that encourages users to try other search engines.
I just visited a website that sells boots and from there visited a site about how to install a tile floor and the ads on the tile floor site were all ads for boots.
That's a behavioral targeted ad, and probably has nothing to do with Google. It is just as annoying however.
A few months ago, I stopped by the website of a "sciencey" religion that is popular with several famous Hollywood types. (My visit was purely out of curiosity from an article I had just read, I assure you). Their ads followed me everywhere for several weeks. It started out as amusing, but quickly became eerie.
.because he sure isn't telling you that he puts the cookie in thereunless you count mentioning it on an obscure blog on a friday ..as informing the worldwide public ..
Setting the cookie is far from new - only personalized results for logged out users is new. If we hope to deal effectively with this, we need to start from clarity about exactly what it is.
Personalizing search results does not mean Google is now collecting data that they weren't getting before, It only means they are using that data in a new situation.
Making anything opt-out instead of opt-in is not usually a good practice on the web -- it feels invasive. This includes things like already checked "send me email updates" boxes during a checkout process.
Google must feel that logged-out personalization will significantly improve quality, since they did it in a manner that was bound to set off strong reactions. I would not have guessed that to be true, but I'm not the average user, either.
I just visited a website that sells boots and from there visited a site about how to install a tile floor and the ads on the tile floor site were all ads for boots.
That's a behavioral targeted ad, and probably has nothing to do with Google.
If those ads were served by Google AdSense they could be part of Googles "Interest based ads" program. That's how it works.
personalizing search results based on a user's history is simply a way to increase the likelihood that the search results which are most relevantand
(SEOs have good reason to resist it [..] But the goal is reasonable
Hooray to Big G for forcing the democratic web upon us! /smirk
Unfortunately, whether elbonia5starpropertyexperts.com elboniaGLBThotels.com or cheapelboniaconsolidators.com shows up on page one depending on the searcher's previous queries and clicks (and may or may not be what the user was looking for at this specific moment in time) is irrelevant. Just like the SEO issue is beyond the point: content can always be repackaged to make it a better fit for a particular audience. Maybe expensive, but certainly possible.
The point is that Gorg forces this personalization on its users. Just trust Big Brother, 'cause he knows what is good for you...
Question for SJ, asked in the most respectful and least accusatory way possible: do you know any better than all other posters in this thread what "the goal" is? Care to share?
Edit: fixed typo
[...] we need to start from clarity about exactly what it is.Personalizing search results does not mean Google is now collecting data that they weren't getting before, It only means they are using that data in a new situation.
Tedster's comment needs to be underlined in red.
Question for SJ, asked in the most respectful and least accusatory way possible: do you know any better than all other posters in this thread what "the goal" is? Care to share?
Why not go directly to the horse's mouth [googleblog.blogspot.com], where Google states "Today we're helping people get better search results by extending Personalized Search to signed-out users worldwide" and "Now when you search using Google, we will be able to better provide you with the most relevant results possible"?
Is it really that hard to understand that Google (like many other companies) might view personalization as a way to improve its products and retain end users? (Burger King was advertising "Have it your way" back in 1974, so if anything, Google is late to the personalization party!)
Why not go directly to the horse's mouth
Cause the horse's mouth LIES! again, and again.
please argue this point so i can post link after link as proof...please
It only means they are using that data in a new situation.
.............................
Taken out of context much?
In the clip (http://gawker.com/5419271/google-ceo-secrets-are-for-filthy-people) you can clearly see that after the question has been asked, Eric Schmidt starts to respond as the sound is lowered and the voice over begins, then they cut to the "answer" CNBC wants you to hear.
Eric Schmidt, from what I have seen, tends to give long, open and descriptive answers that will often cover different angles and perspectives.
The media on the other hand, tend to cut out the angles that don't sell and feed us the perspectives that will.
Is the CNBC after a piece of Rupert Murdoch's FUDcake I wonder?
Cheers
James
Burger King was advertising "Have it your way" back in 1974, so if anything, Google is late to the personalization party!
At least Booger King gives you an option if you "want it your way" assuming you do.. Gorg is leading to the horse to water and pushing its head in it.
Taken out of context much?
OK, how about we look at their actions instead of words?
OK, how about we look at their actions instead of words?
