Google Rolls Out the +1 Button - parallels the Facebook "Like"

[RonPK]

[googleblog.blogspot.com...]

We’ll be slowly rolling out +1’s, starting in English on Google.com. [..] Initially, +1’s will appear alongside search results and ads, but in the weeks ahead they’ll appear in many more places (including other Google products and sites across the web).

To me it seems unpractical to first visit a site and then go back to the SERP to +1 it. So I guess there will soon be buttons for publishers too.

[levo]

[google.com...]

[Reno]

From the Google video:

"When you click +1, you're telling your friends, your family, and the rest of the world...

...And the next time you're searching, you might see +1s from your friends and contacts, both on Google search and search ads."

Which also means "the next time they're searching, they might see +1s from YOU, both on Google search and search ads."

Let's not forget the infamous quote from Eric Schmidt (appearing on CNBC): "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."

So how long will it be before Google decides that parts of our search history should be publicly available, like a Facebook wall that is open to all? I mean, do you really want your search history published?

Hey, as Schmidt might say, "if you don't want others to know, maybe you shouldn't be searching for it in the first place". Think it can't happen? Who would have thought they'd be doing some of the offensive stuff they're doing now?

It's coming eventually ~ bet on it ~ and "search history", "user profiles" and "+1" are 3 steps along the way.

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

[tedster]

So how long will it be before Google decides that parts of our search history should be publicly available

Here's what Eric Schmidt said in his video interview yesterday on All Things Digital:

Google will remain a place where you can do anonymous searches, where we don't know anything about you. And we're very committed to having you have control over the information we have about you. From our perspective, the ultimate answer is transparency - we tell people what we know and we give them the choice of getting it deleted.

[allthingsd.com...]

If Google ever breaks with that policy I will be leading a rush to the exits. I wish other companies (especially Facebook, Apple and Amazon) would also move toward more transparency about their personal data.

[Reno]

"...to having you have control over the information ... we give them the choice of getting it deleted..."
(Emphasis mine)

I appreciate your ES update, but we all know how Google works ~ they will do whatever they want as default, and will require the user to go through the opt-out process. And we all know that most people will never do that. So their PR spin sounds awfully good, but it's no different from a typical government press release, which depend on what the meaning of IS is. There is danger within.

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

[tedster]

No argument, there is certainly potential for danger within. I would say, however, that the potential danger is inherent in digital technology itself rather than any one company's intention, however bening, or dark, or even unconscious. I think Google is too much of a target here and there are much bigger concerns - such as the ISPs and national governments themselves.

As long as the digital privacy concerns are aimed at Google (who is relatively benign, IMO) there remain some very dark forces who are dodging the bullet and hiding in the shadows. Focusing the critical energies on Google is almost like a magician's slight-of-hand - a distraction from the main event that's been taking place for decades and is now reaching critical mass.

The +1 button is not a big deal in my mind. I doubt that it will play that much of role in the regular SERPs - just a personalized role. And it remains to be seen if the +1 icon will be deployed very widely on sites. We would have seen more of it if it was a couple years ago. Many webmasters today are not so quick to jump on any social bandwagon.

[Reno]

As long as the digital privacy concerns are aimed at Google (who is relatively benign, IMO) there remain some very dark forces who are dodging the bullet and hiding in the shadows. Focusing the critical energies on Google is almost like a magician's slight-of-hand - a distraction from the main event that's been taking place for decades and is now reaching critical mass.

This is an extremely interesting observation, with much to think about in those 2 sentences. And given that it is from someone who is not an alarmist, I'd love to hear you expand on it sometime, be it in this thread or a separate one.

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

[walkman]

If you put and get no +1 or not many +1, your site sucks. If you don't put it, it's neutral at worst?

Expect all your +1 to become public one day, so to paraphrase Eric Schmidt, if you are not happy if it becomes public don't it.

As long as the digital privacy concerns are aimed at Google (who is relatively benign, IMO) there remain some very dark forces who are dodging the bullet and hiding in the shadows. Focusing the critical energies on Google is almost like a magician's slight-of-hand - a distraction from the main event that's been taking place for decades and is now reaching critical mass.

Wrong Tedster. Name one company that has access to your private info as much as Google does? Not one.

[netmeg]

Boy they're really doing a number on my AdSense interface #*$!ing out this button.

