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.
Google may be even more tightly integrated into your copy of Firefox -- to see what it's connected to:
- open a new tab or window
- enter about:config in the address bar
- click the [I'll be careful, I promise!] button
- enter goog in the filter box
- close the tab or window, (I will not be responsible if you go further).
To de-worm FF, find a search engine and look up something like "firefox config search address bar".
While one may admit, many folks use GoOgle for commercial searches (e.g., "blue widgets"), sometimes folks search for knowledge (e.g., "who *invented* the "blue widget"?) Imagine that.
So with a record of predominantly commercial searches, will they inevitably have to dredge through screens and screens of commercial guff before they get to "knowledge"?
Perhaps the average Jane or Joe (a valid computer user) doesn't know how, properly, to phrase a search. Should his or her lack of skill result in punishment? Not necessarily, I think.
These might be folks who would object, were they to know the tracking is happening: folks who watch 60 minutes, see that crooks run rampant behind the scenes in various places, and ask, "Why doesn't somebody catch them and do something?"
I know some of these folks, who indeed are scared (as they should be) to upload email contact information to gmail. And I will now tell them they should also have added care/fear of GoOgle search.
Only the guilty have anything to worry by this.
............................
Or are we talking about personalised searches across a keyword - which is what the two google people were talking about in the introductory video posted on page 1 of this post - this is not quite as bad I think.
Has GOOG become the Exxon/Esso of search?
-albo
It is not my position that Google is leading the charge into a New World Order, where the freedom of the individual will be severely subserviant to the power of the (World) state.
-Reno
You could be closer than you think -- most greedy corporate stories are close to the Standard Oil business model... and Eric Schmidt was at Bilderberg.
Are we talking about showing personalised searches for terms within a Niche - this is bad.
-driller41
No, we are talking about Google knowing what brand of toilet paper you use, and when you are due to shop for some more.
I'm UK based, the first thing I had to do was sign in again although already signed in to search and mail and then it refused to let me go any further until I downloaded and installed Google Toolbar and enabled Pagerank.
The difference here is that the vote is on a local machine, and that's much harder to manipulate from outside (assuming it's not been hacked or has a trojan/adware).
Google manipulating the data served is one thing, but, not giving average joe user the option to opt in is not good imho. It's poorly thought through as to the long term consequences.
It's great to have more relevent SERPs, I applaud that, however, why would I want SERPs reflecting my previous search. I'm done with that, I've moved on. Give me the option to go back to get all the SERPs, then to be able to hone it.
It's all too smart for it's own good, imho.
It's great to have more relevent SERPs, I applaud that, however, why would I want SERPs reflecting my previous search. I'm done with that, I've moved on.
Because we tend to repeat ourselves and act in fairly predictable ways and as they say in the ad biz, frequency sells so the more you're exposed to an ad the more likely you'll buy.
Is personalized search just serving up results based on your past or using your history to predict what you may want next? Or both?
and Eric Schmidt was at Bilderberg.
Some people in some places have already been there ..some are still there ..only Gorg was missing from the party ..for now ..
I find irony in that this happens almost exactly when CNBC is airing their documentary special making love to the big G.
Since you can be tracked via GPS through your cell phone, we can have ready your favorite coffee and doughnut in the local coffee shop as you're passing buy every morning at 7:45 AM.
You'll get charged through your cell phone bill.
***
Free has always been too expensive actually, including G's free stuff. As I got into this online business that friend of mine called devil's circle, I learned that free actually was a signal for "go away".
Yet, I use AdWords, GA, Search, etc.
Now I'm in a middle of the intersection of four lane streets, having 4 snipers pointing into my body from each side.
No Kevlar can stop those.
I'm being stuffed with BS down my throat without being asked or given an alternative. We know what you like, and even if you don't, we'll make you do. Who pays the most? Souls on sale!
Yes, there are still some choices like when parents decide to cut off the cable and have TV only for watching DVDs, but there's not much.
P.S.
Technically, G knows about your sites regardless of being logged, cookies deleted or not, based on at least one of their services "worming" through your computer.
Once Google takes the high handed approach of telling users what it thinks they want to see a new Google game will soon develop called a Google Plop.
A Google Plop is a question that Google can't answer. Like "why" or "if global warming is caused by man's activities who can we blame for the end of the last ice age".
Cheers
Sid
Search Results > Web History > Disable customizations <== NOPE
(only Web History if you're signed in)
Guess things may still be propagating, although the "Personalized Search: Turning off personalization" page is in place explaining how- and where-to. I'm just not able to. Yet.
That guff said by Google CEO Eric Schmidt about them aiming to get to a point where Google will provide one result and it will be the correct answer to your query is starting to make sense.
