Facebook, Twitter, and Myspace To Google: Don't Be Evil

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook, Twitter, and Myspace To Google: Don't Be Evil

Posted by Soulskill on Monday January 23, 2012 @10:14AM from the you-guys-should-team-up-and-start-a-search-engine dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Over the weekend, Blake Ross, Facebook's product director and co-founder of Firefox, worked with Facebook engineers Tom Occhino and Marshall Roch to demonstrate how evil they think Google's newly launched Search plus Your World (SPYW) feature really is, and created a 'proof of concept' showing how it should really work. His team got some help from Twitter engineers and Myspace engineers, and consulted other social networks as well to really make sure the message hits home: SPYW should surface results from all social networks, not just Google+. By leveraging Google's own algorithms, the group built a bookmarklet called 'don't be evil' (a jab at Google's informal motto) and released it on a new website named Focus on the User."

208 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Don't Be Evil by jakrmaster · 2012-01-23 10:14 · Score: 1, Troll

The video of the proof of concept looks actually awesome, and much better than how Google is doing it now. It's also much better for the user since it pulls the content from all social networks and other relevant sites. Interestingly, they're using Google's own search engine to do this:

So, how does it work? If Google’s search engine decides that it’s relevant to surface a Google+ page in response to a query where Google+ content is hardcoded, the tool searches Google for the name of the Google+ page and identifies the social profiles within the first ten pages of Google’s search results (top 100 results). The ones Google ranks highest, regardless of what social network they are from, replace the previous results that would only be from Google+.
In my opinion this demonstrates perfectly that it's entirely possible for Google. It's just that they don't want to do it - they want more control for themselves and more information about users for advertising and marketing. Social networking would be awesome source of data for Google and they must be crying blood that they didn't get it before Facebook and Twitter surfaced. If they had their own social network they would get all that. But by far Google+ is an epic failure.
1. Re:Don't Be Evil by leoplan2 · 2012-01-23 10:19 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It's just that they don't want to do it - they want more control for themselves and more information about users for advertising and marketing
  
  So tell me, why Facebook data isn't open for everyone? That's control too, isn't it?. And do you remember when twitter said "no" to Google for use Twitter data on Google Social Search?
  You should inform yourself before commenting, please.
2. Re:Don't Be Evil by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 10:20 · Score: 0
  
  "Evil" is one of those words that mean different things to different people.
  Much like "reasonable," which is a good one to use if you want to get someone to agree to make themselves vulnerable to you in some way.
3. Re:Don't Be Evil by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 10:23 · Score: 0
  
  In my opinion this demonstrates perfectly that it's entirely possible for Google. It's just that they don't want to do it - they want more control for themselves and more information about users for advertising and marketing. Social networking would be awesome source of data for Google and they must be crying blood that they didn't get it before Facebook and Twitter surfaced. If they had their own social network they would get all that. But by far Google+ is an epic failure.
  I think it's just that google (and apple for that matter) is filling the vacuum left by microsoft's evil ways of the 90's. As soon as i started to understand how effective and easy it was for facebook to collect information about people and how easy it was to target very specific demographics, i was wondering why google, an advertising company, wasn't in this market, then about a year later google+ comes along.
4. Re:Don't Be Evil by jakrmaster · 2012-01-23 10:23 · Score: 0
  
  So tell me, why Facebook data isn't open for everyone?
  For obvious privacy reasons? But Facebook data is public is open to everyone. For Google too. In fact you can find public Facebook pages in their normal search, too.
5. Re:Don't Be Evil by poetmatt · 2012-01-23 10:30 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  new account, same anti-google? Jesus christ you guys multiply like tribbles.
  The reality here is that putting this on google is focusing on a strawman to mislead people to the fact that it is facebook that prevents google from indexing it, not vice versa.
6. Re:Don't Be Evil by jakrmaster · 2012-01-23 10:36 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  How does Facebook prevent Google from indexing it? It doesn't - in fact, you can find tons of people, pages and other parts of Facebook on Google. Hell, if you want API access there's Open Graph. If you want to do large scale scraping on Facebook you can also contact then. Judging by Facebook's robot.txt, Google has this permission (and so does several other search engines).
7. Re:Don't Be Evil by leoplan2 · 2012-01-23 10:38 · Score: 1
  
  private Facebook data is not available.
8. Re:Don't Be Evil by jakrmaster · 2012-01-23 10:40 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, and like that wouldn't be a privacy problem?
9. Re:Don't Be Evil by Dyinobal · 2012-01-23 10:40 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Ya I was thinking the same thing. I read about some sort of deal between twitter and Google to use tweets in their search results but it fell through. So why is twitter bitching about it now? Google is running a business folks and they've done nothing wrong, by deciding to allow posts from their Google plus into the results.
10. Re:Don't Be Evil by poetmatt · 2012-01-23 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  Honestly dude, troll harder. You're focusing on bullshit again. How many times will you do this with how many accounts? Is this 5? 10? in the last week?
  Of course public information is scraped. That's not the point. You could publicly scrape anything whether anyone wants it or not. The reality here is the strawman of focusing on that, yet again. But yes, it must be google, they must be evil. Uh, no.
  Oh wait, here's the humor and irony:
  to get to http://www.facebook.com/apps/site_scraping_tos.php - you have to log in to facebook.
11. Re:Don't Be Evil by Omestes · 2012-01-23 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  The video of the proof of concept looks actually awesome, and much better than how Google is doing it now. It's also much better for the user since it pulls the content from all social networks and other relevant sites. Interestingly, they're using Google's own search engine to do this:
  Agreed... but for one thing, I hardly ever find Twitter relevant for anything, but thanks to its nature it will dominate every search. Twitter, thanks to its format, gets generally much higher "follower" counts, but each message has much less content than a Google+ or Facebook post (which isn't saying much), Twitter has a much higher single to noise ratio.
  The best solution would be to return results from services that the user actually uses (and thus cares about). Sadly this would require a fair bit of intrusion on behalf of Google. A Google+ or Facebook hit is much more useful to me than a MySpace or Twitter hit, since I don't use, and don't want to use, either of those services. This also ignores my own subjective bias against social networking sites as suppliers of useful information, I know I, and many of my fellow /. nerds are fringe cases here. Most celebrity, or big, social accounts are also not real, they are basically marketing ploys, which limit their usefulness. So, why bother?
  Also, this move does smell a bit fishy in-itself. I think Google's competition is just angry that they don't get to promote themselves via unrelated searches. Also, tangentially, I haven't actually noticed the social sidebar on many of my searches, but it did show up for "cooking", which is something I would never actually search for, it doesn't show up for "cooking with eggs", which is closer to something I might ever search for. What purpose is there in just looking up "cooking", outside of trying to get a Wikipedia link or Dictionary?
  
