Google Merges Google+ Into Search

SharkLaser writes "Google is today launching an update to their search engine. This update is intended to bring you personalized search results based on your Google+ friends, sharing, pictures and likes. They're calling it 'Search plus Your World,' and the update is going to automatically personalize all search results to a greater degree than before. These personalized matches will appear along your normal search results. For example, if you are searching for images of babies, Google will now personalize your search results and give high preference to baby photos from your Google+ circles. TechCrunch is speculating that over time they will also start adding search results from all the other Google services, including Google Docs, Gmail, Contacts, Music, Voice, wallet and so on. Today's launch also uses Google+ data for another purpose: helping you search for information about people on Google+. For example, if you are searching Google for 'music,' Google will now display relevant people and pages from Google+, like Britney Spears, Alicia Keys and Snoop Dogg." Update: 01/10 18:40 GMT by S : Changed the summary to reflect that the idea of adding search results from other services was speculation from TechCrunch, and not something Google said.

Comments

Please no

[recoiledsnake]

Make it opt-in instead of opt-out. Please don't junk up my search results.

Re:Please no

[masternerdguy]

Slowly they will make those results more and more dependent on Google+. Resistance is futile.

Re:Please no

[mystikkman]

How is this different from MS integrating IE into Windows to beat Netscape? Google has a monopoly on search and is harming other industries such as social networks, maps and finance sites by integrating them by default into the search, whereas other competitors like Map Quest don't have this chance and are dying off slowly like Netscape did.

Re:Please no

[DCTech]

Google just doesn't understand why people want to use social networking sites and what people want. Here is blog post by a guy who worked at Google and decided to leave to Facebook, and here is another ex-Googler who worked on Google+. They're both saying that Google only catched upon social networking lately and didn't care about it at all before. Yet they still continue to make so stupid mistakes. And of course, here is a good article about the whole transparency thing at Google.

Re:Please no

[DCTech]

How is this different from MS integrating IE into Windows to beat Netscape? Google has a monopoly on search and is harming other industries such as social networks, maps and finance sites by integrating them by default into the search, whereas other competitors like Map Quest don't have this chance and are dying off slowly like Netscape did.

The article actually covers that a bit.

Since the launch of Google+, Google has been putting a lot of muscle behind promoting and integrating the service into its core products. Fire up a new Android 4.0 device, and youâ(TM)ll be prompted to create a Google+ account if you havenâ(TM)t already. Theyâ(TM)ve given it TV ads, not to mention a priceless promotion on its homepage.

So not only search, but they're using Android and every other product to tie the user to Google+. They're going to get hit hard by antitrust issues.

Re:Please no

[allo]

google had its SN before, orkut.

Re:Please no

[Lashat]

It's a push of dogfood (IE) vs pull of my personal info (G+).

Re:Please no

[Hatta]

I just searched for "music" and got no results from Google Plus on the first page. A more specific query, "Snoop Dogg", doesn't turn up his Google Plus page. His twitter page comes right up though. What have they actually done here, because it looks like the same old search to me.

Re:Please no

[DCTech]

They're launching it today, and Google always rolls updates slowly to all users. Article has pictures showing what it looks like.

Re:Please no

[bhcompy]

Microsoft doesn't even need to do anything but stick with what they're doing at this point for Bing to grow. Google is junking up the search results, as you would say, more and more with each passing month

Re:Please no

[0123456]

Agreed. I tried Bing last week because Google results were so useless and my first thought was 'hey, this looks just like Google did before it started sucking ass'.

Re:Please no

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. I use Google to learn new things, about people and places I don't know. I don't want my search feed cluttered with crap from my social sites. That's what my social site feeds are for.

Re:Please no

[Anonymous Coward]

All you have to do is sign out and search.

Re:Please no

[gmuslera]

There are a lot of companies that jumped late to the game and still did some hit, like Apple with MP3s or phones and even Google itself with search. The trick is doing it well. Will this move from google (or in general, the ongoing integration of all their services into/around G+) succeed or not? Time will tell

Re:Please no

[jeffmeden]

So not only search, but they're using Android and every other product to tie the user to Google+. They're going to get hit hard by antitrust issues.

So for the dozen or so screens also baked into Android that allow use of Facebook, Twitter, and a host of other social and email services they will need to add a "Join Now" button? I know the SEC and the Justice Department are separate entities but it just feels like as long as Facebook is still privately held the feds don't really give a crap about what happens in social network land (beyond the extent that they can monitor it all at will).

Re:Please no

[Trepidity]

I don't think it's entirely lack of understanding; part of it is, but part of it is having ulterior motives for their social network, which includes a design requirement that it's got to somehow 'synergize' with their search business.

Re:Please no

[Anonymous Coward]

Not even. There are two buttons at the top of every search that lets you choose between these personalized results and the normal non-personalized results. This is whether you're logged in or not. People are getting worried about nothing. As usual.

Re:Please no

[diegocg]

Google has a monopoly on search

Yeah, because Google is forcing all of us into not setting Bing as our default search engine.

Re:Please no

[xaxa]

All you have to do is sign out and search.

I leave my main web browser logged in to my personal GMail, which over the last year or two has led to me being logged in on all kinds of other Google sites -- YouTube, Google search, G+. Presumably Google Analytics from anything I look at is tied to my account.

I already use a separate browser for anything "dodgy". I wonder if I should get a third browser, and use that only for Google-related things. Then I can block all cookies from anything related to Google in my main browser.

Re:Please no

[ganjadude]

I am not a fan of the integrated search results But I have an honest question. How is google pushing its services "wrong" any more than fox showing an ad for the simpsons during an NFL game? If you are on that website (or network tv station) than wouldnt you expect, or even want information provided by that site or network? I dont want to see about jersey shore when im watching hell on wheels you know?

Re:Please no

[93 Escort Wagon]

Shift those paradigms by giving 110%!

Re:Please no

[DCTech]

I also agree. Just that preview panel on right side makes google search results suck, and they went and shoved cache link under it too. Bing doesn't have any of crap and works great.

Re:Please no

[DaveV1.0]

First off, it is much easier to change search engines than it is to change operating systems. No one is required to use Google Search and there are plenty of competitors. Many people haven't looked at another search engine in years simply because Google does what they want and they presume it is the best. And, of course, many slashdotters wouldn't ever consider using Bing because it is made by the evil M$.

Secondly, you assert that MapQuest is dying off because of Google integrating maps into Google Search, but you offer no evidence. My experiences with MapQuest and it's user interface were far inferior to my Google Maps experience.

Finally, no one is being forced to use any particular service of Google's and no one is forcing one to use Google's other services if one uses Google Search.

Re:Please no

[Samantha Wright]

Toooooooo laaaaaaaaaaaaate. Soon we will all live within our own socially-bounded thought bubbles, and the Internet's power to connect people will just be an abstraction layer on top of the physical world. Say goodbye to having your culture, values, and beliefs challenged. Advertising has spoken, and advertising hates having to pander to multiple audiences at the same time.

Re:Please no

[jeffmeden]

How is this different from MS integrating IE into Windows to beat Netscape? Google has a monopoly on search and is harming other industries such as social networks, maps and finance sites by integrating them by default into the search, whereas other competitors like Map Quest don't have this chance and are dying off slowly like Netscape did.

That's an easy one; with MS the customer was the person sitting at the computer, and they were also tasked with deciding which browser software to use (from a range or free and for-pay packages). With Google, the only people who could be construed as customers are those purchasing ad space; if you are using the search engine you are not their customer, you are part of their *product*. Because the ad war for eyeballs stops at basically nothing, it is hard to argue they are abusing a market position in one that *doesn't exist* when really they are just providing more paths for advertisers to spend money with them. Now, argue that they are somehow unduly harming the marketplace for advertisers or ad companies, and you may have a case (as it is, Facebook has such a huge lead in the social space that this will all be irrelevant for several years.)

Re:Please no

[DCTech]

Those are just apps you can use if you want to. It's completely different if Google asks you to create Google+ profile when you're booting your Android phone.

Re:Please no

[icebraining]

Android isn't a monopoly, though, unlike Search.

Re:Please no

[icebraining]

A monopoly, at least for antitrust laws, means they have a completely dominant position over that market. Microsoft didn't force you to buy Windows either, but they were still fined for violating antitrust laws.

Re:Please no

[recoiledsnake]

>Secondly, you assert that MapQuest is dying off because of Google integrating maps into Google Search, but you offer no evidence

http://www.thewindowsclub.com/fairsearch-coalition-prepares-report-googles-alleged-anticompetitive-conduct

>My experiences with MapQuest and it's user interface were far inferior to my Google Maps experience.

Netscape was pretty inferior to IE4 as well.

>Finally, no one is being forced to use any particular service of Google's and no one is forcing one to use Google's other services if one uses Google Search.

Microsoft never prevented anyone from installing or using Netscape either.

Re:Please no

[icebraining]

The difference is that Google Search dominates the market, while Fox doesn't.

Re:Please no

[DCTech]

The antitrust issues rarely are from direct user point of view. It wasn't with Microsoft, it isn't with Google. With Microsoft they were trying to kill other browser and OS makers by making deals with PC manufacturers. With Google it's issue with advertisers, who are the actual customers of Google. Since Google maintains a monopoly on search, they can pretty much dictate pay per click advertising. And they do.

European Union was looking into Google's monopoly issues because Google was denying advertisers from running same ads on other networks if they want to use Google's ad services. This is already bad in US, but in several European countries Google has a market share of 90-99% in search. There are just no alternatives, and if there are, Google is doing everything they can to kill them off. Hence the antitrust issues.

Re:Please no

[DaveV1.0]

A) That link seems to be complaining that Google is adding services the way Yahoo and Microsoft did. Strange that they would complain NOW.

B) And, your point is what? Inferior products tend to die off.

C) Right, and because Netscape was, by your own admission, pretty inferior, it died off.

Seriously, Google isn't doing anything other than what other gateways did in the past. And, by many accounts, it is doing them in an inferior way. If you don't like what is happening or the services provided, don't use Google. Problem solved.

Re:Please no

[MightyYar]

So not only search, but they're using Android and every other product to tie the user to Google+. They're going to get hit hard by antitrust issues.

They probably have a monopoly that is similar to MS's in the OS and Office markets. So the rule is that they cannot leverage their monopoly in search to push out competitors in other areas.

They do not have a monopoly in smart phones, so they can push competitors off of their phones entirely if they think it would sell. They can try to use Google+ to encourage people to use other Google products, but it won't help them at all because no one uses Google+. If they start using search to crowd out Facebook in favor of Google+, then they will probably get themselves in trouble.

Re:Please no

[aztracker1]

Not sure about that as a bad thing... most computers come with Windows, and have IE as the only browser, with that set to use Bing as the default search. It seems to me, that most users are making a conscious effort to use Google over alternatives. Very far different than MS shoving IE on everyone, and making backroom deals the way MS did.

Re:Please no

[Anonymous Coward]

Search is not a monopoly it is more of an oligopoly.

Re:Please no

[BlackSnake112]

If Google keeps on giving me crappy search results, I will be looking for a new main search site. I had to go 9-10 pages deep to find out what I was looking for the other day. The first 8 pages were all shopping ads for the laptop. I did type in laptop+issue. Tried two other search site and got issue related results on the first page. I been fining this more and more with Google. I think they get more revenue from the sales sites then the fix it sites. Which would explain the number of sales site before the fix it sites.