Looking at both would probably be ideal.
Trying to keep it all in context and see the big picture, without all the FUD getting in the way may prove to be the challenging part.
With the amount of eyes constantly watching Google's every move, I would hope that if there ever were any "substantiated" claims about anything evil or concerning, they'll be raised and gain traction faster than a rat up a drainpipe.
I also hope that "unsubstantiated" claims and concerns, get knocked on the head just as quick.
Cheers
James
Millions upon millions have injected their queries into personalized search.
Their search pages are all very unique, some are similar but those are in the minority.
There is only one way to reach them all (in Google's world) in the near future and that's Adwords.
Gaining momentum in organic is going to be harder to do. Building an email list will be more expensive.
They accomplish 2 big goals. 1) It will take better and more unique content and resources to keep searchers interested instantly creating a better quality search experience. 2) Increases the Value of Adwords exponentially by the fact that it's the only portal to reach all users.
Making Goog investors very,very happy.
Ahhh Its good to be King!
[theregister.co.uk...]
As many have said, it's all too easy for the cookie collector to collect the wrong cookie at the wrong time for the wrong reason. And if little Johnnie searches for blue widgets on my laptop while I'm at work, I don't necessarily want to be hounded by blue widgets in my search results when I get home.
Fine, give a gmail user a chance to keep tabs of search history and have a "tailored experience" for a registered account. As for me, google, schmoogle.
Thanks for that link. I love the "Unwanted Opinion >> Wikipedia".
If anyone here has been around since the founding fathers of Google took the momentous step of introducing ads into SERPS will recognise the uproar that we are now hearing. Despite the cries of "foul play" that rung out then Google persisted with its plans to monetize the best search engine and now very few complain about the principal of having ads in results. We complain about specifics of what having ads actually means. Even though they are reminded that what they did makes what was said before a massive lie they just continue with their fingers in their ears going "la la la la la, I can' hear you".
I wouldn't be at all surprised if they are doing exactly the same now about this issue.
Is anyone hosting a Google logo parody competition anywhere?
Cheers
Sid
Burger King was advertising "Have it your way" back in 1974
A poor analogy. If Burger King were Google here's how it would break down...
You : "I didn't ask for extra pickles and no ketchup!"
BK : "Ah, but last time you came in you asked if it were possible to have extra pickles and no ketchup."
You : "Yeah, that was for someone else. I hate pickles and love ketchup."
BK : "Oh."
(Repeat for next 10-15 visits, until they finally get the message or you go to McDonalds)
A tip for those who don't want personalized search effecting their searching is to mix up the case of the keyword you are searching for.
If *keyword* is giving you personalized search, try searching for *keYword* instead which will give you normal results.
Obviously never click on a listing when searching for *keYword" as this may start triggering personalization again.
Web proxies can show some 'non-personalized' results..
Wouldn't it be simpler just to use another search engine?
Even if your objective is to check your rankings in non-personalized Google results, what's the point if Google intends to deliver personalized results to most users?
The response (a re-posted version of what was written in 2006) made me think that if things like that needed to be explained to a CEO of one of the most powerful companies in the world, there's something terribly wrong with that CEO and the corporate culture of the company he heads.
Privacy protects us from abuses by those in power, even if we're doing nothing wrong at the time of surveillance.We do nothing wrong when we make love or go to the bathroom. We are not deliberately hiding anything when we seek out private places for reflection or conversation. We keep private journals, sing in the privacy of the shower, and write letters to secret lovers and then burn them. Privacy is a basic human need.....
...
Too many wrongly characterize the debate as "security versus privacy." The real choice is liberty versus control.
Even if your objective is to check your rankings in non-personalized Google results, what's the point if Google intends to deliver personalized results to most users?
I imagine that whether they're worse or better is in the eye of the beholder, but the concept behind personalized search certainly makes sense. The notion that a "one size fits all" search solution is practical on today's Web strikes me as being naive.
Obviously, personalized search isn't going to make everyone happy (SEOs have good reason to resist it, for example), and finding the sweet spot between maximum personalization and no personalization may take time. (Come to think of it, maybe Google should provide a personalization slider control that lets users choose that sweet spot themselves!)
[ftc.gov ]
Videos can be found here:
[htc-01.media.globix.net ]