Actualy, Mr. Schmidt's comment made a lot of sense in the context in which it was delivered. If you'd read the TechCrunch interview [techcrunch.com] where it first appeared, you'd understand that the comment was about the need for Google Search "to understand queries better, and return results that best match the real meaning of a query."
There's nothing "warped" or "high-handed" about trying to improve the quality of search for people who aren't professional researchers or librarians and have neither the skills nor the desire to use structured queries.
But even then I don't suspect many of us are going to see any major changes in traffic. G tailoring results towards someones preferences does not really change much. Maybe saves folks some time from sifting through serps to get to the page they want.
Webmasters have to realize we make up less than a fraction of a percent of the general user population. Most users of search engines don't know to improve their query structure to get better results. They will habitually click through to the 2nd or 3rd page to get where they want to go over and over again. They remember it is on the 3rd page after I type in XYZ.
Overall I feel it is going to improve the search experience for the majority of the user community.
As for the webmaster community, of course we don't like it. Well I do, saves me from having to waste time monitoring search results each week. I can spend that time working on my site(s) now. ;-)
[Sidenote: Did anyone else get a bottle of blue pills from G for xmas this year? I've been taking mine for a few days now and I feel great. =)]
"... If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place ... the reality is that search engines, including Google, do retain this information for some time, and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act, and it is possible that information could be made available to the authorities."
Eric Schmidt to Maria Bartiromo [gawker.com] (33 second video clip)
ps. I could not find the clip on the CNBC website, so could not link to it directly.
.................................
A few random thoughts, as I don't have the time at the moment to go back through
8 pages of posts and respond to specific comments.
Along with all the other interesting happenings at G lately
- Remember the plan for offshore servers. Nice way to sidestep any government controls/rules for privacy. Can a government force them to give them data off those servers. Can a government force them not to store data on those servers.
- As far as clearing cookies, there is hidden bunch out there that you can't normally see. I suggest that you lookup "flash cookies". The thing is these flash cookies can be used to reinstate html cookies. Maybe you should even stop by Macromedia, and take a look at their web storage tool for displaying/deleting them. You can also check them for some of those Gorg properties.
I would imagine there is a ramp up period where they collect data for a few days/weeks before we start to see some changes.
If the history COLLECTION were tied to this change, I'd say yes. But Google has been collecting the logged-out history (cookie based history) for a good while. The difference is that now they are using it for logged out search results as well as logged-in. So I'm not expecting much, if any, ramp-up.
They may look at and respond to their user satisfaction data and tweak the way SERPs are being personalized - but again, they've already been doing that too for logged in users and presumably feel they have a handle on user satisfaction, too.
Only the guilty have anything to worry by this
That is a quintessential Orwellian (1984) statement.
Can you imagine that as the anchor text of a link on Google's "personalized search" homepage? :P
Webmasters have to realize we make up less than a fraction of a percent of the general user population.
Interesting read. Kept quiet so far since I don't have as many income producing dogs (sites) as others, but the above deserves a comment.
Webmasters might be a fraction of percent users on the web, but we are 100% of what google monetizes. And therefore, these "personalized searches" loom very large in how we produce product the goog and users want to slurp (grins, there's other se's out there).
Meanwhile, I find this interesting that Yahoo! has announced the following: TRANSPARANCY
[webmasterworld.com...]
This does has the potential to improve the SERPs for some users/keywords.
But the backlash potential is just huge. Once this gets out, the public outcry will be huge (someone remember Beacon?) and G will have to back-out.
Very stupid move IMHO. The managers that allowed this should be fired, immediately. And if the whiz kids and Schmidt were aware of this, and they gave it the Go, then they should re-consider their capacity to lead this firm.
Meanwhile, I find this interesting that Yahoo! has announced the following: TRANSPARANCY
Yahoo! does cynicism better than Google does.
Based on comments that we've seen about the new Yahoo Ad Interests Manager that we've seen so far, Google can silence all but its most vocal critics by:
- Creating a busy-looking opt-out page with more text than most people want to read;
- Posting it one link away from a "privacy policy" page that's linked in tiny type from a footer;
- Issuing a press release.
Cynical? Yes. But it seems to be working for Yahoo! :-)
[edited by: signor_john at 9:49 pm (utc) on Dec. 7, 2009]
From The Register:
[theregister.co.uk...]
OK leaving aside the privacy angle - this is going to make new sites more difficult to find. I even found one of our managers typing in our website into Google as he didn't know about typing it direct into the browser bar.
[edited by: tedster at 1:26 am (utc) on Dec. 8, 2009]