For me mapquest just worked. Then again I was printing off the directions. I did not use a tablet or smart phone to display those directions. I also liked the old mapquest look better then the new one.

As for as no one is being forced, the same could have been said for the antitrust case against microsoft. That didn't hold water then either.

Re:Please no

[recoiledsnake]

The point is that MS still got hit by a successful anti-trust lawsuit because of Netscape. If Google were held to the same standard, it might also be in the same boat.

Re:Please no

[DaveV1.0]

That is fine, but it doesn't address the actual issue. You, yourself, say that the anti-trust issue is at a corporate level, not a user level. The Google+ search integration is easy to get around by not having Google+ or using other Google services. Use Yahoo mail, LiveMail, etc. Use Facebook ( I would suggest another but I am just not up on social networks) instead of Google+. Use Bing or Yahoo Search or Ask instead of Google.

The GPP was asking how adding personalized results from one's Google services to one's Google search results was different from MS bundling Internet Explorer. The difference is that one doesn't have to have Google+ or any other Google service to use Google Search and one does not even have to be logged into Google to use Google Search. It would be trivial for almost all users to stop using Google Search and most other Google services. Even the commenter who talked about Google reader could change all his other services and not use Google Search. And, he could just roll his own on-line reader.

The ad issue is completely separate and has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. It is, in essence, a red herring.

Re:Please no

[DaveV1.0]

If the results are so crappy, why are you still using it? Have you checked with other sites to see if they give more relevant results?

Please explain how you are being forced to use any Google service.

Re:Please no

[poetmatt]

100% agreed.

As long as I have a choice, I don't mind this - also, as long as it's not on by default. the latter would be the facebook way (aka horrible).

Re:Please no

[Hognoxious]

If anything drives me mad, it's damned machines second guessing me. Over Christmas, briefly, it started doing everything in Dutch. Yes, I checked my browser preferences - it was ignoring them.

And how about gmail's new look - total train wreck (not that the old one was a paragon of ergonomics).

Re:Please no

[jeffmeden]

The difference is that Google Search dominates the market, while Fox doesn't.

Doesn't that all depend on who's watching what, and when? Google's "domination" is purely subjective, they have a majority share in Search but they are by no means the only large player. Much like the Superbowl (probably why it was used as an example) where almost every eyeball directed at a TV is watching that channel (162.9 million pairs, last year). You could in fact say that the company who is responsible for televising the Superbowl indeed "dominates" broadcasting for that evening, the exact same way Google does...

Re:Please no

[DaveV1.0]

I don't see how, especially on the user end. In ad serving, maybe. But, when it comes to things like this, if one doesn't like it, one doesn't have to have a Google+ account, Gmail account, Google Reader account, or even a Google account at all thereby negating any and all of Google's service integration. If one doesn't have a Google account, one can use Google search. And, if one does have a Google account and is using ALL of Google's services, one can STILL use Google search anonymously by using incognito mode, or a different browser with which one does not log into Google services.

No one is forcing anyone to use any Google service and even if one was forced to use any and/or all of Google's services, it is trivial to get around the integration of services. Google is not the end all of the Internet, Internet search, or portal services. If you or I wanted to, we could easily save most, if not all, of our data in our various Google services and, with little effort, walk away from Google and never use Google services again.

Re:Please no

[element-o.p.]

Microsoft didn't force you to buy Windows either...

That point is somewhat debatable. It wasn't all that long ago that it was well-night impossible to buy (as opposed to "build") a PC without Windows, unless you ponied up a lot of extra $$$ for a Mac.

Re:Please no

[jeffmeden]

Those are just apps you can use if you want to. It's completely different if Google asks you to create Google+ profile when you're booting your Android phone.

Is it completely different than Google requiring you to use/create a Gmail account when booting your phone? Why the sudden outcry over social network integration and not over Gmail? Are you not a big enough fan of Hotmail or Yahoo to care?

Re:Please no

[DragonWriter]

The difference is that Google Search dominates the market, while Fox doesn't.

A majority share isn't the same thing as a monopoly, and Google's ~65% search share is certainly the former.

I'm also not really sure that you can make an argument about tieing when neither the tied service nor the service to which it is tied are actually services that the company (or the alternative suppliers) sells, and they are -- from a commercial point of view -- simply vehicles for attracting eyeballs to advertisements (whether paid, or the company's own for its own for-pay services that leverage the same profiles but which are purchased separately from the services at issue.)

Re:Please no

[TheGratefulNet]

here is how I am FORCED to use google.

I guy parts from the usual mailorder electronics stores (digikey, mouser, newark, etc). tell me WHY, then, when I am searching a site that is entirely a store and has zero need for 'banner ads' and such, is there outbound connects to google*something* (adservices or apis or some other subdomain of goog). that makes no sense to me! yet I've seen 'connecting to googleapis' or some crap like that during my ordering process.

I block all the goog domains I can in noscript and adblock. yet, for some reason, I'm on mouser.com and placing an order for transistors and some google connection is happening.

I did NOT CHOOSE this and I don't want it! nothing I was doing had any business with google, nor did they have any business knowing what the hell I'm doing. I did not search, I did not go to a google page, yet there were outbound connects from my browser to google during my parts purchasing session.

some day, I'll capture the stream to see what the hell is being asked for or sent. maybe google convinced the vendors that 'it will help them' somehow if they let google into their html stream. but damned if I can figure out why they'd do this! its like letting someone snoop in on a purchase of yours. its eery, almost! I did not ask for google to be part of that 'conversation' and they have no right being there.

I'm really hating google a lot, these days. deservedly so, too, I must say.

Re:Please no

[blind biker]

Make it opt-in instead of opt-out.

I don't even think there is an opt-out setting. If there is, I would love to know about it.

Re:Please no

[Trepidity]

I should add that, while I think that might lead to some dumb decisions, it's also not completely unreasonable as a general principle: Google is, quite rightly, trying to avoid becoming a Yahoo-style company that maintains a hodgepodge array of un-integrated services that don't do much to complement each other.

Re:Please no

[icebraining]

But the problem isn't shoving Search, it's shoving Plus to everyone who uses Search. People have to make a conscious effort to use Google Search instead of e.g. Bing, but they might use G+ instead of $competitor because it's integrated with Search.

The backroom deals are a different issue, I think.

Re:Please no

[DragonWriter]

A monopoly, at least for antitrust laws, means they have a completely dominant position over that market.

Which Google, with ~65% share, doesn't have with internet search.

Microsoft didn't force you to buy Windows either, but they were still fined for violating antitrust laws.

Microsoft had, IIRC, close to or above a 90% share in the desktop OS market when it was found to have (and have illegally leveraged) a monopoly in that market.

Re:Please no

[DaveV1.0]

You are not using Google. The websites you are visiting are using Google.

Some sites display ads from Google, some use Google Analytics, etc. The website may be using

While YOU didn't "ask for google to be part of that 'conversation'", the web site you are visiting did ask them so they have every right to be there. Your real problem is not with Google. It is with the websites you are visiting. They are the ones inviting Google in. Most-likely, they are doing it because they don't want to be bothered with coding their own statistics and analytics engine but they could be using other services as well.

Re:Please no

[oursland]

Microsoft was also hit with an antitrust suit, successfully. Microsoft is now required to offer Europeans a randomized choice between browsers when Windows is installed. So it may be true that most computers come with Windows, but it is not true that all Windows installations have IE as the browser and Bing as the default search.

Re:Please no

[SniperJoe]

In my eyes, this isn't simply cross-promotion. They are essentially forcing Google+ and its corresponding integration with Google products down our throat rather than just offering them as an optional accessory. It would be akin to taking your car into the dealership for service and the dealer installing OnStar into your car without your knowledge. Regardless of the fact that it's a *service*, there are some people that don't want it, don't need it and simply *not using it* isn't enough.

Re:Please no

[alexgieg]

google had its SN before, orkut.

STILL has. It's big here in Brazil and a few other countries, although, from what I hear, people are leaving it in droves for Facebook.

What I wonder is why Google still hasn't decided to merge Orkut back into G+. It'd seem a logical step, at least as a way to boost the total number of G+ users, specially given how Google is nowadays all about discontinuing its other social networks, just think Gmail's Buzz, GReader's nameless article-sharing one, GWave (which was more of a SN than other thing), that Twitter competitor they bought years ago whose name I don't remember, etc.

Not that merging Orkut into G+ would help stop the massive migration towards Facebook, mind you...

Re:Please no

[Anonymous Coward]

Netscape inferior to IE4? Hahaha, please son. Get real.

Re:Please no

[icebraining]

Which Google, with ~65% share, doesn't have with internet search.

Sure, no objections there. I'm just saying being "forced" (or having 100% of share) is not required to be considered a monopoly, at least for antitrust laws.

Re:Please no

[DragonWriter]

The point is that MS still got hit by a successful anti-trust lawsuit because of Netscape. If Google were held to the same standard, it might also be in the same boat.

No, it wouldn't, since Google's share in any relevant U.S. market is nothing like what Microsoft's was in the desktop OS market.

Re:Please no

[GameboyRMH]

In terms of buying vs. building it's well-night impossible today, only the expensive Linux shops sell significant numbers of computers without Windows. Even if you build a PC, some shops that have contracts with MS won't sell you a CPU/mobo/RAM combo unless you buy Windows with it. Not kidding.

Re:Please no

[Requiem18th]

I resist. Try http://duckduckgo.com/ or http://startpage.com./ It's possible.

Re:Please no

[GameboyRMH]

I've noticed the result quality going down over the last year or so. That and a big difference in the search results I see at home vs. work for the same tools. At home my setup is heavily anonymized so I get pretty neutral results, at work I don't use cookie blocking or request blocking and it's much easier to find technical stuff. That might sound like a good thing, but at home it's really hard to find those technical articles even when using the same search terms!

Re:Please no

[Tyrannosaur]

I use duckduckgo as my default search. It is very good :)

Re:Please no

[GameboyRMH]

Duckduckgo uses Bing's results, I found that out the other day. Which surprised me because from the quality of the results, I figured DuckDuckGo was a tiny struggling project that was still working on their search code and hadn't done any major indexing.

Re:Please no

[GameboyRMH]

Lemme guess, you have your browser locked down like Fort Knox? It seems like these days Google has to recognize you as a geek before it shows you anything technical.

Re:Please no

[datavirtue]

I hate tailored search results. This My World stuff should be off to the side or distinctly segregated at the top. I have found myself switching to private mode just to search. It changes the results dramatically. The tailored ads are especially annoying. I visited liquidweb several weeks ago JUST to check them out and now all of my ads are liquidweb. I have never seen a tailored ad I wanted to see or was interested in. I have had common users comment that tailored ads creep them out.

Re:Please no

[GameboyRMH]

Google APIs isn't necessarily ad-related, you might want to allow that one.

Re:Please no

[datavirtue]

It is odd about the good results on DuckDuck since they are supposedly from Bing. Bing is trash, but somehow DuckDuckGo works? What is going on here? Typical Microsoft blunder? Watch the Duck eclipse Bing.

