Slashdot Mirror


Google Now Tracks Which Search Results You Click?

Jack writes "Has anyone else noticed that the best search engine out there, Google, now generates links for some of its search results which point back to Google before redirecting you to the site's URL? I can't help thinking they'll be using this information to sell targeted search results and measure how effective it is. I guess they have to make a buck, but this could be the start of a very slippery slope. It's also interesting to see which search queries generate tracking results. For example, "Quake" generates them for every link." The monetization of Google proceeds...

14 of 25 comments (clear)

  1. some thoughts by esonik · · Score: 2

    They have the AdWord program where as advertiser you pay for display of your ad on search results for a selected keyword. However this is not the case with "Quake" (there is no ad).

    Links with "RealNames" seem to be redirected too (try "amazon") however in a different way (and only for the first result that actually links to the holder of the TM).

    Maybe they are just trying to extend their formula for PageRank: users will more likely follow links that look promising, leaving out the obviously misleading ones. Statistical information on followed links could then be incorporated into the PR.

  2. Oh well by sanemind · · Score: 2

    If it gets too bad, google will fall the way of altavista and others, and some fresh new company will come along, untainted by commercial biases, to be adopted by the (informed) masses... only to be bought out, sell their soul... rince, wash, repeat.

    Still, perhaps google is just doing this to better determine the overall validity/appeal/appropriateness of the links it returns, to use this to add an additional weight into their relative ranking. [example: If no one ever finds what they are looking for in items 3 and 7, perhaps they should be lower down, eh?]

    I'm tempted to add the obligatory "why dosen't someone start a true copyleft-esque open-for-ever-by-viral-contract search portal for the better the world", etc. If only bandwidth and processing power weren't so expensive. Google can't survive the demands placed on it by it's popularity without some form of recompense for it's inevitable costs....

    I had hoped that their contracting out as the engine of yahoo might allow for them to remain pure and uncontaminated. Only time will tell.


    ---
    man sig

    --

    ---
    the pen is mightier then the sword. the sword is mightier then the court. the court is mightier then the pen.
    1. Re:Oh well by bonzoesc · · Score: 2
      If an open source search site would be started, all the porn sites would end up top-list because they stand to gain the most by looking at the source code and adding an entire fricken dictionary to their first page.

      Tell me what makes you so afraid
      Of all those people you say you hate

    2. Re:Oh well by sanemind · · Score: 2

      Such a nightmare might be avoidable if the design was robust enough to begin with. Something with spheres of authority and the oppurtunity to ban cycles of self-promoting false links, [as well as some sort of probalistic detection of self referencial simmilar script generated rings]


      ---
      man sig

      --

      ---
      the pen is mightier then the sword. the sword is mightier then the court. the court is mightier then the pen.
  3. Google say the following by tagishsimon · · Score: 4
    Google say the following

    What Information Do We Collect?

    From time to time we may request that you provide us with certain personal information about you in connection with various services offered on our site. Google does not collect any personal information about you (such as your name, email address, etc.) except when you specifically and knowingly provide such information.

    Links to Other Sites

    The sites displayed as search results or linked to by Google Search Services are developed by people over whom Google exercises no control. Other links, such as those for the Google-friends mailing list archive, are also on sites not controlled by Google. These other sites may send their own cookies to users, collect data, or solicit personal information. Google may choose to exhibit its search results in the form of a "URL redirecter." When Google uses a URL redirecter, if you click on a URL from a search result, information about the click is sent to Google, and Google in turn sends you to the site you clicked on. Google uses this URL information to understand and improve the quality of Google's search technology. For instance, Google uses this information to determine how often users are satisfied with the first result of a query and how often they proceed to later results.

    With Whom Does Google Share Information?

    Google may share information about you with advertisers, business partners, sponsors, and other third parties. However, we only divulge aggregate information about our users and will not share personally identifiable information with any third party without your express consent. For example, we may disclose how frequently the average Google user visits Google, or which other query words are most often used with the query word "Linux." Please be aware, however, that we will release specific personal information about you if required to do so in order to comply with any valid legal process such as a search warrant, subpoena, statute, or court order.

  4. Taking privary a bit too far by gengee · · Score: 5

    This is just absurd. Firstly, after a quick grep, I find that google has placed a single cookie on my computer - One that I asked them to place, to save my preferences for language settings. They may or may not use this "preference ID" to track where I click. I really could not care less. They don't have my home address. They don't have my email address. They have no phone number. Not even a fake name. This is not a decision I made - they simply never asked for any of this information. This is closer to anononymity than you could ever hope to get in the 'real' world.

