why don't you download the internet and run grep, then you don't have to leak your search terms. Seriously - why would you want Google to know what search terms you're using? Why would anyone want to pass this information to an untrusted third party?
As for me, I think once a site has seen my exact search term, knowing which of the results I'm clicking on is a small leak and quite useful so that the popular results can be put at the top.
wow, so, this is what in my mind I was caricaturing. Offline living is basically incompatible with the knowledge available on the Internet, and what you mention are super unreasonable steps for normal users to take.
So when I google 'suicide' it's OK for Google to know whether I'm clicking on the Samaritans or the Wikipedia article? And when I Google 'rape' it's OK for Google to know whether I click on a news article about a string of recent rapes or click through to rape fetish erotica website?
The main argument here is, they already know which you click on. They use referral links. So that's not a sensible reason to prohibit the "ping" attribute.
Given two solutions with equal potential for abuse, why not pick the technically superior solution?
Given two solutions with equal potential for abuse, why not pick the technically superior solution?
Straw man. You're presupposing the existence of 'ping'. The argument is why, given an observation that web features X and Y are being used to implement contentious function Z, would you want to implement a brand new, even more insidious, web feature, designed solely for doing Z, in the first place? Technical superiority of the new implementation of Z is not in dispute.
Monitor the HTTP activity with FF developer tools while using Google. It's plain to see that no new traffic flows to Google occurs when I click a link.
There are extensions that will rewrite the referral links back to the original link, or prevent the link from being swapped in the moment of onmousedown or whatever they use.
To your first question: YES, it's 100% okay for them to receive this query (a distinct issue from 'Google knowing').
I think in this case it's pretty black or white, because people would ordinarily take the time to add to their search queries. If people want to see results on (whatever fetish), do you think they would just Google the word 'sex' and then go from there, under cover that they might have just been looking up the Latin word for 6 they saw in some inscription? (Whoops, also better load the first 9,700,000 results pages in javascript, which is what I estimate you have to read through to get to something that mentions this without adding the word 'latin'). Wouldn't want to give away which page of results the user stopped on.
I mean if they want 'suicide help in Detroit' would they just Google the word suicide?
Not everything is black or white, but for Google to know what the BEST result is for 'suicide help in Detroit' is pretty black and white: they already have the query, and yes, they should know which link is clicked on the most. If it was originally on the second page through their algorithm but gets 90% of the clicks when they put it on the first page, yes, they should absolutely know and use this information. In fact (because it had been on the second page in this example) it might save lives!
there really is no trade-off or drawback. it's like the server in a restaurant asking you if you enjoyed your meal, and using this as part of recommendations the next someone someone asks what's popular.
"Well, you know what I ordered, but damned if I'll let you know what part of it I liked. That's just too personal."
it's like the server in a restaurant asking you if you enjoyed your meal...
...and then being able to get you fired, steal your identity, or otherwise affect your life without your knowledge because you happen to enjoy a certain kind of food your boss doesn't like.
Yes, exactly. And not even 'a certain kind of food' but rather which food that you had already ordered.
The metaphor is spot-on. "Did you enjoy your meal"? "Oh so you can get me fired, steal my identity, or otherwise affect my life without my knowledge because I happen to enjoy a certain kind of food my boss doesn't like? No comment."
The reason it's a good analogy is because you already 'ordered' (the search terms are the meaningful data) and a statistical sampling of which of the top 10 results for "octopus hentai videos" a random sampling of users who entered that search term clicked on, is not in practice used for anything other than improving ranking quality.
it's exactly the same as "did you enjoy your meal" or what you liked about it - you've already given up most of the info by ordering in the first place.
so your analogy is a good one. it's just completely innocent.
...How many people out there are worried that Google might know they're into rape fetish erotica website, but don't mind Google knowing that they're searching for "rape"?
Comments
why don't you download the internet and run grep, then you don't have to leak your search terms. Seriously - why would you want Google to know what search terms you're using? Why would anyone want to pass this information to an untrusted third party?
As for me, I think once a site has seen my exact search term, knowing which of the results I'm clicking on is a small leak and quite useful so that the popular results can be put at the top.