Re:Please no

[datavirtue]

Cry me a river. Anyone can go to these other sites if they want. If Google is the best, no one cares. I use Google because all those services are integrated. There is no monopoly on search. People are confusing monopoly with everyone choosing to use Google. It cannot be a detriment if most people are choosing to visit Google.

Re:Please no

[datavirtue]

I say take it to the courts and let it stew for a decade, and the government will lose.

Re:Please no

[GameboyRMH]

Both return results that are "lacking" to put it gently IMO.

Re:Please no

[datavirtue]

People are choosing Google with their fingers and eyes because they don't like the other services. When I ran my first Google search over a decade ago every other search engine died in my eyes. I never bothered with another one again. I have tried several others recently in an attempt to honestly evaluate them; no go.

Re:Please no

[GameboyRMH]

The only thing I didn't like about Gmail's new look is that they got rid of the mini RSS reader, web clips. I needed another web-based RSS reader and ended up using Google Reader. So much for cutting down my Google footprint :-\

Re:Please no

[datavirtue]

Your car analogy breaks down.

Re:Please no

[GameboyRMH]

I already use a separate browser for anything "dodgy". I wonder if I should get a third browser, and use that only for Google-related things. Then I can block all cookies from anything related to Google in my main browser.

I've been thinking the same thing. Too bad Firefox can't have a separate and concurrent Private Browsing window like Chrome's Incognito windows.

Re:Please no

[datavirtue]

A comedian could do a whole stand up routine about MapQuest. It is a joke. Google built their Maps because MapQuest sucked. MapQuest was dominant, they competed, Google won. End of story.

Re:Please no

[Foxhoundz]

Make it opt-in instead of opt-out. Please don't junk up my search results.

Then don't use Google+. In fact, don't use Google period. You should know by now that Google has been working on integrating all of its services into one central platform. You saw this coming.

Re:Please no

[LordLimecat]

They're both saying that Google only catched upon social networking lately and didn't care about it at all before

Orkut? Buzz?

Surely Google had SOME interest, otherwise they wouldnt have made so many attempts at it.

Re:Please no

[LordLimecat]

As the Windows and Apple folks are so keen to point out, Android is FAR from a monopoly, and Android 4.0 is hardly a dominant player. You can draw some parallels to the MS / IE situation years ago, but they fall apart at that critical part.

Also, I rather have a hunch that that requirement is only for Android by Google (tm) devices-- can anyone confirm that?

Re:Please no

[LordLimecat]

There is a huge difference.

There is nothing illegal, wrong, or anticompetitive about MS, Google, or Yahoo putting links to image or map search on their home page. In fact, pretty much every vendor in existence has links on their website from one product to another.

There is also a miniscule barrier to entry to make a competing service to Google. Making an Operating System and getting it preinstalled on every OEM machine has a HUGE barrier, and preinstalling IE leveraged that to achieve market dominance. If memory serves, one of the issues was that for most people the barrier of downloading and installing a new browser was high enough that dominance was inevitable once IE was bundled. It could be argued that without a browser, noone would have a way to download anything, but thats not relevent; the point is that there were several factors to the MS anti trust case.

With google, the barrier you're dealing with is going to google, searching "mapquest", and clicking a link. Outside of making the decision for someone, it doesnt get lower than that. What would you propose Google do? What remedy do you suppose is adequate, have Google search pretend that Google Maps doesnt exist? Should image search be broken off too? Where does it end?

Re:Please no

[Anonymous Coward]

No just your hate for Microsoft... the thing is they're so big now they compete with everybody.

Re:Please no

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi Bonch. New sockpuppet, eh?

Re:Please no

[LordLucless]

Totally different.

Microsoft bundled IE with Windows - if you bought windows (which a consumer pretty much had to in those days) you also got IE
With Google, if you use both Google+ and search, they work synergistically. One doesn't force you to get the other. If they required you to sign up to Google+ to use search, then you'd have a closer parallel

Re:Please no

[LordLucless]

Fire up a new Android 4.0 device, and you'll be prompted to create a Google+ account if you haven't already. They've given it TV ads, not to mention a priceless promotion on its homepage.

Pretty sure Android doesn't have a monopoly on the smart phone market. And what, you think have a legally-gained monopoly means they're not allowed to be TV ad slots?

Re:Please no

[LordLucless]

Microsoft never prevented anyone from installing or using Netscape either.

Which isn't what the OP said. He said the no one is forcing you to use Google's other services if you use Search.
However, Microsoft did force you to use IE if you used Windows. It came pre-installed, and essential services (like the Windows Update site) required IE to function.

Re:Please no

[Anonymous Coward]

I guy parts

Paging Dr. Freud. Code Blue for Dr. Freud.

tell me WHY, then, when I am searching a site that is entirely a store and has zero need for 'banner ads' and such, is there outbound connects to google*something* (adservices or apis or some other subdomain of goog). that makes no sense to me!

Well that's because you're an idiot. Those sites are using probably using Google Analytics, or have embedded a Google Site Search instead of writing their own (poor) site-specific search functionality.

I'm really hating google a lot, these days. deservedly so, too, I must say.

Just remember: aluminum foil amplifies the signals!

Re:Please no

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not even that. It was MS's business dealings that, for years, made it practically impossible to purchase a computer or laptop without having an MS operating system on it. You got the Windows OS whether you wanted it or not. Google is entirely different as you're under no obligation to always navigate to www.google.com to do your searching, or to set that particular URL as your browser's "home page".

Re:Please no

[GrumpySteen]

> How is this different from MS integrating IE into Windows to beat Netscape?

The difference is the consumer's ability to choose.

Consumers aren't forced to use Google+ if they use Google search and they aren't forced to use Google search if they have Google+. They can even forgo both if they wish.

A consumer who bought a Windows system, on the other hand, had Internet Explorer installed and set as your default browser. Even if they took the time to download another browser, install it and set it as the default, they still could not uninstall IE because MS had integrated IE into the OS to the point where it could not be removed. Consumers were forced to have IE on their systems.

Re:Please no

[Inda]

Is there really a problem with Google search? And before I rant, I'm sure they'll be a "stop showing results from G+" link under the first result.

The WWW has never been the best part of the internet. Why does everyone get their knickers in a twist over it? What is everyone else searching for that I'm not?

I want to hang a shelf. How? If someone could show me once, I think I'd manage. Google shows me the correct videos.

I know the folder name of my favourite movie/app/mp3 but it's been years, and the folder's been deleted. Google finds me torrents.

The doctor says I have "hereditary spherocytosis". Sounds serious. Google explains all.

Hardware problems, software problems, Windows problems, Android problems. I'm pulling my hair out. Google shows me a metric ton of forum results. That's good. Someone's always asked the question before. Someone's often found a fix.

Maybe that someone is on G+.

Re:Please no

[Hognoxious]

Google always rolls updates slowly to all users.

A good strategy, it's less effort to revert when (and no, I don't mean if) it goes totally tits up.

Re:Please no

[Hognoxious]

One thing it gets horribly wrong is how it threads things. Threading should be based on which messages are replies to which messages; they base it on having the same title. This means if you're subscribed to mailing lists etc. you can miss things because they're lumped together.

Also, it doesn't order them properly - it seems to order them based on the first message - so you can miss a reply (or a reply to a reply) because it sorts lower down (maybe on the second page) than it should.

Then there's no obvious way to expand the list of labels; the tiny "more" thing (it's not an icon, what is it?) only appears when you mouse over the partial list. There's no way to set which labels have priority. I could go on.

I'm beginning to think that google design shit GUIs either to be bastards or as part of some bizarre psychological experiment, because a monkey tossing a coin would get it right more often than they do.

Have you ever used google groups? DejaNews had a crappy interface and they managed to make it worse. Flids.

Re:Please no

[Anonymous Coward]

It already is - you have to opt-in twice!!!
    1) you need to create a google+ account
    2) you need to be logged in to your account when searching

Re:Please no

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to me, that most users are making a conscious effort to use Google over alternatives.

So why is google paying millions to OEMs/ISPs/Browsers makers to force google as default when all the users are going to choose google anyway? lol.. it sucks to be a google cheerleader.. you have to give up all rationality and logic.

Re:Please no

[Anonymous Coward]

Has it not occurred to ANYBODY here that if Google were allowed to know a few things about you (via your G+ profile), that it could provide a much better search experience? Everybody's so determined to stick to their old ways, when this just the natural evolution in making search easier.

On top of all that, Google provides a button right there to remove any "personalized" results...

Why the anger?!?

Re:Please no

[zycow]

I have just installed this on the blog page please + me... I would never ever ever have done this if not for the fact you're all using google... I don't want someone to tell me these results are better than what I can find on my own. I thought google was for net neutrality.... the fact is there are millions of backlink sucking websites all trying to make a dollar, because google has failed. It has already backfired. competitors have 30.000 backlinks in one month, then nothing for months, several domains, multiple blogs with slightly different content all to fake the google result. Now the next is they want you to advertise more, so you're fiends visit and + sites... what's the best non intrusive, non face search engine out there?

Re:Please no

[ArundelCastle]

There are a lot of companies that jumped late to the game and still did some hit, like Apple with MP3s or phones and even Google itself with search. The trick is doing it well.

So you're saying MC Hammer has a shot? They're in Pre-beta, which is way more exclusive and awesome than regular ol' beta.

Re:Please no

[Anonymous Coward]

Case's primary insight into the dynamics of street dealing was that neither the buyer nor the seller really needed him. A middleman's business is to make himself a necessary evil. The dubious niche Case had carved for himself in the criminal ecology of Night City had been cut out with lies, scooped out a night at a time with betrayal.

Neuromancer, 1984, William Gibson

Posted AC, because I still can.

Re:Please no

[Anonymous Coward]

But the problem isn't shoving Search,

The problem is that you can't fucking read - you are so caught up in the cult of mediocrity that you didn't read the story. I'll summarise it for you -"SharkLaser Chief Shill for Microsoft today posted another bullshit story, this time loosely based on a story from TechTalk, who wrote a bullshit story about how Google *might* *one-day* *maybe* provide a modified Google search result for *Google+* users *while* they are logged into Google+".

And you can stop that internal dialogue right now - it's right there, top of the page idiot. Read it again. "but anonymous coward, it's a fact that.." NO! It's bullshit. "but everybody knows..." NO! a clusterfuck of morons is a terrifying thing - like a lemming rush of SUVs, but it. is. not. everybody.

I return you to your fantasy now. Save your pitchforks and torches for the next windmill attack.

Re:Please no

[stretch0611]

Has it not occurred to ANYBODY here that if Google were allowed to know a few things about you (via your G+ profile), that it could provide a much better search experience? Everybody's so determined to stick to their old ways, when this just the natural evolution in making search easier.

Yes, that thought came to mind. However, I believe that my personal information and privacy are more important than some minor convenience.

Re:Please no

[Anonymous Coward]

Which Google, with ~65% share, doesn't have with internet search.

Sure, no objections there. I'm just saying being "forced" (or having 100% of share) is not required to be considered a monopoly, at least for antitrust laws.

The antitrust laws are not secret - try reading them instead of quoting the shills - it'd make you sound like less of a dick.

Hint: dominant != monopoly. Even if they were the only search engine. The key factor is whether they (anyone) creates barriers against competition.

