Google is FUBAR

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/115425-google-is-fubar

by llambda • 14 years ago

282 268 14 years ago

toddh• 14 years ago

It's a more successful version of the Yahoo portal strategy + the walled garden strategy. Yahoo failed when the competition created more attractive services and a walled garden requires something interesting enough to build a wall around. It will interesting to see how well it works.

Destroyer661• 14 years ago

I have a hard time understanding the whole deal everyone is making of Google finally combining the whole ecosystem they have into one nice package. I don't think the author knows that Google already knows what you use in Google docs, they already mine your email to show ads to you, they already do everything he talks about, they're just now going to let you have access to it through search instead of having to go to mail/reader/youtube/etc individually. This seems like much ado about nothing. Google isn't trying to wall people up in it's ecosystem, they're simply trying to unify all of the services they offer into one point of contact, which, as a user of many of these services, I applaud.

brudgers2• 14 years ago

If I was running a business which used Google Docs and Gmail as the center piece of corporate workflow, I would be very concerned about the ability of competitors to gather industrial intelligence simply by purchasing advertising.

And that's even without giving Google the leverage to change the Terms of Service by which I access my existing business records unilaterally, at will, and without recourse.

YMMV

MCompeau3• 14 years ago

Please correct me if I'm mistaken but companies using Google services such as GMail and Docs use them through Google Apps which isn't subject to advertising like the public versions of these services.

cbs• 14 years ago

On the other hand, if I was a buisness concerned about the ability of competitors to gather industrial intelligence, I wouldn't use 2nd party cloud services.

jinushaun• 14 years ago

I agree. In fact, I'm surprised that Google services don't already work this way.

kc0bfv• 14 years ago

I agree too. I think it was naive of anybody to think that this wouldn't eventually happen. For years people have said that Google's goal was to control the information - all of it. I suppose that never bothered me because I know that I control what information I give Google, and I don't feel that Google has tried to subvert that control yet.

I'm a little disappointed that Google is returning Goog+ results above other social networks when the + results clearly are not as relevant, but hopefully they'll iron that out over time.

amstr3• 14 years ago

Apparently when Apple has a unified ecosystem, the purpose is to "perfectly tailor its devices to its users" but if Google does it, it's "maniacal" and "tyrannical"?

The state of tech blogging is so, so poor.

shantanubala• 14 years ago

Correct me if I'm wrong (I might have outdated knowledge since I don't really use Apple products a whole lot), but you can use a Mac or iPod/iPad without having your personal data stored with Apple.

Apple and Google are in two different businesses. When Apple has a unified ecosystem, they limit what you can install/do right out of the box (they sell hardware that's tightly integrated with their own software). When Google has a unified ecosystem, they collect more information about you through different services.

Apple makes money from selling stuff. Google makes money from ads. Who has a greater incentive to collect more of your personal information and use it to make money?

0xABADC0DA• 14 years ago

Is the state of tech blogging so, so poor or do you just not agree with the conclusions? For instance:

"It must force Chrome and Google+ down the throats of users who are simply looking for a brilliant search engine."

Google just recently started showing Chrome 'faster internet' ads to Firefox users (before it was only displayed to IE users). This blog is a bit over the top especially with claims like "[Google] search engine that’s no better than Bing", but fundamentally I think it's right on the money.

Ecio782• 14 years ago

they already mine your email to show ads to you, they already do everything he talks about, they're just now going to let you have access to it through search instead of having to go to mail/reader/youtube/etc individually

Uhm ok tell me if you like this scenario:

* I'm fed up of my employeer so I'm sending tons of jobs applications from my personal gmail account

* I dont write these mails while at work, but sometimes I login on google services for doin some work-related stuff (let's say use keyword search tools)

* I forgot to logout

* I start searching stuff on the net with my chief for our vmware project and instantly google suggests me as a perfect match my application letter sent to vmware HR

* Thank you google I'm almost fired :)

of course in this case I should've logged out from google, but I'd prefer to possibly opt-out this kind of stuff...

spindritf2• 14 years ago

> of course in this case I should've logged out from google

Yes, exactly, what is to stop anyone from just going through your sent mail if they were already willing to go through your web history?

smspence8• 14 years ago

What you are scared of is some hypothetical situation that there so-far is no evidence it could or would happen in the future? When you do web searches, your personal emails start popping up within the results? That actually happens, or is going to happen? When?

MCompeau3• 14 years ago

I'm really surprised that Google is moving towards a more integrated/proprietary/closed platform. Their advantage was always that they were able to make the chaos of the web sensible to navigate. As a trendsetter in terms of openness they were protecting their own best interests by influencing others to be open (and thus crawlable) as well. I guess Google has decided that the content stored in the walled gardens of other platforms (Facebook) has become so valuable that they must change their own approach in order to compete.

myko• 14 years ago

What do you mean by Google is moving towards a closed platform?

MCompeau3• 14 years ago

I mean it in a colloquial sense. By tightly integrating their services and beginning to aggregate primarily their own content through search it seems they are taking a protectionist stance.

jfeldstein2• 14 years ago

Seems to me google search results are the same as ever, they just put a G+ widget on the side and Twitter and Facebook peeps are upset they weren't included so they're calling it "evil".

SquareWheel• 14 years ago

It's also including Google+ pages in suggested search, and seems to prioritize those pages in organic search too.

I don't have an opinion of if it's evil, but I think it is more than just the sidebar.

njloof• 14 years ago

"... there is no option for you to continue using the old privacy policy that existed when you signed up."

Find me one web site that allows me to continue using their expired privacy policy in perpetuity.

wiggum• 14 years ago

The solution is to log out. For those of you who like being signed into Gmail put "accounts.youtube.com" in your adblock filters. That will prevent Google from automatically signing you in to Youtube and other services.

cdh• 14 years ago

Just because you've logged out of a site doesn't necessarily mean the cookies have been deleted. Google can still track you just as effectively until you've cleared your cookies. In fact, if they store IP address and useragent information, they could continue tracking you even afterwards.

Now, I don't know that they do that, but they certainly have the technical means to do so.

dereferenced2• 14 years ago

Pretty sure they do. Watch this ted talk about filter bubbling from last year: http://www.thefilterbubble.com/ted-talk

He mentions they use ~30 points of info to identify you, even if you're logged out.

bambax11• 14 years ago

> Nothing happens on an Apple device without Cupertino’s knowledge, and as a result Apple can perfectly tailor its devices for it users (and ratchet up record-breaking quarterly earnings in the process).

Are Apple's devices "perfectly tailored for it[s] users"? I don't see any of that tailoring when I use them.

The reason why Apple ratchets up record-breaking earnings is that they build things people want; they build incredibly good devices.

Google is playing with fire; the thing it has that people want is not G+ or Reader or even Gmail: it is search. If they break search, they will die.

techiferous• 14 years ago

> If they break search, they will die.

Agreed. And if they don't innovate search, they will die.

Big change has to happen. Whether this is the right move remains to be seen.

rbanffy• 14 years ago

OTOH, we might discover adding a social dimension to search results may yield better results for a substantial chunk of the general population. If I am looking for a how-to, knowing whether my geek friends found it useful would be a good indicator.

It has to be carefully balanced to avoid forming social echo chambers and perpetuating instantaneous events, but, in the end, it may prove useful.

And it's a bit of exaggeration when people gets worried about privacy when they voluntarily submit the data to the very machines they fear.

GoCatGo• 14 years ago

> And it's a bit of exaggeration when people gets worried about privacy when they voluntarily submit the data to the very machines they fear. Don

While a valid point, I signed up to g+ and then logged out permanently as I didn't want all my data submitted to a single company (i.e. Google has my search, calendar and gmail) I don't like that they have so much in one spot already but I certainly wasn't going to give them social as well.

I think that everyone likes to have an element of anonymity online and this lets Google have a much clearer idea of the kind of person you are by tying these together.