Coincidentally that's what I do (to some extent). I use the following offline resources:
* Wikipedia (smartphone, PC): Aard Dict[1]
* Translation apps (smartphone)
* OpenStreetMap (smartphone): OsmAnd[2]
[1]: http://aarddict.org [2]: http://osmand.net
wow, so, this is what in my mind I was caricaturing. Offline living is basically incompatible with the knowledge available on the Internet, and what you mention are super unreasonable steps for normal users to take.
super unreasonable steps for normal users to take.
Only because people have "forgotten" how to build offline apps.
no, it really is super unreasonable.
I disagree. I'm not a luddite. First, I didn't say that I use that exclusively. And furthermore:
* it's nice to have knowledge at hand when offline (commuting via train, abroad w/o a local data plan, no gsm coverage, edge connection instead of 4G)
* saves bandwidth for my 1GB/month data plan when appropriate
* Aard dict can be used to evade filtering (not my primary concern, but there are people in other countries who might benefit)
Travelers with intermittent connectivty are best served by offline databases with async/push updates.
So when I google 'suicide' it's OK for Google to know whether I'm clicking on the Samaritans or the Wikipedia article? And when I Google 'rape' it's OK for Google to know whether I click on a news article about a string of recent rapes or click through to rape fetish erotica website?
Not everything is black or white.
The main argument here is, they already know which you click on. They use referral links. So that's not a sensible reason to prohibit the "ping" attribute.
Given two solutions with equal potential for abuse, why not pick the technically superior solution?
Straw man. You're presupposing the existence of 'ping'. The argument is why, given an observation that web features X and Y are being used to implement contentious function Z, would you want to implement a brand new, even more insidious, web feature, designed solely for doing Z, in the first place? Technical superiority of the new implementation of Z is not in dispute.
I'm pretty confident that they don't in my case.
Would you mind sharing the details of how you achieve this?
Monitor the HTTP activity with FF developer tools while using Google. It's plain to see that no new traffic flows to Google occurs when I click a link.
AFAIK they track links only for a subset of users and not every time.
There are extensions that will rewrite the referral links back to the original link, or prevent the link from being swapped in the moment of onmousedown or whatever they use.
To your first question: YES, it's 100% okay for them to receive this query (a distinct issue from 'Google knowing').
I think in this case it's pretty black or white, because people would ordinarily take the time to add to their search queries. If people want to see results on (whatever fetish), do you think they would just Google the word 'sex' and then go from there, under cover that they might have just been looking up the Latin word for 6 they saw in some inscription? (Whoops, also better load the first 9,700,000 results pages in javascript, which is what I estimate you have to read through to get to something that mentions this without adding the word 'latin'). Wouldn't want to give away which page of results the user stopped on.
I mean if they want 'suicide help in Detroit' would they just Google the word suicide?
Not everything is black or white, but for Google to know what the BEST result is for 'suicide help in Detroit' is pretty black and white: they already have the query, and yes, they should know which link is clicked on the most. If it was originally on the second page through their algorithm but gets 90% of the clicks when they put it on the first page, yes, they should absolutely know and use this information. In fact (because it had been on the second page in this example) it might save lives!
there really is no trade-off or drawback. it's like the server in a restaurant asking you if you enjoyed your meal, and using this as part of recommendations the next someone someone asks what's popular.
"Well, you know what I ordered, but damned if I'll let you know what part of it I liked. That's just too personal."
reads to me that way anyway.
it's like the server in a restaurant asking you if you enjoyed your meal...
...and then being able to get you fired, steal your identity, or otherwise affect your life without your knowledge because you happen to enjoy a certain kind of food your boss doesn't like.
Yes, exactly. And not even 'a certain kind of food' but rather which food that you had already ordered.
The metaphor is spot-on. "Did you enjoy your meal"? "Oh so you can get me fired, steal my identity, or otherwise affect my life without my knowledge because I happen to enjoy a certain kind of food my boss doesn't like? No comment."
The reason it's a good analogy is because you already 'ordered' (the search terms are the meaningful data) and a statistical sampling of which of the top 10 results for "octopus hentai videos" a random sampling of users who entered that search term clicked on, is not in practice used for anything other than improving ranking quality.
it's exactly the same as "did you enjoy your meal" or what you liked about it - you've already given up most of the info by ordering in the first place.
so your analogy is a good one. it's just completely innocent.
...How many people out there are worried that Google might know they're into rape fetish erotica website, but don't mind Google knowing that they're searching for "rape"?