Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents

sparktoro.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 312 posts

Re: Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents

#251

Post by yencabulator »

HankB99 wrote: post #244
EcommerceFlow wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once you get to the top 1-3 results, CTR (click through rate) is a much bigger ranking factor. Google knows how long people stay on pages and whether they click and back out immediately. This is important for E-Commerce, because Google doesn't want Site #1 to be mostly out of stock even though they have better links.

> Google knows how long people stay on pages and whether they click and back out immediately. What if I to keep the search page open and open the "found" page in another tab?

Can the on-page javascript detect the difference between click and control-click? If so, you can count just the former, and wait for the back button press, to get a sense of visit duration.

I think control-click is a power user feature that they just don't care to track. Average consumer is the target audience of the advertising...

Re: Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents

#252

Post by yencabulator »

dontdoxxme wrote: post #107
theolivenbaum wrote: post #2

Seems like a lot of it came from them inadvertently posting some internal API to GitHub: https://github.com/googleapis/elixir-google-api/commit/078b4...

And it's Apache licensed, which grants a patent license. Some of the comments refer to specific aspects of how page rank is calculated. Pagerank itself is past patent protection but I wonder if this also accidentally might grant licenses to other patents.

There's still an angle where the copyright owner claims that the person who caused this to happen did not have the authority to apply the license to it.

Re: Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents

#253

Post by yencabulator »

mtlynch wrote: post #47
usui wrote: post #4

> Prior to the email and call, I had neither met nor heard of the person who emailed me about this leak. They asked that their identity remain veiled And yet the journalist included a screenshot with one of the weakest blurs I've ever seen... Why would you not excise the person's video portion completely? What good does it serve to have it included in the story? Even if that portion is faked, why would you offer pote…

The author is Rand Fishkin, who's not a journalist. He's the founder of SparkToro and Moz, both companies that provide tooling and analytics for SEO. I haven't looked deeply into Fishkin's companies, but I wouldn't expect either to be on the user's side when it comes to privacy. Both companies seem to monetize clickstream data and personal information from users who probably didn't give informed consent. If the sourc…

And since then, the person on the call has revealed their identity. This was an SEO bro talking to an SEO bro about something they found on Github, not an insider leak.

Re: Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents

#254

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

vouaobrasil wrote: post #127

Sometimes I wonder how much better the internet would be hits on Google weren't directly tied to revenue from Google itself through its ad program. I am certain Google has made the internet and the world a worse place to live.

There is something truly strange about the idea than people "trust" a website operator and can rely on it to provide them with useful information when that same operator is well-known to be secretive, deceptive and dishonest in order to protect its own interests. It's like imagining that a fact witness who tells the truth on some occasions and lies on others is credible.

https://ipullrank.com/google-algo-leak

Re: Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents

#255

Post by oooyay »

p3rls wrote: post #228
eitland wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, don't use it then. I am happy for alternatives, otherwise I guess Kagi wouldn't improve so fast in areas I care about.

I won't use it. I am pushing back on your belief that it has figured something out about anything, because to me it looks like Kagi takes Google's results and then makes them worse. I have total shit ranking #1 on Kagi and Google. On other pages I am struggling to break into the top 10 where I should be right under wikipedia in a just world. I think many people whose lives don't revolve around these things (as in you…

> I won't use it. I am pushing back on your belief that it has figured something out about anything, because to me it looks like Kagi takes Google's results and then makes them worse.

Kagi is pretty clear about how they do what they do: https://help.kagi.com/kagi/search-details/search-sources.htm.... You're half right, except that Google is not a vertical that they leverage for their index. Their solution works for me, but I'm also a techy. Anecdotally, my partner uses it, and she is not a techy.

> Oh well, I do know I will not be worshipping a new god that cannot even destroy the abominations sitting at the top of the rankings.

The only way this statement applies (to me) is if you can optimize for Kagi. The only way I can think of to do that is organically, but admittedly I haven't put much effort into it because the magic of Kagi's flavor of search is that it puts me in near proximity to information density and sources that I already trust. The real proving grounds for Kagi are a decade out.

