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.
An example of the "noise" is this thread - all sorts of responses, most irrelevant - the key issues ignored and the main people to listen to (Brett, Tedster) are reduced to "noise" and just mixed in with all the other posts.
There are so many real issues here that it is so sad that we have the "big brother is watching you" crap - that is not the issue, it always has been (as said by many knowledgeable people).
The point is now we have an "implementation" of this - and that there are so many things wrong with it that it is so difficult to get to first base to discuss it.
The key issue is to us on a webmaster forum - this update is literally saying "stuff you lot, even though you made us".
That is the sickening bit.
So either we stop being the victims or do something about it - something like the "bingathon" in the other featured homepage discussion.
I can convince almost 40 close people or so to switch to Bing - and they wouldn't know the difference. I can also convince them to tell all their friends to do so. All are non-webmasters.
Why don't we all do this - and make Google humble again?
Yea, let's stick to monetizing -- that is what really matters.
...........................
Maybe sometimes you have to think a bit bigger and make some sort of statement.
Google has been creating bigger and bigger market shares that impact all businesses online - and that has been allowed to happen, with the statements "don't put all your eggs into one basket" - but isn't that statement in itself crazy now, of course it will be in one basket if it is online - Google have a monopoly, which has been allowed to happen.
Google have been compared to Microsoft which is totally not the same thing - how easy is it technically to change the search engine you use versus the operating system you use.
The point is Google was created by webmasters - microsoft was not.
The key point is that we (as webmasters) can actually create change, and get Google communicating again, and make it better for all of us if we have the balls to do something simple about it.
Why do nothing when you can actually do something?
Why would Google want anyone do SEO? My novice understanding was that you do not create a site for Google, but you better have a "real" reason for running your site (being that personal or corporate), and you focus onto whatever your site is about, for the reason of giving a good information and/or product.
Then, Google, in silent collaboration with its users (that the users are not even aware of), will decide which site will be thrown onto which position.
So many people were (and are) making sites for Google, and my understanding is that G doesn't want that, but quality which makes their users happy so they keep G as a default search engine, and because of that popularity G runs various types of ads across the WEB - of which G makes money.
So... so long Mr. or Ms. SEO... time to pack the books.
And what will make it funny in some (or many) cases is that good sites will continue to rank well, and respective web masters, SEO folks, outsourced people, etc, they will all brag how they took a good route to overcome the changes while they mostly had no clue about it.
P.S.
It can easily be that all the "crap" being laid out while not on the topic is simply because most of us really have no clue about this, but have a need to talk - because, something is going on...
Privacy indeed seems entwined with this thread's topic; major ramifications.
Google a very different company to the start up by a couple of guys with an idea to develop (links as votes! Yay!).
The bean counters have taken over the asylum?
Up to Bing, maybe others, to see if can market by telling people they can search for new stuff, find fresh sites that are really, err, cuil...
New idea and more idea guys sorely needed!
...NSA...
...Bilderberg...
HOW DO YOU THINK THESE THINGS HAPPEN?
Careful... Who wants to follow Alice down the rabbit hole? ;)
(Wasn't that story a metaphor for something?)
Following that path, leads to all kinds of TRUTH, that can be hard to swallow.
For those who want the red pill and simply want to go back to sleep?
As stated repeatedly in this thread,
Start promoting BING!
With a concerted effort, in 6 months, the red pillers might only be slightly worried about their short-lived MONEY AND STATS sent from "Resistance is futile" Gorg.
BING's still only a TEMPORARY MEASURE.
But it might give the "blue pill" people just enough time to work on a different solution.
Ronin .what happens whan there is more than one user on a machine and your teenage kid clicks I accept so that they can watch their mates latest upload to you tube ..and the kid forgets to tell you ..you're in ..for that session ..and the next ..and the next ..etc until you buy another machine ..unless you remove the cookies ..
Yes. But stopping Google tracking you all over the web (nigh impossible) is not the same issue as choosing search results based on local semantic analysis rather than search results based on semantic analysis in the context of tracked historical preferences.
I'm just appealing to Google that that choice needs to be made publicly available to searchers. Because if you have any breadth of interest then, all too often, results based on historical searches on the same machine (by you or someone else) end up being not at all what you want. And this is frustrating.
I did it a month ago. If every member of WebmasterWorld who disagrees with where G is headed did the same, we might start getting some traction. Let's organize...Feb 1 is "out of google" day. Upload your new robots.txt and keep it there.
I know this won't happen. There's too much greed and selfishness out there...everyone thinking "great, 500 sites leave G and that's more greenbacks for me!"
that's why we're in this mess and unlikely to get out of it anytime soon. We DID build G and united, we could bring it to its knees in a week!
If anyone's concern is privacy itself - of search data, or even the bigger issue of privacy altogether - then they need to look beyond Google alone. A switch to Bing or whoever would not even be a long-term solution. At best it's a gesture, and a gesture towards a company that is not a protector of individual privacy today. When someone puts together a distributed search engine with great transparency and also great results, I'll be right there. But oh, the resources that will take!
Privacy in the age of massive data mining is a very tough nut to crack. I agree that it needs to be addressed for the sake all of humanity, but the challenge goes way beyond any particular search engine or even all search engines.
Privacy compromises are embedded today in almost all forms of mass marketing and beyond. When I was in the mail order catalog business in the 1980s I got my first whiff of powerful "database overlays", and it terrified me then. So I'm heartened that more people are seeing that it IS an issue. Up to now, the privacy versus security trade off (or the privacy versus easiness/comfort trade off) were barely on the public radar.
The privacy issue that I see isn't just about any specific data. It's about the aggregate of many data points, which can then give a distorted picture of what's really going on with any individual.
I'm not overly concerned about the new personalized results - even though I did call this move "very wrong-headed". I stopped giving clients regular SE ranking reports quite a few years ago and focused on traffic and conversions. That approach still seems solid for this challenge, too.