While we on HN might be clever ones that realise all the data we're putting out there there's a whole world of lay people that have no idea. I assume the outrage isn't so much about the people in the know, but about your grandmother not realising what she's volunteering.

mnoire• 14 years ago

I have to agree. It seems to be a compromise between "hipster" ideals someone else mentioned or competing. And, the reality is that this was already happening, now, perhaps it's just more transparent and streamlined. Interestingly, isn't this what Facebook is already doing? I view the timeline feature as exactly this. Except, instead of creating a more complete profile based on the things you search or use across platforms, FB is allowing its users to do the legwork and fill in the blanks for them. In other words, you provide a more complete profile or timeline for your life and they have more complete info on your preference, likes/dislikes, etc. Like it or not; it's clear it's the way of the future.

kermitthehermit• 14 years ago

I couldn't agree more with the part about the search.

It looks like they're in a bad position already if they plan to deploy such a feature. I'm guessing they're having some internal issues, they must be concerned with their situation as a company.

'Don't be evil' went down the drain in the meantime.

smspence8• 14 years ago

"Google is playing with fire... If they break search, they will die."

Please explain how they might "break search". I keep seeing comments on HN about how Google is messing up search, and also G+ is ruining peoples' lives somehow.

I have seen Google do absolutely nothing that you can't opt out of, or just plain ignore. For example, I technically have a G+ account, but I never ever click on G+ and I never actually see or use it, so it has no effect on my search results or my life at all. But i can see how it might add a lot of value for people who choose to use it. Again, i emphasize that it is a choice. Google is not holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use G+. They are never going to sacrifice accurate search by only presenting you with "social" search results.

bambax11• 14 years ago

This article by Farhad Manjoo from Slate says better than I could why SPYW is silly and bad:

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2012/01/...

The best part:

Yet even the examples that Google employees have been showing off don’t seem very useful to me. On his blog, Matt Cutts, who heads Google’s Webspam team, points out how his query for general tso’s chicken is improved by social links. He follows Jennifer 8. Lee, the author of a book about Chinese restaurants, on Google+. When he searches for general tso’s, he gets a link to Lee’s definitive Quora post on the history of the dish. If you don’t follow Lee and you do the same search, you won’t get that post.

But I don’t see the logic here. Isn’t the Quora post a good result for general tso’s chicken whether or not you’re friends with Lee? And the reason it’s a good result is that she’s an expert on the topic, not that she’s your friend or colleague. If Lee’s post isn’t coming up for all Google searchers—rather than just the ones who are perceptive enough to follow her—it would seem to suggest something is amiss with Google’s algorithm. You shouldn’t have to friend a plumber in order to find a good link about unclogging your toilet.

It's probably true that you can "opt out", sort of; I don't have an account with G+ (probably never will), but I use Gmail.

If Google searches start to feature prominently links to content published by my regular email correspondents, then that will break search for me.

mburst• 14 years ago

I think the whole idea of a search engine is to give you relevant results. Google already does this and you can view your current ad profile here http://www.google.com/settings/ads/ I think it makes sense to combine all of their products, though taking input from my e-mails seems a bit shady.

yanw6• 14 years ago

Nothing spikes pageviews like Google bashing.

GiraffeNecktie• 14 years ago

Unless it's Apple bashing.

yanw6• 14 years ago

Nah, Apple has the best PR in the business; even posts about their revenue generate massive views.

SoftwareMaven2• 14 years ago

Assuming this article's suppositions are correct (that Google must become more social to continue growing), Google is showing a lot of cojones. Most businesses won't cannibalize their core cash-cow, even when they know the future is limited (see Kodak with digital cameras and every hard disk manufacturer :). There is no question it is a gamble; but if the other option is an eventual sunset (and I wouldn't be surprised if Larry thought of it that way), it is better to make the bet while you are on top than when you are scratching for survival.

smspence8• 14 years ago

I don't understand. Can you please explain how they are "cannibalizing their core cash-cow"? Can you please explain what they are gambling or betting on? They aren't getting rid of search as we know it. They are just adding additional features. They haven't taken anything away.

c2• 14 years ago

Pretty relevant example, as Eastman Kodak just filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection just last week.

icebraining2• 14 years ago

And of course, the kicker: Google’s ad networks — AdSense, AdWords, DoubleClick — will have full access to all of your search and surf habits from every Google web service.

They already did. Hell, we've had this discussion eight years ago [1] when they announced Gmail, which mines your email for demographic data to show you ads. Nothing has meaningfully changed in that respect.

[1] https://www.privacyrights.org/ar/GmailLetter.htm

spodek• 14 years ago

It just occurred to me a main reason they chose "Don't be evil" as their slogan. The foundation of the company is a slippery slope that will forever motivate it to get more personal information and to do more with it -- generally meaning profiting from that personal information in ways people don't know about. Also, they will forever be asked or demanded that information from governments and other companies who want to do the same.

Many (most?) professions would never need to remind themselves not to "be evil." Restaurants don't have to say "Don't be evil." Yes, they have the motivation to skimp on quality or ingredients, but nothing like Google's temptation. The company's foundation is so laden with temptation to "be evil" it had to try to build defences to it in its core.

The problem with that situation is that the motivation never goes away, but the effort to resist it can fade.

taphangum• 14 years ago

You're right. And it will only get worse as time goes on. IMO the upward trajectory of their stock price and how 'evil' they are willing to be, over time, will have a positive correlation.

joebadmo11• 14 years ago

The real problem is people don't really understand the context of "Don't be evil." If you read Steven Levy's In the Plex, or any first-hand account, really, you realize it's more about always thinking about the user experience first. It has nothing to do with personal information. As far as I know, when "Don't be evil" was coined, they used little to no personal information to provide search results.

ellyagg• 14 years ago

That doesn't really seem to agree with Paul Buchheit's quote on the wikipedia entry regarding the topic, where he said he "wanted something that, once you put it in there, would be hard to take out," adding that the slogan was "also a bit of a jab at a lot of the other companies, especially our competitors, who at the time, in our opinion, were kind of exploiting the users to some extent." I'm pretty sure the plain meaning of the phrase was one of the intended senses, suggesting that any aggressively selfish behavior falls under its umbrella.

It would be a little opportunistic to, on the one hand, have the founders include the following line in a company manifesto: "Don’t be evil. We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served — as shareholders and in all other ways — by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains" and garner all the amazing PR that's come from that association over the years--but then turn around and claim, oh, no, that was really mostly just talking about user experience. And I doubt they'd make that claim.

5l9• 14 years ago

I find it interesting that a motto so straight forward a child could understand now requires knowledge of the context and history in which it was coined in order to interpret it correctly.

From the Wikipedia article[0]:

Buchheit, the creator of Gmail, said he "wanted something that, once you put it in there, would be hard to take out," adding that the slogan was "also a bit of a jab at a lot of the other companies, especially our competitors, who at the time, in our opinion, were kind of exploiting the users to some extent."

a letter from Google's founders:

"Don’t be evil. We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served — as shareholders and in all other ways — by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains."

The intent seems quite straight forward to me, but if we're actually at the stage where we're debating the meaning of "Don't be evil", then perhaps it's already too late.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dont_be_evil

cturner• 14 years ago

    > The problem with that situation is that the
    > motivation never goes away, but the effort
    > to resist it can fade.

But what they're doing isn't evil. Some people don't like the change of aesthetic, but that's hardly the same as evil.

I think choosing the motto 'don't be evil' was a dumb idea though, because there's a permanent population of people with too much time on their hands trying to show off by casting things as being evil.

I use Google, and I'm looking forward to the improved functionality.

atomicdog• 14 years ago

>It just occurred to me a main reason they chose "Don't be evil" as their slogan. The foundation of the company is a slippery slope

They came up with the "don't be evil" thing when they were young idealistic hipsters who just wanted to be different from the suit-wearing status quo. They had no idea of how big they would eventually become so it had nothing to do with reminding them of the "slipperly slope".

