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.
when they came for mapping sites, I said nothing.
when they came for news providers, I said nothing.
when they came for yahoo mail, aol and hotmail, I said nothing.
when they came for hotel booking sites, travel guides and holiday cost comparison sites, I said nothing.
when they finally came for me, there was nobody left to speak for me.
remember the googlezon parody video from a few years back. Go and watch it again and see how scarily things are turning out. And the crowd either watches in silence or applauds.
I feel like I'm in a scene from Lord of the Flies. And it scares me $hitless.
I'm also kinda shocked that this site wont let you sign up with a @gmail.com address. I actually considered subscribing before I found that out, now I'll most likely be removing the RSS feed from my home page / cell phone.
The questions is not if I am paranoid - the question is: Am I paranoid enough?
I don't think I have ever seen so many paranoid people in my life.
Remember the data leak from AOL in 2006 - and how quickly the NY Times was able to mine the "anonymized" search data to find and interview one specific user? It's not the cookie, it's the vast amounts aggregated data that is the privacy concern.
As for gmail addresses, there are other mail providers that are not allowed for accounts here either, and those restrictions are long standing. They are in place to make it harder for spammers to bombard the boards, not to pass judgment on any given company.
"I hate Adwords", "I hate ads", "I hate Google ads", etc.
Maybe Google ads will disappear completely from the Google search pages on my computer? :} If the algo works correctly, they should disappear, shouldn't they. :
Remember the data leak from AOL in 2006 - and how quickly the NY Times was able to mine the "anonymized" search data to find and interview one specific user? It's not the cookie, it's the vast amounts aggregated data that is the privacy concern.
Great point Tedster. How many times do we search for "oursite.com" or "ourname.com" and then search for "I don't want anyone to know what I searched for" in the same 5 minute time frame?
Bad Google, bad!
[1] The World Wide Web is an integral part of many people's lives now, in all advanced societies, and a significant percentage of the population in all 1st world countries use it on a daily basis;
[2] Post 9/11, the intelligence agencies for the USA and many (if not most) of it's allies have every intention of gathering as much information about all of us as they possibly can, be it legally or illegally;
[3] Google is gathering a ton of info about everyone that uses its services (and of course, many other technologically advanced online companies are doing the same thing, but this forum is about Google so that's the focus);
[4] The intelligence agencies of the USA (and perhaps others as well) can almost certainly retrieve data from Google or anyone else anytime they want, for whatever reason they want, be it legally or illegally. After all, it's one big network and they have the biggest & most powerful guns;
[5] Privacy is a good thing, and speaking for myself, I would prefer more, not less.
Thus the concern. What we have seen over the past few years is a clear trend, and it's pointing to very detailed profiles being established for each & every one of us. Google is only one of many companies making this possible. But again, speaking for myself, I'd be happier to see Google gathering less information, not more -- simply respond to each individual search with the best possible SERPs, and leave it at that. They've made the decision however to gather MORE information, not less, and as whiteknight and others have said, it is troublesome to say the least. We all need to remember this -- once they gather the information, and once the profiles are established (be they right or wrong, fair or unfair), they can do whatever they want with it, and it will never go away.
...........................
@daniel142005 ..you either dont understand the last 5 years threads here ..or haven't bothered to read them ..or just dont understand ..especially that the reason that you cant sign up with gmail or yahoo addies etc is to try keep out the drive by spammers using throwaways ..normally a webmaster ( ie ..one who actually has their own website ..would know this ) ..Nevertheless welcome to WebmasterWorld [webmasterworld.com]..PS most of us read solidly everyday for weeks before 1st posting ..so as to be really able to contribute to debates ..even when we disagree with many of the posters within the thread ..or not :)
I am not enthusiastic about a company that has bitten me in more ways than I can begin to count - and a company that has been a lot less transparent than Google. This entire thread exists because Google told us, UP FRONT, what they are doing. I do not trust Microsoft to be nearly as transparent as Google has been. Beautiful photography is not sufficient amends for their past sins.
Right, Bing is just the lesser evil, that's all. But Bing doesn't try to show their 'altruistic' and 'non-profit and all human' approach, they are who they are. Google, on the other hand, spends a lot of money on their image and PR to hide their agendas.
These days the only reliable sources of information are: private emails, online forums, and .. comments made by people on article or blog websites (provided they are not overmoderated). Comments below an article/blog are usually closer to the truth and more interesting than the article or blog post itself. Sometimes I even start reading comments first and article last to see how wrong or biased the article's author was ;).
[edited by: fargo1999 at 9:42 pm (utc) on Dec. 6, 2009]
The privacy problem boils down to: "I'm more than the sum of my past browsing/search history". There's something offensive about the idea of an algo trying to get inside my head. First of all, it can't. Second of all, I don't want it to try.
I've already had to fiddle and twiddle to get rid of geo-locating on my Google search bar. I'm an expat in Europe and, most of the time, I want to see what US or UK sites have to say about whatever subject not wade through a language which I've mastered but which is not my maternal tongue. As it is, I start the day on my laptop with an OS in the local language, browse around and then move on to my desktop with an OS in English where I run the same searches and can no longer find the same results. Enough with the aggravation.
As a Webmaster, I think it's too soon to tell how this will shake out but my sense is that it will be tougher for newer sites to get found. If Gorg's assumption is that all SEO is sleazy and nefarious and must be stamped out, I think that's a mistake. For a Mom & Pop site, a niche site, a hobby site driven by the passion to create good content, I think a knowledge of SEO can make a better and more focused site.