Re:Please no

[icebraining]

Uh, the "story" comes from a the official Google Search blog, not from TechTalk: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/search-plus-your-world.html
Opening Google.com itself links to this: http://www.google.com/insidesearch/plus.html#u=su

I didn't even read the Techcrunch article, because someone at Hacker News had already linked to the Google blog.

Re:Please no

[Anonymous Coward]

Fire up a windows machine and you'll be automatically prompted to login to windows! ZOMG Microsoft should be sued for antitrust!

Re:Please no

[symbolset]

I like being able to +1 search results. But I wouldn't want a personalized Google that over-emphasized that and turned it into my own little echo chamber.

Re:Please no

[Lundse]

Google just doesn't understand why people want to use social networking sites and what people want.

Google is not out to give you what you want. They are out to change what you want. They might fail with you, but you are not their entire user segment. They are going to make search social. Have people log in, in order to use their hugely popular services (gmail, maps, etc.), then add all our usage data to their search servers, enabling better, and more importantly, new areas of search.

They may be a late comer to the SN business, but they are not out to "compete too late" (that would be Microsoft's business plan). They are out to change, not just social networking, but the web.

Re:Please no

[Sosarian Avatar]

I just switched to Bing after noticing that not only are its results more relevant, it allows & even suggests Boolean search operators, and it doesn't keep second-guessing me (the most it does is notice a contextual synonym and optionally include it in the search). Google's big mistake isn't just in sucking, it's in irritating users enough jar them out of complacency so they start giving alternatives a serious chance.

Re:Please no

[DCTech]

If people are choosing Google then why is Google paying OEM's/Manufacturers/Browser makers/Shareware authors over billion an year to set google.com as default homepage and/or search engine and to spread Chrome?

And why did Chrome in Russia have specific switch in code that defaulted the search to Google instead of Yandex?

That's because people aren't choosing Google. They get shoved to Google in various ways.

Re:Please no

[Caesar Tjalbo]

Has it not occurred to ANYBODY here that if Google were allowed to know a few things about you (via your G+ profile), that it could provide a much better search experience?

I've thought about that but I can't imagine how their input is going to help my searches. In fact, when it attempted to localize stuff based on my IP address it deteriorated the "search experience".

Everybody's so determined to stick to their old ways, when this just the natural evolution in making search easier.

On top of all that, Google provides a button right there to remove any "personalized" results...

Why the anger?!?

I recall a nearly white screen with a textbox to enter search parameters. One-click access to advanced search and fairly easy to memorize tricks for use in the search bar. Perhaps it makes some people angry but current google search just makes me sad.

Re:Please no

[Anonymous Coward]

I gave my partner an iPad for Christmas. She's learning Italian. Guess what, the keyboard is now Italian. She never changed her keyboard preferences. Such things shit me to tears as well. I think Google is heading on a fast track to Palookaville with this.

Re:Please no

[fast turtle]

I actually find that Bing works better for some searches then Google does. Hell I even still use Altavista and Ask occasionally

Re:Please no

[whipnet]

They tried to buy the original didn't they? Friendster? *

Re:Please no

[Meski]

When you pay Google for search results, you can make those requests or demands.

Re:Please no

[pentadecagon]

I wonder why you consider this junk. In general search results should only improve by taking more information into account.

Re:Please no

[Xest]

Exactly.

Facebook was arguably rather late to the social networking thing. Friends Reunited and MySpace were around well before Facebook was, but it didn't stop Facebook stealing all their users and killing them off.

Re:Please no

[Anonymous Coward]

Duckduckgo grabs the keyboard, so I can't use the arrow keys to scroll (No, using the mouse is not an option, I only have two hands - two on the keyboard, zero on the mouse). A mis-feature that I have turned off long ago when it comes to Google Search.

Other people claim that its search results are as bad as Bing. Crappy interface, crappy results. That basically leaves nothing in a search engine. Why is this Duckduckgo thing mentionen every time geeks complain about misfeatures Google added? We were the ones to jump on Google when Google came out with a no-crap interface and good search results - the opposite of this.

Re:Please no

[Anonymous Coward]

It is opt-in. You are still not forced to have a Google+ account in order to use Google search.

Re:Please no

[kurzweilfreak]

Good thing it had OnStar in it when it did!

Re:Please no

[seantide]

The anger comes because this isn't what I want when searching.

It does *NOT* provide a better search results when it tries to use my personal information, instead of searching for what I told it to search for. They already broke the engine by trying to guess what I meant instead of just taking my search strings as they are.

Re:Please no

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually changed to Bing after realising this. Surprisingly enough, Windows Live does make for an awesome platform, even as a Linux user. Uncomplicated privacy settings, comfortable levels of social networking baked in around MSN, integrated Office Live, 25GB of cloud-based, redundant storage with 5GB of syncable storage...

It's heavenly and is a lot more tightly integrated than that of Google products. I would say this outdoes Apple's and Google's offerings quite well.

Despite being evil, MS does have some pretty well-integrated free services that serve even non-Windows users quite well...

Re:Please no

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.thewindowsclub.com/fairsearch-coalition-prepares-report-googles-alleged-anticompetitive-conduct

Struggling Competitors Complain About Having To Compete! Film at 11!

Microsoft never prevented anyone from installing or using Netscape either.

Microsoft prevented you from uninstalling or not using Internet Explorer. They even lied to courts about its being "essential".

Google is not forcing you to use any of their products in the same way. Sure, maybe you can't uninstall Google+ from an Android without rooting it -- but I can't uninstall Facebook from mine either, and God knows I've tried. So that's not comparable to IE.

Re:Please no

[spearway]

It is a bit more complex that this. The more info you give Google or any other search engine the more focused the result will be. This can be good in a sense but it also hide from you any dissenting view that you may have discovered by accident.

Let say you are a liberal and very quickly Google is only going to present you with liberal sites which will fit with your way of thinking. Good? not too much as it will hide from you any other opinion and push you in a polarized society.

Terminator Reference

[MightyYar]

I'm pretty sure that Google is Skynet, but instead of nuking us it will just embarrass us all to death once it achieve sentience.

Re:Terminator Reference

[Anonymous Coward]

Trust me - there is life after embarrassment-to-death.

Re:Terminator Reference

[ciaohound]

... he posts anonymously.

Desperation?

[XxtraLarGe]

I guess they need to find some way to get people to use Google+...

Re:Desperation?

[Colonel Korn]

I guess they need to find some way to get people to use Google+...

And yet I think that this move creates one of the better reasons not to have a Google+ account.

Re:Desperation?

[DragonWriter]

I guess they need to find some way to get people to use Google+...

Google has been up front from the beginning that the long-term plan for Google+ (and the reason for the name) was that it was going to be an integrated social layer that interacted deeply with the rest of Google's services, not a separate standalone service.

Re:Desperation?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess they need to find some way to get people to use Google+...

And yet I think that this move creates one of the better reasons not to have a Google+ account.

Cool, everything has been said. Mod parent to +5 and move on folks.

Re:Desperation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. I finally deleted my account.

Re:Desperation?

[LordLimecat]

But its still not facebook.

Though this too may be a fatal flaw to Google Plus: Its social networking, for people who hated facebook (because they didnt want social networking). It would be like Honda making a new car for people who loathe cars.

Re:Desperation?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't care if it is integrated into rest of the services. In fact, I'd love if it is. Just don't mix social networking/gmail/picasa results with web search results.

Uhg

[geek]

Ive stopped using google because of all this Plus nonsense. No Chrome, gmail, search, nothing. I switched all my service elsewhere. Maybe google will turn the ship around but I doubt it. They seem like the are on a downward slide, maybe they just got too arrogant.

Re:Uhg

[Tharsman]

I am ready to quit their mail and have quit everything else. Only thing I still cant find a viable replacement for is Reader... ugh....

Re:Uhg

[DCTech]

Why would you use Google Reader when you can use any desktop based RSS reader, like FeedReader?

Re:Uhg

[vlm]

Because google reader is not desktop based? I have more than one computing device.

I ran feedonfeeds for years on my own server, but eventually switched to GR.

Re:Uhg

[BRSQUIRRL]

Not to answer for the original poster, but for me personally, I like having a centrally-stored list of feeds and a reader UI that I can access from any web browser. My favorite news reader app for iOS also happens to only support Google Reader as a feed source.

Re:Uhg

[Eponymous Coward]

Your comment is a great example of why I don't think anti-trust issues will be a big problem for Google, at least in the US.

Re:Uhg

[man_of_mr_e]

We should start a fund-drive to take out full page ads that say "Google, you are not our overlords". Since there is no way to "contact" google, it would take something that drastic for them to realize how douchey they are being.

Re:Uhg

[geek]

Calling google a monopoly is repugnant. We still have tons of choices (ironically we have most of these choices because of google). Google isn't so much a monopoly as just a parasite. They leach ad revenue off anything and everything they can. They latch themselves on pretty firmly but it's still quite possible to ditch them.

If anyone reading like this is like me and upset with google then the best thing you can do to remove them is to stop using "google" as a verb. Start "searching" and correct people when they use google as a verb too. Don't hand the internet over to them so handily.

Re:Uhg

[DCTech]

Google's monopoly isn't about users and their choices, it's about advertisers and what choice they have. Google is actively hindering and trying to kill of competitors by denying advertisers from running same ads on other networks if they want to use AdWords.

Re:Uhg

[kcitren]

Feedly?

Re:Uhg

[fulldecent]

Well good luck finding anything

Re:Uhg

[Anonymous Coward]

Similar situation. I deleted all my Google accounts, switched default search engines and browser home pages away from Google, started blocking all Google cookies on all sites, and became vocal about it all. The only thing I still need from them (for purely professional reasons - I'm working on development of GPS based devices) is Google Earth.

Re:Uhg

[Eponymous Coward]

Won't somebody think of the advertisers!

I still don't see where the anti-trust issues come from. A monopoly isn't illegal until you use it for leverage in another area. How is Google's monopoly in internet advertising (which I'm not sure exists) being used for leverage?

Re:Uhg

[Jeng]

Would Google notice if you Google bomb them?

Re:Uhg

[Dwedit]

You still can't avoid The Google. Ever seen a Recaptcha on a site anywhere? The Google is still tracking you.

Re:Uhg

[Tharsman]

I mostly read feeds on the go. On my phone, at work computer, on my wife's computer, brothers computer, while in the can with the tablet, etc etc.

I need something that has a centralized backen to keep track of what I already read.

This kinda breaks things for me

[OS24Ever]

When I'm searching it's because 'my world' doesn't know the answer and I have to go elsewhere. Filtering out people I don't know first makes it harder to find things.

If I had a google+ account I guess I would care, unless this forces me to create one which means I have an issue.

Re:This kinda breaks things for me

[TheSpoom]

The idea isn't increasing utility, the idea is promoting Google Plus.

Re:This kinda breaks things for me

[genghisjahn]

Bing!

Re:This kinda breaks things for me

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't increasing utility the best way to promote G+?

Re:This kinda breaks things for me

[element-o.p.]

I suspect you could probably just sign out before searching.

Re:This kinda breaks things for me

[GameboyRMH]

This is the new age of social media and curated computing, what does this "utility" word mean?