The moment large amounts of money becomes involved the whole "don't be evil" think goes out the window pretty fast.

mkr-hn• 14 years ago

You've taken a nuanced interpretation and condensed it down into a generic, obvious, and uninteresting soundbite.

nextparadigms• 14 years ago

Now imagine a company with the very same motivations, but without such defenses to stop the temptation, say like - Facebook.

ck2• 14 years ago

DuckDuckGo was really ahead of the curve with the privacy angle eh?

Now if they just had their own crawlers - I keep saying they need to merge with Gigablast (Matt Wells) which was the most promising startup a decade ago and looked like the old google pre-adsense, but never took off (built his own crawlers way before "the cloud" existed).

jrockway• 14 years ago

So, this was all true before the privacy policy change. Google isn't asking for new rights, they just condensed 70 documents into one.

smspence8• 14 years ago

Facts and logic are not going to stop the bloggers from creating FUD and link bait.

victork22• 14 years ago

I feel like there are many Google supporters here but to be honest Google is steering to a bad direction if you are like me about efficiency and relevancy.

What makes me mad is that we don't have the choice. I don't want all the social bullshit, the +1, why would I even give a crap about that? I don't want to have everything interconnected, I hate the fact that now if I logged in to Gmail I am logged into Youtube. I don't buy Apple to avoid fully integrated systems, I will not use Google in the future.

It makes me think about CNN who believes they are more relevant when they are reading what shit people say on Twitter "Ze pope is dead LOL". Yeah right, great piece of info here.

But hey, if people like it, they are welcome to it, I just hope there will be good alternatives in the future.

Karunamon• 14 years ago

>What makes me mad is that we don't have the choice.

If you don't like the social results in your SERP, you realize it's a one click button to turn it off, right?

Or were you talking about the +1? Nobody forces you to click on it.

I don't get the rage. Google owns a multitude of different sites. Being able to sign into all of them at once is a godsend as far as I'm concerned.

So much misplaced anger here..

victork22• 14 years ago

Au contraire I don't have any anger. If their choice is to sacrifice relevancy for their other social services or they social bullshit, it is fine with me, I am not a fan of Google brand, just a user and I will take my business elsewhere.

To tell you where the problems come from in my opinion:

_ Everything is opt-out, not opt-in. After I realize than I am very pro-choice in term of user experience.

_ The +1 thingy is very tricky, if you click the wrong button and don't read well, that's it you're on +1. And once you're on it, no way to get out

_ Relevancy is killed by the influence of +1. Look at this talk if you have the time: http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bu... . Since it is an opt out 99% of the user won't do it and in the long term it will probably have a bad influence on how people receive and perceive information.

I think my reasons to leave are relevant and not based on rage but a cold appreciation of the future of Google.

BenoitEssiambre• 14 years ago

Although I don't like the way Google is starting to control too much online, I believe that using the social network and other information to influence search and other services is the future.

Google’s move towards social search could be the most significant change in the way we use the web since the beginning of Google itself. Consider that with this move, Google is actually moving away from their flagship Pagerank algorithm.

Google has already mentioned it wants to hold our online identity and others have speculated that Google wants to be a “reputation engine” (http://rossdawsonblog.com/weblog/archives/2011/08/breaking-g...).

It is not difficult to see that the next step is to make search results dependent on reputation and on the trust friends and +1’d organisations have in particular websites.

Difficulty to establish identity and trust is one of the main shortcomings of the web compared to the real world, especially when doing business. It is much easier to judge character and establish trust in a local face to face relationship than on the web. Locally we can observe others interacting with a person of interest or ask questions to neighbors who are likely to have some knowledge about each other.

I have been interested in algorithmic trust metrics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_metric) for a while. If I was starting grad school over, I think I might have picked this field for my research. Things like Subjective logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_logic) are similar to the way humans establish trust in real life and search engines could improve their results by using it. There are ways to quantify not only direct relationships but also indirect ones where one can trust an entity because some other trusted party, trusts them. The fact that we are all connected by few degrees of separation (some say at most six) makes this truly powerful.

It is probably too computationally expensive to generate a complete global trust network for each google+ user but a team of smart engineers should be able to cluster users with similar opinions or apply the relevant algorithms greedily. Although it is a computationally difficult problem, Google might just be the company that has enough servers to throw at the problem.

The trust network paradigm isn’t limited to search. When plugged into a global trust engine, people or organisations that do transactions online, on eBay for example, could forgo the need to rely on vast amounts of random customer feedback to establish trust but instead users could request to see a trust path from themselves to a target person before doing business. This means that new eBay users could bring their reputation from elsewhere with them when just starting to sell. Inversely, it may become possible for google+ users to "+1" eBay’s reputation system and their search results would then contain things that people with good reputation on eBay have +1’d or linked to.

The transition from rankings based on random websites’ link contents which often include SEO manipulations to rankings based on individually chosen trusted sources has the potential to be revolutionary. I can’t wait for the day when each search result is accompanied by text stating “recommended this because you +1’d this guy who +1’d this organisation who links a lot to this site.” The mechanism could be used in every kind of relationships and might help picking new employees, friends, doctors or even politicians.

I hope Google doesn't become a monopoly in this, like many people I am unconformable with their growing reach. However, if they manage to provide a transparent trust network and provide better search results based on it, it will add a lot of value to the web.

tl;dr I suspect Google wants all its services integrated with social because it is trying to build a trust network.

bambax11• 14 years ago

> Things like Subjective logic are similar to the way humans establish trust in real life and search engines could improve their results by using it.

Trust in real life is broken. Google Search (1999 version) was a HUGE IMPROVEMENT over the "it's who you know" way of doing things that had always existed. Suddenly, you didn't have to know a guy who knew a guy who had a bike to find information about something.

It seems completely crazy to me that we would want to go back to the old way of doing things. I use Google to find out about things my friends don't know (if they did, I'd have asked them).

orenmazor• 14 years ago

why does it creep the crap out of me when google gathers personal information, but I dont care if facebook/apple do it?

laconian3• 14 years ago

Tech blog echo chamber?

AJ007• 14 years ago

My Gmail account is accessed separately on a remote machine. Its not my main email account. I have no "Google" account, because I do not use Google in that context.

I don't use Google Docs, Google Reader, or log in to Youtube to watch videos marked as offensive.

Use Google for search. Certainly don't use a Google linked version of Android. There are plenty of good alternatives to most everything Google has.

The aggressiveness of Google's actions make me think a launch of a Facebook ad network is imminent, just in time for their IPO.

cletus• 14 years ago

Disclaimer: I am a Google engineer. These opinions are my own. Nothing I say in any way represents the company's position, officially or unofficially.

That being said, I see all this as much ado about nothing.

Privacy policies are complex beasts governed by many regulatory environments. Reducing a huge number of these policies to a handful, announcing it ahead of time and giving you controls over privacy all seem like good things to me.

As far as SPYW goes, it's all about giving the users more relevant results. This is something you can opt out of (to some extent with privacy controls, otherwise with logging out).

To me this seems to be another of these "bubble" issues.

Take Apple as an example of that. Every time they release a new (iPhone, iPad, whatever) you'll see people in the tech bubble (largely of SF and NYC) dig up tired old cliches like "its evolutionary not revolutionary" (seriously, I'm so sick of hearing that phrase) and it's "not the upgrade I was hoping for". On HN you'll find people who are still somehow shocked that you can't out-of-the-box sideload a bootloader onto an iPhone (or whatever).

Consumers (outside the bubble) however love these new products. Just look at Apple's 2011Q4 results, which are simply astounding. Thing is, that happens every time and yet the same old jaded "bubblistas" meet every new release with the same mix of lukewarm cliches, disappointment and derision.

I see this as much the same way. All of this is about (IMHO) improving the user experience. You don't have to look very far to see accounts from users who love these new features.

If we know something of your interests (based on G+ and/or search), isn't suggesting more relevant content to you on Youtube (as a purely hypothetical example) a good thing?

EDIT: as far as including Twitter/FB goes, Eric Schmidt addressed this [1]:

> I countered that Google seemed to have all the permission it needed, in that they’re not blocked from crawling pages.

> “That’s your opinion,” Schmidt said, then joked: “If you could arrange a letter from Facebook and Twitter to us, that would be helpful.”