  --
  A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
12. Re:Don't Be Evil by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 10:46 · Score: 1
  
  Why would searching through your own private posts be a privacy problem? This is what google+ allows you to do, and what Facebook prevents google from doing.
13. Re:Don't Be Evil by jakrmaster · 2012-01-23 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  Open Graph allows searching users private posts and info if they give those apps permission to do that. Google can do it. But don't you see the privacy problem of giving bunch of random companies access to all the private data? Or is Google excepted because obviously they cannot do evil?
14. Re:Don't Be Evil by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 10:52 · Score: 0
  
  Hey, I'm Blake and I created this. The tool available on FocusOnTheUser.org demonstrates that Google has access to all the information it needs to access information from Tumblr, Facebook, Twitter and a dozen other social networks. It's a real, working product that anyone can try out—code, not rhetoric.
15. Re:Don't Be Evil by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 10:53 · Score: 0
  
  Bu-bu-but Facebook won't let google peek at its data...
16. Re:Don't Be Evil by Samantha+Wright · 2012-01-23 10:55 · Score: 2
  
  I think the key change here is that, like SPYW, this form of Twitter integration might not be a panopticon of the whole Twitterverse; it would only integrate the "your world" part and you'd have to provide your login credentials to do so. (Anyway, think about that seriously: do you really want your search results clogged up with every Twitter post ever?)
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
17. Re:Don't Be Evil by Synerg1y · 2012-01-23 11:01 · Score: 2
  
  That's redundant because neither is private google+ data.
  I think the landscape of the internet has changed too much, google is competing with facebook (google+), twitter (buzz, though it failed), and myspace (what competition, these guys still around??). Business 101 implies you do not offer your services to competitors. Google does have one big thing the rest don't, and that's a search engine, it kind of screws fb and twitter that they leverage it against them, but it's theirs to leverage.
  At least google's learned their lesson and you have to "opt-in" to it. Facebook still randomly rolls features out.
18. Re:Don't Be Evil by AvitarX · 2012-01-23 11:11 · Score: 2
  
  I really don't like it (the Google+ Search).
  I searched my name to see what came up, and my private from phone folder was across the top of the page.
  I don't like the personalization of my search in this way, I don't want checking my email to bring up semi-private photos if my name is typed in.
  I want google.com to search the web, not my profile, let me search my profile if that's what I want.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
19. Re:Don't Be Evil by NWX · 2012-01-23 11:12 · Score: 0
  
  It was Google that declined to renew the Twitter deal when it expired. Likewise, Facebook allowed similar access to Google that Bing has, but again, Google declined.
20. Re:Don't Be Evil by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 11:16 · Score: 0
  
  Did you watch the video, though? Watch the fucking video.
  As much as these social websites are a blight on civilised society, they do have a point. Google clearly would present a more relevant result if they showed active profiles from wherever rather than pushing semiabandoned Google+ sites for every query. And as the demo shows, they clearly have the ability.
  Facebook is indeed a closed web, and Google+ is partly a way get that data back into the Googleplex where Google thinks it belongs. But the bookmarklet in TFA gives improved results while using only queries to Google, which puts the lie to the claim that they "can't" present relevant public profiles from other social networks.
21. Re:Don't Be Evil by errandum · 2012-01-23 11:27 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Sources or didn't happen.
  What I recall was facebook declining access to google unless they payed shitloads of money (there was even a spat because they blocked google and then google blocked facebook access to gmail) and twitter wanting shitloads of money to grant access to their message stream.
  They wanted to monetize their information so bad google thought it would be cheaper to launch their own social network... That's saying something.
  Now that they kind of "succeeded", they cry.
  Either way, no search engine should be giving social media results, but that's my personal opinion.
22. Re:Don't Be Evil by NeutronCowboy · 2012-01-23 11:30 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Oh hai, DCTech. New account for a new story you posted, right? Well, here's a quick summary of why Facebook and MySpace are full of crap, and Twitter is irrelevant:
  * There's the standard complaint that links on top of the search results are an unfair promotion of Google's own data. Well, no shit sherlock. It's their own site, and they can show their own links whereever the hell they want. It's marked as not part of the search results, so I don't see how this could possibly be read as cooking the results. Unless, of course, you're Facebook and are trying to poison the debate.
  * The focusontheuser.org page is also misleading in what it calls "on top of the search results". In the video, they clicked on the G+ link that specifically says "Here are the G+ results for your search", not on the general search results. Then they complain they get taken to the G+ page. I'm confused on how that was a surprise.
  Essentially, what this is is a general bitch session by Facebook that Google shows Google products in the areas that are dedicated to Google products. Really? That's a problem? If Facebook is unhappy about how Google displays Facebook results, I have a suggestion for them: create your own search engine. Make it exactly as platform agnostic as it was shown on the focusontheuser.org site. Then go talk about Google doesn't offer the best possible search engine. In the meantime, this comes across as nothing but a giant astroturfing campaign by Facebook to force Google to show Facebook and Twitter results in an area that Google has set aside for its own products.
  That said, there are some interesting ideas in there on how Google can improve its search:
  * default opt-out for showing my G+ info. I know when to look for it, thanks.
  * In the left sidebar, include a social network section. Filter specifically on known social networks. Have it even be customizable to only show results from a user-defined list of social networks.
  But that's it. There's absolutely no need to have FB and Twitter results show up in the right side-bar, which is explicitly dedicated to Google product results. Not unless you want to essentially force Google to advertise Facebook and Twitter results for free.
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
23. Re:Don't Be Evil by NeutronCowboy · 2012-01-23 11:33 · Score: 2
  
  Cognratulations, you demonstrated that Google - gasp - has access to publicly available information on Twitter and Facebook. The only thing you've done is rearranged where the results appear. What exactly was the point of this exercise? To prove that Google does not have a filter for social networks? Congratulations. The easy solution is to have that filter appear where all the other filters are: in the right left sidebar, among images, news, etc.
  I'm wondering what kind of crap reason Facebook will come up with next if Google actually goes that route. Because Facebook's problem isn't that Google doesn't index the results properly, but that Google has a nice platform from which to advertise its own products. Kinda like how Facebook has a nice platform from where to advertise Facebook products.
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
24. Re:Don't Be Evil by NWX · 2012-01-23 11:39 · Score: 0
  
  Because Facebook's problem isn't that Google doesn't index the results properly, but that Google has a nice platform from which to advertise its own products. Kinda like how Facebook has a nice platform from where to advertise Facebook products.
  Just like Microsoft has a nice platform to advertise Office, Internet Explorer and other MS products? There's no problem if any of them does that, then?
25. Re:Don't Be Evil by CapOblivious2010 · 2012-01-23 11:42 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  In my opinion this demonstrates perfectly that it's entirely possible for Google. It's just that they don't want to do it
  
