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.

[oddsod]

Good point, lexipixel!

Just sign up for Google Analytics ;-)

SJ, don't you have Adsense on your site?

[James_WV]

Personally, the privacy issues are secondary for me - Google already had this data on you, all it's doing is using the data to serve you different results. Once I've figured out how this is going to affect us from a business POV then I can start worrying about what they'll use my data for next, but in the meantime I have a couple of questions:

1) Is this keyword specific? If not, is it niche specific - i.e. if I search for "locationxyz history" and click on www.yoursite.com, does it make www.yoursite.com more likely to appear for "locationxyz widget"?
If so, then more content generation for non-money terms is the way forward.

2) Will AdWords clicks affect these Personalized Search rankings? Bit of confusion on this from what I've read. I can see this from both angles:

a) Google's always been at pains to keep AdWords separate from organic rankings - I've never subscribed to the conspiracy theories about Ad spend affecting rankings

b) On the other hand, if they're looking at personalized relevance, why should adWords clicks be treated any differently? If you find a site you like for a certain KW - should it matter to your personalized search what area of the results page it displays on.

[Reno]

...why should adWords clicks be treated any differently? If you find a site you like for a certain KW - should it matter to your personalized search what area of the results page it displays on.

Very good point, but you're using logic here, and logic does not seem to apply to this turn of events. The decision to make opt-in the default is, to my way of thinking, first and foremost about the accumulation of personal data which, as I've said, is an extremely valuable commodity in today's world, and if left unchallenged by the courts/legislatures, will significantly fatten Google's bank account, thank you very much.

*******************************

[signor_john]

signor_john
my site doesn't even have a way to serve cookies

Just sign up for Google Analytics ;-)

Cute, but just for the record, my original statement was:

I don't plant tracking cookies myself (my site doesn't even have a way to serve cookies), but my ad networks do, my affiliate partners do, and for all I know, maybe my hosting service does.

My point was (and is) that most of us benefit from tracking cookies to one degree or another, so let's not pretend that we're all as pure as the driven snow (to use an expression inspired by what's going on outside my office window this morning). Still, I'm willing to live with a government-mandated "cookie warning" if that's the right thing to do. That's certainly less hypocritical than screaming about "privacy" while benefiting from tracking cookies on one's site.

[Reno]

That's certainly less hypocritical than screaming about "privacy" while benefiting from tracking cookies on one's site.

You're comparing apples and oranges. The complaint is not about tracking cookies, the complaint is about data accumulation that is person-specific and is automatically implemented unless the person goes through the opt-out process. It's comparable to getting a new phone number and automatically having it given to telemarketers, unless you specifically say to keep it private. The analogy is not perfect, but it's close enough.

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

[netmeg]

I don't think it's a very close analogy.

"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place," Schmidt tells CNBC [...]

This was a real bucket-head way of saying this; he should have said "If you have something you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it on the internet where anyone can spider it, index it, and pass it along to third parties". I have long considered expectations of real privacy on the planet's biggest honking network to be a pipe dream, and it's what I've always told my clients, too. Common sense should tell us that.

Google isn't really doing anything that Comcast doesn't do when they track what I watch on my digital cable box, or that Kroger doesn't do via its Kroger card when I buy groceries.

[wheel]

---

System: The following 2 messages were spliced on to this thread from: http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4040114.htm [webmasterworld.com] by engine - 3:39 pm on Dec. 9, 2009 (utc 0)

---

[dailytech.com...]

Google CEO Eric Schmidt commented to CNBC, "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."

I told you so.

[engine]

It's all smoke and mirrors.

From that same piece...

The more troublesome comment is Mr. Schmidt's indictment of those who wish privacy. One must also consider Mr. Schmidt's own demands for personal privacy. Mr. Schmidt banned CNET, one of the top tech news sites on the web, from Google for an entire year for publishing information about the CEO, including his salary; his neighborhood, some of his hobbies and political donations. Where did CNET find this info? From none other than Google itself.

hehehe

If you're up to no good online, your ISP will have the records. It's about choice, and Google are missing the point.

I repeat again, it's smoke and mirrors.

[Hissingsid]

The issue isn't the cookie it is what is behind it. In Google's case a unique ID stored in a cookie is the key to a potentially huge repository of data about your web browsing history. That data is being used in a way that most users of Google never expected or intended, if they even suspected that Google was collecting the data in the first place.

Cheers

Sid

[dusky]

With the emergence and popularity of wi-fi technology, I'd say half of the computer users at home at least are using an average of 3-4 laptops all connected wirelessly to the same router and broadband connection, and of course the same IP address. Now, The Bloggs family surf the Internet daily, but none has a G* account. Mrs Bloggs is into online shopping for food, 35-55 stuff, catching up with her favorite soap opera and lifestyle, Joe junior is into online games, music or sport, social networking and the odd peep into naughty sites, Laura is into online dating, hair, nail and beauty, comparing nightclub photos on book face, Joe senior is into SUVs and their fan sites, Golf, still campaigning for the Repub. party thinking W D Bush's brother is the messiah to bring the GORY days back (the L left out for a purpose), and of course logging into forums to troubleshoot his router and wi-fi which keeps going wrong. Now how's G* is going personalize to all four of the family?

Further complication as said above, what of Internet Cafes, large college campuses, Army barracks... mainly wirelessly connected to the same IP, static or dynamic!

I can see the language and country or region maybe possible, nothing else, so the outcome will be chaos. Imagine Laura searching for "night spots free access" as she is always searching for a freebie night club access and cut price alcohol and get "do you mean wi-fi hotspots free access" or presents here with all things wireless at the top of SERPs, G* thinking, here goes Joe senior again about the same old problem with his wi-fi router!