Slashdot Mirror


Google Tracking Frequent Users

BrianGa writes "According to this article, Google has started placing a counter on its home page for a small number of its most frequent users. Most Google users do not have it, but a select few now have a counter that notes the actual number of searches made. For the curious, an explanatory page linked to the counter reveals that this is a test, or limited-sample experiment of a new search counting feature."

27 of 336 comments (clear)

  1. Re:google's infinite memory by in7ane · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes - kind-of, I guess it's more cookie + ip based. And "Google Tracking Frequent Users" is a bit inaccurate as a title - google tracks all users (how else would they know when you have become a frequent user?) they are just displaying some of the information they gather to the frequent users (they can just as easily display it for all users since it's there anyway).

    Which begs the question - how is this news except that google is finally visibly using some of the information they gather to display it to the users?

  2. Re:Google is dead : / by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My ISP (internet express in regional NSW, australia) receently entered into a contract with MSN to supply search services and with altavista and google search pages only the MSN one comes up instead

    I do get to google through a numeric address set in /etc/hosts but who wants to do that all the time?

    We really get ripped off out here there are no big ISP options in country australia

  3. So? Whats wrong with that? by acegik · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Did you know that if you install its toolbar and use the advanced features of it (u do by default), it tracks EVERY URL you visit and send it to google servers? Its anonymous so I dont see the harm of it. Google is trying to be better and as long as it doesnt use it powers for doing wrong - I find their technology enlightening.

  4. The Google Counter... by deadgoon42 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is this the next Ultimate Status Symbol for nerds??

    --

    Smeghead every day of the week.
    1. Re:The Google Counter... by kfg · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah,of course the first thing I did when reading this story was check to see if I had one.

      Nope. I don't rate.

      Well why the bloody hell not, that's what I want to know. What the hell does a guy have to do to get survielled around here?

      KFG

    2. Re:The Google Counter... by logic-gate · · Score: 5, Funny
      The counter was inspired by airline frequent flier programs, Ms. Mayer said.

      When I can cash in Google searches for free air travel... then I'll be impressed.

    3. Re:The Google Counter... by Temporal · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nooooooooooo!

      Why did I deny that cookie from Google!? Why!? I do all sorts of searches every day, but due to my damned paranoia Google hasn't been able to keep count!

      I blame timothy for this.

    4. Re:The Google Counter... by Fex303 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Big Brother is ignoring you!!

  5. Google Tracking Frequent Users..... by PS-SCUD · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Um, like everyone?

    --


    "Much work is lost, for the lack of a little more." -Edward H. Harriman
  6. It uses cookies to keep count by srboneidle · · Score: 4, Informative

    So if you delete your cookies, or use a browser such as Opera which automatically gets rid of them after each session it can't really keep track of you.

    Unless they actually *do* log you IP every time you search...

  7. Maybe by Timesprout · · Score: 4, Informative

    The counter is placed on computer hard drives by a cookie, a software file that a Web site places without the recipient's permission or notification and that transmits information back to the site. "If the number contains more than three digits,'' the counter notes, "you truly are a Google frequent searcher.''

    Maybe the article author should Google for browser security/privacy settings to find out how cookies are handled.

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
  8. Re:Google is NOT dead : ) by fearlezz · · Score: 5, Informative

    Google is not dead.

    It's a result of a malicious program "Trojan.Qhosts", which exploits a bug in internet explorer to get access to your pc. Then it alters your hosts file to stop your pc from accessing google.com.

    Search google for that "Trojan.Qhosts". Ow, you can't. Okay, then try this link

    --
    .sig: No such file or directory
  9. Re:Google is dead : / by Sibeling · · Score: 4, Informative
    According to this address 10k+ users are seeing this problem which is probably caused by some virus.

    I'm hearing this 'virus' placed entries in the windows hosts file so that Google points to something else.
    For XP the host file can be found here:
    \Windows\System32\Drivers\etc\hosts
    for 2000 and NT:
    \Winnt\System32\Drivers\etc\hosts
    and for the other Windows systems:
    \Windows\hosts

    Check out the entries in the hosts file and make sure there's nothing strange in it

    --
    -- Sib
  10. Re:Crystal ball gazing by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Google is one of the few online tools I would consider paying for. If the paid-for version didn't include any ads/sponsored-placements at all, I'd probably do it.

    --
    Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
  11. Google as an indicator of consumer demand by benjamindees · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wonder if any of the search engines have actually begun to use search patterns as an insight into consumer demands and profit off of such foresight.