> I pushed back that both have effectively given those letters since their robots.txt files — a method of blocking search engines — weren’t telling Google to go away.

> “That’s your interpretation of their policies,” Schmidt said.

[1] http://marketingland.com/schmidt-google-not-favored-happy-to...

alexgartrell• 14 years ago

> As far as SPYW goes, it's all about giving the users more relevant results.

For the majority of users, Facebook/Twitter results are more relevant than Google Plus results. There's nothing in the rule book that says you can't leverage a successful property to promote another, but it's unfair to everyone to try to pass that off as a move to increase relevance in search results.

Disclaimer: I'm a Facebook engineer who doesn't take SPYW personally.

chintan• 14 years ago

> For the majority of users

Can I have an independent "authoritative" search engine and "cool" social networking tool. You both have Ad platforms on your respective platforms to "promote" products. Thank you.

Disclaimer: A singleton instance of an average user

josefresco• 14 years ago

Popularity does not equal relevancy.

Just because FB and TW are 'popular' does not mean the results I (or a search engine) get from them are any more 'relevant' to my search than other "niche" social networks like Google Plus.

spindritf2• 14 years ago

> For the majority of users, Facebook/Twitter results are more relevant than Google Plus results.

Seems like Google would like to change that.

chalst2• 14 years ago

The first Google response to the Twitter complaint suggested that they would be happy to index FB & T content if only that content were opened up to them in a way that let them do their job properly.

Do we know that Google really wants SPYW to be the walled garden that FB & T claim? Where's the evidence?

incongruity2• 14 years ago

> As far as SPYW goes, it's all about giving the users more relevant results. This is something you can opt out of (to some extent with privacy controls, otherwise with logging out).

Except adwords is in this mix. This makes it one step closer (or is it already upon us?) for ads to be targeted to me based on the contents of emails I send and receive.

To me, email is one of the more personal and private things that I do online and even the possibility that Google will use my gmail account to target ads is too much.

edit: perhaps I should clarify – as I understand it, the ads that are currently displayed are relevant only to the email on screen when using gmail's web interface. What I meant was that SPYW opens the door to ads everywhere targeted based on the contents of all of my email. I don't believe that Google does that currently, but I have every reason to expect it's coming. And that bothers me.

bishnu• 14 years ago

But...Google already scans your email for AdWords.

tbatterii• 14 years ago

any time I read an email in gmail, I look to the right and I see adsense. it's been there for as long as I can remember. I always assumed that what you are describing might happen already has since it's rather obvious that the ads are trying to be somewhat relevant to the email I'm reading. Is it somehow worse because it shows up on your search results page too?

JanezStupar• 14 years ago

On one side I always used Google service under presumption that Google is already collecting and analyzing all of its data as a complete profile.

On the other hand I really dislike the way Google is heading.

In the olden days when Google was dumber having high Google Fu allowed you to get required information faster and with greater accuracy. When Google was dumber you could use its flaws to get where you wanted.

Today it just picks whatever it believes is what you are searching for and wont budge. This is especially annoying when you are just starting out on a search of a topic you know nothing about and need a random factor to get going.

manish_gill2• 14 years ago

>Today it just picks whatever it believes is what you are searching for and wont budge. This is especially annoying when you are just starting out on a search of a topic you know nothing about and need a random factor to get going.

Preciously the reason why I've started using DuckDuckGo as my primary search engine. In my experience, it almost always provides unbiased results.

Ihadtocomment• 14 years ago

Wow, your post is wrong on so many levels.

So for users Google+ is most relevant in social? Not even one link from Facebook or Twitter? Just like Google Local is best for the users when showing 100% Google links. Please do not insult people's intelligence. Google is doing this for a few reasons and plastering more ads is the main one. With Google+ a lote users get to stay on Google+ due to placement not go to our sites.

Just because some criticize Apple and some are now criticizing Google doesn't mean that Google is doing the right thing, considering Apple's success. Apple works perfectly for 99+% of users and APPL never touches that, Google is adding crap and hiding what the users want with dozens of ads (Please don't go into "they're relevant." Yeah, so relevant to your CFO that Google feels the need to show me a full page of them and I need to turn my laptop screen to see what are ads and what is content.) Now imagine if Apple added 2-3 extra tasks to their most basic functions.

Tracking is another beast. Do not poke the government or users in the eye or they will make you cry. A tiny change in the law and there goes half of your revenue. Once they determine you're "evil," everything you do is under scrutiny and that includes ads, tracking, anti-trust and everything. And next time you advertise illegal abortion drugs through Adwords they will just jail your execs and cripple the company.

georgieporgie• 14 years ago

Downvoted for being truculent and inflammatory, and not much else.

fred_nada9• 14 years ago

A little over the top, but to your point. See this search for cars I just did... 2 real results on the entire page.

http://oi39.tinypic.com/2s62a9k.jpg

5l9• 14 years ago

> If we know something of your interests (based on G+ and/or search), isn't suggesting more relevant content to you on Youtube (as a purely hypothetical example) a good thing?

Yes (it's certainly convenient), but:

a) People will naturally question your motivations for these changes

and b) they will wonder at the privacy implications

The problem is (especially from the perspective of the tech press) you appear to be primarily motivated by "beating" Facebook, and people are now looking uncomfortably at their personal data juxtapositioned with public search results.

It may be that you held all this data already, and it may be that it's just as siloed off and protected at the back-end as it ever was, but the public is slow to wake up to the implications of the data you already hold. What might have flown below their radar yesterday, they're increasingly worried about today. Naturally the tech community who are better informed and think about these things much earlier are going to be amongst the first to start questioning you.

You're really shoving it in everyone's faces, so don't be surprised that there's some backlash.

luser001• 14 years ago

> This is something you can opt out of (to some extent with privacy controls, otherwise with logging out).

And conveniently, most users will never bother to change their defaults.

My concern is not only that my particular interests are being tracked.

My concern is about the worsening of the power asymmetry between the general public and their (for lack of a better word) rulers (i.e., govt.+corporate complex).

What good can come of the fact that the rulers will know the zeitgeist of society at arbitrarily fine levels of resolution? (The feel-good answer is that if they know, they'll cater to the wishes of those whom they nominally serve, but I think there are enough examples to show otherwise).

For instance, can't an outsider's campaign to a high public office be squished more easily just before the cusp of him/her becoming "too big to ignore"?

bambax11• 14 years ago

> If we know something of your interests (based on G+ and/or search), isn't suggesting more relevant content to you on Youtube (as a purely hypothetical example) a good thing?

No, it's not. Not because of "privacy" concerns or this whole silly "evil" debate, but because YOU'LL GUESS WRONG.

I have many interests.

I never email anyone about my search queries because I do searches about programming, and I exchange mail with my friends about past or future parties. If you try to use one to help the other you will produce a soup of irrelevant garbage.

Please just show me the most relevant links in the whole Web. I don't care what my friends think (I know already).

HPBEggo• 14 years ago

This.

Considering the vastly different uses people put different portions of Google's services towards, combining all of them seems rather counter-productive to me.

I suppose an option to partition different services into different relevancy 'portfolios' would solve the problem, but that puts a lot of burden on the user that, at least in my opinion, most users are not looking for.

pron• 14 years ago

+googol. I just have to repeat this. Google, YOU WILL GUESS WRONG!

And my hunch is, you'll guess wrong about, oh, 8 times out of ten. Google search is the last place I go to look for something that's already one of my interests. For that I have twitter, my feed reader etc. I only google things that I have no, or little, familiarity with. Google search is supposed to tell me WHAT I DON'T ALREADY KNOW. In fact, now when I think about it, you could use my information to make search better by LOWERING rather than increasing the rank of any result that I'm likely to already know.

yanw6• 14 years ago

Yeah but social relevance is soon becoming a big part of web relevance and that stuff will be sorted with time when a balance is achieved between social and other signals, the concept is sound it will just have to be subject to iteration to get it right. Until then you can use the toggle to ignore the social stuff (the globe button).

jowiar• 14 years ago

Think back to CW circa 1997. The internet is too complex to find the most relevant results by machine. These things must be hand-indexed. There is no better way to do it.

