Personalized Search Now Default

SEO and Privacy forever changed

[incrediBILL]

Google Blog [googleblog.blogspot.com]

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.

[Kelowna]

What about using search.aol.com -- would that give you raw results? I would think so.

[Hissingsid]

I have several browsers each set up differently I mainly use these for web site testing but they are also useful with regard to personalisation. One (Opera) is set to never receive cookies and has never had a Google account on it. Another Safari has cookies enabled, has no Google account on it and has personalisation and web history off. The results I get on these two browsers are different.

Normal web search from the browser produces a different query string. These two querys occur in Safari when searching Google.co.uk but are not in Opera - both browsers set up as described above.
source=hp
btnG=Google+Search

Anyone know what these control?

Cheers

Sid

[tedster]

From what I've seen, source=hp means "source=home page" - as opposed to a search made from the top of a results page. And btnG indicates a regular web search on Google. Change that parameter to btnI and you get an "I'm Feeling Lucky" result.

[Reno]

For webmasters it's no problem to play around with different browsers and settings, to see where we rank. But for the overwhelming majority of the public, they are launching the browser that came with their computer. I just finished reviewing a lot of stats for my sites and pretty consistently MS Windows is being used by 85-89% of my visitors, with IE in the 65% range (+/- 4%). I'd be more than a little surprised if any significant number of those people do anything to opt out of personalized search -- and Google knows that.

As Personalized Search becomes the norm, it seems to me somewhat of an academic exercise to see where we stand with fringe browsers (such as Opera), and with our web history deleted and/or our cookies burned. The fact is, most everyone else is using Win/IE out of the box, which means they're sucked in to PS whether they like it or not. The key will be to carefully monitor our stats in the coming months to see the total visitor count, which pages got the most views, and what keyword phrases brought them in. If that does not radically change from what we've had pre-PS, then perhaps the impact on the SERPs will not be so disastrous (the impact on privacy is another matter!); but if we noticeably drop, then we can pretty clearly point to PS as the culprit. I hope that somewhere down the road we'll re-visit this subject to see how it is playing out. For me, at this early point, I see no huge shift. But that's just me, and it is early...

.............................

[Hissingsid]

I don't like what I'm seeing personalisation doing. For example if you search for a product or service that you might buy and go to review or price comparison sites the next time you search for something you might buy that type of review or comparison site is given a boost. So if you have a site that sells stuff getting folks to your site is much more likely to be a two or three step process after Google. ie a lower percentage will find their way directly to your site.

I'm coming to the conclusion that:

1. A well written description that catches attention and draws users to your site is becoming even more important than before.

2. Off-line and on-line brand building are now much more important. ie if your brand name is in your URL and/or your description and people recognise it they will be more likely to follow the link from Google SERPS. It used to be that only the naive and egotistical put their brand name prominently in the description. If you have some brand awareness now might be the time for SEO savvy folks to consider this.

These things have always been important in many markets I just think that they will become ever more important as we try to out smart Google.

Cheers

Sid

[MrSavage]

I guess this is a double edged sword for some of us. Some of us make money on Adsense. Some of us make money on affilate programs. Would you be making that money without Google? Probably not. Well most definitely not! Therefore, the good is greater than the harm. If we are making money from their successful advertising, should we be so concerned about a moral compass? Honestly I don't know half of what goes on behind closed doors. I see this privacy/history much ado about nothing. I'm sure a lot of the complainers here do quite well on a monthly basis thanks to.....Google.

Lastly, the moral of this story really is, spend less time looking at where you rank. Why? It's becoming less meaningful isn't it? Check your stats instead. More people means everything is fine, no need to change. Loss of traffic? A drop in rankings (obviously) so it's time to invest in your bread and butter SEO techniques. What those are in today's internet? Good luck with that my friends.

Google isn't stupid. Their CEO said they have to be trusted. If they lose that trust, they become nothing. If they break societies trust, they will be yesterdays news in the blink of an eye. There is a lot of truth in that. Now, what if they could control the negative press releases from hitting the masses.....

