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 agree with sb, the way that Google will implement personalisation, if other major changes in the past are anything to go by will be incompetent. The reason for this is what is motivating them to make the change. This is not about providing a better user experience it is about a better user take for Google. Maximising profit. If their driver was "improving the user experience" then they might have half a chance of doing it in a way that was useful to individuals but it isn't and they wont.
At the end of the day they will have to continue to have some natural listings on page one otherwise personalisation for a particular user/browser will become stale. Our job is to find ways to make sure that we are in the top #n (n will vary depending on market) so that we have a chance of getting the share of traffic to make our sites successful. We will also need to find the metrics that make Google think that our sites are what users want. This probably means actually making our sites what users want together with methods to ensure that Google picks up the value vibe. We need to find ways to get people to return, not bounce, stay a while etc. For example if you have a high traffic page that does everything a searcher wants on one page you might have to look to split that up and give them a good reason to go to a page 2 on that subject so that Google doesn't think they bounced. We will need to lead the algorithm by the hand so that it understands how good our site is.
The amount of traffic will not change and the best sites can still look forward to their fair share of that traffic we just need to work out how to make it exceedingly bleeding obvious to Google that users think "this is a good site".
In the longer term I can see the new web democracy being users voting with their eyes and fingers. PageRank was supposed to be about sites voting for each other with the kind of data Google is collecting and the kind of analysis they can do it is easy to see that this change could, over time, lead to users voting for sites and for that data to be coalesced into a population vote for a site.
I can see lots of good in all of this, lots that I don't like but at the bottom of it all I hate the decision to force this on users and the breach of privacy that this represents.
Cheers
Sid
Consider the often used example of the term "football" used by different people to mean entirely different sports. I remember talks at conferences as far back as 2001 when representatives of nearly all the then search engines stated their aim was to try and deliver the most revelant results to people searching on that type of term.
There were, in my opinion, two reasons behind this. The first was to give users a better search experience and the second, less obvious reason, was to give more "real-estate" to advertisers - thus boosting revenues to the SEs and giving advertisers a better return by targeting potential clicks in a better defined manner - as opposed to the "scatter-gun" approach that then pertained.
Over the years, simple efforts to provide these sorts of results were done by refining geo-targeting, first towards countries and then to regions and even cities. It did, for many users, provide them with more relevant results. It also increased the "real-estate" for people wanting to bid on terms significantly - because instead of only having 10 or so sponsored results available on the first page for a particular term it was 10*number of countries and/or number of regions. Infinitely more space for more advertisers for the same key phrases.
Then the great buy-up/integration of analytics and other entities that recorded people's demographics started. Yahoo and MSN had a head start with their e-mail and IM type applications. The advantage this gave was seen when Microsoft's AdCenter first launched allowing advertisers to chose not only what region they wanted to target for a campaign but specific demographics that you wanted to target.
Google didn't have such a wealth of existing information from their properties and had to glean it in other ways - hence the toolbar, which when downloaded kept all your surfing history (unless you opted out), things like Gmail and then just using Google (and being registered).
To me it was fairly obvious Google (and probably the other SEs) were recording individual IP activity in order to try and provide more "relevant" results to all surfers, regardless of if they were frequent or infrequent users of that particular SE.
My feeling is that, in Google's case, through their overwhelming domination of search in certain market, the recording of this data has resulted in personalized search occuring as almost a side effect of this corrolation of IP data and they are now admitting that fact!
So, not so much a new algo, but the admission that they hold so much "anonymous" data - but tied to an individual IP that unless repressed, it will lead to pretty complete personalized results.
So do I like the intrusive nature of this? No but, to a certain extent, all of us in this industry live and breath analytics and user behaviour. Now it is being taken to its' logical ends unless user reaction causes a back-down.
The gamble here from Google and other SEs considering this course is that the perceived benefits to users, advertisers (and through their satisfaction at better targeting and through the diffusion of results more opportunities for smaller local advertisers - a better revenue for shareholders) will outweigh the negative issues.
