Slashdot Mirror
Google Patent for User Targeted Search Results
lorenbake writes "Scoble is one of many to report that Google has filed a patent for user targeted, or attention targeted, search results which will change the ranking of Google's organic results per each individual user based upon that user's search behavior, location, sites visited, and even 'typing behavior'. How could Google build such user profiles to serve customized organic (non-paid) results to? Tracking via their network of desktop apps, advertising, Gmail, and other network services."
good + evil = Google?
Well no actually, but it's close. You get 'Goole' plus i, v and d left over.
Goole is a whole different kettle of fish...
On some seaches you perform you see a "personalized results (BETA)" message. I didn't really have a chance to determine whether the results are better, other than that it ranks the sites you visited before higher.
All the clues were there: context-sensitive ads in GMail was just an obvious one. If you sign up for an account with Google, you agree to their licensing terms; you do the same when instsalling an operating system from a corporation who shall not be named. If you don't like the idea that Google has access to your email, realize that any other provider has the same privileges; it's just that Google, intelligently (but not necessarily morally defensible), chose to take advantage of them. If you didn't use Google, it would be your ISP or another email provider (unless you have your own server).
TANSTAAFL.
This feels like what Amazon has/had going with all the weird/obvious patents they were filing...
Yes. And I remember being on a mailing list in about 1997 where someone was talking about what a wonderful thing Amazon.com was . . .
resigned
Since filing a patent is evil, Google has violated its "do no evil" policy.
Queue someone claiming that it's a defensive patent, and Google is just using the system to defend themselves. Of course that sort of claim is pure nonsense.
Anyways, it's hardly new - Google has been using the patent system since they first hit the scene with PageRank.
If you don't want to support the 767-buying, patent-filing search engine, you could switch to ...
... the search engine that snitches on dissidents to the secret police of totalitarian China!
... the search engine run by a bullying monopoly that has run afoul of anti-trust laws.
... the search engine of another company looking to exploit the patent system.
Suddenly I'm wishing at least one university had held on to its search engine (Stanford had Google and Berkeley Inktomi) before spinning it out to make bucks.
It is a part of the 'owner's manual' included with their SEC filing.
Co-founders release Google 'owner's manual'
Perhaps not so much 'buyer beware' as 'buyer be advised'. Investors know up front what the company is about and Google is not obligated to aggressively pursue short term profits by whatever means for its share holders. It has explicitly told them it will not do that.
Loose lips lose spit.
These are actions Google has actually taken:
x ?NewsId=14130)
)
Helped Chinese authorities to censor their subjects' Internet access.
(http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.asp
Selectively approved and refused ads, based on political content.
(http://www.unknownnews.net/google.html)
(http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040830/reilly)
Permanently collected search history for everyone who has ever used their site.
(http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacypolicy.html
(http://www.techweb.com/wire/ebiz/161500535)
Permanently collected/indexed the email history and content of all gmail users, for marketing and law-enforcement use.
(http://mail.google.com/mail/help/privacy.html)
Filed obvious software patents.
(Refer to this slashdot story.)
For me, when people's actions directly contradict their words, I reduce my trust in them accordingly. Google can keep claiming to "do no evil," but the words are becoming more and more empty.
"How is it evil? It could be evil because its very powerful but in the right hands.. it could be good for everyone."
There's a simple way to tell if someone is likely to abuse power. When someone collects power over you, and states that it's for a purpose which doesn't require that power, you are being misled.