    It wouldn't be hard at all for a search engine to identify particularly insightful individuals, ones who consistently search for things in advance of their general availability or in advance of the masses, and use them as a barometer of future consumer demand.

    That person could, of course, never know that they were being monitored in such a way. Imagine the possibilities of subverting such a system: make frequent searches for whatever you want and *poof* it appears a few months later.

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    1. Re:Google as an indicator of consumer demand by kfg · · Score: 4, Funny

      I certainly hope they do something like that. I'm an insightful sort of fellow who searches for all sorts of things it turns out aren't available yet.

      I'm looking forward to their taking the hint so I can read Terry Prachett in Latin by the light of my reissue of my favorite Alladin Oil Lamp while sitting in my Rubbermaid(tm) Yurt.

      Oh, I think maybe you meant trendy people.

      That would be different.

      KFG

  12. Google is already using cookies to track usage by Phoenix-kun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This counter is really nothing new. Google states in their privacy policy that they already use cookies to track your usage. And if you use their toolbar (an extremely useful tool), you sent them info on every single website you visit, not just the intentional searches. But Goggle has given clear warning up front of what info would be shared and gives you the ability to disable it and still use the toolbar if you want. Privacy is, and should be, a concern here. But Google appears to be handling it responsibly so far.

    --
    Phoenix
    1. Re:Google is already using cookies to track usage by hkmwbz · · Score: 4, Insightful
      How is Google a "central tracking point for ALL sorts of Internet" activity? Does it log me when I read my mail? Does it log me when I browse Usenet groups using my favorite newsreader? If I am worried about Google "tracking" me when searching, then I won't use it. It's that simple.

      And then there's your comment about innovation. Perhaps you should remove the blindfolds from your eyes and have a look at Google Labs. They have all kinds of cool things going on there.

      And the final straw is when you mention Google Watch as a source of information. Google Watch is so full of misinformation and lies that it is disgusting. It was started because some guy didn't get his page ranked highly enough, and he decided to attack Google. Just look at the text called "PageRank: Google's original sin". He is basically bashing Google for one of its greatest features. Why? Because he wasn't highly ranked. Also look at the yellow box at the top of the page, saying that Google unfairly pushed down its "competitor" SearchKing on the search results.

      The fact is that SearchKing is not a competitor. SearchKing is, in fact, a company which tries to artificially increase a page's PageRank. When Google updated its engine and SearchKing was defeated, SearchKing tried to sue. Funny, that. Some of the worst scum of the Internet is suing someone for doing what's best for everyone...

      Scroll further down on the page to see an picture of Bill Gates and the Google founders, seemingly comparing Microsoft's dirty tactics in taking over the browser market by adding MSIE to their operating system, to Google's growth based purely on its usefulness as a service.

      Further, look at the "Google as Big Brother", text, where more lies are spread. The nine points are mostly strawman arguments. It is obviously that the disgruntled site owner tried to come up with something - anything - to get more contents on his anti-Google page. I could post the list of points and explain exactly why they are nonsense, but it has been done so many times before.

      One point that stands out is "Google's toolbar is spyware". This is a huge lie. It is pure deception. In fact, Google should sue this foolish man. Google clearly explains how the toolbar works when you install it, and there's even a huge warning about it before you enable the PageRank bar. Not only that, but he brings up the Alexa search bar nonsense, which clearly shows his true intent: Lying and deceiving.

      Then there's this nice argument: "Google's cache is illegal because, uh, because it must be illegal!" Yes, he's basically saying that Google Cache is illegal because it is illegal. But he is not saying why it is supposedly illegal.

      He then proceeds to talk about how Google is not "your" friend, although he really means that Google is not the friend of people who try to artificially increase their PageRank. You see, he is just repeating his rabid nonsense about how Google is terrible because it deals with abuse.

      Bottom line: Here we have an individual with an agenda. His obscure site wasn't ranked highly enough so he set out on a quest of personal vendetta. With lies, deception and FUD he tries to ruin Google but ends up looking the fool that he is.

      I am not defending Google at all costs here, but you are clearly paranoid and delusional, and need a dose of reality. How exactly is Google being huge because it is the best alternative to a huge number of users a bad thing? Google is able to exist purely on its own technical merit, and does not have to resort to anti-competitive practice.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
  13. Re:Google is dead : / by tconnors · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My ISP (internet express in regional NSW, australia) receently entered into a contract with MSN to supply search services and with altavista and google search pages only the MSN one comes up instead

    Which ISP, pray tell?

    If this is true, then given its illegaility, I would be contacting my friends at the ACCC over this.