Time will tell - but this doesn't strike me as an "evil empire" abusing their position, but a logical progression of developments started many years ago by all SEs but pushed forward first by Google, simply because they have the most information to produce these kinds of results - and are willing to admit it!
Having said all that, I've switched to Bing - and banned the Google Toolbar in my business years ago! But that is purely because I want to try and make some attempts to preserve my privacy when I know I am being watched. But at least Google have told us. Who knows who is recording my every move without telling me!
I was on another thread and typed something into Google and nearly fell off my chair when one of my sites came up number 1. No way should it rank that high for the term entered. It's akin to having a site about "news" and suddenly find you are number one for that search term.
I then did the same search on Firefox for the term and my site was way down the SERPS, where it belongs for that term. I keep Firefox cookies deleted after every browsing session in case cookies get in the way of the results.
Is it simply cookies?
The whole thing is a pile of rubbish and should be binned - speaking as someone who both uses G to see how their site is doing and for general web searches. I hadn't noticed the 'Web history' link at the top till the other day but had wondered why G's search results for anything were so rubbish lately. So bad that I have resorted to using Bing to find anything.
Bin it Google it's useless and I for one do not want you to store any info about what I search for or when I search for it.
2) Google is not as naive as you think, to assume one person per PC.
3) Personalized search is the way forward, in my opinion, for the reasons explained: people have individual interests, nobody wants to see who optimizes better for "manchester united", like it's been for 10+ years now. THAT kind of SEO is DEAD(see a Shoemoney post that talks about that).
4) Google has WAY too much market share, THAT is the main issue, not personalized search, IMHO. Too much power, taking over too much of the web, monitoring too much personal info, taking in too much and giving back what their budget allows is NOT a FREE world wide web, it's an empire project that MUST not go forth.
Also it appears that it isn't just clicks that provide influence (sorry if this came up before). For example, I searched for red and white widgets and got a red and white widget site. Then I searched for brown widgets, and the same read and white widget site popped up #1. I then tried various colored widgets and the same site kept popping up #1... even when I searched for just widgets. Different machine showed different results. Can anyone else verify this?
btw ..what we each may speculate that the other search engines were probably doing is entirely irrelevant and unproven ..
you shouldn't ask everyone to forgive one person for say "car stealing" because someone else was probably doing the same "car stealing"..in your opinion ..
yes your honour .."I did it ..but let me off because my mate says that someone else was probably doing the same thing somewhere" ..
wouldn't fly in a real court ..shouldn't even be launched as an attempt at a defense in the court of public opinion
GORG are doing this is a fact ..what others MS or Yahoo etc were probably doing is pure speculation and IMO is being reintroduced constantly to this thread as a diversion/red herring ..to try to get GORG off the hook and us talking about something else.
This probably means actually making our sites what users want together with methods to ensure that Google picks up the value vibe.
.........................
The Google staff also knows that opt-in, not opt-out, is the most user-friendly default - as well as the most respectful. So the user satisfaction data they were seeing from signed-in and personalized results must be amazingly strong for them to force the default like this.
Said another way, this particular move is NOT designed to collect more data than before - because it doesn't do that. It's designed to improve end-user satisfaction. I can only infer that the average user must be even more clueless about search than I thought.
All the things that have been driving me crazy about Google results recently must actually be helping the majority find what they are looking for, and doing so in a major way.
The Google staff also knows that opt-in, not opt-out, is the most user-friendly default - as well as the most respectful.
they did this because not enough people were opting in ..and so as they wanted to aggregate the data and needed more of it in the mix they decided to just take it ..
Said another way, this particular move is NOT designed to collect more data than before - because it doesn't do that.
It's designed to improve end-user satisfaction.
All the things that have been driving me crazy about Google results recently must actually be helping the majority find what they are looking for, and doing so in a major way.
