Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Personalized Search From Google Now Opt-Out

Posted by Soulskill on from the escort-on-the-road-to-enlightenment dept.

An anonymous reader writes "CNet reports that 'Google now intends to deliver customized search results even to those searching its site without having signed into a Google account.' This may be what finally drives me to seriously experiment with cookie-free browsing. I consider non-personalized search results to be of value. They quasi-subconsciously give me a better perspective of the full range of information and ideas on the net. That, and I'm also a bit paranoid about a coming world with push-button infrastructure for personalized mis/disinformation."

11 of 206 comments (clear)

  1. oh c'mon by drougie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How is this a bad thing exactly? With such changes Google makes it will only help you get better search results, maybe other people get better results too somehow and it will help Google target advertisements better which benefits not just Google but advertisers and consumers too. How does this pose enough a threat for you to turn your cookies off?

    --
    Calling out bogus battery capacity claims.
    1. Re:oh c'mon by oDDmON+oUT · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "How is this a bad thing exactly?"

      Two key phrases:

      Uninvited opt-out "feature"
      Persistent tracking

      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

      --
      Some days it's just not worth
      chewing through my restraints.
    2. Re:oh c'mon by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your ISP already knows everything you're doing and pretty much any site you visit will have your IP too and know what you did on their site. The government can already track you and may be doing so now

    3. Re:oh c'mon by peragrin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Simple, I want an unbiased source of information even if those biases are my own. I don't want results taiolered to me, as then I can't learn new things about subjects I would never have thought about search for relavant information.

      In other words i don't want all my searches spoiled by my previous line of thinking. I am not a religious nutjob who can only believe what I already know. I don't want the fact that I am catholic to let google to stop searching islamic sites, or the fact that i am a man and never wear jewelry to prevent me from searching for a bracelet for my girlfriend.

      By personalizing search you limit yourself to what you already have. how do you expect to grow with such limitations. Personalizing search is stupid. the problem is there are so many stupid people on this planet that it will be a big hit.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    4. Re:oh c'mon by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      With such changes Google makes it will only help you get better search results

      I'm not sure you will get "better" search results. Good search results are unbiased. You'll get the same results for the same terms, no matter what. If I want different search results, I will change my search terms. That puts me in control. The thought of sitting down at someone elses terminal and getting different search results from my own, or telling someone else "google this" and not being sure what sort of results they'll get is really objectionable.

      I'm mainly not concerned about the privacy implications. I just think a good tool should behave in a predictable manner. No tool should ever assume that it is smarter than me.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  2. I Google by delire · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This in built 'subjectivity' in the search mechanism represents a kind of fragmentation of the commons the searchable Internet supposedly represents: sometimes I want to know what other people know, what they are looking at, what is popular or interesting for them.

    Secondly, grouping searches around an assumption of my interests assumes that my interests are 1/ Statistically quantifiable (solving a loathesome and boring problem may result in many queries), 2/ Particular to me (I may be searching for someone else, or my computer could be shared with another), 3/ Can be built from clear-text (sometimes I might be searching within a context do take me to a binary, like a video, arbitrarily linked in a page (like the comments for instance)).

    Finally, isn't there a problem with diminishing returns here? The set that represents my interests will get 'smaller' in subject matter as I continue to search within that set.

    I'll certainly be switching if Google's approximation of my interests goes under the radar, digging into cookies when I'm 'signed out'.

    1. Re:I Google by noidentity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is an example of a computer trying to be smart. The way it behaves changes over time with your interactions with it, but this modified behavior is particular to your connection. If you go search on another machine elsewhere, you'll get different behavior, and you might not know why you aren't finding something you could find easily on your home machines. Smart computers frustrate users. Give me a dumb, predictable computer any way, then I can accuractly predict how it'll respond to my input, and this tailor my input for the exact response I want, every time.

    2. Re:I Google by MagicM · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I completely agree. The privacy aspects aside, this is Google making assumptions which are likely to be wrong. It's just like with their new fade-in homepage: they assume you're there to search, but when they're wrong, the end result is just frustrating.

      You know what they say about assumptions...

  3. Re:It took THIS to get you to drop cookies? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All that you would need is a detailed enough portfolio on everyone: habits, mannerisms, interests, etc...

    That and competence. So far, google has demonstrated competence. If it is an arm of the government (let's just postulate here) then sooner or later it will become the government; google has always demonstrated an ability to promote efficient alternatives. The question has always been, if I might paraphrase Pippin, is whether the fornicating we're getting is worth the fornicating we're getting. I would argue that in order to successfully pull off an orchestrated yet personalized misinformation campaign on a national scale, the government would have to reinvent itself into an entity that would at least function efficiently as a government, which is about all you can ask for. The powers that be will always find a way to place themselves above the rest.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  4. Simple solution by Timosch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Auto-delete cookies when closing the browser. It's not that complicated, and while it costs you some extra time (logging on etc.), it might be less than you thought it would. I've been doing it for 5 years now.

  5. Re:New Google Maps on mobile (Symbian) by ChipMonk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, now that Google knows, what's to stop them from telling the Big Bad Wolf? After all, doing that is their core business.