[loudspeaker]

Would you be making that money without Google? Probably not. Well most definitely not! Therefore, the good is greater than the harm.

Not to get into political discussions, but by that logic things are just hunky-dory in Cuba: everything people get comes from the state and therefore, by definition, they would be worse off if there was no state. Makes sense. Gracias, Fidel and Raoul!

P.S. Notice the similarity between our plight and that of most Cubans: no choice, no competition, no escape. Take what you're given and shut up. Gotta love this system.

[Reno]

I see this privacy/history much ado about nothing. I'm sure a lot of the complainers here do quite well on a monthly basis thanks to.....Google.

We all have a relationship with Google, one that has been symbiotic from their entry on the world stage. I am grateful for that relationship and hope it will continue for a long time.

Their privacy violation is a separate issue that has nothing to do with the income end of things. We can still make that $$ and they can still be the number 1 search engine in the world without auto-opt-in personalized search.

Speaking for myself, I DON'T want them to crash & burn, thus my concern about their current decisions. If anything, their taking the auto-opt-in course is of greater danger to them then if they did the right thing and respected people's right of privacy. BUT, that personal data is as valuable as gold, so this strikes me as a decision being pushed by the accountants more than the engineers.

In fact, it's not an either/or situation -- "Either they make opt-in personalized search the default or they'll fail as a search engine" -- rather, they could make PS strictly permission based and in so doing, this issue would go away. But if they let the potential gold mine cloud their thinking, and if the public gets wise to it, then yes, it could all turn on them in a World Wide Minute.

...................

[MrSavage]

I've first read about this here. What's that saying? Draw your own conclusions. I think the problem here is we don't really know what's going on behind the scenes. Cookies are evil aren't they? Amazon keeps your cookie and modifies what you see on their homepage. Is that evil? Invasion of privacy? I think I'm caught in a space where I don't really know what this "personalized search" really means. Is it really this serious? Or is this bad because now I can't really check how my SEO is working out? Should I be mad because SEO has become more watered down because personal habits will influence what another person sees in Google? If this system sucks, they will dump it. I think we are quibbling over how this will affect our free traffic. And as Tedster says, "free" taffic is what we're talking about.

*takes a chill pill*

[gn_wendy]

"Cookies" are small amounts of data that are stored on your computer. They find their way to your browser via a Web server. They sound friendly and helpful because they are.

Without cookies we would not have online advertising - and with no online advertising we would not have any free content.

The issues with G' personalized search are very different from the issues with behavioral-targeted ads.

[webdude]

I am still trying to figure out what this is really good for?!?! I can see wanting PS when I wish to go to an e-com site that I have been to before, but I am looking for a new product. But from an informational point of view, I think it's totally bogus. Take, for example, when doing any type of research, fact finding, looking for new information, writing a paper etc., when looking at multiple phrases like blue widget, red widget, history of widgets, big widgets, small widgets, etc., I am getting...

Been There
Done That
Already Looked Here
Same Stuff
etc.
etc.
etc.

I thought that the reason a user changes a phrase is to get new and fresh results? I already know of the sites I have already taken a look at... what I use the SEs for is to find new and different information that I didn't know existed. This may change the amount of clicks that are generated on page 2 of the SERPs as people try to find different results.

Pretty user friendly, eh?

[whitenight]

As predicted earlier in this thread,

The NSA has teamed up with Google [washingtonpost.com]

"The critical question is: At what level will the American public be comfortable with Google sharing information with NSA?" said Ellen McCarthy, president of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance, an organization of current and former intelligence and national security officials that seeks ways to foster greater sharing of information between government and industry.

Wow, the two most secretive and arrogant organizations in the world having UNLIMITED access and unchecked power to everyone's information.

"That's nothing to be worried about" remarked George Orwell, on the subject

[Reno]

The NSA has teamed up with Google

It's like 2 co-workers who share a mutual attraction and start out just meeting for a "quick drink" after work -- it's just a matter of time before they end up in bed.

.............................