I find the fact that you as a senior admin here keep pushing the exact same line as GORG and their senior management on their disregard of all decency and privacy the most disturbing thing I've seen here since I joined WebmasterWorld ..
you are seriously saying that the most respectful way to engage your customer is to make their choice for them
Not even, no way. I am saying that the most respectful way to treat any user is to provide only what they specifically request or opt-in. This applies to all kinds of areas, including email, search results, anything at all. It's not even respectful to have a checkbox ticked by default in a sales process - and Google knows that.
they have decided that quality serps no longer matter but that getting the maximum amount of data as fast as they can is worth the risk
How does this move change the amount of data they collect? It doesn't do that - it just changes how and when they use the data.
Don't paint me with that particular brush in your hand, please - it's definitely not my color.
All the things that have been driving me crazy about Google results recently must actually be helping the majority find what they are looking for, and doing so in a major way.
Or maybe Joe Blogs does not know that there is perhaps something else better out there in SERPs because it was not presented to him high enough?
Privacy issue aside for the moment, I think the impact on SEO much depends on G. implementation of the personalisation. One possibility could be that if I search for Red Widgets and click on site #6 "Lovely Red Widgets" few times, Google moves #6 to position #1 for me, and purely shifts the other results one place further down the SERPS.
But if my search for "Red Widgets" influences the results I get presented when I search for "Blue Widgets" and I get "Red Widgets" site offered when I search for "Blue Widgets" then it is bad - I am being treated like an idiot who does not know what I want.
Or even worse - if I search for "Blue Widgets" and G. asks me "Did you mean Red Widgets" because of my past history.
I think it needs lots of testing to see exactly how the personalisation is being applied.
Mind you, any of the above would result that over the time two persons would have a completely different SERPs for the same keywords as G. would "promote" sites visited.
I can only infer that the average user must be even more clueless about search than I thought.All the things that have been driving me crazy about Google results recently must actually be helping the majority find what they are looking for, and doing so in a major way.
But most think effort is not required. Indeed, they EXPECT unclear instructions to made up for in the interpretation, with results being relevant almost despite the starting point. The thing is, when you have a one-size-fits-all dumbing down, its difficult to make everyone happy. Using KJ2's example of "football" (or soccer, if you prefer), you might be looking for a specific team, or possibly tickets, or league news. But usually when you use the same 1- or 2-word search, you are looking for the same result. Any it may not be the same as the next person.
If you are really lucky, you might find "reintepretation" being scaled down for the more discerning user, and results actually reflecting what you look for.
[edited by: tedster at 7:39 pm (utc) on Dec. 17, 2009]
How does this move change the amount of data they collect? It doesn't do that
Well, it DOES change that; they DO collect more data now.
Where in the past they could only collect the data of all users in relation to a specific set of results, they can (and certainly do) collect now the relation of a specific user to a specific set of results.
In other words: they can now see how each individual (computer) reacts to his personal result set. From this they will be able to build very sophisticated profiles.
An example: Google could pick a certain target group (say: "those who are located in the U.K. and have searched for 'Manchester United' in the past") and expose them with additional/tweaked results, say a link to a fan shop, and see how this user interacts with the result.
It's a whole new WORLD of data that is being collected.
How does this move change the amount of data they collect? It doesn't do that - it just changes how and when they use the data.
I'm seeing larger sizes ( even if cookies are only measured in bits and bytes ) and thus more data per cookie dropped by GORG properties than before..and more data dropped means more data read when the cookie is read by another GORG property..
GORG cookies have got bigger ..longer strings ..more complex ..and each holds more data ..
So overall they are gathering more data ..and are doing more with it ..and we have absolutely no proof that it is in order to improve search ..that is just the PR line ..any improvements that happen in their search will be a by product of this new policy ..not the objective of it.
...any improvements that happen in their search will be a by product of this new policy ..not the objective of it.
And that is also an opinion, not a verifiable fact. However, it certainly is a possibility. Ad targeting, for one, might be an objective.
Ad targeting, for one, might be an objective.
And the main one, IMO. It is how to boost revenues while hoping not to alienate users. A fine balance which may have been overreached, in this instance.