All Google does is guess as to what the "most relevant" results are. What you and your friends say/do/click/whatever is just another data point in the model. Presumably, it trains itself based on the results you/others actually click.

Google will almost certainly model how much a particular friend influences a particular search. It almost certainly will help, and certainly can't hurt (in the long run, if the weight goes to zero).

Jach• 14 years ago

Google's an AI company. If they are guessing wrong, then they're doing poorly as a company and will suffer financially. They have every incentive to make sure it guesses wrong as infrequently as possible. You have many interests, but a finite number, they can all play a role in the model of you. Similarly with people you know.

Now, if you're suggesting that for some reason there's an inherent "you will never be able to predict me with >x% accuracy", that's another topic.

rhino422• 14 years ago

No offense, but you seem to be raging a bit there.

Naturally, you have many interests. We all do. Google is trying to get the best picture of what those interests are, arguably so that they can give better than chance (or whatever they had before this). As usual, I would suspect that having more information trumps having less, so I argue that SPYW is improvement.

Sorry if this post seems impolite...

mvgoogler2• 14 years ago

"just show me the most relevant links"

Here's the rub - for a given query there is no such thing as the list of link that are "most relevant". Different people will have (potentially widely) divergent opinions on what the most relevant set of links are for the exact same query.

The goal Google web-search [1] is to show you the links from the whole web that are most relevant to you. Knowing more about you allows a search engine to make better decisions about what links are relevant to you.

You would be hard pressed to find an engineer at Google that thinks search is remotely close to a "solved" problem.

([1] for the cynics - yes, Google makes a lot of money from showing ads on search result pages. That is a nice effect of having a great search engine. Making money isn't the goal of web-search. Showing relevant results is. That was true when Larry and Sergey were cobbling together machines in their dorm room. It is still true today)

bru• 14 years ago

I agree with you, and I think that Christopher Poole (moot) explained it very well at the Web 2.0 Summit 2011[1].

> Google and Facebook would have you believe that you're a mirror, but in fact, we're more like diamonds.

> Identity is prismatic

Those quotes may not be the best ones, but he explains well the dangers of the concept of identity according to Google and Facebook. An article about it was also featured here[2].

> If you try to use one to help the other you will produce a soup of irrelevant garbage.

I definitely agree. My different interests already enter in conflict on Youtube; and Google got trouble dealing with the fact that 90% of my searches will be in English and the last 10% will be in French, and I do not want it to filter my results towards one language or another.

1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=e...

2: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3123086

reddit_clone2• 14 years ago

Well said.

I hated it it when I saw search results polluted like that a few weeks ago. Now I keep myself logged out of GMail pretty much all the time.

lallysingh• 14 years ago

A query string, by itself, is just a few words in a specific order. It doesn't say very much at all. A machine has very little idea of what you're asking for. The more context it has for what you're talking about, the better chance it has at guessing what you meant -- that's all it can do, it'll never actually know.

Google's often guessing wrong now -- how many times is the link you want not the top one? How often do you have to change your query? It's all a guessing game, because the situations where there's an obvious right answer (like exact phrases) doesn't give satisfactory results. Moreover, interpreting queries for those situations can often (even usually) give sub-optimal results, as the computer's taking the query too literally.

As for programming queries, my email's actually pretty useful. I'm subscribed to a few mailing lists, and it'd be nice to not get Perl or Win32 results when I'm mostly in C and Linux. A trivial scan of my email headers would say as much.

For other interests, my youtube play list indicates a lot of what I mean. I like cats, and I watch them on youtube. When I type in jaguar, I'm actually probably asking about the cat, not the car. Lots of other people are asking about the car. It's particularly obvious if they were watching a review of a car recently, and not watching cat videos.

And as for your friends, how about the people you follow? If I'm following really good programmers, and I type in a programming-related query, I'd rather get results biased toward what really good programmers like, versus the unbiased average. Even for my friends, I actually respect some of their opinions (gasp!). If they've +1'd something in the realm of what I'm looking for, it's probably worth considering.

cpt1138• 14 years ago

I love the arrogance of "it's all about giving the users more relevant results." Its not about that at all, its all about the maximization of advertising which is totally different. I'm not the typical user, I have divorced myself from all Google products, and use adblocker and ghostery to prevent trackers. Before doing all this, since I'm interested in bicycles and talk about bicycles, Google would push the same bicycle ad in my face on every site I visited. I made a mental note never to purchase anything from that site. This is nothing but evil masked as "were doing this for the user."

Steko• 14 years ago

"EDIT: as far as including Twitter/FB goes, Eric Schmidt addressed this"

Not to the satisfaction of many people. I don't need FB or Twitter or G+ results but it seems clear to me that:

(1) if subject X is more active by far on network Y, then even partial results results including network Y are better (read: "more relevant") then results only showing network Z.

(2) Most subjects are more active by far on Twitter or FB then they are on G+.

(3) Results only showing G+ therefore are inferior to more inclusive but partial results from FB/Twitter.

LONG EDIT:

I guess even given the above we'd have to consider whether results that only include network Z are better then results that include no network.

Google's case apparently is that it does, and that, while better worlds may exist where FB and Twitter sign deals, what Google delivers today is better for the user then what it delivered a few weeks ago.

The skeptical counterargument is that this just amounts to favorable placement for Google's product. Imagine if Google launched a Flickr clone tomorrow with very few users and suddenly on GIS's a quarter of the top results were reserved for Google's Flickr clone. Why bother earning a higher page rank the right way when you can just host your images with Google's services and get a free SERP boost? That is exactly what Danny Sullivan talked about although he used video for his example.

fred_nada9• 14 years ago

Cletus: The outrage is from people who feel they were lied to and instead of apologizing google seems to be defending their actions.

You said: As far as SPYW goes, it's all about giving the users more relevant results. This is something you can opt out of (to some extent with privacy controls, otherwise with logging out).

This is not true.

Example 1: Search for cars while "opted" out of G+ results. Ferarri's G+ page is on top on the right, but no link to Ferrari's actual website or their FB page. So if this was focused on relevancy wouldn't the Ferrari link be to Ferrari's home page? Not that I think Ferrari is the most relevant result period, but wouldn't that make sense? Not only that, in your main results Ferrari.com isn't listed in the top 100. So how could they be relevant? This gives pageviews to G+ where the user should be going elsewhere. This isn't just about Twitter/Facebook. Google is driving users to its content over other publishers. This is an ADVERTISEMENT for Google+. 100% Which is against your policies not to mark them clearly as ads. http://www.google.com/competition/howgoogleadswork.html

Example 2: I searched for NFC Championship Game in Google while being opted in. I got a status update from MG Siegler stating he was going to the game in the top 5 results. MG Siegler is not in my circles. Wouldn't an article on the game be 100X better than this result. So you are driving users to your irrelevant content in replace of ESPN. That makes no sense.

Example 3. http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/search-plus-your-world/ - Cutts did a search for werewolf. Was he looking for a picture of himself? Does anyone here find that useful? Most of the comments on his post didn't. I would like to know honestly. Would that be useful to you? Also, in the future, when I search for cars will I see my friends driving their cars as the 2nd result? I would personally rather see some info about how to buy a car or research a car or car prices.

Example 4: You can't opt out 100%. That is disingenuous to say you can.