  ...and in other news, McDonalds doesn't want to sell Burger King's hamburgers, despite the fact that it's entirely possible for them to do so. A Burger King spokesman decried this blatant favoritism as "evil".
26. Re:Don't Be Evil by NeutronCowboy · 2012-01-23 11:49 · Score: 0
  
  Wow, another user name? Don't you get tired of this?
  MS makes an OS that fully controls what a user can do. Facebook and Google operate sites with their own money, that allow me access to them. Google is nice about how to transfer data out of their servers, Facebook less so.
  If you don't understand how all those companies differ from each other, you are either being paid to not understand, or suffer from a pathological hatred of all things Google.
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
27. Re:Don't Be Evil by icebraining · 2012-01-23 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  Click on the Settings icon -> Search Settings -> Do not use personal results.
  There, that wasn't so hard.
  Personally, I just don't have a G+ account due to the other issues that are in my opinion way worse than personalized search.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
28. Re:Don't Be Evil by Synerg1y · 2012-01-23 11:54 · Score: 2
  
  You've got to ask yourself at the end of the day: how much do I really care about this?
  Seriously, who actually uses google to find fb and twitter posts when those sites have their own search?
  This is about $, not ethics, in the sense of fb and twitter and myspace wanting to make more with google's good will this time. Sounds more like a jest / proof of ethics than an actual feature request.
29. Re:Don't Be Evil by icebraining · 2012-01-23 11:58 · Score: 1
  
  Vaccum? Are we talking about the company that's suing others for having their own implementation of Microsoft's incredibly innovative algorithm that turns "reallybigfilename.txt" into "REALLY~1.TXT" and stores both?
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
30. Re:Don't Be Evil by NWX · 2012-01-23 12:03 · Score: 0
  
  How is that relevant at all? Or are you just too stupid to come up with valid arguments? The fact that they're not 1:1 companies doesn't matter at all when talking about their platforms. And Facebook does allow you to transfer data out of their servers, just like Google does. With Microsoft you hold that data all the time, so it's the less evil and locking down of them all.
31. Re:Don't Be Evil by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 12:04 · Score: 0
  
  To prove that Google does not have a filter for social networks?
  But they do - they're actively hoisting useless Google+ pages up above the actual useful links. The point should be obvious to anyone with half a brain: Google is compromising its search quality in order to push Google+ and nothing but. Designing their new features with a less myopic view would make them seem much less forced.
32. Re:Don't Be Evil by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 12:06 · Score: 0
  
  What I don't see ... at all ... is why being redirected to twitter (which is effectively useless as a real communication tool) or Facebook (which I must create an account and sign over the rights to my identity to use) are better than google+ results -- which are also useless, but at least not "secretly plotting to butt-rape me" evil like Facebook.
33. Re:Don't Be Evil by GodInHell · 2012-01-23 12:08 · Score: 1
  
  And.. not for nothing, MS DOES still endlessly promote its own products through its OS. This is how the game is played. Get over it. Also -- hands off my data.
34. Re:Don't Be Evil by NeutronCowboy · 2012-01-23 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  At this point, you're just lying about the compromising their search. To be clear: at no point did anyone show that the SEARCH RESULTS were bad. They were complaining about the fact that Google was showing results for its Google products in an area NEXT to the SEARCH RESULTS. Which is an idiotic complaint about a UI decision.
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
35. Re:Don't Be Evil by NeutronCowboy · 2012-01-23 12:17 · Score: 1
  
  Yep. Here's the difference: a different Search is a click away. A different OS is.... about a full day's worth of work away. Visiting one site does not impact my ability to visit a different site. Using one OS does impact my ability to use another OS. See the difference?
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
36. Re:Don't Be Evil by modmans2ndcoming · 2012-01-23 12:17 · Score: 1
  
  Most of the best and relevant search signals are social....if you properly curate your graph with people who give information that you find valuable.
37. Re:Don't Be Evil by modmans2ndcoming · 2012-01-23 12:18 · Score: 1
  
  wait.... YOU searched YOUR name and were surprised that it was public to YOU?
  Search from someone's computer who does not connect with you on line and see what the rest of the world will see before you freak out.
38. Re:Don't Be Evil by modmans2ndcoming · 2012-01-23 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  that was on DOS...this is the web... totally different things... just like how all the desktop metaphor from the PC are new and innovative on a small 4 inch touch screen device.
39. Re:Don't Be Evil by Shifty0x88 · 2012-01-23 12:23 · Score: 0
  
  HAHAHAA, as if that actually works!!! That only works for YOU!!! Not everyone else!
  So yes you are correct, you can disable personal results FOR YOU, but everyone else can still view the personalized results that would still put YOU in THEIR search result list
  So I don't really think that helps very much. Plus you cannot even change the visibility of certain areas of your profile which doesn't help much
40. Re:Don't Be Evil by Tharsman · 2012-01-23 12:25 · Score: 1
  
  You should inform yourself before commenting, please.
  If you do a simple search, you will see Google has never had any trouble indexing public Twitter or Facebook information. Google simply wanted more than just the public information, they wanted the private data thats locked behind those profiles.
  You should inform yourself before commenting.
41. Re:Don't Be Evil by DragonWriter · 2012-01-23 12:28 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  So yes you are correct, you can disable personal results FOR YOU, but everyone else can still view the personalized results that would still put YOU in THEIR search result list
  So, what, you want to restrict how discoverable information is to the recipients after you've actively shared the infromation with them?
42. Re:Don't Be Evil by Shifty0x88 · 2012-01-23 12:29 · Score: 1
  
  I wasn't really freaking out.... ok well maybe a little, but I was just pointing out the fact that what he was saying does absolutely nothing except change the way YOUR google search results look, not everyone elses.
  To remove the feature here is how you really do it:
  Account Settings --> Profile and Privacy -->Edit visibility on profile
  Then on the bottom: Profile Discovery, click that and uncheck the box
43. Re:Don't Be Evil by icebraining · 2012-01-23 12:29 · Score: 1
  
  But others could already view that information through G+ directly. Having Search integration doesn't change what others can view. So that complain is completely offtopic.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
44. Re:Don't Be Evil by DragonWriter · 2012-01-23 12:37 · Score: 2
  
  It was Google that declined to renew the Twitter deal when it expired. Likewise, Facebook allowed similar access to Google that Bing has, but again, Google declined.
  Why should Google pay for the privilege of promoting Twitter and Facebook?
45. Re:Don't Be Evil by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 13:14 · Score: 0
  
  The search results are the parts of the search page that show results based on your search query. I don't expect you to understand this, but then again, neither do I expect you to stand upright without drooling.
  I do expect Google to understand it, because they are very good at this - they know that search is about giving users the information they want, not the information you want them to see.
46. Re:Don't Be Evil by HJED · 2012-01-23 13:16 · Score: 1
  
  They are also alienating a large demographic as google+ does not allow people under the age of 18 (a large part of Facebook's demographic) and most of them won't want to create a second google account for google+. Especially when it isn't very good.
  