Re:This kinda breaks things for me

[AmbushBug]

When I'm searching it's because 'my world' doesn't know the answer and I have to go elsewhere. Filtering out people I don't know first makes it harder to find things.

Good thing they put a toggle right there in the upper right corner that will remove all the personalized stuff from your search results! You can even have it default to off in your settings!

Re:This kinda breaks things for me

[Anonymous Coward]

There will be a toggle button at the top of the search results page that will allow you to choose between personalized results or global results only. You can also set the default to whichever you prefer.

Re:This kinda breaks things for me

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't sound like google is "filtering out people you don't know". Google will still search everything else that it already searches; if people in "your world" don't know the answer, then none of their results will appear for your search. And now, if someone in "your world" happens to have posted a useful answer but you just didn't notice before, that result might be surfaced.

It seems like any degradation in search quality would be an artifact of poorly ranking "personal results", not necessarily due to the simple inclusion of "personal results". Just like how your search also includes all the known spam sites in existence; just because the sites are part of the things searched doesn't mean they'll appear in your search results if they're irrelevant.

Re:This kinda breaks things for me

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if you can disable it, I still think that this development is socially dangerous, because it encourages people to live in their safe bubble where they won't be as likely to be challenged by new ideas. In Google's ideal world, if you're a creationist you simply won't get results about evolution in your search results. If you're religious you won't get results from competing movements. If you're on the political left, you'll only see criticism of the political right. I think this is a very dangerous development.

YESSSSS!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I AM SO EXCITED! LOL! I HAVE BEEN WAITING 4 THIS DAY FOR LIKE 4EVER! I CAN'T WAIT TO TELL MY BFFS THAT THEY CAN SEARCH AND B ON SOSHUL NETWORK TOO. I CN GT LADY GAGA & SNOOKI UPDATES.

NOW IF I CN JUST GET MY AOL MAIL THEIR 2, IT WULD BE SOOOOOOOOO COOL

Re:YESSSSS!!!!

[ifrag]

At least now we know who their target market is.

Re:YESSSSS!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

When I posted this, I wondered if it would get modded troll or if folks would think about it and get it. Sometimes my "art" gets pulled into a tug of war... I find it all very amusing on many levels.

Re:YESSSSS!!!!

[game kid]

Remember to tell your friends to +1 you on every comment, too. Don't say "OMG LADY GAGA IS SINGING LIVE!", say "OMG LADY GAGA IS SINGING LIVE! +1 IF YOU WANT TO SEE HER! LOL!"

(Really, I never thought the whole YTMND "VOTE 5" thing would get as pervasively and seriously adopted by big corporations in the guise of "Subscribe us on YouTube! Follow us on Twitter and Facebook!" as it has. It makes the companies sound so very childish and desperate. At least YTMNDers were, or are, mostly playing around; this is the corps' fucking marketing strategy. Ugh.)

Re:YESSSSS!!!!

[tftp]

At least now we know who their target market is.

It was always their target market. Do you think Google expected RMS and geeks like him to jump into social networking? How smart must be the user who wants to spend years of their life sending pointless "updates" and receiving the same from other people?

Re:YESSSSS!!!!

[Narnie]

While you're interested in Lady Gaga and Snooki, I'm interested in how you got this past the capslock filter.

Now with fewer hits...

[Holammer]

You don't agree with!

Bubbling...

[Anonymous Coward]

...Is a selling point now? It was why I stopped using Google in the first place!

"Real names" policy still in play?

[aestetix]

So, uh, how's that "support for pseudonyms" coming along?

Re:"Real names" policy still in play?

[allo]

interesting question. And will it be pseudonyms for everything in the google account, or just "we do not show your realname to strangers"?

Re:"Real names" policy still in play?

[vlm]

Apparently pretty well. I have my "real name" G+ page and a G+ pages business page or whatever you want to call it, for what amounts to an electronics club I promote/curate/whatever you want to call it.

As near as I can tell, someone looking at the club page has no idea I'm the one running it.

So you create a real name page for the real you which you never use, then create a business page for "aestetix" which you always use, then I think you're all good?

As a bonus I guess you'd have your "real name" page for Mom to circle, and everyone else can circle the "aestetix" page.

I have not tested this extensively because I'm not paranoid enough to care, but this seems to function.

Re:"Real names" policy still in play?

[aestetix]

And who determines what a "real name" is? How is it validated? Is there a way to use Google+ without providing a name they consider "real"? Having two accounts with G+ seems rather silly if you're only using one of them.

Re:"Real names" policy still in play?

[fast turtle]

Well, seeing as how I've been using a Pseudonym since I joined Gmail, all I can say is that it accepted it as my given name for my G+ account. Of course I don't have much in my profile to really make it feasible to directly identify me unless you already have that link.

eww

[Anonymous Coward]

And today was the day I changed the default search engine on every computer in my campus..... to Bin....Yaho.... oh fuck it they go to the library and look it up. Seriously though I think I am changing the default search google just isn't as shiny as it used to be.

Really if I wanted to look up people and information I already knew from way of my friends. I would ...ask them.. on a social network....

Re:eww

[allo]

maybe "ask"? Or something like ixquick.

This could get google+ jumpstarted

[Anonymous Coward]

If the results are included in searches, then companies might actually bother to have a google+ presence and encourage friending on google+ (or whatever it's called).

Why search?

[moorhens]

Is it me, or am I the only person who searches for things *they don't already know?* As personalisation increases, our very idea of relevance becomes more limited. If I search for music and this new-fangled searchy thing is going to throw me stuff that I already like, how am I ever going to get the chance of liking anything radically different? Oh, I know. How about by not using Google+

Re:Why search?

[allo]

yeah. most of the other people google for "facebook.com" and "weather today".

Improve results

[DarkOx]

I am not sure this will actually make results more relevant. I mean I have and I would assume most other people have a kind of mental catalog of if now what they have stored, what types of things they have stored and know how and where to look for it.

If I wanted pictures of friends and families babies, I'd probably go to my images/family folder in my home directory, or to that person's facebook or G+ page. Same thing for e-mail if I am looking for personal correspondence I'd search my own e-mail archives, even if those happened to be g-mail.

Seems to me when I am keying something into Google.com I am looking for things primarily that are actually quite impersonal. What's the address of this business?, who is a good local plumber?, how to make that netfilter rule work, does anyone have Slackware packages or buildscripts for $project, What is a $object?, How does $object work?, etc.

These things are not going to be found in my own library of stuff if they were to be found there I'd already be using a much more target search. I honestly think my own stuff would be more of a distraction in Google results most of the time.

It will be interesting to see if people find any value in this.

Re:Improve results

[0123456]

It will be interesting to see if people find any value in this.

Presumably this will mean that people have to search more to find the things they actually want, which will mean that Google will serve more ads, which will mean they'll make more money.

Re:Improve results

[owlnation]

It will be interesting to see if people find any value in this.

People will. But... those people are advertisers, not users.

This will likely result in more successful targeting of ads: the fact that it probably skews your search results and means you don't find what you are looking for easily, is of little consequence to Google -- at least not until there's some sort of backlash. They can happily ride the extra carriage on the Gravy Train until then.

Search, despite being Google's core business, has been getting worse and worse for a decade now. That Google added it's own "Places" spam, was a significant drop in quality -- this seems like the same kind of drop again, and in addition.

The sad truth, is that in 1997 the difference between using Google and Altavista was profound in their differing search results. But in 2012, using Google is exactly the same as was using Altavista in 1997. That's how bad search is now, and for exactly the same reasons -- profiting from ads.

Re:Improve results

[DaveV1.0]

Seems to me when I am keying something into Google.com I am looking for things primarily that are actually quite impersonal. What's the address of this business?, who is a good local plumber?, how to make that netfilter rule work, does anyone have Slackware packages or buildscripts for $project, What is a $object?, How does $object work?, etc.

And, if your friend Joe used Steve's Plumbing and posted about it, Joe's post will show up in your results. The same goes for everything else you have mentioned.

Re:Improve results

[Baloroth]

I've seen many people claim this. What, exactly, are you searching for that it doesn't come up quickly? 90% of the things I search for are answered in the first 3-4 links. The only time I even have to go to the second page is if it is an obscure and/or very specific piece of information that I'm looking for. Facts are usually answered directly by Google even before the first link. Out of curiosity I did a quick comparison of searches for two facts (release date of The Darkness 2, one of the first things to spring to mind) by searching them on Google and Bing. Google knew the answer without my even visiting a link and told me what websites had the information. Bing didn't. I'd say that is pretty much a win.

For fun, I also did an Altavista search. Google is considerably better IMO.

Re:Improve results

[0123456]

I've seen many people claim this. What, exactly, are you searching for that it doesn't come up quickly?

Generally speaking, any kind of specialist information. Rather than give me the dozen results on the web that are actually useful, Google will convert the actual words I typed in into different words because it's sure I didn't mean to search for what I actually asked it to search for, and then spew out ten million results with the dozen useful results hidden among them.

The 'smarter' Google make their search, the worse the results become because the 'smarts' are all aimed at the lowest common denominator who can't remember the URL for Facebook.

Re:Improve results

[sootman]

> For example, if you are searching for images of babies, Google
> will now personalize your search results and give high preference
> to baby photos from your Google+ circles.

Yeah, that was my same thought too--when I'm searching for pictures of something, I probably want to see pictures I *haven't* already seen. Hopefully, if they start doing this, more and more people will realize what a complete waste G+ is and stop using it, which should more or less negate this "improvement".

Re:Improve results

[Hognoxious]

For me, the search should be deterministic based on what I actually type in at any one time.

It doesn't matter if I'm a member of 274 classic car groups; if I search for "mustang USAF WW2 FW190" chances are it's the fighter plane I'm interested in.

Re:Improve results

[ULTRAJOE]

Your test does not support your assertion - All three of them give the date in the first hit...?

Re:Improve results

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for that......

(Another person sick of dumbing down everything for the very people who provide nothing to society)

Good job, Google

[socrplayr813]

All this means is that I will never again sign into my Google accounts in my browser. You can't give me screwed up results if you don't know who I am. If it gets too much worse, I'm probably just going to bail altogether. Thanks, Google.

Re:Good job, Google

[Gideon Wells]

You say that now. They'll find a solution for not logging on. Don't forget they were trying to make a Google OS for desktops before Android took off. Look at the Android model and ask yourself just how fast a new desktop OS could spread.

XP is going to be soon out dated. People still using XP are either on the cheaper end of the PC spectrum or not-nerds capable of upgrading to anything better at this point. Google has enough design saviness that they could compete on that battlefield with Apple, but with cheaper hardware. Vendors will be given a free OS that won't cut into their margin if they promote it over Windows.

You then would see computer by computer slowly require logging into a Google account to use because Google is Google, and they want to help you use their cloud services easier. Google would be your domain server at home.

Re:Good job, Google

[iztaru]

You can't give me screwed up results if you don't know who I am.

What makes you believe that Google needs you login to their products to know who you are?

I am pretty sure they could make a reasonable guess about who you are based on the search profile of the IPs you use.

Re:Good job, Google

[icebraining]

Or you can just click the button they offer that disables the G+ personalization.

Re:Good job, Google

[TheGratefulNet]

scroogle (browser plugin) lets you search goog and yet not put up with their increasingly cumbersome, intrusive and advertising-laden search results.