It's not an opinion ..we discussed in it some threads here ..some even had ASA involved ..and ASA confirmed that if you were in personalised search mode the ads that you would see on adsense areas on sites would match your searching history and not the sites context ..
GORGS own pages on privacy and also on adsense confirm this ..
And many of us here have seen and have discussed already the difference in adwords served up when one is searching personalised ..as opposed to not ..
If you are really lucky, you might find "reintepretation" being scaled down for the more discerning user, and results actually reflecting what you look for.
Insightful assertion, as expected. I hope you're right.
Where in the past they could only collect the data of all users in relation to a specific set of results, they can (and certainly do) collect now the relation of a specific user to a specific set of results.In other words: they can now see how each individual (computer) reacts to his personal result set. From this they will be able to build very sophisticated profiles.
@caribguy
...back from vacation?
tedster The Google staff also knows that opt-in, not opt-out, is the most user-friendly default - as well as the most respectful. So the user satisfaction data they were seeing from signed-in and personalized results must be amazingly strong for them to force the default like this.
If I believed that user satisfaction was their goal I might agree with you. I think that it is more likely that they have found that they can influence $-take and $-profit on so called personalized search.
Cheers
Sid
Is WMT showing slanted reports as well? The only reason I ask is that I searched before and after cookies and found a money phrase of mine went from #1 to #2.
I just checked my work WMT account from my home PC and no, I am not seeing different results. WMT is constantly updating - our site has millions of pages and so the various numbers keep changing almost by the minute, esp the number of pages indexed.
I like the "football" example but I'm happy for Google to stick to regionalisation or even nationalisation. Not personalisation.
Google.com shows me the first result as the US NFL site. For Google.com.au the first result is the Aussie AFL site. In Australia there are two major football codes and soccer is a third. We generally refer to the local code as "footy", which avoids any chance of mistaking it for soccer. In my state of Victoria, in WA, and SA, AFL is the predominant body while in NSW and QLD it is the NRL, whose game is a variant of Rugby. If I lived in Sydney, I'd be happy for the NRL site to come up first.
As an SEO, I don't want my work-related searches to stick to my personal identity. Our directory has some adult topics that I don't care to be associated with, but I have to check their rankings from time to time. Even for non-SEOs, I'd imagine that a lot of people would have a clear separation of work and home search patterns.
"Your search results may be customised using search activity from this computer."
Google needs to be regulated because self regulation is not working. They are presenting this in such a way that most people would not suspect what actually lies behind it. They need to be forced to be more open and allow people to make real informed choices.
Cheers
Sid
This allows me to come back to my clients and say it's imperative that we reach #1 for their key word because otherwise get lost in the personalized search shuffle.
I do think that Google is becoming too ubiquitous on the internet and they whole modus operandi is getting more ad dollars through their Adwords and AdSense network and if publishers are scratching their heads on trying to get search engine traffic organically, eventually their going to break down and roll the dice and bid on some key words.
The major loser here, imho, is the advertiser, because due to personalized search online advertising spend is going to inevitably increase. Which may be good for SEOs and Marketeers like myself but not so great for my clients.
from what I've read the #1-3 rankings do not change regardless of user/CPU or browser.
Yes good point but who and how is going to do that? Here in AU for example the local would be "white night" (read prime-idiot-minister) is on a mission to save us all from the eveil internet and is pushing hard for mandatory internet censorship. This is just one example of govenment policy and the internet, hmmm no thanks..
from what I've read the #1-3 rankings do not change regardless of user/CPU or browser.
let me debunk that right now. After reading this thread:
[webmasterworld.com...]
and finding it hilarious, I shared it with some coworkers. 3 out of 5 DID NOT get the same top results for an identical search, not even close. After clearing the cache and cookies (and entering private mode for the firefox users) we all got the same results.
Since then I have run this test with some more friends and a lot of people who do not have search history cleared just don't get the joke because they land on, for example, blog pages 'explaining' the joke, or on DVD-ish pages relating to the query.
Telling people "Just Google Blue Widgets and you'll find it" isn't going to work any more. There is going to be a lot more linking going on to find stuff...