    If they want to target advertisements to me, so be it. I might actually click on a few of them. At some point, someone has to pay for their large and expensive network. While I'm not convinced advertising alone is capable of doing this, at least it's a start. They provide a *great* service. Having said that, it occurs to me that I would greatfully pay 5$/month to use the search engine.

    Just my two cents.
    signature smigmature

    --
    - James
  5. Stop Google bashing by Stephen · · Score: 2
    Every change Google makes at the moment seems to produce a reactionary story like this one. So they want to know which links people click on... so what? The data isn't even personally identifiable.

    Google produces the right results with a nice clean interface. Even the ads are in unobtrusive text boxes! What more do you want? If they generate profit at the same time, more power to them.

    --
    11.00100100001111110110101010001000100001011010001 1000010001101001100010011
  6. Bah! by plashdoy · · Score: 2

    I think only the shivering Chihuahuas at EPIC.Org would worry about such a non-issue. If it really bothers you to have Google "exploit" your search terms, use Topclick then. Same search engine, but without the ads, cookie or search exploitation.

    --

    "I do not avoid women, Mandrake. But I do deny them my essence"

    1. Re:Bah! by phillipps · · Score: 2

      Hmm.. I just tried topclick. Bright orange background. Blue-on-blue menus. Tiny sans-serif fonts. Oh, and then monospaced fonts on the result pages. Why?

      I won't be troubling them again.

  7. Collection everywhere by fm6 · · Score: 4
    This is similar to a feature I've noticed in Internet Explorer. If you enter anything in the address box that isn't a fully qualified URL (even if it's just a web address with "http://" missing), it gets passed to a Microsoft server, which is responsible for expanding the URL, interpreting it as a search, etc. Since few people bother to type out the "http://", Mr. Bill would have no trouble maintaining a log of every user's browsing habits.

    I haven't looked into it, but I gather there's a similar feature in Netscape/Mozilla.

    I think the bottom line is that a user who wan't absolute privacy has to anonymize all web usage. If you don't believe that's possible, or you're just not paranoid enough, you have to hope that Google, Microsoft, et al. actually stick to their own privacy policies.

    __________________

  8. Could they be doing something better? by funkman · · Score: 3

    They may be making a correlation between your search criteria and what you had clicked on as a match. With any luck, with such data they can make their search engine better.

  9. Googlebot hasn't pulled the page yet. by yerricde · · Score: 2

    Sometimes, Google adds a page to the index before it GETs the full text and returns it in keyword searches for pages that link to it.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  10. Re:Willing Target by Chasuk · · Score: 2

    Almost all behavior - except for shitting, urinating, fucking, masturbating, eating, drinking, and breathing - is learned. So what? Is all learned behavior bad? If so, then you had better stop responding to messages on Slashdot, because you are using at least two learned behaviors to perform the aggregate task of "responding" - those behaviors being reading and typing.

    I like to read, and I have not been deluded into thinking that I enjoy doing so. In particular, I enjoy reading books in the genre of Science Fiction, so advertisements which targeted my particular learned behavior of reading and enjoying Science Fiction novels would be extremely welcome, even if it was a conspiracy by THE MAN to sell me more books.

    As for some learned behaviors being addictive, so what? Addictions are not inherently evil. I have friends who are addicted to reading mystery novels, or addicted to watching anime or Red Dwarf/Doctor Who/Star Trek episodes, and these addictions give them nothing but pleasure. They spend money on things that you or I might consider wasteful - but paying for anything other than food, drink and shelter can be considered by someone, somewhere, an indulgence.

    My parents happened to live, at the time of my conception, in the prosperous West, and I am grateful. I promote neither gross excess nor asceticism; moderation seems to me a noble ideal. However, I can, and do, control most of my spendthrift impulses, and I don't think my behavior would be any different if advertising was targeted at me specifically (or to a market segment which happened to contain my purchasing profile).

    Just my .02 cents worth.

  11. ego gratification by K-Man · · Score: 3

    You have to understand the frustration of running a search engine: you never know how good your result ranking is, because you never know which result the user clicked on, or whether the user simply gave up and went to another search engine.

    The only way to track this behavior is to put up a redirect (or run an ISP - the free ones log just about everything).

    --
    ---- "If we have to go on with these damned quantum jumps, then I'm sorry that I ever got involved" - Erwin Schrodinger