I don't see much advantage to me in it, compared to the Like button, but if it'll implement easy enough on my sites, I'll throw it on. People do like to click on stuff.

[Reno]

Expect all your +1 to become public one day

That's exactly what I was getting at when I said "parts of our search history" in my earlier post. I see the distinct possibility where our friends, family "and the rest of the world" will be able to click any one of our +1s, and see a complete listing of ALL our +1s. Google will say it is not private info because, after all, we voluntarily provided the feedback. Each individual +1 does not imply a whole lot, but taken as a group, a behavioral pattern (or profile) starts to take shape. So if you discuss or sell anything even slightly controversial, don't expect to get a lot of +1s, especially if people fear that vote can be made public. Want to buy your wife a sheer negligee and your search takes you to an adult exotic apparel store? Be careful about your vote, even if they do a great job. Want to buy a book investigating alternative theories about 9-11? Be careful with your vote if the site you buy it from tends to sell literature that is not "safe". Do you buy tobacco online? Well, you get the point....

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

[londrum]

its difficult to imagine how they are going to use the data, when the uptake is going to be so random.

with all the other signals like backlinks, or bounce rate, or whatever, google can measure them equally across all sites by combining the data they get though the SERPS, the toolbars, chrome, analytics blah blah etc etc... but this +1 data is going to be heavily skewed by the people who stick the button on their sites. there is going to be millions more +1 clicks for them, and loads less for the ones who have to rely on the solitary buttons in the SERPs. (if only because not everybody uses google... and even those that do will probably search from the box in their browser bar, bypassing the SERPs completely. whereas the people who put the button on their sites can get clicks from everyone.)

if one site gets 1,000 clicks a week and another gets none, all that google can really glean from that is that one site has 100 buttons on it, and the other site has none.

so why have google decided to copy the facebook button?
the 'like' button is a completly different beast, because its not really there to measure the quality of a site at all. its really just a handy way for people to share info with their friends, and getting it to appear on their wall. its got a completly different function.

if i see an event on a website that my friends might be interested in, i can click the button and share it with them. im not voting for the quality of the site. but that's what google wants it for.

imagine you've got an events site and put a "+1" button on each page. there is no way in the world that people will go through the site clicking the buttons on each page that they found handy. what they will do is this: they will click the buttons next to the events that they like. they are voting for the event, not the site. that is how the button works with facebook. all that google will get is a load of duff data.

[Umbra]

Is or will there be an non-script iframe solution?

[tedster]

Name one company that has access to your private info as much as Google does

Comcast, Verizon, AT&T. If you use any of them, your total clickstream is theirs.

[setzer]

The +1 button is not a big deal in my mind. I doubt that it will play that much of role in the regular SERPs - just a personalized role. And it remains to be seen if the +1 icon will be deployed very widely on sites. We would have seen more of it if it was a couple years ago. Many webmasters today are not so quick to jump on any social bandwagon.

Chances are it will be widespread. I mean, come on, it's Google. And if there's a chance this can boost rankings at all, you know webmasters will flock to it. And I'd argue webmasters are less hesitant to jump on social bandwagons these days. You did not see social widgets sprawled across almost every site a few years ago.

We already implemented it. No reason not to really.

[dataguy]

Just added the +1 button to about 100,000 pages and keeping my fingers crossed!

[JoePublisher]

I put the +1 button on my site today, I actually made space in the design for it two weeks ago, a little space next to the recommend button and tweet button. The +1 button now adds a little splash of colour which also helps draw attention to the box, which is nice ... :)

</ I put this in the other +1 post also >

[miozio]

Ok, now.. Who do you think will be clicking that button? There will be lots of naive users with childish brains who don't care about their privacy. If a serious surfer sees many votes for a certain site he might think its garbage and move on.

I will not be surprised when based on these votes G will start adjusting the SERPs and making the first positions right for those "kids" Relative quality pages will sink even deeper. Once again, watch the popular videos on youtube's first page, this will be the future of Google search. Bottom line

[koan]

I can't even get to the button page from the announcement in the adsense interface, the destination page turns into a redirection blackhole, constantly reloading the page.

edit: got it somewhere else: [google.com...]

[edited by: koan at 10:53 pm (utc) on Jun 1, 2011]

[walkman]

Tedster:

Comcast, Verizon, AT&T. If you use any of them, your total clickstream is theirs.