  --
  null
47. Re:Don't Be Evil by NeutronCowboy · 2012-01-23 13:31 · Score: 1
  
  Considering you can't even properly format your sentences, I doubt you are in a position to judge anything.
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
48. Re:Don't Be Evil by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 13:32 · Score: 0
  
  Yep, with Microsoft you're holding your data and are completely free to switch to another MS product. You wanted to switch to non-MS? Oh, sorry, but we've got these awesome non-standard extensions to the format, too bad noone but MS understands them.
49. Re:Don't Be Evil by NWX · 2012-01-23 13:41 · Score: 0
  
  It was Google that declined to renew the Twitter deal when it expired. Likewise, Facebook allowed similar access to Google that Bing has, but again, Google declined.
  Why should Google pay for the privilege of promoting Twitter and Facebook?
  They aren't paying for the privilege of promoting Twitter and Facebook, they're paying for the privilege of accessing them to use them search rating valutations.. They do it already, but in limited scope. When site is mentioned in Facebook or Twitter (now only publicly), it affects their rankings. They use them as metric. Likewise they can use it for targeting advertising.
50. Re:Don't Be Evil by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 13:46 · Score: 0
  
  No it's not. Those who could already view that information through G+ can do so directly and don't need search integration. But those who aren't on G+ shouldn't get to spy via search integration.
51. Re:Don't Be Evil by icebraining · 2012-01-23 13:51 · Score: 1
  
  But there's no spying! You're only shown what you already have access through G+! So non-G+ users only get public G+ content, that they could already view.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
52. Re:Don't Be Evil by errandum · 2012-01-23 13:54 · Score: 2
  
  oh, I'm not against using social network data to rank searches, what I'm against is getting people involved.
  google has been crawling my e-mails for data, or even tracking my interests for ages, and as long as I was user #124517851 that's fine. Names make it way too personal and creepy.
53. Re:Don't Be Evil by anonymov · 2012-01-23 14:05 · Score: 2
  
  So you're saying Google's missing out on opportunity to invade on your privacy with the data FB wants to sell them?
54. Re:Don't Be Evil by vlueboy · 2012-01-23 14:23 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously, who actually uses google to find fb and twitter posts when those sites have their own search?
  The same statistical first-timers who are always one minute away from *joining* said sites? There's millions registering all the time just to connect with those they've not talked with since highschool. For FB, they have no access to the posts unless they too join the club. ~90% of the world's 7,000,000,000 people are still *outside* of facebook's 700 million "active account-holders." Just because WE know the web inside down does not mean that most others discovered social media already.
  The same people who thought the Clippy was actually an OS-wide help tool have morphed. Today, they are the ones who cannot tell that their url_bar != google_search != proprietary_site_search
55. Re:Don't Be Evil by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 15:51 · Score: 0
  
  Google still indexes twitter.com. The deal that fell through was only for Google Realtime.
56. Re:Don't Be Evil by Zarel · 2012-01-23 16:35 · Score: 1
  
  default opt-out
  The word you're looking for is "opt-in". ;)
  
  --
  Want a high quality FOSS RTS game? Try Warzone 2100!
57. Re:Don't Be Evil by afabbro · 2012-01-23 16:39 · Score: 1
  
  Twitter has a much higher single to noise ratio.
  That's true - married people don't have time for it.
  
  --
  Advice: on VPS providers
58. Re:Don't Be Evil by lattyware · 2012-01-23 16:46 · Score: 1
  
  Well, yeah. Is your complaint really that they are using data you have given them and told them to make public (or share it with the people they are sharing it with), and doing so? This is just another interface to that data.
  
  --
  -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
59. Re:Don't Be Evil by AvitarX · 2012-01-23 17:23 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I'm surprised that stuff I market private to only me in plus.google.com comes up in a search on google.com.
  I can't be the only one that doesn't want my automatically uploaded photos showing up on screen in a public place. And yes, I know they aren't 100% secure in the cloud, but they are way more secure in the cloud than on screen in the office for example (and yes, I probably shouldn't be putzing about in the office either, but still).
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
60. Re:Don't Be Evil by AvitarX · 2012-01-23 17:24 · Score: 1
  
  No they couldn't
  My phone uploads to an album that is set private to me.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
61. Re:Don't Be Evil by CycleMan · 2012-01-23 18:11 · Score: 2
  
  They aren't paying for the privilege of promoting Twitter and Facebook, they're paying for the privilege of accessing them to use them search rating valutations.. They do it already, but in limited scope. When site is mentioned in Facebook or Twitter (now only publicly), it affects their rankings. They use them as metric. Likewise they can use it for targeting advertising.
  So the only way for Google to not be evil is to pay Facebook and Twitter lots of money "for access to their data." Please pardon my tiny violin here. If Google were filtering out Facebook, that would be one thing. Refusing to cough up extortion money or payola is another. Sounds like Google is doing nothing unethical here. And if you think that Google is making a poor business decision, then encourage someone else -- Bing or Yahoo for example -- to do it and eat Google's lunch in the process. Until then...
62. Re:Don't Be Evil by rtfa-troll · 2012-01-23 19:44 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Try feeding Facebook pages through Google Translate as I did recently trying to follow up a foreign news story. You will find that Facebook does a considerable load of blocking to make life difficult for Google. We also know that Twitter wants to charge for access to the data. This whole story is attempting to blame Google for the evil that Facebook and Twitter have done to themselves.
  It's really funny the way that there's this big campaign recently by several companies which are obviously evil (Microsoft, Facebook etc.) against Google. I'm guessing that they are afraid that if someone started insisting that more companies weren't evil they would lose their competitive edge?
  