Re: Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents

#256

Post by eitland »

orangevelcro wrote: post #236
epr wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did we not all evangelize Google in it's early days? Also, none of these accounts saying nice things appear to be bots or kagi-focused in any way, so I think it's safe to assume they do actually just like it.

I don't know...my spidey sense has been going off a bit. Kagi has a free trial, but you have to pay, which is the difference between it and early Google. Of course, now we have Google ads instead, so who knows, maybe not bots.

Go check my history. Send me a mail and I'll send a photo of the fields and the wind breaks here that you can geolocate.

I am definitely not a bot.

I am however extremely fed up with Google. And equally thankful that I have found something that works as well as old Google (or better).

Re: Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents

#257

Post by p3rls »

oooyay wrote: post #255
p3rls wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I won't use it. I am pushing back on your belief that it has figured something out about anything, because to me it looks like Kagi takes Google's results and then makes them worse. I have total shit ranking #1 on Kagi and Google. On other pages I am struggling to break into the top 10 where I should be right under wikipedia in a just world. I think many people whose lives don't revolve around these things (as in you…

> I won't use it. I am pushing back on your belief that it has figured something out about anything, because to me it looks like Kagi takes Google's results and then makes them worse. Kagi is pretty clear about how they do what they do: https://help.kagi.com/kagi/search-details/search-sources.htm... . You're half right, except that Google is not a vertical that they leverage for their index. Their solution works for…

Lol, it's just complete bullshit marketing on that page. But I do find it fascinating how they obfuscate what is actually happening behind the scenes and cannot come out and clearly say how their technology works, or that they are using google's index.

>Kagi is known for delivering a unique flavor of high-quality search results, sourced from our own web index (internally named "Teclis") and news index (internally named "TinyGem").

The marketing at least is pretty good -- I haven't seen this many committed devotees since the iPhone was announced.

But here on the ground, I can type a few queries and reveal that Kagi is the same shit as Google. Perhaps you are seeing some manually adjusted queries?

P.S. there are lots of other concerns about Kagi too, I'm just talking about the search https://hackers.town/@lori/112255132348604770

Re: Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents

#258

Post by jiggawatts »

olliej wrote: post #249
dgellow wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What

While I obviously disagree with your prior comment, I feel "What" is a pretty much perfect comment here. +1. What.

It seems like my analogy was too difficult to follow.

The point is that the fundamental problem is a company in a monopoly position throwing their weight around and/or keeping their product stagnant “because they can”, which is also a function of power. This is the “authoritarian government”.

The police part is referring to people thinking of specific IE6 technical issues “as the problem”, when it’s just a symptom of a larger problem.

Microsoft treated web developers badly because they could. Google will abuse the whole world in the same way now that Chromium has achieved near total dominance.

Re: Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents

#259

Post by GuB-42 »

precompute wrote: post #16

> My anonymous source claimed that way back in 2005, Google wanted the full clickstream of billions of Internet users, and with Chrome, they’ve now got it. The API documents suggest Google calculates several types of metrics that can be called using Chrome views related to both individual pages and entire domains. What answer do the engineers at google working on this have for this violation of privacy?

I am not an engineer at Google but this is I would say if I was.

We don't know who you are, you are just a number in a database, and we don't even know what number, we just get the total number of visits for each website, not who visited it. It is like counting cars on a highway, not following your car. Plus, it serves the useful purpose of providing you with better search results, the terms and conditions allow it, and it can be disabled.

Re: Anonymous Source Shared Leaked Google Search API Documents

#260

Post by 9dev »

bdlowery wrote: post #19
precompute wrote: post #16

> My anonymous source claimed that way back in 2005, Google wanted the full clickstream of billions of Internet users, and with Chrome, they’ve now got it. The API documents suggest Google calculates several types of metrics that can be called using Chrome views related to both individual pages and entire domains. What answer do the engineers at google working on this have for this violation of privacy?

How is it a violation of privacy. Did you read the terms of service?

See, that’s the nice thing about the GDPR: You cannot hide unexpected hostile stuff in the ToS anymore. If you don’t tell me what you do with my data in a way that is obvious, easy to understand, and most importantly easy to disable, it’s illegal.
Post reply on HN