----

Recording what Web sites are visited, though, is likely to draw both practical and privacy objections.

"We're not set up to keep URL information anywhere in the network," said Drew Arena, Verizon's vice president and associate general counsel for law enforcement compliance.

And, Arena added, "if you were do to deep packet inspection to see all the URLs, you would arguably violate the Wiretap Act."
[news.cnet.com...]

Nope Tedster. The only record who had a certain IP at a certain time. So at 10.21.01 PM you had IP 11.22.33.444 and dropped it at 11.54.08.

Shall we go into what Google knows and stores, especially for those that inadvertently search while logged on? You realize it's a major pain to search logged off, right, if you use Gmail, blogger, picasa, adsense, adwords, webmastercentral, android, Google docs, youtube etc etc. Means you have to log on and off several times as you search and /or use those services. Google even knows where Android users were last night or what you purchased with Google checkout. Most importantly, Google, Microsoft and Facebook can complete the puzzle with their many services.

[tedster]

I parse the statements in that article with even more skepticism than people are currently expressing toward Google. Then I remember NarusInsight intercept suite (formerly Carnivore and then Echelon) plus the AT&T/NSA warrantless internet wire-tapping that Wired Magazine reported on [wired.com].

Privacy versus security and convenience is an area of very big and difficult trade-offs. Eric Schmidt got that part right. With Google, people are concerned about what they might do. With the examples I mentioned, it has already happened.

I'm not naive about what Google "could" do. In reality, I feel they are more likely to defend individual privacy than many (even most) governments and businesses.

[walkman]

Ok, point well taken. It could be that Verizon, AT&T et al are storing it and lying in public. We don't really know.

But we know what Google can do and what it stores. Another point is that what is stored is there to be mined by the government, with a court order...or hackers. Now I am not willing to give credit to Google for thinking now about privacy implications, they were slammed by FTC and lately by EU about Buzz and for taking wifi locations, IPs and even emails as they did the street view. FTC has them under a 20 (twenty) year supervision as part of the settlement. [ftc.gov...]

I am not saying that FB or Apple or MSFT are any better, but Google simply has much more data (Just imagine Analytics alone). Not to mention that we saw and heard what Eric Schmidt really thinks about privacy when he thought people wouldn't care. For some things we have to give info but for many, I'll skip. Like if I see a FB comment box on a site and I see my name, I go to FB and log off.

[setzer]

So far this +1 thing is interesting. On a fairly well trafficked site of mine I'm getting more +1 clicks on new pages than FB likes.

[denisl]

I was going to put FB likes on my sites until I saw people here saying that it slowed their pages down. Any idea if Google +1 does the same.

Are you putting them directly in the page or in an iframe?

[yaix2]

@walkman
>> You realize it's a major pain to search logged off, ...

Not really. Just hit [Ctrl]+[Shift]+[N] and you have a logged-off window in Chromium.

@denisl

You can load the javascript at the end of your page, so the user will not see any slow down in page load time.

[setzer]

I was going to put FB likes on my sites until I saw people here saying that it slowed their pages down. Any idea if Google +1 does the same.

Are you putting them directly in the page or in an iframe?

For FB I use the JS (asynchronous) method. The like button usually appears when the page is loaded or slightly after.

[developers.facebook.com...]

The +1 button does not appear to be asynchronous, though I haven't noticed any delay in page loading with keeping the JS right before </body>

[Shatner]

>>>So far this +1 thing is interesting. On a fairly well trafficked site of mine I'm getting more +1 clicks on new pages than FB likes.

So far I have received around 20,000 FB likes versus 1 Google +1.

[martaay]

24 hours and not a single +1 on a fairly popular site, are people scared of it? regardless the prime real estate I gave googles new toy will be downgraded fairly soon should this continue

[koan]

Where can you globally check your +1? Or are you just looking at the pages of your sites?

[Shatner]

I'm just browsing pages.

[indyank]

Right now, the only place where I am seeing +1 work is sites run by corporates like, say Techcrunch, and the people working there are obviously going to +1 everything along with a few google fan boys.

[Atomic]

I won't be adding this button anytime soon. If visitors are going to click one button, I want it to be the Like. Does anyone expect or has anyone noticed users clicking both? Either way, I see more value in a Like.