[Eurydice]

This is a after-the-fact announcement to dispel the before-the-public-notice arrangement. Typical Washington maneuver.

Google gave the NSA access to Google accounts as part of the 2001 Patriot Act (i.e., 9 years ago). By announcing this now, they can say in the future that they had announced this, so they can pretend it's a non-issue.

It's official. The NSA is using Google to monitor the web.

[kevsta]

have you seen this SE? ixquick.com

its really rather good, and they have a different slant on privacy. from their site

Ixquick’s position: You have a right to privacy.

Your search data should never fall into the wrong hands.
The only real solution is quickly deleting your data or not storing them to begin with.

In June 2006 we started to delete our users’ privacy data within 48 hrs.

As of January 2009 we do not even record our users’ IP addresses at all anymore.

We are the first and only search engine to do so.

Our initiative is receiving an overwhelmingly positive response!

its ok for about 95% of the searches I need to do.

[Reno]

I found Ixquick many years ago and agree they are very good, but in light of recent developments re privacy, here's my question about them and other metasearch services:

Because they do not have their own datacenters and are thus referencing the actual search engines to get their results -- in this case Yahoo, Bing, Gigablast, AlltheWeb, Open Directory, Cuil and others -- does our IP stop with Ixquick or does it get passed onto the search engine itself as part of the request? I would guess that it does not get passed on, but admit I'm not 100% sure about that.

...............

[dstiles]

Ixquick is the same as startpage.com, which is ixquick using a more memorable name. I use startpage because it's easier to tell people on the phone.

They say it's the "only search engine that does not record your IP address." Not sure if it usually passes on your IP but I suspect it does, since they offer a proxy link against each result. They have a long page on privacy - too long to read at present. :)

They delete data within 48 hours and use only a single anonymous cookie to keep your preferences in.

It's now my default SE. :)

[geekie]

Google gave the NSA access to Google accounts as part of the 2001 Patriot Act (i.e., 9 years ago).

Is this true?

I think something else is coming. This just seems like a lead up to something.

[graeme_p]

I do not know if it is the same in the US, but in the EU the government can already find out everything you do online from the information your ISP is required to collect (every url you visit, the address every email you send goes to) while your phone company collects more (what numbers you dial, the location of your phone).

Evading the surveillance draws attention: the French police have already justified arresting people because they were (along with hundreds of other people) roughly in the area of the crime and did not own mobile phones so had something to hide.

[mcneely]

I might have missed it somewhere, so do excuse me if I sound at all redundant if that be the case ..

But shouldn't we be working up an addon for Fx that if installed and enabled would keep Google personalised search "turned off by default"?

[Reno]

shouldn't we be working up an addon for Fx

That's a great idea but don't they sometimes partner? When I installed Firefox I got a default load page with a Google search box. Still, they could score a lot of points and distinguish themselves even more from IE with something like this.

..................

[Reno]

First Google, now this -- I think we may be losing the privacy battle...

From: Mashable [mashable.com]

FBI's Most Wanted: Your Browsing Activity

FBI Director Robert Mueller wants ISPs to track "origin and destination information" about their customers' browsing habits and store them for authorities' use for two years, according to a CNET report.

That would mean monitoring the IP addresses, domains and exact websites users visit, and then storing that information for months. If officials who support this measure get their way, federal, state and local law enforcement would be able to access the information via search warrant or subpoena.

Access to exact URLs would require deep-packet inspection, which could be a violation of the Wiretap Act. The courts would end up having to make a ruling one way or the other if authorities try it.

The argument in favor is that the FBI has long been able to do this with telephone call information, but since so much telephone communication has been replaced by web activity, this would just be a preservation of existing powers. And those in favor insist that no actual content would be released to authorities — only points of contact. For example, authorities can see that a phone call was made from one number to another, but they don't know what was said unless they wiretap.

The FBI says it could use an ISP's data to investigate suspected child pxrnographers, but there are obviously potential abuses as well. The good news for privacy hawks who oppose this sort of thing just as strongly as they do the CIA's alleged use of social networking data is that no significant progress has been made to get this done; consider this more a statement of intent. It's not the first though; a formal request was sent to congress almost two years ago.