  --
  =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
63. Re:Don't Be Evil by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 19:46 · Score: 0
  
  What's funny is, for all the work this small handful of anti-Google trolls puts in, the result is always the same... an opportunity for us to get at the truth, mod it up, and bury the troll. If they're working to hurt googles image, they fail so completely and frequently that they'd have to be among the worst shills in history.
  It's so routine now that my conspiracy meter is starting to register possible hits, and you wonder if it isn't a false flag campaign.
64. Re:Don't Be Evil by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 21:36 · Score: 0
  
  Cool I've got some feature requests for version 1.1 of your plugin:
  * On Facebook, give users to option of saving photos to Flickr instead.
  * On Facebook, give users to option of hosting videos on YouTube instead.
  * On Facebook, give users to option of following a celebrity on Twitter rather than the new Facebook "follow" feature.
  * From Facebook, give users the option to seach the web with Google and not just Bing.
  After all, you're all about giving users the most relevant results and the best tool for the job, right?
  Oh wait no you're from a website that decided to reinvent a poor version of every existing serving from email to youtube, using the walled-off friend graph as leverage to make sure your version won, no matter what the relative technical merits...
  and now you're pissed that a search engine is ham-handedly doing the same?
  Okay...
  You had a great run attempting to reimplement the entire internet, and for the common person, you have succeeded thus far. I'm not going to shed a tear when competition eventually surfaces though. Welcome to the world that nearly every other company and working person lives in.
65. Re:Don't Be Evil by Hognoxious · 2012-01-23 22:14 · Score: 1
  
  Business 101 implies you do not offer your services to competitors.
  Perhaps you should do some more advanced courses.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
66. Re:Don't Be Evil by poetmatt · 2012-01-23 23:03 · Score: 2
  
  I'm guessing it's the "paid to not understand" part as there has been a new bout of desperation represented by new usernames lately which all cater to the anti-google, pro microsoft, pro facebook concept and somehow think that the average slashdotter (who is a techie) is going to be unaware that they're all funded by the same group. They also first post articles and think people won't notice the sockpuppetry. Comedy, at best.
67. Re:Don't Be Evil by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 23:32 · Score: 0
  
  Right, and it still is private to you. The only person who those particular results are showing for is you. Now, if you SHARE any of them, the shared ones will show up when someone searches for something relevant to them (as long as the searcher was the one that they were shared with). DON'T PANIC.
68. Re:Don't Be Evil by qubezz · 2012-01-24 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  .. For Google too. In fact you can find public Facebook pages in their normal search, too.
  What you mean by this is Facebook is just another Google spammer. I tried searching for a local business, and pretty high up is a Facebook page, but you find out it is a "business directory" page that Facebook created for themselves from phone book info just to get web hits and undermine my ability to see relevant information from the business' real pages.
69. Re:Don't Be Evil by helix2301 · 2012-01-24 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  A lot of people have mixed feelings about this considering Google is running a business not a public service which means they have every right to index there own information first over everyone.
  
  --
  http://www.thetechnologygeek.org
70. Re:Don't Be Evil by Synerg1y · 2012-01-24 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  Great, so i think it's more than fair to say, if you don't have a fb account, don't use fb? Surely money is not the issue here when it comes to fb accounts lol. Not sure what your expecting from them lol. There's an old phrase that comes to mind though: want much, get little.
71. Re:Don't Be Evil by AvitarX · 2012-01-24 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  My point was the shock of my private album popping up on my screen in a public place, I did figure it out, and stop logging in to search, but it was unpleasant to unexpectedly have private info on my screen. When I go to Google+ I expect to have private info display, when I go to Picassa I do to. When I go to google.com I do not.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
72. Re:Don't Be Evil by DragonWriter · 2012-01-24 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  They aren't paying for the privilege of promoting Twitter and Facebook
  Correct, they aren't paying them at all.
  
  they're paying for the privilege of accessing them to use them search rating valutations.
  Viewed in that light, its a question of the value of the signal compared to the offered price. The fact that it is viewed as worthwhile to Bing doesn't mean its worthwhile to Google.
  But, as the current fury from FaceTwitterSpace about Google not using public, non-personalized profiles from their networks that seem to loosely correspond to the Google+ results that are relevant to a search to augment SPYW, there is a promotional effect to those networks of Google using their data -- even just their public data -- that clearly has considerable value to those networks.
73. Re:Don't Be Evil by Volvogga · 2012-01-24 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  They kinda downplayed what the search does... a lot. I did a search yesterday and got an actual google+ post from someone I follow (and no facebook, it wasn't the top rated result, it was on page 4 or 5). If Facebook and Twitter want level playing in the results, they have to let google in. Yes, it was "already indexed" in the very narrow results they demonstrated, but that won't be good enough in the future.
  So lets suppose everyone decides to play nice and google gets to display everyone's results. Fine. Give me some check-boxes, please. I deleted my facebook account for a reason. First, I don't care what facebook's relevant results are. I've been so-far decently pleased with what G+'s results have been. Don't care about MySpace or Twitter either. Let me turn them off.
  Also... I don't believe for a second that if google starts pulling data down from facebook, facebook is not going to be, in turn, storing up those search terms to sell off themselves. As I said, I left facebook for a reason, so do not make me help them. Let me turn them off.
  
  --
  Vol~
74. Re:Don't Be Evil by nmr_andrew · 2012-01-24 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  FB may let Google index the pages, but the data is not "public is open" (sic) to everyone. Both my wife and I regularly get FB results from Google search which come up with a generic page telling us to log in to view the content. Of couse, neither of us have a FB account.
75. Re:Don't Be Evil by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-24 07:31 · Score: 0
  
  Yep, pots and kettles. Are they in it for money? They're evil, simple as that. We're all evil. The sooner we bomb ourselves into extinction, the sooner life on earth can recover and erase all trace of evil from the face of the planet.
76. Re:Don't Be Evil by modmans2ndcoming · 2012-01-24 14:25 · Score: 1
  
  but you have already established relationships via social networking with the people you are getting search results on. How is that Creepy?
77. Re:Don't Be Evil by modmans2ndcoming · 2012-01-24 14:29 · Score: 1
  
  but it is coming up ONLY FOR YOU! Perhaps Google should allow a content status to be something like "exclude from search results" but really....what are you doing uploading a picture that you want to only see in a closed dark room by yourself?
78. Re:Don't Be Evil by CamD · 2012-01-24 16:44 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously, who actually uses google to find fb and twitter posts when those sites have their own search?
  Please go to twitter.com and facebook.com, and, not having registered and logged in or visited another account, tell me how to search for posts or pages.
  If I'm looking to quickly find out what Joe Celebrity or Company A is up to, I'm not going to register and log in when I can just type their name into my browser's search bar.
  That said, if Twitter and Facebook refuse to make their public data available to Google for free, why do they expect Google to link to them beyond indexing links to their accounts found elsewhere on the web?
  Also, I'd like to see a fake account (on a site for which the person is not registered) be picked up by this bookmarklet and advertised like a legitimate link just because it's on page 10.
Anon by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 10:18 · Score: 0

I think Google+ and facebook should be forced anon.
That is all.
Ironic.. by WarwickRyan · 2012-01-23 10:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

..considering reports the Google's entire motivation for creating Google+ was that so much content was moving to social networks such as Facebook and that said social networks were pushing against Google's attempts to index the content on their services.
1. Re:Ironic.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 10:21 · Score: 0
  