  14. only if you explicitly allow it to by RMH101 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    and their EULA is the clearest i've ever seen, from memory, it actually says words to the effect of "stop! don't just click "next"! this is actually worth reading" in large, friendly letters on the cover.

    1. Re:only if you explicitly allow it to by Inda · · Score: 4, Funny

      I remember seeing that too and thinking:

      Google is such a nice company. They feel the need to write big red letters telling me not to click next. I can trust them. There is no need to read the EULA.

      [click]

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
  15. Re:google's infinite memory by quigonn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    your previous searches were a, b and c...

    I see the following coming:

    "Other people who searched for a, also searched for b, c and d."

    --
    A monkey is doing the real work for me.
  16. Journalism? by oobar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't know about you but this article had a hint of sensationalist feel to it, like those TV blurbs: "Breaking News! Your every move tracked! (Tune in at 11 for details)"

    The fact is cookies are a very widely used thing, and to paint the picture of google somehow being underhand for "secretly installing this counter on millions of hard drives" is a bit of a stretch. For one thing, it's optional: you can configure most browsers to disallow or block cookies. And it's hardly unique to google, I bet you couldn't find a major media/news web site out there that doesn't use cookies in some form or another. You probably have hundreds of them in your cookie jar, unless you've diabled them in your browser.

    And then to equate this to spying? That would be like saying, "Company Foo installed a closed-circuit camera in their lobby! OMG! They can tell everywhere you've been inside their building!" The whole cookie exchange is based on the browser voluntarily accepting it when contacting a server, there's really nothing underhanded about it. And the rules of how cookies work were devised specifically in such a way so that "domain.com" only has access to cookies set for "domain.com" and its subdomains. So the only thing they're tracking is your use of their server, which they already have the logs for anyway.

    What's next, some reporter stumbles onto the 'Referer' and 'User-Agent' fields in the HTTP headers, and writes some garbage piece about how "Internet sites secretly know where you came from when you load their page! ANd they know what operating system and browser you use! It's a giant conspiracy, your privacy is at stake!"

  17. Worst nerd fear ... by BESTouff · · Score: 4, Funny
    Next thing, you know, they will replace this counter with a category, and you'll see .sig like this:

    Google Karma: Terrific, due to obsessive searching syndrome

  18. Re:Thin end of the wedge... by FreeMars · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe it's time for a week-long boycott just to show them we *can* get by without them - plus an email campaign to drive the point home.

    Maybe they'll shut down for a week to show us we can't get by without them.

    --
    Email: slashdot3@FreeMars.org (Address will be abandoned when it gets spam.)
  19. It seems a bit ironic by eXtro · · Score: 4, Funny
    that NY times implies that the sky is falling by defining cookies as
    a software file that a Web site places without the recipient's permission or notification and that transmits information back to the site.

    and then sets several cookies on my computer. I don't actually care, but it shows how little technical proficiency the fact checkers have. Before making a statement like that I'd make sure that my own web site didn't also set cookies.
  20. Watching Google Watch! by hkmwbz · · Score: 4, Informative
    I am sorry for responding twice to your inane drivel, but I had forgotten about Google Watch Watch .

    From Google Watch Watch:

    When you type "NameBase" into Google, Brandt's site comes up first, but Brandt is not satisfied with that. "My problem has been to get Google to go deep enough into my site," he says. In other words, Brandt wants Google to index the 100,000 names he has in his database, so that a Google search for "Donald Rumsfeld" will bring up NameBase's page for the secretary of defense. For some reason, though, all of NameBase's deep pages -- its pages with specific names and citations -- have a low Google page rank, which causes them to show up low in the search results. Search for "Donald Rumsfeld" in Google and in the first five pages you get a lot of .mil and .gov sites, some news stories, and some activist sites. Namebase's entry on Rumsfeld doesn't come up. (It is in Google's database, but to find it somebody would have to first wade through hundreds of results.)
    Brandt sees this as Google's major flaw. "I'm not saying there aren't some sites that are more important that others, but in Google the sites that do well are the spammy sites, sites which have Google psyched out, and a lot of big sites, corporate headquarters' sites -- they show up before sites that criticize those companies."
    In other words, Brandt recognizes that there has to be some order to Google's results, and that some sites might deserve to come up before others. He just disagrees with the way Google does it. In Brandt's ideal world, if you searched for "United Airlines," you would see untied.com -- a site critical of United -- before you see United's page. And if you searched for Rumsfeld, you'd see NameBase's dossier on him before the Defense Department's site on the "The Honorable Donald Rumsfeld."
    Google Watch exists because of someone who wants PageRank to value his opinion more than the majority. Go figure.
    --
    Clever signature text goes here.