I also am giving bing a chance, more and more. what does that say about goog's abuse that geeks like me (started using linux back in the v1.2 kernel days) move away from goog and toward the previously 'evil empire' ?

goog: you are doing way too much evil these days. I'm actually sick and tired of google this and google that. can't wait until your company gets 'reset' like all big behemoths do. and it will serve you right, too.

Re:Good job, Google

[AmbushBug]

And you can even default it to off in your settings! Amazing!

Re:Good job, Google

[TheNextCorner]

All this means is that I will never again sign into my Google accounts in my browser. You can't give me screwed up results if you don't know who I am. If it gets too much worse, I'm probably just going to bail altogether. Thanks, Google.

They will already have: - a cookie on your computer, so Google knows who you are - you have a toolbar installed, so Google knows who you are - you are using Chrome, so Google knows who you are - you are searching on an android device, so Google knows who you are It's all about the data..!!

Britney Spears, Alicia Keys & Snoop Dogg?

[bADlOGIN]

So integrating Google+ has screwed up their search engine so it's confusing crap with music?
Alicia Keys is the only actual musician in that list.

Get off my lawn....

This will be a serious problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

So if your girlfriend emails your gmail account a "private" picture of herself, then uses your computer to Google her own name, you'll be freshly single for putting on the internet for everyone to see.

Unless they put a very large, bold, blinking and arrowed "THIS IS NOT PUBLIC ON THE INTERNET" on every search result that is, this is a huge privacy problem.

Re:This will be a serious problem.

[icebraining]

They don't fetch images from Gmail, just G+. And the content is still private, it just shows up to you.

Re:This will be a serious problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn, I know people on Slashdot frequently don't read the article, but this is the first time I've seen someone failing to read the article, summary and all of the post they responded to before. The article and summary indicates Gmail integration is coming. And my computer (along with a hell of a lot of others) is set to automatically log me in, which is why I said "my computer", so it will certainly show up in the results to her if she searches on my computer.

It's just one example among many similar privacy concerns.

Re:This will be a serious problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

The article and the newly updated summary clarify that that was TechCrunch's (rectally extracted) speculation.

Deleted it

[Dwedit]

And now I've deleted my unused Google+ account.

Please don't

[Hentes]

Or at least make it optional. When I search the web, I want to search the web and not my emails.

Re:Please don't

[masterz]

It is optional.

Re:Please don't

[0123456]

Or at least make it optional. When I search the web, I want to search the web and not my emails.

You could just not hand all your personal information over to Google by setting up a Googlebook account.

Re:Please don't

[Hentes]

They are planning to add all Google services, not just +.

Re:Please don't

[Anonymous Coward]

FTFA:

"Finally, the launch includes a few options for managing the new features. A new tab will let you select either the ‘Search plus Your World’ results, or you can toggle back to the old-fashioned, unpersonalized results. There’s also an option in Google settings that will let you opt out of the experience entirely."

Can we know what public servants search for?

[h00manist]

No? Then why can they know what we search for? Do we work for them, or the other way around?

ALL YOUR PANOPTICON ARE BELONG TO US

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Existential war with Facebook.

Personalized search results are not always helpful

[realsilly]

People use Google to search for information, it that search becomes personally biased in favor of people you "friend" this makes Google's search page less helpful for the user.
This should be a check box on the screen left unchecked to allow for the broader search. With a simple toggle of the check box it can then simplify the search to your personalized search.

what about when I search for porn?

[larry bagina]

Will it show my friends dick pics? :(

Re:what about when I search for porn?

[GameboyRMH]

You think grandparents are lame on Facebook, wait until you see this...

Re:what about when I search for porn?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exclusively.

Re:what about when I search for porn?

[SpinyNorman]

No - it'll show the porn your friends and family like.

Imagine goatse with a google annotation "your dad liked this".

Or worse.

Google likes to answer the question

[jack the ex-cynic]

"What if we could" instead of "Why would they want it". Sometimes it works out really great. I don't think this will be one of those times.

I don't want to search what I already know...

[eepok]

I don't want to search within "my world". I know everything here. It's MY WORLD.

When I need to find information online, I do a search of ALL OTHER KNOWN WORLDS.

Google is just racing for fail over and over lately. I don't know if they're just shooting the dark or actually think that their users want this.

FUCK OFF Google

[Anonymous Coward]

I would think that if I wanted to see pictures of my friends' babies, I'd hop onto google+, facebook, or even better, send them an email asking for pictures instead of using a search engine and doing a generic search that would have their photos peppered in. If I wanted some sort of stock photo of a baby for something, then why would I want to have my friends' kids muddying up the result?

Do we need to block this in our Google ad blocker?

[Animats]

We're releasing a Google ad blocker, which is in test now. It lets one ad through, and blocks the rest, to de-clutter Google results. We could add some other blocking capabilities. Let me know what Google won't let you turn off. If you try this, and there are new "social" ads which slip through, we'd really like to hear about it. Thanks.

Google's recent direction seems to follow H. L. Mencken's line "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." Google is getting better at answering dumb questions, and worse at answering hard ones. The problem is that Google now assumes the question is dumb, auto-correcting in the direction of common words and questions. That's yet another problem with feeding "social" data into search. Then they try to patch this by profiling each user with "search customization". But that assumes there's a pattern to an individual user's hard questions. (This leads to the concept that search customization should estimate how smart each user is, a data item which can be sold to advertisers to generate sucker lists.)

Putting on blinder

[IcyHando'Death]

I'm not exactly thrilled about the idea of Google narrowing my world view for me, but I suppose this is just an incremental step down a path we set out on long ago. Remember when "Site of the Day" was everybody's favorite spot on the web?

Re:Putting on blinder

[DragonWriter]

I'm not exactly thrilled about the idea of Google narrowing my world view for me

Then turn it off. You can do that.

but I suppose this is just an incremental step down a path we set out on long ago.

The more there is on the internet, the more tools are needed to narrow down to get what you want, separating the (subjective) wheat from the chaff. In many cases, I suspect that incorporating social graph information will enable mechanisms to improve search quality.

Re:Putting on blinder

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly my issue with it. I go to a search engine when I want to find new things I'm not experienced with or related to. If I wanted to find things in my circle of knowledge, I'd go to my circle of knowledge.

Re:Putting on blinder

[seantide]

You can turn it off now, but eventually it will be like all of their auto-correction and paid-search result skewing: you won't be able to turn it off.

We do need tools to narrow things down, but not based on their bullshit, inaccurate view of my preferences. My search results bear little resemblance to my preferences, habits, or even what I'm most often searching for. If they use that data for my searches, I'm boned.

What a horrible idea

[diegocg]

There is no way normal people are going to like being able to google into the ever increasing amount of social data. Nope. Not at all.

I'm going to delete my google acount, because extending search to other sets of data is something I don't like and Google shouldn't do it.

Social Network as a whole

[Anonymous Coward]

what really amazes me with everyone using these social networks is that;

a. Your data ends up being owned by the respective social network holder (I don't care what they say in terms of user rights)
b. Your data is correlated analyzed in ways you don't even realize
c. Your data is NOT secure

Years ago in the late 80s and early 90s we had the concept of a super record which could be built about you and used against you. It's only a matter of time before massive scams take place and guess what, your going to be on the hook for it because guess what, you put all your info personal, work, other onto a network and made it public (or private). We all complained about "big brother" yet people are willing to put stuff up on a site for everyone to see. Heck the gov doesn't need to worry about building tracking systems, we are stupid enough to go ahead and do it to ourselves.

BTW, I'm just as guilty. I use to use Facebook a lot when it first started, then realized just how bad an idea it really was and limited my usage. Google has done a bit of a better job with user rights but in the end they are just both as bad. BTW, Facebook is there to mine, steal and abuse your data they really don't care about you in any way shape or form. They are there to make money and that's that. If people get hurt along the way to bad, Facebook marches on.

my less then 2 cents comment

ugh...

[Charliemopps]

I like Google, and have stuck with google+ for that sole reason. I even still use iGoogle, I like all the widgets and such. But this sort of thing makes me want to drop it all. It's bad enough that Google's tracking everything I do, but to have them tailoring my friends and families searches based on my own online activities? That's just asking for some very embarrassing screw ups on both my part and googles.

Use DuckDuckGo instead

[gQuigs]

I've pretty much switched to http://duckduckgo.com/

Check out http://dontbubble.us/ and http://donttrack.us/. This would be an example of bubbling, btw.

And if you don't find results (I'd say Google has better results about 20-30% of the time) !g brings that search term to Google.

Re:Use DuckDuckGo instead

[geek]

Yes but The Duck uses Bing which tracks you just the same as Google.

Re:Use DuckDuckGo instead

[gQuigs]

I mean I guess Bing might get to track an aggregate of DuckDuckGo users, but that's hardly the same thing....

Re:Use DuckDuckGo instead

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out http://dontbubble.us/

Wow what a load of bird poop. Let's look at their items:

Search for climate change. Their example uses Bing, which powers DuckDuckGo. Wikipedia result is prominently in both sets of results. The only "bubble" is the one they drew over the results.

Search for Barack Obama News preferences existed before the internet. It's called a subscription. Online aggregators give you a much better chance to see alternatives if you click through to find them. I can now easily read AlJazzera for example to compare against what the NYT says on some subject. Again, right below the artificially drawn bubble there's similar results.

which means other stuff gets demoted (effectively filtered). Yeah, like two items down... really buried.

Search for Egypt Different Ad, different result count... these searches were probably not done at the same time. Nice, uh, filter-bubbling of your evidence.

Unfortunately, it's not easy to pop your filter bubble, Yeah, you only have the option of (1) logging out, (2) turning off web history, (3) browsing in anonymous mode, (4) using anonymizing search proxies that pre-date DuckDuckGo by many years, (5) toggling the new Google switch for personalization. Clearly the only solution is to use a new search engine which repackages a not-logged-in Bing search.

Other items are pretty much hearsay -- we don't know what else was or wasn't on the page, just one new item they wanted to highlight.

How to solve filter bubbles in practice: Look at 3-4 results instead of just the first one. You'll need that on DuckDuckGo too, since otherwise you only get exposed to one opinion too -- that of the search engine's creator.

Contrarian View I Suppose

[CatsCradle]

Really? Can you describe what is it about Google's current search that you find so pristine that you've bought into the idea that all and any change == bad? Was it that way last month or last year because Google changes their search all the time ...

Google's self declared mission is to "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" So much of our lives and a great portion of worlds information is now happening on social networks. Of course that data should be made accessible and useful and the ability not to use it will be a power feature for those that need or want it just like they do everything else.

what happened

[Anonymous Coward]

to the days of getting good accurate search results back instead of something muddied by our "circle" or past searches.
fortunately we still have scroogle for the time..

HOWTO: Remove G+ without losing Gmail

[bornagainpenguin]

I have just closed my G+ account due to this latest announcement. I'm tired of Google crapping up my search results and changing the layouts to darn near everything on me. This was the last straw.

This guy has a tutorial on how you can safely remove your G+ account without losing your Gmail account or Picasa pictures. After you go through the process Google asks why you are leaving--I recommend everyone drop them a link to this article so they know exactly why we're fed up. Maybe it will open some eyes?