  Ironic, since that's not irony.
2. Re:Ironic.. by pinfall · 2012-01-23 10:48 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Blake Ross is the same snooty, aloof and disdainful prick that the rest of them are. Like any goon he would take the legs out from under your grandma to keep her from scoring a goal in a game that's already over. No rational human should listen to the blubber from any of these selfserving sociapaths. It all goes down the same money hole in the end.
3. Re:Ironic.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 11:32 · Score: 0, Interesting
  
  Blake Ross is the same snooty, aloof and disdainful prick that the rest of them are.
  I used to read his blog back in the phoenix days, when he was "an 8 year old". Kind of surprised he's working for Zuckerfuck, I always had the impression he was brighter than that.
4. Re:Ironic.. by stephanruby · 2012-01-23 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  It's not ironic. It's a direct response to Google's claims:
  
  The team’s goal is to show Google is lying because the search giant already indexes all public information on social networks, and there’s no reason why it can’t use that data as well.
  Personally, I do not know who's telling the truth, and I can't say I like Facebook very much, but I'm hoping that more people actually read the article before rehashing Google's claims (which the article is already responding to).
5. Re:Ironic.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 11:39 · Score: 0
  
  Really a shame that every piece of data can't be owned by Google. That's just a damned shame.
6. Re:Ironic.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-24 03:01 · Score: 0
  
  Most of Google's upper management are either incompetent assholes or hypocrites, why are you surprised?
  --
  There is a new arrogant asshole in town!
Facebook has no room to speak by Baloo+Uriza · 2012-01-23 10:18 · Score: 2

Seriously, they've been doing the exact same move with Facebook posts and the Like buttons with Bing for, what, two years now?

--
Furries make the internet go.
1. Re:Facebook has no room to speak by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 17:36 · Score: 0
  
  ...and in other news, McDonalds doesn't want to sell Burger King's hamburgers, despite the fact that it's entirely possible for them to do so. A Burger King spokesman decried this blatant favoritism as "evil".
  
  Looks more like White Castle decrying McD for refusing to offer its puny little burgers on McD's menu
Wait...who told whom what? by Shoten · 2012-01-23 10:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

Facebook? Facebook is telling Google not to be evil? FACEBOOK? If Google were half as self-serving with privacy policies and use of data as Facebook has been....actually, it would be so awful I don't even know how to put it into words.

--

For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
1. Re:Wait...who told whom what? by crispylinetta · 2012-01-23 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with all of this and suspect that Google will not go for this (though they probably should, even out of self-interest, to become more closely associated with the big players in social media and to potentially promote the use of G+) this type of integration is exactly what we want to see and should be encouraged. I am glad to see any efforts to have the great minds in the room collaborating to leverage our technology and create something beneficial to users, again, even if done out of self-interest. So often we see the limitations of the technology we have not being met and pushed because of intentionally locking down devices and software, and it is a real shame. This type of interaction between competitors is a good thing.
2. Re:Wait...who told whom what? by BazilBBrush · 2012-01-23 10:30 · Score: 0
  
  Facebook? Facebook is telling Google not to be evil? FACEBOOK?
  Exactly.
  What is a 'zuckerberg' anyway???
  Like a dirty iceberg or something?
3. Re:Wait...who told whom what? by poetmatt · 2012-01-23 10:32 · Score: 2
  
  not just facebook, supposedly myspace which was owned by murdoch, who clearly is not an evil fellow, right?
  ahhh, the comedy. It's another "accuse someone else of what you're doing so that they don't focus on you at all". aka the political/microsoft way to do things.
4. Re:Wait...who told whom what? by Knave75 · 2012-01-23 10:33 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Facebook? Facebook is telling Google not to be evil? FACEBOOK?
  That was my initial reaction. If it were Mozilla or Wikipedia telling Google to be less evil, that would be one thing. But Facebook, one of the more evil companies on the planet, beseeching Google not to be evil?
  
  This is why I could never work in the corporate world. I understand that spewing this type of bullshit is par for the course, but I would have never been able to stomach it.
5. Re:Wait...who told whom what? by grcumb · 2012-01-23 10:35 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Facebook? Facebook is telling Google not to be evil? FACEBOOK?
  I dunno, the story lost all credibility for me when I read the phrase 'MySpace engineers'....
  
  --
  Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
6. Re:Wait...who told whom what? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 10:40 · Score: 0
  
  lol Your ROT-13 was better than your post... so funny.
7. Re:Wait...who told whom what? by Dyinobal · 2012-01-23 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  My thirteen year old cousin is a myspace engineer.
8. Re:Wait...who told whom what? by Wiarumas · 2012-01-23 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  Its more along the lines of them being upset about monopolizing evil rather than a holier than thou stance.
  
  --
  I will bend like a reed in the wind.
9. Re:Wait...who told whom what? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 12:26 · Score: 0
  
  Literally translates to "sugar mountain".
  It's an old Germanic Jewish name from back when it was decided that all German Jews had to have silly last names. Also, "Mandelbrot" = almond bread.
  Given the circumstances, picking on the guy for having that name is rather a touchy subject.
10. Re:Wait...who told whom what? by Requiem18th · 2012-01-23 12:39 · Score: 1
  
  Ditto and if someone is in a position to complain it would be Mozilla since integrated search should be a browser feature, not a website feature, and they aren't complaining, because it's stupid.
  Blubbled search is not even a feature I want, much less expand.
  
  --
  But... the future refused to change.
11. Re:Wait...who told whom what? by maccodemonkey · 2012-01-23 13:09 · Score: 1
  
  That was my initial reaction. If it were Mozilla or Wikipedia telling Google to be less evil, that would be one thing. But Facebook, one of the more evil companies on the planet, beseeching Google not to be evil?
  Considering Mozilla takes money from Google, I wouldn't be inclined to trust their opinion (or lack of) either.
12. Re:Wait...who told whom what? by ArcadeNut · 2012-01-23 15:30 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Maybe it was a typo and they really meant to say "My Space Engineers"....
  
  --
  Visit the Arcade Restoration Workshop @ http://www.arcaderestoration.com
13. Re:Wait...who told whom what? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 16:52 · Score: 0
  
  Facebook? Facebook is telling Google not to be evil? FACEBOOK? If Google were half as self-serving with privacy policies and use of data as Facebook has been....actually, it would be so awful I don't even know how to put it into words.
  You're confused about who FB is worried about Google being evil *towards*. This is a transparent "OMG PLZ GIVE US MOAR REVENUZE" play by a bunch of social networks who hear their money train leaving the station - they don't want Google to be evil to *them*, users be damned.
SPYW by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 10:22 · Score: 0

am i the only one that thought SPYW is the new abbreviation for Spyware ?
mirror by nnet · 2012-01-23 10:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

Pot, kettle, Kettle, pot.
1. Re:mirror by BazilBBrush · 2012-01-23 10:34 · Score: 0
  
  Isn't it:
  Pot, Kettle, black?
2. Re:mirror by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 10:37 · Score: 0
  
  I'm now looking forward to Google making a bookmark that makes facebook's search return links to Google+ pages...
3. Re:mirror by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 19:58 · Score: 0
  
  You should always consider criticism, even if it comes from "evil" sources. So if Iran should criticize the U.S. human rights or foreign policy record, they may well have a point. Most of what Palestinians complain about Israel is more or less correct and vice versa.
  So I wouldn't dismiss Facebook's criticism regardless of how "evil" they might be. One must remember that both Facebook and Google are huge operations where most employees are just trying to do their jobs to the best of their capabilities. If both sides took heed of each other's complaints, the net would be a better place for all of us.
4. Re:mirror by TemporalBeing · 2012-01-24 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  Pot, kettle, Kettle, pot.
  More like: Pot, Kettle, Cauldron; meet Stainless Steel Soup Pot. Stainless Steel Soup Pot, meet Pot, Kettle, and Cauldron.
  