Example 5: Google was supposed to be "Do No Evil" and you have squashed that. It is worse to be screwed by someone who claims to be trustworthy than someone you know is not. For example, we all knew Microsoft was shady from the beginning so we didn't expect much. But you guys said it was all about relevancy, the user, do no evil, etc. Look at this way, if a girl married Gene Simmons could she honestly be pissed if he was cheating on her? But if a girl married a guy like Donnie Osmond and he cheated she would be devastated. She was probably only with him in the first place because he was trustworthy. You are Donnie Osmond. :)

Anyway, if you guys came clean and said that you are trying to promote your network then maybe people wouldn't be so pissed. As of right now, it looks like you are trying to drive traffic to your own irrelevant content over legitimate content businesses. Since you have a dominant position in search and hundreds of thousands of companies/sites depend on your traffic, they are scared. Google is rapidly getting into the content game and people can only assume you will put your new content above everyone else's. That is bad for business and bad for startups which are country needs so badly right now.

mdwrigh2• 14 years ago

> Example 1: Search for cars while "opted" out of G+ results. Ferarri's G+ page is on top on the right, but no link to Ferrari's actual website or their FB page. So if this was focused on relevancy wouldn't the Ferrari link be to Ferrari's home page? Not that I think Ferrari is the most relevant result period, but wouldn't that make sense? Not only that, in your main results Ferrari.com isn't listed in the top 100. So how could they be relevant? This gives pageviews to G+ where the user should be going elsewhere. This isn't just about Twitter/Facebook. Google is driving users to its content over other publishers. This is an ADVERTISEMENT for Google+. 100% Which is against your policies not to mark them clearly as ads. http://www.google.com/competition/howgoogleadswork.html

I think it's pretty clearly marked what it is, right above it it says "People and Pages on Google+". Is it mixed in with the search results? Is it taking the place of search results? No, its not doing either. I don't think you can really complain that it violates the "Strict Separation of Ads and Search Results".

> Example 2: I searched for NFC Championship Game in Google while being opted in. I got a status update from MG Siegler stating he was going to the game in the top 5 results. MG Siegler is not in my circles. Wouldn't an article on the game be 100X better than this result. So you are driving users to your irrelevant content in replace of ESPN. That makes no sense.

Yes, it would be better in this case. But what if the game was going on and someone posted about something that had just happened? Wouldn't that be potentially more relevant? Figuring out relevancy is difficult. As of now, I don't see MG Siegler's post in my SPYW results, so I'm guessing it showing up for you had to do with the timeliness of the post.

> Example 4: You can't opt out 100%. That is disingenuous to say you can.

Can you be more specific as to what you can't opt out of?

> Example 5: Google was supposed to be "Do No Evil" and you have squashed that. It is worse to be screwed by someone who claims to be trustworthy than someone you know is not. For example, we all knew Microsoft was shady from the beginning so we didn't expect much. But you guys said it was all about relevancy, the user, do no evil, etc. Look at this way, if a girl married Gene Simmons could she honestly be pissed if he was cheating on her? But if a girl married a guy like Donnie Osmond and he cheated she would be devastated. She was probably only with him in the first place because he was trustworthy. You are Donnie Osmond. :)

Regarding "Do No Evil": https://plus.google.com/109412257237874861202/posts/4U2mpZ6h...

azylman• 14 years ago

http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/24/you-call-that-evil/

pessimist• 14 years ago

Googler here - thanks for the real example query. Could you confirm if the query [nfc championship game] is still showing the MG Siegler post, or if it appeared only for a short while during the game. Thanks!

landhar3• 14 years ago

Concerning example 3, I find that this comment sums it all up:

http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/search-plus-your-world/#commen...

drhowarddrfine• 14 years ago

While Google makes the news on this, everyone loves to forget every marketing firm in the world has been collecting exactly the same data on them since the stone age.

And being able to collect the data about them to serve better results is a business decision. Some may like or dislike it's done that way but it's no different than liking/disliking any product you use now.

yanw6• 14 years ago

Much of these "bubble" issues are created by interested parties (mainly your competitors) the best you could do about it is assembling a better PR team.

hendrix• 14 years ago

So Google should know everything about everyone's search/social/youtube/whatever? Combining this data creates a very complete psychological profile on someone. Since Google is based in the USA all of this data could then be acquired by the government under the patriot act and used against innocent Americans. Never mind that the FBI (who could also request Google's data) has already done this sort of thing to anti-war groups http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09....

Also, Eric Schmidt said "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place" which in my opinion is fucking crazy. If I want to search for black panthers/Jewish defense league/Aryan nations/journal articles on explosive synthesis/bacillus anthracis/obscure soviet weaponry then I sure as hell don't want Google logging everything. Never mind that I'm just curious, but it sounds like Herr Schmidt and company are ready to send the Stasi out to get me. I have since switched to ssl + duckduckgo and blocked Google in my hosts file. Time for Google to stop trying to be god.

cynwoody• 14 years ago

So use Yandex via https.

That way, only Kommittee will know what you searched for.

Seriously, it's not a half-bad search engine. Throw it a bone once in while to make sure it survives!

rdtsc• 14 years ago

> This is something you can opt out of

Alright so if this all about improving user experience, let users know they can opt in then?

eternalban• 14 years ago

I don't want Google Inc. to know my interests. I wanted a search butler (and that was the original Google), not a e-Mommy (to run on my iDaddy). Yes, Apple is getting out of hand, as well.

That is why I am now a DuckDuckGo user. Of course I can't do anything about Google's prying eyes /everywhere/ on the net, so I guess we need to ask Congress to help out there.

rat87• 14 years ago

> If we know something of your interests (based on G+ and/or search), isn't suggesting more relevant content to you on Youtube (as a purely hypothetical example) a good thing?

No absolutely not, a search that is more relevant occasionally is only slightly useful maybe getting a slightly better link a few percentage points of the time(past a certain amount how much more relevant can you get. If you go to far in trying to guess the persons mind based on persons external history rather then their search it seem like you would get more way of answers and if you don't the answer would likely have been near the top anyway), keeping less information on users for shorter amounts of time should be preferred.

kahawe2• 14 years ago

The difference is that for the up-coming change, you can NOT opt out of it and it goes far beyond "we'll also search your google+ profile for you!".

If it was really all about the users and their experiences, then why is there no way to opt-out 100%?

And the last time GOOG did what AAPL just did yesterday... must have been, hmm, never.

tallanvor• 14 years ago

> If we know something of your interests (based on G+ and/or search), isn't suggesting more relevant content to you on Youtube (as a purely hypothetical example) a good thing?

No, it's not. When I search for something, I want the most relevant results, not what you think are most relevant to me. I'm a liberal, and I tend to visit more liberal sites for political information - Crooks and Liars, Daily Kos, Huffington Post, etc. for general news. I'm also more likely to share links to those sites. But if I'm searching for information that could be considered related to a political issue, I don't want Google deciding that the most relevant results will only come from left leaning sites when a conservative site may have better information about a specific issue.

I believe someone even gave a TED talk about this issue.

batista3• 14 years ago

* As far as SPYW goes, it's all about giving the users more relevant results. *

And I call BS. Nobody asked for results to be more relevant by going THAT particular way.

On the contrary, people have asked for more relevant results by eliminating this kind of artificial results.

I see this as much the same way. All of this is about (IMHO) improving the user experience.

Really? Because it looks like it's all about competing with Facebook and improving the bottom line.

jmcqk6• 14 years ago

>If we know something of your interests (based on G+ and/or search), isn't suggesting more relevant content to you on Youtube (as a purely hypothetical example) a good thing?

Generally speaking, yes, but there is the danger of creating a [filter bubble](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble).

tripzilch• 14 years ago

> On HN you'll find people who are still somehow shocked that you can't out-of-the-box sideload a bootloader onto an iPhone (or whatever).

Not "shocked", but pissed off and outraged.

I really hate this default "I can't believe you're surprised that ..." response whenever someone brings something to their attention that worries or angers them. It's even on Cracked.com's list of most stupid Internet reactions:

http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-6-stupidest-internet-reactio...

mkup2• 14 years ago

I've been using "GMail for Domains" service for years to filter spam. Can anyone recommend a viable alternative?

I read e-mail in Portable Thunderbird, it's downloaded/uploaded via POP3/SMTP, so I don't have to browse the internet with Google cookies. Also I don't have Google+ account, and I have separate browser to access Analytics and Webmaster tools and AdWords. My main browser clears all cookies at end-of-session except ones from whitelisted domains, so I'm not bothered by the search query spying that much. They can bind search queries to my e-mail account only by the same IP address used in HTTP search and POP3/SMTP mail transfer.

