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.
"binging" something doesn't have the same ring to it :P
Actually, I like it better. I've heard people tell someone to "Bing it" which is actually easier to say, and the person they were speaking to understood, so I think it's catching on.
I've been using Bing, and I'm actually finding sites I never knew about that I really like. They either aren't listed in Google, or they are buried, and I can't imagine why.
"...They're dynamite real estate from now on."
Wondering?
Elaboration please.
Just to reiterate, I am no more concerned about Privacy today than I was last week. Which is to say, about as concerned as most of you appear to be now. Using data in a helpful way (for users) is at least a benign reason for collecting it. The reason I welcome this development is that end users will have the evidence of data collection shoved in their face.
The argument that "people will only have their on prejudices reinforced" doesn't wash, either. I'd rather the close-minded were left in their own little world, than the open-minded be subjected to carefully sifted propaganda that would subtely shape their opinions. Not that Google do this, but they could.
Which brings me to "Utopian". I'd be far more concerbed about faceless individuals subverting the indexing and ranking processes to their own end, than I would be about a centralised corporation that at least has shareholder oversight.
I mean, if someone took it upon themselves to start deleting all "Big Bang" pages from their local index, a proportion of searchers would no longer find it. Think of the damage a militant, organised group could do for their own vested interest.
There was a project not long ago in the UK where a group was encouraging the exchange of store loyalty cards. The theory was that if the stores suddenly found grannies buying ten packs of condoms every weekend, city workers buying saddles on Wednesdays and students buying nappies during the morning (instead of attending classes) ... it would cause a great deal of havoc and potentially cause the stores to scrap their tracking. I don't know what came of that but if anyone has a link...
It's been my default browser for years and is very easily customisable with no plug-ins required, in fact the latest version is absolutely fantastic and I've converted many people to it recently since it's so much easier for them than it used to be plus it seems to render even badly coded pages well now!
They will probably say that Google U.K. Ltd. does not store any data about you at all (as the data is stored by Google, Inc. in Mountain View, California). This leads nowhere.
The data is collected in the UK. Google U.K. Ltd is registered as a Data Controller and the Data Protection Act applies.
Where it leads is to adverse publicity. Google can't easily be stopped, by legislation, from using the data it holds on each of us but the brand can be damaged if this becomes a news item. Adverse publicity is Google's biggest threat.
Cheers
Sid
That's a good example of the pinch that various laws put on search engines. Some countries require a certain minimum time for data retention and others say remove it if the person requests it. We really do need international standards, don't we?...and...
They will probably say that Google U.K. Ltd. does not store any data about you at all (as the data is stored by Google, Inc. in Mountain View, California).
Here's an example: Let's say that it's illegal for the CIA to listen in on the phone conversations of a USA citizen without a special warrant, which in all likelihood they cannot get from a court (for one thing, they don't want their fingerprints on the case, which would happen in a formal request). But let's also say that it's not illegal for the Brits to listen in -- even without the special warrant -- on the grounds that the information gathered is for the protection of the UK. So, the Brits listen in, then share the intelligence gathered with the CIA, which allows them (the CIA) to say that they did not break the law. From my own research, this is very common.
My point is this -- it is up to the data gathering organization to put up the roadblocks, which in the case of this discussion, means for Google to not gather anything more than is absolutely necessary to do their job. I do not design or work for search engines, but even so, I can't see why they need my history to give me the best possible SERPs based on my current query. To me, it's counter-intuitive. They are doing this because in today's world personal information is as good as gold. All the other explanations are smokescreens. Personal information is valuable, which means more money, and that in-and-of-itself is the motivating force -- privacy be damned.
ps. I just now got a message from Google that says "At Google we believe information is the key to success...".
Ha, the universe has a sense of ironic humor!
.................................
I do not need to see ads for electronic thermostats, heating/air conditioning systems, air filters, or the like. I've already purchased all that, and won't be interested in such things for a very long time.
Meanwhile, my interests have now changed to Christmas gifts, and since the ads are about thermostats, I'm not seeing ads for cameras, books, etc., which is what my current interest is. There's no way Google can know that. How many ads will be wasted before they figure it out?
I still think if someone is on a sewing site, chances are they are interested in sewing things, not the acrylic paints they searched for yesterday and have already purchased. They are done with that for now. Just because I searched for thermostat information yesterday, doesn't mean I want to see it today while I'm on an automotive site.
To me, the real issue with this is for one, yes, how it will affect the position of my business in a search. When I look at "similar" results for my shop, what I see doesn't look very similar to me. I wonder if this is the same algorithm they are going to use to provide personalized results. It's like a certain movie distributor's choices for me. If you like this intellectual movie about a historical murder, then surely you will want to watch this teen movie about a town of cannibals. I mean, they're both about killing, right? So there's that.
There's the fundamental logical error that what you want to find is what you have found already. I do a lot of research online, and it's nice to dig and dig and come across those weird little site in Romania or somewhere that has EXACTLY the information I was looking for. This seems to me to mean that finding those little nuggets of goodness is going to be really hard. Seems like it means more homogenization. How it will be possible to get around that I have no idea. But using Bing as an solution to any of these issues? Ha.
for example, if google can work out that you support Manchester United, from all the Man Und sites you visit, and then you visit a general football site, or a sports site, then it would make sense to change all the ads to Man Utd ones, because they are related to the site you are visiting.
but personalised search is a different kettle of fish. because you are telling google want you want. they already know what you want to see. how does merging your new query into one you made a few days ago make it better?
they can't put up Man Utd websites when the user searches for sport sites, because if he wanted Man Utd sites that's what he would have searched for in the first place.
[edited by: oddsod at 3:54 pm (utc) on Dec. 8, 2009]