[tedster]

Going back to the article that Mashable refers to, the prognosis is not quite so dark:

What remains unclear are the details of what the FBI is proposing. The possibilities include requiring an Internet provider to log the Internet protocol (IP) address of a Web site visited, or the domain name such as cnet.com, a host name such as news.cnet.com, or the actual URL such as [reviews.cnet.com...]

While the first three categories could be logged without doing deep packet inspection, the fourth category would require it. That could run up against opposition in Congress, which lambasted the concept in a series of hearings in 2008, causing the demise of a company, NebuAd, which pioneered it inside the United States.

[news.cnet.com...]

[whitenight]

the prognosis is not quite so dark

NSA and Congress work for two DIFFERENT masters.

-- When will Evil "just get along?!" --

The NSA, much like the Federal Reserve, APPEARS to be under US government jurisdiction,
but even A LITTLE RESEARCH, shows that they are not.

Or, if you prefer, we could just ignore the last 2 months of Gorg rapidly acting in very Borg like ways.

A list of current topics in the Goog Corp Forum:

"Google Teams with NSA to ward off cyberattacks"
"US Department of Justice objects to Google book plan"
"Google Snoops, even when disabled"
"Page and Brin To Give Up Majority Control of Google By 2014"
"Google Becoming "Giant Monopoly" - German Minister"
"French Court orders Google to remove "scam" from Suggestions"
"Consumers complain about Google's Nexus One"
"Nine startup dreams and industries Google crushed in 2009"
"Google's AdMob Purchase Draws Antitrust Regulatory Scrutiny"
"Google Found Guilty of Violating Copyright"

[Right Reading]

I try to check nonpersonalized results by using Chrome in incognito mode. But what I don't know is whether Google still modifies search results based on IP address.

[walrus]

Great post whitenight !

Shareholders must be scratchin their heads a bit too.

[dstiles]

FBI would impress me more if they got up off their rear ends and sorted out the USA hackers, exploiters, fraudsters and other online criminals along with malware-friendly ISPs, web hosts and registration agents. Easy enough to fix if you've got clout but they obviously haven't bothered much in the past ten years.

Hitting "suspected" criminals as opposed to known criminals seems about par for modern law enforcement agencies, though.

And putting the onus on ISPs to keep so much data will obviously mean a good sale of massive hard disks, of course. Which will put up ISP costs which will be passed on to citizens...

[Reno]

Which will put up ISP costs which will be passed on to citizens

Good point. Of course, they may start playing the data analysis game too -- running sophisticated deep mining software on the required-by-law stored data, to see the patterns, then sell that info to the highest bidders (to offset the very costs that you raise!). Our grandchildren will someday say "Gramps, what was 'privacy'?"

......................

[JS_Harris]

FBI Director Robert Mueller KNOWS that this data is already stored.

Is FBI Director Robert Mueller ASKING for pages found behind password protected pages to ALSO be saved?

Does FBI Director Robert Mueller specify WHO and under what AUTHORITY someone can watch your behavior without permission or prior cause/reason? A low paid ISP pro should NOT have access to this information.

Seriously, this is close to breaching freedom laws. Police need to watch CRIMINALS but asking for everyone to be monitored... that's too much.

Constant watching of earth from space allows authorities to track a fire back to its origin, and even to the guy who dropped a cigarette butt, so watching CAN be a good thing BUT it has to allow average people to remain anonymous and this is most definitely NOT anonymous.

[Hissingsid]

We are not going to change any of this. It's a bit like arguing against taxes we'll never win.

I think that we need to focus on what is happening from an SEO point of view. If we all continue to express our outrage at the privacy issues we will just be beating our heads against the wall and achieve no more than a hurt head.

We need to focus on how we can mitigate its effects on ranking. It will not go away so we need to try to understand it and take action to protect our rankings.

Cheers

Sid

PS I find it very hard to suppress my own outrage but I'm trying.