One more question: does Chrome browser (on desktop) have some kind of builtin instance/installation ID it transfers to Google servers every time I connect? I use Firefox, but anyway.

kodkdoepk• 14 years ago

hotmail and dozens of others has similar feature.

freehunter5• 14 years ago

People love Google services, but they don't like the very things that make those services great. Without knowing who you are and what you're about, they can't accurately filter spam or show you relevant results/ads. There are other spam filters, but they don't work as well because they don't know you.

Yes, Chrome sends information back to Google just like Google Search does: it tracks what searches you make through the Omnibar. Firefox does the same thing when you make Google searches in their search box.

mkup2• 14 years ago

Filtering spam has nothing to do with my search queries. It's all about finding duplicate or nearly duplicate messages sent to many people at once, all one needs is a large sample database.

cheald2• 14 years ago

What strikes me the most about this whole debacle is that people have complained for ages that Google doesn't "get" social. Its products have been poorly integrated and incongruent. Then, when Google says "Okay, we're going to integrate the balls off of everything, and provide a single consistent experience across all our products", people pitch a fit. It seems they can't win either way. This is a necessary step in fixing Google's broken approach to social and personalized information.

Personally, I like this direction. I really don't care Google will have the my same data in Picasa and Docs and Gmail. If anything, it's going to mean a better product for me. It's not like Google is suddenly sharing all this data with an external entity - it already had it. It already used it. Now it's just using it across multiple facets rather than limiting it to a single one. I'm just not sure I get the brouhaha. Maybe it's because I already use all those services as a single user, and have wanted better integration between them, so this just fits me better. Maybe I'm just ignorant about the implications. I'm not sure.

I do have to ask, though - if you have an issue with Google's having access to your data, why do you use Google services? As with any web property, if you're in for a penny, you're in for a pound.

scottkrager2• 14 years ago

My issue with it is mostly in the visual implementation.

I had hoped that Google would be more subtle about it, instead I look at the SERPs and see them shouting at me.

cheald2• 14 years ago

I think that's a fair point. Some people like the simpler search results. Does the SPYW toggle solve that complaint for you, though, or is there a deeper problem that I'm missing?

redthrowaway3• 14 years ago

> It seems they can't win either way

People like to bitch and gossip about whoever's on top. It's why celebrity tabloids exist, it's perversely why shows like Jersey Shore and My Super Sweet 16 exist, it's why people complain about Apple or Google or Microsoft back in the day.

Couple the innate tendency towards bitching with the prospect of ad revenue from eyeballs, and you get the kind of tabloidy trash we've seen from pandodaily et al. It's just people capitalizing on some of the seedier aspects of human nature.

Google will survive this "controversy" (which 99.99% of its users haven't heard of), just as it will endure the cyclic cries of "you're being evil!". Sarah Lacy will continue to write sordid tales of no-goodery, and the Internet will continue to lap it up. Bloggers will continue to seize on the latest controversy to get pageviews, and so on.

> I do have to ask, though - if you have an issue with Google's having access to your data, why do you use Google services?

Because no one does have a real issue with it. They might be bugged by the abstract thought of it, but they certainly aren't bothered enough to do anything. Empty words, floating on the wind...

mattmanser3• 14 years ago

Do you honestly think MS's actions didn't have serious consequences? Broken companies, destroyed dreams, lack of progress? We're 5 or 6 years behind where we should have been with the web because of them. And I still buy their stuff. Good Guy Gates is a disturbing meme in my book, the greatest trick and all that.

But on to my point, you must have an extremely short attention span, do you not even remember what happened with Buzz? As it pretty much invalidates your entire point.

That big BOOM, straight in their face. Happened pretty much exactly two years ago?

People do have issues with this stuff, if you don't, and I really mean this:

Shut up and sit down.

This is serious stuff, dangerous stuff, very, very, very dangerous stuff. You don't get that. That Google engineer above doesn't get that, disingenuously comparing fantastic user experiences with tracking you and invading your privacy for better advertising.

The worst thing in life you can do is live in this little bubble of 'I don't see the problem, I wish people would stop complaining'. If you don't, don't assume it's because you know best. Learn from history, this kind of consolidation of power is bad news.

First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak out because I was Protestant.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

I'm not talking about people invading your home and sweeping you off into the night tomorrow. But history has taught us time and time and time again that there's every chance that'll be happening 20 years from now.

Maybe you think I'm being melodramatic, but it's the erosion between your life and what any sort of organisation can easily take from you that has to be continually fought, be it a government or corporation.

Just be glad there's people doing it for you. But never compare it to celebrity gossip.

EDIT: I feel a bit of a fool for posting this, but in the end it comes down to this. If you knew that on average every 50 years the world get hit by meteorites somewhere, you'd build a bomb shelter. No question. You'd take precautions. We know that every few generations some force in power will go crazy and do evil things. Giving them tools to seriously screw you up now when they're not evil is not good forward planning.

bambax11• 14 years ago

> people have complained for ages that Google doesn't "get" social

Who exactly "complained"? Google didn't get social, and it was fine. Now they still don't, but they've decided to try anyway. It's like an awkward teenager who thinks they can dance. It's embarrassing.

brown9-2• 14 years ago

That's because there are two entirely different classes of people that are do the bitching:

1) industry "analysts" and commentators claiming that Google doesn't "get" social and will one day lose out because of it

2) actual users of Google disliking the way that Google, in an effort to be "social" (whatever that is) is inserting unhelpful crap into the previously-pristine search results.

Isn't it possible that this diversion into "social" will end up being a big mistake down the road if it fundamentally alters the main Search product? "Social search" seems to be something that prognosticators always claim is right around the corner and is going to change the way we do things, but I don't know a single person that really wants results from their social network in their search results. If we wanted to know what our friends thought about Search Topic X, we would just ask them.

pdonis• 14 years ago

> I do have to ask, though - if you have an issue with Google's having access to your data, why do you use Google services? As with any web property, if you're in for a penny, you're in for a pound.

This is exactly why I don't use Google's services, except for search and Google Maps. What bothers me is the possibility that even those basic services are being compromised in order to further Google's social media goals.

danso• 14 years ago

This is why I use two different browsers. My main browser, Chrome, is where I'm logged onto my GMail account. I use another browser solely to connect to Facebook so that it doesn't collect my Chrome's site usage data.

Also, I think I've always assumed that everything I've entered in Google Search will be linked to me indefinitely...so...sensitive searches are done in the non-logged in browser.

Of course, there's IP tracking, but I'm not feeling that paranoid yet.

laconian3• 14 years ago

This trope is getting super-tired. We even heard from someone saying that Google reducing the stock of bagels in the snack bars is EVIL!

gdubs• 14 years ago

Here's something I've been concerned about... I do Core Audio development, and participate from time to time in the Apple Core Audio Mailing list. Every so often a newcomer will arrive and ask about something basic. In response, someone will tell them to google it. This is common in coding related mailing list circles: "I just googled it and the answer is the third result down". Now, my concern is that the google results an advanced user will get are going to be more relevant a lot of times than what a newcomer – who hasn't done a whole lot of Core Audio yet – will see. They're likely to get hundreds of pages of results that mask what they're looking for, because to Google they're not a low-level audio programmer, so they're probably looking for something else. I realize it's a bit of a slippery slope argument, but something about different-search-results-for-different-people that bothers me – maybe its the fact that so many people aren't even aware that their google results may be drastically different from others. To me, it has a lot to do with what Nicholas Negroponte called "The Daily Me".

beloch• 14 years ago

Am I the only one who has started running Gmail and Facebook in their own separately installed browsers that are used for absolutely nothing else?

eligottlieb• 14 years ago

Welp, I need to work more. Google is quickly creating my customer base.

TDL• 14 years ago

So if I am not logged in when I use GOOG search I won't have the tailored results, correct? If that is the case, what are the privacy concerns? Will the results of my search still be "inferior"?

chmike• 14 years ago

I'ld like to vote wih me feet.