  Well, yeah - that Stainless Steel Soup Pot may be well used and have a bit of black on it too; but nothing like the Pot, Kettle, and Cauldron which were black even when brand new.
  
  --
  Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
oh the hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 10:24 · Score: 1

Facebook criticizing ANYONE regarding privacy? That's not just ironic, it's downright hypocritical.
Really all four of those companies are equally evil little shits. Fuck 'em all.
1. Re:oh the hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 12:31 · Score: 0
  
  This has nothing to do with privacy, and everything to do with giving the user relevant search results.
No effect by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 10:26 · Score: 0

Twitter shutdown its Google outlet, and then wants Google to perform the same function?
I ran this script (on Australian Google results) and it had no effect on the results of my search.
1. Re:No effect by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 11:05 · Score: 1
  
  Twitter and Google had an agreement. It expired and Google declined to renew it.
  Almost like how FaceBook offered Google the same data they offer bing with the same terms and Google declined.
2. Re:No effect by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 15:31 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe because the price was ridiculous? MS practically finances Facebook's whole operation. It's not unreasonable for Google to decline that honor and instead use their own social network. For less than the amount of money twitter and facebook wanted Google put together a team and created their own service.
  That's just good business practice. If you're trying to make a deal and the other parties are being unreasonable and you think you can do it better yourself then you're welcome to. That should drive the price down and correct the market.
3. Re:No effect by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 20:15 · Score: 0
  
  you've got this backwards - look it up
Popcorn time by sakdoctor · 2012-01-23 10:28 · Score: 0

I think it's hilarious that Google are cannibalizing their core competency, in a misguided attempt to "compete" with facebook.
The results page is even starting to look like a facebook "wall" page.
1. Re:Popcorn time by AngryDeuce · 2012-01-23 10:46 · Score: 1
  
  At least you can turn that stupid search plus your world shit off. I mean, they could have just done it and not given the option, which, if you've seen how retarded the results can be if you have a lot of people in your circles on G+, would have been goddamned awful and totally depreciated any value Google had for search, imho...
  I wish Google would have let us keep the old style search page and shit, rather than the new one with all the drop-downs...
2. Re:Popcorn time by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 11:54 · Score: 0
  
  Just make sure you're logged in so they can track you.... THEN they will turn it off for ya.
  (perfect example of the problem requiring user accounts everywhere too in a place that's not needed as well as Evil_by_default settings)
3. Re:Popcorn time by HJED · 2012-01-23 13:21 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah and alienating a large demographic of users as google+ is 18+ only and its a pain to maintain two google accounts.
  
  --
  null
4. Re:Popcorn time by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-24 00:55 · Score: 0
  
  Just make sure you're logged in so they can track you.... THEN they will turn it off for ya.
  If you don't log in, how would they track you in the first place? Google doesn't actually require a user account, and SPYW doesn't work if you're not logged in.
5. Re:Popcorn time by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-24 03:31 · Score: 0
  
  And thank god for that. Keeps most of the damn kids on Facebook and away from anything I use.
  Now get off my lawn!
Leave search alone by clarkkent09 · 2012-01-23 10:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

Am I the only one who wants to search for the words I type in and nothing else. Google is already giving some kind of preference for the results in my area whether I want it or not, and now apparently it is going to pollute them with more random junk. When I searched for a solution to a particular known problem with my car, it mixed in a bunch of completely irrelevant results just because they are to do with cars in my city. I guess no software company is immune to suicide by features phenomenon.

--
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
1. Re:Leave search alone by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 10:45 · Score: 0
  
  Google does INCREDIBLY intensive user testing. If a feature is added (like local or social results), the only reason it's there is because the user testing performed better with it.
2. Re:Leave search alone by LordLucless · 2012-01-23 10:51 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  and now apparently it is going to pollute them with more random junk
  No, not unless you click the little "My World" tab at the top of your search, like you do to access Google Image Search, or Video Search.
  
  --
  Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
3. Re:Leave search alone by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  That's a load of bollocks.
  Anytime something horrible and confusing comes out Google's support forums light up with hundreds of irate users, which lately has been any time they've changed something that people actually use.
  "If it ain't broke..."
4. Re:Leave search alone by million_monkeys · 2012-01-23 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  No, you're not the only one. There should be an option to let us choose whether we want to have the results "optimized" for our area. I can see how a search focussed on local results is useful in a lot of cases, but there are just as many times when it's not. Giving the a prominant "include local results" checkbox next to the search seems like it would be a simple and effective compromise.
5. Re:Leave search alone by Elbereth · 2012-01-23 11:00 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  This is one of the reasons why people switched away from Altavista to Google. Granted, it's not the main reason, but it's one of the reasons.
  I hate how over-helpful Google is. It seems like there's no way to do a simple search any more. It tries to correct my spelling, searches for what it thinks I meant, and mixes in results that don't even have my search terms in them! It's frustrating as hell. I'd switch to something else, but there really isn't anything that's any better.
  It's gotten to the point that I put everything in quotes, with a plus sign, no matter what I search for. Otherwise, I end up getting completely irrelevant results. There needs to be an option in the advanced search options that says, "[x] I'm not an idiot".
6. Re:Leave search alone by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 11:19 · Score: 0
  
  Personally, I just don't use my main browser instance to do web searches. I use Firefox for my main browsing and Chromium for my searches and clear cookies/history on Chromium regularly. Of course, that doesn't stop Google from doing things like using my IP address to determine my location and base results off of that.
7. Re:Leave search alone by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 11:31 · Score: 0
  
  I loved Altavista back in the day - when it was actually a useful search engine that got really useful results.
8. Re:Leave search alone by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 12:07 · Score: 0
  
  Am I the only one who wants to search for the words I type in and nothing else.
  You are not the only one, but you are incredibly rare. Google is not stupid: They add related terms and concepts because users click on them and say they like the results in user studies.
  Is there soem reason you can't find what you need by adding quotes around the search terms?
  