No more lmgtfy

[CharmElCheikh]

So now we won't be able to copy-paste a google search to someone to brag "AHAH ! First page, first result!" because everyone's result will be different. Not sure that's a great feature.

Re:No more lmgtfy

[DragonWriter]

So now we won't be able to copy-paste a google search to someone to brag "AHAH ! First page, first result!" because everyone's result will be different.

Even before this, Google personalization information in ranking search results. This adds another source of personalization information, but isn't the start of Google providing personalized search results.

Re:No more lmgtfy

[GameboyRMH]

That's been true for years though.

Re:No more lmgtfy

[Anonymous Coward]

This has been the case for quite some time. Social search only adds the social information to the website.

Re:Personalized search results are not always help

[Anonymous Coward]

It basically does this.

If it ain't broken and all that...

[Anonymous Coward]

The purity of Google's search results and simplicity of interface was what made google so wildly popular in the beginning, with google being more the equivalent of the reference section of a library than either the fiction and/or nonfiction sections. It was a totally different animal. By mucking up the search results with bullshit that people don't care about for the sole purpose of making themselves even more money, google is just begging for a new, simple, powerful and accurate competitor to come along and take all their business. With the amount of crap that google constantly keeps pulling with search results, changes to gmail, etc, I know I'm waiting for just such a competitor. Who will be our champion?

Re:If it ain't broken and all that...

[Anonymous Coward]

Altavista Cloud (TM)

A man walks into Google HQ...

[Cragen]

And asks for a drink of water. Google gives him a 5-course meal instantly, is utterly surprised that he doesn't really want that meal, just a glass of water, and is FLABBERGASTED that the man doesn't want to pay for a 5-course meal. Cuz the cost of meal is what they charged the advertisers whose logoes they stuck on every piece of dinnerware in the meal. May be time for that man to look elsewhere for his cup of water. Good grief.

Re:Do we need to block this in our Google ad block

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is getting better at answering dumb questions, and worse at answering hard ones. The problem is that Google now assumes the question is dumb, auto-correcting in the direction of common words and questions.

I think Google must ultimately have the same natural contempt for their users that a rancher has for their cattle. They're a valuable product to be kept fat and healthy, but ultimately they're just a product being sold, and so you really don't want to become too familiar with them, or feel too much empathy for them, because your interests and those of your customers who buy them will always come first.

The human population of the United States no longer develops under the pressure of Evolution. Somewhere around the middle of the last century the driver of change went from being a process of Evolution to one of Domestication. We sold ourselves into bondage in exchange for short term happiness and all the physical possessions we could conspicuously consume. As a society, we now daily sidle up to the food trough that is commercial television, and "free" internet services like Google, Facebook, etc. where we are not the customer but in fact the product being sold to advertisers.

G.

Re:Personalized search results are not always help

[icebraining]

From TFA:

Finally, the launch includes a few options for managing the new features. A new tab will let you select either the 'Search plus Your World' results, or you can toggle back to the old-fashioned, unpersonalized results. There's also an option in Google settings that will let you opt out of the experience entirely.

useful search filter maybe

[AxemRed]

Without going into long lists of examples, I'll just say that I can envision some situations where this would be useful and others where it would be detrimental. I think that a "smart search" ... one that uses data from browsing history, Google+, and maybe other places... would be a good optional filter. It should be something that's easily accessible from the main page, sort of like filtering by date. It should not be default though, and it really needs to be able to be toggled on/off easily.

Re:useful search filter maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would my browsing history help them give better answers to my future queries?
If I want to go back to the same site again and again, I have it bookmarked.
Search is about finding new stuff.

Re:useful search filter maybe

[DaveV1.0]

Several different ways:

A) It can exclude or discount the sites you looked at recently because you didn't find the answer there. e.g. you are looking for info on carbs and it puts the recent car sites you looked further down the list.

B) It can promote the sites you have looked at recently because you found it before and now want to refer back to it. e.g. you searched for something earlier, found it, now you are searching for it again, so it refers back to the sites you looked at for the same search.

C) It can promote sites similar to the ones you have looked at recently. e.g. you have recently looked at Sci Fi websites and then search for "Firefly", so it increases the ranking for the SciFi sites and decreases the ones for entomology.

Re:useful search filter maybe

[AmbushBug]

...it really needs to be able to be toggled on/off easily

There is a toggle on the upper right corner of the search page. You can also default it to off in your settings.

Google's jumped the shark!

[SpinyNorman]

Yee haw!

It was good while it lasted.

relevant?

[mortonda]

Google will now display relevant people and pages from Google+, like Britney Spears, Alicia Keys and Snoop Dogg.

I fail to see how those are relevant...

Re:relevant?

[RicardoGCE]

In keeping with their concept of "our browser as your OS", we now have "our search engine as your file manager". No, thanks.

Re:relevant?

[GameboyRMH]

When you're googling a suspicious piece of software you found on a Windows PC, the Doggfather can tell you when to drop it like it's hot and Britney can concur that it's not that innocent.

Fine.

[AdamJS]

Google used to be good. Really really good. In a sea of paid-priority listing search engines that returned mostly crap, and the same crap at that, they were a shining diamond.

But for quite some time, their results have been getting far worse, the search has gotten LESS flexible (and more "I know what you want to search for, NOT you, the user") and they've become that which they were supposed to be better than. That even MSN/Live/MS/Bing can return better results and actually listens to my syntax far better than Google is a travesty.

So they can take their final self-administered nail in their coffin and bugger off.

Unwritten note to all interwebsites

[WaffleMonster]

We are google resistance is futile. You must get google+ even if you don't want to cause if you don't your ranking will go to shit. - "The Goorg"

Google is already pissing me off with their intentionally defective ever forgetful no I don't want to be bothered with your chrome commercial on their home page. The + nonsense is just icing on the cake.

Every time you click go away someone at google must be laughing "MUAHAHAHHAHA sucker..."

It has been the same with youtube

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I do not want to share what I search with my google+ acquaintances. I do not want google+ in the first place. Leave me alone and stop pushing it down my throat...

Logout before you search for pr0n

[Anonymous Coward]

Logout before you search for pr0n, if you ever did that. Imagine your friends, gf, wife, children, using your unattended Foogle account...

Re:Logout before you search for pr0n

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're not using private/incognito browsing for your pr0n searches, you're doing it wrong.

Google lets you turn off all of this junk

[grimsnaggle]

On the left of the results page hit search tools, then click "Verbatim". It does just what you think it does. It searches for exactly your terms with no modifications, substitutions, or customizations.

Re:Google lets you turn off all of this junk

[Anonymous Coward]

On the left of the results page hit search tools, then click "Verbatim". It does just what you think it does. It searches for exactly your terms with no modifications, substitutions, or customizations.

That should be the default behaviour. Let users turn on crap and fluff, not go out of their way to turn it off. The reason that web sites shouldn't ever make users have to "turn off" things is because a lot of people who are annoyed by the crap and fluff run with no cookies to try to avoid it, so settings don't stick anyway.
Youtube is a great example of this, they try to be clever with their "you watched that, so surely you'd be interested in this..." and it's so annoying that the site is unusable unless cookies are turned off and I return to a clear home page before searching for anything.

Re:Google lets you turn off all of this junk

[seantide]

Exactly.

*EVERYTHING* should be opt-in, not opt-out, by default. Just like idiots who make their browser extensions open a fucking tab on every update, or software that opens web pages without asking me, and so on. Its my computer, I should control it. Everything should require me to ask for it.

Hell, some software installers now install extra crap even if you tel it not to, or it won't even ask you at all.

This isn't just about Google, all software should behave as if it were my servant and not my master.

An example why this is bad

[kawabago]

I already ran into this 'feature' and it was really frustrating. One day I was searching about wicca and witchcraft to answer a question. Next day I was working on something completely unrelated and needed to confirm the spelling of a word. As I had done so many times in the past I entered 'spell ridiculous' in the search bar. Google+ insisted that I must want to cast a spell on or with ridiculous. I had to try several different requests which continued to come back with more ways to cast a spell. Eventually 'define ridiculous' got me the correct spelling. There is zero reason to assume that a search I do today is in any way related to a search I did yesterday. I don't know anyone who has only one interest but Google not only assumes it but insists that your searches MUST be related. The result is that Google keeps returning nonsense and the more you struggle the further from an answer you get!

Re:An example why this is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should use a dictionary to find out how to spell a word, rather than a search engine.

Just some food for thought.

Google + still exists?

[Anonymous Coward]

seriously, does any one still actually use this?

I seriously need to opt-out of this.

[blind biker]

I hope they make this optional, at least opt-out (if not opt-in). I like my G+ friends, but when I search with Google, I don't want their crap appearing in my searches.

I'm not worried about MY search results...

[tomzyk]

... I'm actually worried about OTHER people's search results. People who don't know any better than to go look for information outside of their social circles.

If I search for "origin of species", I'll see references to Charles Darwin.
If students in Kansas look it up, they'll probably see all kinds of links to creationism and how evolution is wrong/evil.

(and no, i don't mean to start a flamewar with that. it's just the first example that popped into my head where different social circles could see completely different results.)

This personalization of search results is gonna make http://lmgtfy.com/ obsolete too. And that makes me a saaaaad panda.

Re:EYEBALLS!

[b4dc0d3r]

Remember how they started - giving search results with a clean interface. What you were looking for, and nothing else. Their target market, when they started, was people who wanted to find what they were looking for.

Then they realized how much money they could make on advertising, and search stopped being their product. Eyeballs are now their product. That's when they switched target markets from "people who knew what they wanted" to "the lowest common denominator".

They make a web browser (Chrome), and fund a competitor (FireFox), because they want to reach the most eyeballs. Android is all about Google services and advertising. GoogleBook (sorry, Google+) is about reaching the drooling window-lickers who have to know what Snooki is wearing today, if they aren't using Android, Google Search, Chrome, Gmail, or any other Google service.

Google+ integration ruined Picasa

[uglyMood]

A short while ago Google changed Picasa (which used to be a great photo management tool) so that if you have a Google+ account you can no longer simply upload your images to your Picasa web account. Instead, it forces you to add the images to Google+, and you have zero choice in the matter unless you delete your Google+ account. The main problem, other than the privacy issues, is that the Google+ image gallery tools have been moronified to the point of worthlessness. You have to actually go to your Picasa web URL to do anything useful with your own images, and they don't even provide a link to your own galleries from Google+. I've been an apologist for Google for many years, but this Google+ monomania is unacceptable. I wish I'd never signed up -- I had no idea I'd be severely limiting the usefulness of the web apps I use every day.

"Personalized" search results already here...

[Anonymous Coward]

They were already doing that. There is a great talk about "personalizing search results" to the point where when one person searches for "Egypt" you get information about riots, while another person searches for "Egypt" and they get nothing about those events.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles.html

Listen to it and learn.

What's my New Year's resolution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Find a way to stop using Google.

Re:What's my New Year's resolution?