This is not a walled garden thing, it is about putting users in glass houses controled by google.

We need to get out of this trap, and fast. Make these services crowed sourced and open source.

protomyth• 14 years ago

As much as I love my parents and my close friends, I really, really don't want their postings or links to influence searches I do. They, as a whole, are not relevant to any search I have done in the last year.

On twitter, I follow a lot of area experts and could be relevant in those specific areas, but many of them have wider interests. Some of these interests would negatively influence the search I do.

I really wish they would concentrate on customer service (human) and dealing with the spam links and implications of the must-post-first journalism model that is a basic creation of their payment model.

skeltoac• 14 years ago

Eventually Google's algorithms will be so smart that they will detect your sentiments and give you the experience you remember from 2005.

api• 14 years ago

There are "wheels of reincarnation" in computing: http://www.retrologic.com/jargon/W/wheel-of-reincarnation.ht...

One of these is the PC/mainframe decentralization/centralization cycle. Right now we're completing as swing back from decentralized PCs to centralized mainframes, except now the latter is called "cloud" and "software as a service."

I think it's time for the pendulum to start swinging the other way.

What we need are software platforms for large-scale, secure, reliable decentralized computing over wide area networks. Then we need to use these to enable decentralized meshed Facebook, Google, etc. competitors.

tatsuke95• 14 years ago

>"According to Pando Daily..."

Who used completely unattributed sources ("X-Googlers") themselves. That's textbook echo chamber in action.

EGreg• 14 years ago

I remember when Facebook introduced the newsfeed, everyone was up in arms.

But this is more like when Facebook saw Twitter's growth numbers and got scared and decided to be more like it. So a private social network became more public and everyone (including Google) could link to it now.

It's a sad day when a company abandones what it has come to represent, and becomes something else.

But then again, if you want to use your own stuff, it's always there. You can always host your own applications! Wordpress instead of blogger. Your own email. This has always been possible.

Relying on centralized authorities you have to accept that this might happen.

yaix• 14 years ago

"It must force [...] Google+ down the throats of users who are simply looking for a brilliant search engine."

And that's the part I don't get. Facebook does not even make that much money. Why would Google want to be more like it?

Google is leading the part of the web with most profits. And now tries hard to abandon it in favor of becoming second in the part that makes one of the worst profits. Why?

gorm• 14 years ago

Funny. extremetech uses at least 9 different pieces of tracking software on their page reported by ghostery

jmcmoto• 14 years ago

this argument is RETARDED. Just log out if you dont want personalized results. All these people writing articles are paid PR Shills for FB or Twitter or someone.

fred_nada9• 14 years ago

Yes, I use Bing and starting to use DDG for tech queries... You are wrong about fb/twitter are the only ones who care.

Look at all of the comments on the blogs... Here is one for an example. http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/search-plus-your-world/

This doesn't just effect twitter/fb

alextingle• 14 years ago

Right. All of Google's cookies are now blocked on my browser.

kzrdude• 14 years ago

"Nothing happens on an Apple device without Cupertino’s knowledge"

I hope that's false. This device runs linux.

kr1shna• 14 years ago

I don't understand what all the fuss is about. I bet most users go about their daily lives like this is happening already. I for one, assumed that this sharing was happening already (really, it'd be silly for Google not to do it) and went about my daily life without being affected by it. Most of the 153 million Americans using Google wouldn't give a damn. At least Google is being open an honest about it, unlike other companies who change TOS without really letting the user know. FUBAR indeed.

rhaphazard• 14 years ago

My initial reaction was DON'T BE EVIL. But after some thought and some reading, I realize that technology advances and we don't know what the results and consequences will be until quite a bit of time has passed. I really want to trust Google, so please don't be evil.

trotsky• 14 years ago

Is it really true that there hasn't been co-mingling of user data between properties already? It seems hard to believe that most user data didn't at least "leak" into their advertising businesses, which presumably is where you'd be worried about it going.

augiehill• 14 years ago

More sensationalist BS by those who would see themselves profit from the fall of the leader. These changes are all about improving relevance of search results and thus improving the user experience!

chalst2• 14 years ago

There is a possible search quality motive for SPYW, which is that weighting social networks allows proxies for personal trust to be brought into ranking search results, diluting the value of some obnoxious SEO strategies.

tehwalrus• 14 years ago

I don't want search results tailored to my google profile, I want the real results, even if I disagree with them.

Example: I found my blog coming higher and higher on google for random search terms...only to realise that I was logged in and google knew that it was my blog. Not useful data!

I would move to duckduckgo, if it weren't mediocre the last time I tried. Maybe it's time to give them another shot.

latch• 14 years ago

Speed is the biggest problem with DDG, but really, there's no harm in giving it another shot for a couple days to see how it has improved (because it has).

dools• 14 years ago

Personally, I thought Google already did this

Me too. I assumed that since they all share a cookie/login that this is why they bothered to have so many different services.

fred_nada9• 14 years ago

Wow - 65% of people say they will cancel their Google Account over the Privacy changes...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-user-polls/post/wil...

yanw6• 14 years ago

Full disclosure: Washington Post Co. Chairman and chief executive Donald E. Graham is a member of Facebook's board of directors.

They omitted it this time it seems.

fred_nada9• 14 years ago

disclosure of what? Do you think he voted 15,000 times?

dedward• 14 years ago

All other facts aside, I sort of assume google analyzes their statistics to find out what works and what doesn't... whether an extra quarter second of search results matter or not, and so on.

I don't like the confusing mess it's become either... I use a bunch of products, and I kept them compartmentalized for my reasons, mostly just simplicity. Now it's this big mess that I could go ranting about.....

That said - just because people say they don't/won't like something doesn't mean it won't be liked/loved, and used by everyone. The end users actions speak louder than their words, and on the internet, this is easy to watch.

As a 20 year veteran of the internet and all that crap? Sure. Am I frustrated by Google's current direction? Yup...

Will I stop using it? I haven't yet - we'll see, but if I do, it will only be because I naturally move to something else because google stops being as useful.... and that's how the majority of people react to things. (Then I wonder, if I find it confusing, how will my mom find it?)

po• 14 years ago

Nothing happens on an Apple device without Cupertino’s knowledge, and as a result Apple can perfectly tailor its devices for its users (and ratchet up record-breaking quarterly earnings in the process).

Stopped reading at this point.. Does apple know if I tap the home screen? Does apple know that I just used twitter? No. This claim shows their willingness to throw around unsubstantiated ideas as fact.

firefox• 14 years ago

I didn't see that coming, no, not with the creation of gmail, google docs, the acquisition of Youtube and everything else we use, why on earth would they want to put all my info into one place?... c'mon people! Facebook knows more about you than Google, and (shock) they're a for-profit organization, if they can target better ads to you, they will. I don't personally like this but as a corporation it's what they've to do.

adjwilli• 14 years ago

Please no more extremetech.com links on Hacker News. There mobile website is terrible. Plus all that tracking software isn't nice.

a_a_r_o_n• 14 years ago

SPYW is Spy World. The hilarious part is that I didn't even have to bring in my own words. SPY is right there, dominating the word and guiding the way you would attempt to pronounce it, and World is what the W actually stands for.

Spy World. What were they thinking?

kahawe2• 14 years ago

> If you don’t get that, then you should probably work somewhere else.

If I was working at a company and my boss would use such "STFU"-style statements, I would consider quitting sooner rather than later.

And here is why: I remember in my old company, the time when our boss started using similar rhetorics it did not take long for the whole thing to go down the drain because he would continue clinging to bad major decisions for dear life, against all the resistance and warnings of practically all his employees and those "STFU" phrases were, I guess, his way of coping by closing his eyes to the inevitable wall we were speeding towards. Like a reality-distortion field kicked into overdrive gone haywire.

Seeing Larry use such a phrase at the SPYW-launch staff event makes you wonder just how much internal disagreement there really was amongst google's employees.

Not a good signs at all, if you ask me.

Google is FUBAR

Related Stories