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.
Google is FUBAR
161–170 of 278 posts
Re: Google is FUBAR
#162I'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…
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 t…
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.
Re: Google is FUBAR
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure where coercion comes into it. I guess my point is that evil isn't always easily discernible, and this is probably most true wrt the most important subjects. They said "Don't be evil," whereas you're interpreting that as "Don't ever come close to doing anything that anyone could ever interpret as evil," which I think is unfair and would be prohibitively restrictive. It's a commercial company, so there wil…
> I'm not sure where coercion comes into it. Sometimes you find yourself in a moral quandary through no fault of your own. But if you're going to say, "I wont do evil" ( whatever it is that you actually mean by "evil"), it would be wise not to put yourself in a position where you're either forced to do evil, or worse, can't tell if what you're doing is evil or not. > evil isn't always easily discernible So you're rig…
> ...it would be wise not to put yourself in a position where you're either forced to do evil, or worse, can't tell if what you're doing is evil or not.
I think you're conflating two perspectives. While we as bystanders can parse and decide whether what Google is doing is evil, this has no bearing on what Google itself considers evil. If evilness is not readily discernable, then there will be deviations between the two. But this doesn't mean that Google itself is putting itself in a position to do evil. Why do you think Google considers its actions evil? If you have some evidence about Google willfully violating "Don't be evil," I'd be interested in seeing it.
> So you're right; it isn't always discernible, but that's no excuse for making life even more difficult for yourself.
Making life difficult for yourself requires no excuse. If Google makes it hard for itself not to do evil, but continues to not do evil, then there's obviously no problem. If Google makes it hard, then does do evil, then it's still the evil deed that's the problem, not having put itself in the situation. So I find this whole "putting yourself in a hard situation" line to be irrelevant.
> That said, I don't want Google locked in a race to the bottom with Facebook to mine our personal data. I don't think it would serve any of us very well in the long term even if it would improve our search results and Google's profits.
I didn't realize that mining personal data counted as evil. If that's the case, they crossed the line long ago, didn't they?
Re: Google is FUBAR
#164I 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.
Re: Google is FUBAR
#165What 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 f…
> 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.
Re: Google is FUBAR
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
search nfc championship game in google. In my results MG Seigler's g+ account is ranked #5. Above the nfl, nytimes, espn, etc. It is a G+ post where he says "going to the nfc championship game with Sarah Lacy" - Keep in mind, I am not friends with him nor is he in my circles, etc. So instead of getting an article from a sports news outlet about the post I get a MG Seigler status update. http://duckduckgo.com/?q=nfc+c…
Weird; I don't get any g+ accounts on the front page, either normally or in an incognito window.
I'm not surprised. It is weird though. He is not in my circles and never has been. Even if he was I don't care to know he is going to the game. :)
Re: Google is FUBAR
#167Personally, 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.
Re: Google is FUBAR
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 f…
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 happen…
I'm not talking about MS being evil, I'm talking about the routine bitching about things as minor as this. The same bitching people do about Facebook's UI changes.
Buzz was a serious fuckup on Google's part, and they learned their lesson. Case closed. It has precisely zero relevance to the "issue" at hand, which is that Google is going to start doing what everyone assumed they did anyway and use your behaviour across their properties to target ads at you. This isn't Kristallnacht, it's using my viewing habits on youtube to sell me shit on Search. I'm fine with that. If you aren't, then don't use their products. If you already don't use their products, great. Good for you. But don't be so fucking sanctimonious as to think that my belief that targeted advertising is not the worst thing since Hitler can only be explained by woeful ignorance. And if you are going to be that sanctimonious, don't be so obnoxious as to tell me.
Re: Google is FUBAR
#169Disclaimer: 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 lik…
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…
> 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...
Re: Google is FUBAR
#170Wow - 65% of people say they will cancel their Google Account over the Privacy changes...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-user-polls/post/wil...