[Anonymous Coward]

step 1.
Check your domain contacts, change the email to your ISP's. Check your webhosting contacts, change them to your ISP's email address. cPanel? Change the contact. Blogspot is owned by google find another solution, or get a real blog hosted elsewhere.

step 2.
Big companies you do business with. Sony, Avid, eSet, Kasper, mbam, New Blue, Auctions, Ebay, Paypal(was especially a pain in the ass for me, give it a couple days), Amazon, fix your email to that of your ISP's.

step 3.
Any well loved blogs, change your contact/email. Any LARGE email lists you are on, unsubscribe. The small guys will figure it out when your email bounces. (Sorry my opinion, my time is more important to get this done than to be perfect about it, TRY to do your best, and that's it. Dump the rest)

step 4.
  Go to Google Account Settings.
  Follow the "Edit" link next to My products.
Delete this account.

It will say something like you want to delete all these products and close your account, you will still be responsible for any costs.

Boom that's it. Gone. Weight off your shoulders.
And it IS a weight. You'll see.

What if you don't want to be found?

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

What if all teh stuff on G+ is private, will it show search results for that anyway?

Seems to me, that with the wrong permissions set, it would be easy to find out information that was supposed to be private.

Or am I mis-thinking this?

Separate Browsers

[Maltheus]

I'll only ever log into google through chrome. If I want to search the web, I'll use firefox. Don't see the point of crossing the two.

I once had high hopes for Google+ but Google seems to be screwing up on so many levels now, integrating g+ into everything else (dumbing everything else down in the process), while not getting around to properly integrating other google services into g+.

People have been begging for noise/circle controls forever now. Well I controlled the noise by not logging in anymore. They really needed to get that site out of beta first before trying all this squirrely shit. Actually, they just need some competent management.

Biiinnngggg!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now with more Facebook and NO Google+

help

[Anonymous Coward]

i am very hungry plz send info on the free meal

+1 for Lady Macbeth

[epine]

Microsoft never prevented anyone from installing or using Netscape either.

You're one of these people who think that the ad industry spends billions because it doesn't work and influences no-one. We all recall that when Microsoft was asked to involve the user in a one-click choice as part of the OS installation process, their first response was "oh sure, whatever, it hardly matters anyway" before rolling over to let regulators rub their belly fuzz.

If Google Chrome gains 90% browser share I wouldn't object to Google being asked to make the same concession: offer the user a one-click randomized choice for their default search engine when firing up a newly purchased platform.

The descriptive text for the IE option should have read something like this:

IE provides a fast and highly integrated browser supported with a tsunami of somewhat prompt security upgrades. Be aware that Microsoft doesn't really believe in web standards. If you choose this browser you'll have a great browsing experience. However, it will increase the IE market share until all the pageview-grubbing web content developers choose to tune their web sites to perform best on IE, thus granting Microsoft control over a defacto standard whose inconsistencies will be employed as a weapon to thwart competition until better informed people are reduced to gouging their eyes out for decades to come.

Click "I agree to make better informed people bleed through their eye sockets" to continue with your IE installation.

Worded like that, you'd own the exposed ass-crack crowd. Somehow the parallel narrative in the case of Google search eludes me, as much as I dislike this new development.

What bugs me about this is that my preferences only exist to the extent that I represent them as social declarations, as if what I like and who I like are the same thing.

It used to be the case back in the 1970s that everyone watched the same horrible TV shows, and you could always ask the people you hung out with what they thought of the same show you watched yourself. With this new development, if I had a circle that consisted of amateur podcasters and I met one of these people in a pub, we'd be right back to the glorious seventies: she could ask me "what do you think of the Blue Snowball" and presume I would be gadget-savvy because we're getting blitzed by the same Google ads as pertaining to our shared circle.

This is the old Coke vs Pepsi common-knowledge trick. You could always bring it up in conversation because you knew that the other person would also know what you were talking about. There was no escape. The purpose was not to manufacture preference, but to perpetuate the very slight distinction between one type of brown sugar water and another as a revealing choice of personal identity. I remember reading about a study of perceived choice where a tray of different soft drinks was presented to a group in eastern Europe who complained "how come we're not being given any choice at all?" For them choice was coffee, tea, soda pop (who cares which). But in the west, five different types of sugar water was regarded as a choice cornucopia.

I can tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi anywhere, anytime. Pepsi has lemon, Coke has vanilla. But I roll my eyes where people comment "oh, you're a coke drinker". Yeah? So what if I happen to like sharp vanilla over mushy lemon. Further into my adult years I decided sugar water was just so much junk in the trunk. The one occasion per year I drink a can of Coke, my selection of Coke over Pepsi is almost a religious experience. I'm a member of the Jonestown generation. We were programmed to care about such things.

When the internet came along I smacked my hands with a glorious "GOOD RIDDANCE!" Now it's coming back like a bloodstain on Lady Macbeth.

Re:+1 for Lady Macbeth

[epine]

In case I was ever so slightly too oblique, "it" stands for the blurring of shared context with shared concern.

Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes or podcasting is about microphones.
— Edsger Dijkstra

Advertising is most certainly about computers and telescopes and microphones, rather than science or astronomy or having something worth saying.

I fear that crass commonality is the Plus in the pudding.

nasty fine-print comprehension tax

[epine]

Well, let me tag on one more point: this doesn't have to go badly, but most likely it will.

If Google would perceive from my Plus relationships not that I own a lot of computer gadgets, but instead that I loath and detest walled gardens, and never advertised to me ever a service or device with a nasty business model behind it, I'd be willing to give the whole concept of advertising as a productive human venture a major rethink.

Recently I would have purchased a device which purports to measure brainwaves and sleep phase on the slight chance it actually worked had it not been for the business model where the data measured was encrypted, owned by the company who makes the device, and available for my interpretation only once uploaded to their web service, should the start-up venture manage to outlast the short warranty on the device itself.

I waste so much time discarding business models that are total non-starters in how I order my life that I end up throwing out the baby with the bathwater: it's actually not worth seeking out what I'd be willing to purchase because of the nasty fine-print comprehension tax I end up paying before I get there.

Even more recently, I gave up on finding an audio book subscription that suited my politics. The one company I found that I would have been happy to transact with has become a dead link. The other choices involve DRM with uncertain portability (subject also to change without notice) or monthly credits that don't roll over. Yeah, I'm so organized that I have nothing better to do but police my attention span so that I make my audio book selection in precise lunar synchronization.

While I'm at it, how about a week in Vegas for $30 (*).

(*) Additional fees may apply.

Is Plus going to contribute anything to Google's fine print filter? Once I might have liked to think that "don't do evil" had a luminous upside. It still could, but I fear that Google is no longer dreaming the dream of arriving at a world where the consumer is always right.

Awesome!

[Anonymous Coward]

I've scanned all the comments so far - and haven't seen a positive one yet. I'll take a stab at what I think is good about this:

• I don't need to know where I saw something in order to find it. Awesome. As a frequent user of Spotlight on Mac, it's pretty nice to be able to just remember what it is you're looking for, and not have to remember where the hell you put it. I was reading something the other day about some author's opinion that Facebook and Google differ in that you ask Google for information, yet Facebook (well, your friends) tell information to you. Yea, that's true, but has one of your Facebook friends ever posted an interesting article and you want to dig it up and send it to someone? It's damn-near impossible to find that article through Facebook. Even if you remember the friend who posted it, good luck finding it still. With this, you could just go to Google and search for some key terms and this relevant article would pop up.
• Searches are becoming more personalized. Awesome. I am currently doing a lot of RoR development, and it's awesome to be able to put in a google search for 'string' and it come up with the Ruby stdlib definition of String.

Google -"+"?

[tunapez]

Still hurting from the bastardization of the + sign and the futility of quoting "with" "no" "noticeable" "effect". Better prepare, is this now the correct operator if I wanted to join the herd? fecebook -"+"

Hopefully GMBMG.com incorporates this b/c I don't want to type -"+" EVERY! DAMN! SEARCH!

I didn't know people on slashdot are so naive.

[Anonymous Coward]

So much negative critique to this step by google without actually understanding why they do it.
Being a SEO guy I can tell you that this is done exclusively to provide higher quality search results that can not be easily manipulated by Black hat SEO guys that spam the Internet with shitty nonsense articles. And this single step in the long run will probably put an end to this practice of creating fake links and fake articles.

They did this already

[crossmr]

They did this already, it was utter shit.
When google+ first got released, my search results went sideways. Despite using Google in English, going to the English domain google.ca (For Canada) because I was either in Korea, or added Google+ to my account while in Korea (despite never using the service in Korean language)
all my logged in news archive searches were only returning Korean language results from Korean language papers in Korea. It wouldn't even search the English language papers in Korea.

Normal news searches seemed to return the same stuff in any language, but an archives search was totally broken.
I filed a couple bug reports, went to google groups to report it, etc
nothing happened.

Finally after bringing it up on several Google+ slashdot stories someone who works for Google saw it, and after a few weeks or a couple months or so, I noticed it had finally been fixed.

However it is far more indicative of Google, and other large companies, behaviour. Frankly I'm not remotely interested in their "customization" because I've already seen how these companies customize things. For them its completely impossible to believe that an English speaker could be in a country that doesn't speak English as an official language. Intel used to automatically make my laptop's wireless drivers install in Korean (despite the OS being set to English), many of the big player's websites would default to a Korean version. Some had a way to change it, but EA for example will not let you leave the Korean version of their website. As long as companies are this narrow-minded and ignorant I'm not remotely comfortable in letting them "customize" my experience.

Deleted my G+

[Anonymous Coward]

I already saw which way this was going a while ago, and deleted my G+. Unbiased results for me! (hopefully).

Personalized porn?!

[Zeroedout]

When I search for "dirty cunts" I don't want to see results my from my geeky G+ circles :( Now if I could do that with facebook...

It's "Don't BE evil" not "Don't do evil" (kind of)

[Mathinker]

> Once I might have liked to think that "don't do evil"

It's "Don't BE evil" not "Don't do evil" (nor "Do no evil").

These phrases have different connotations.

"Don't be evil" is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, more like "don't emulate Hollywood villains". My gut feeling is that this was the original meaning, but Google's marketing department has decided that pushing this as central to Google's image, and I've now learned from the linked Wikipedia article that the sixth point of the 10-point corporate philosophy of Google says "You can make money without doing evil." (So even though I jumped to correct you, it seems that your version is also correct, if not a direct quote --- thanks for helping me learn something new).

("Do no evil", which is often the misquoted version of rabid anti-Google posters, on the other hand, is fire-and-brimstone church preacher telling you you're going to Hell.)

keep it simple

[tessellated]

https://www.google.com/pda?pws=0&safe=off&hl=xx-pirate&lr=lang_en&q=nuff+said

The Borg

[Anonymous Coward]

Resistance if futile; you will be assimilated!

Way to completely miss the point

[Branciforte]

Let's say I type a person's name into google.com. Maybe there are a lot of people with that name. Since Google knows my profession and the other areas I've expressed interest in, it has a better shot at finding the person I am actually interested in. I don't understand why anyone would not want this. Except, perhaps, to play the part of the cynical hipster who is fighting "The Man".

Maybe I am interested in music from the 1920s. I type in a esoteric lyric, and matches for songs from that period are given a higher ranking than all the other random junk out there.

This is a basic AI problem. Having more context allows for better search results. Better search results helps Google compete with Microsoft to place more and better matched ads. More ads means more money for Google, so they can spend it on all the cool stuff they are really interested in, like driverless cars.

And if you don't want this, how hard is it to hit that one button that turns it off? Sheesh.