  I guess no software company is immune to suicide by features phenomenon.
  Do you have any evidence google is committing suicide by making their search so bad no one uses it? That is an extraordinary claim, considering that most people do use it.
9. Re:Leave search alone by icebraining · 2012-01-23 12:09 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  There needs to be an option in the advanced search options that says, "[x] I'm not an idiot".
  There is. Left bar -> More Search tools -> Verbatim
  
  "With the Verbatim tool, you can search using the exact keywords you typed," explains Google. Verbatim disables Google's spelling corrections and Google no longer replaces some of your keywords with synonyms (e.g.: television / TV), similar terms (e.g: buy flowers / send flowers), words with the same stem (e.g.: fixing / fix). Verbatim also disables search personalization.
  I submitted this as a story a month ago or so, but it wasn't accepted by the /. editors.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
10. Re:Leave search alone by Zadaz · 2012-01-23 12:25 · Score: 1
  
  Well, yeah. Of course, we all "just want the words we search"
  But this isn't 1996, the web has trillions of pages of content. If you search for The Police do you want the local constable or the band of the same name? What about Anthrax? Do you want the band or the infectious disease? If you want the disease, do you want a Wikipedia-level reference, or the CDC, or do you want to know about recent news involving it? Or do you want to know conspiracy theories, or how to weaponize it?
  Oh, and how would you like them sorted?
  Exactly. A modern search engine has to do a lot of tap dancing behind the scenes to give you just "the words I type and nothing else". Greping the entire internet is pointless.
11. Re:Leave search alone by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 12:28 · Score: 0
  
  There is. Left bar -> More Search tools -> Verbatim
  
  Could you post the URL for the Verbatim search, as many users don't yet have the left-side bar.
  Thanks!
12. Re:Leave search alone by eht · 2012-01-23 12:44 · Score: 2
  
  add "&tbs=li:1" to the end of the URL, without the quotes of course
13. Re:Leave search alone by MochaMan · 2012-01-23 13:05 · Score: 1
  
  Easy fix. Upper-right corner of the search results: click "hide personal results" (the globe icon). If you want to get rid of them permanently: settings drop-down, "Do not use personal results" radio button.
14. Re:Leave search alone by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 13:45 · Score: 0
  
  try
  http://rse.atspace.org/
  I'd recommend the "Duck" from the menu.
15. Re:Leave search alone by lexman098 · 2012-01-23 16:46 · Score: 2
  
  On the surface that seems like a good tip, but ultimately it's useless. I'm not trying to take a jab at your helpfulness here, but I'm not going to go through a menu and select "verbatim" every time I do a search that should be "verbatim" to begin with. Even if they had an account preference I still wouldn't trust it. I tried turning off the instant search "feature" numerous times and the setting would get reset to default every couple weeks. That was the last straw that made me ditch google entirely. I started with Bing, but I ended up with the wildly-publicized-on-slashdot Duck Duck Go. It lets you customize everything without creating a login ID and the settings actually stick! When I need better results I can just use a "!g" in front of the search to get google's results without their "instant" BS.
16. Re:Leave search alone by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 19:36 · Score: 0
  
  Slashdot - filtered dupes that matters to the editors...
17. Re:Leave search alone by geekoid · 2012-01-24 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  No, but you are the only person who doesn't bother to learn the tool they are using before complaining.
  Haha, I joke, many people are whiny bitches that don't bother to figure out the tool before complaining.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
18. Re:Leave search alone by mgiuca · 2012-01-24 17:17 · Score: 1
  
  And if you really love verbatim so much, modify your bookmarlet or search URL to include that.
OMG - How creepy - PLEASE DON'T FRIEND ME ON G+ by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 10:33 · Score: 1

I absolutely do not want any contacts on G+ - I don't want to have to worry about what details of my personal life show up every time someone else searches.
Google searches used to be great a couple of years ago, but have started giving lousy results lately. I wish someone would start a search engine as good as Google was 2 years ago, and skip all the other nonsense that Google has been pulling lately.
1. Re:OMG - How creepy - PLEASE DON'T FRIEND ME ON G+ by icebraining · 2012-01-23 12:11 · Score: 1
  
  You can disable the G+ personalization in the Search settings.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
2. Re:OMG - How creepy - PLEASE DON'T FRIEND ME ON G+ by Fastolfe · 2012-01-23 12:36 · Score: 2
  
  If you don't want to share anything publicly, don't share anything publicly. Then it doesn't matter if someone adds you to their circles, because they won't see your posts and there's nothing to influence their search results. If you choose to share something publicly, is it a problem if people can find that information when they search for it? If so, why are you sharing it publicly?
Initial thoughts... by Dahamma · 2012-01-23 10:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

1) Their definition of "don't be evil" seems to be "please don't compete with us directly".
2) Facebook has already created the largest walled garden on the Internet by a couple orders of magnitude - maybe before trying to "fix" other companies' software *they* should start looking at ways to include other social networks and web sites without requiring a post/link into Facebook's database and a sneaky redirect...
3) Wait, Myspace has engineers?!?
1. Re:Initial thoughts... by ChronoFish · 2012-01-23 10:43 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I wish I had mod points.... You've hit it right.
  
  It's not so much "focus on the *user*" as much as "focus on OUR *users*".
  
  Their example is accurate, and I agree that it would be great to can-open Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, etc.... So.... is Facebook asking Google to actually do this? Because last I checked they were still trying to find ways to prevent FB data from crossing over to Google+.
  
  -CF
2. Re:Initial thoughts... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 10:46 · Score: 1
  
  3) I'm more curious as to why are they even trying. I mean, it's myspace. It's almost dead, and that's just because it refuses to believe that it really is dead.
3. Re:Initial thoughts... by Andy+Dodd · 2012-01-23 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  Google tried in the past to allow tweets and Facebook content searchable by their engine - Facebook wouldn't allow it, the Twitter deal fell through too.
  Facebook has tried their hardest to set up a walled garden, and it just bit them in the ass. boo-hoo.
  
  --
  retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
4. Re:Initial thoughts... by RPGillespie · 2012-01-23 11:01 · Score: 0
  
  Wait, Myspace still exists?!?
5. Re:Initial thoughts... by Dahamma · 2012-01-23 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah - I think the perfect summary is "walls work both ways"...
6. Re:Initial thoughts... by DragonWriter · 2012-01-23 12:16 · Score: 1
  
  1) Their definition of "don't be evil" seems to be "please don't compete with us directly".
  That's not quite it: it is "please do more (at no cost to us) to promote our services that compete with yours directly."
7. Re:Initial thoughts... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 16:49 · Score: 0
  
  I think that the future of the "Social Networks" will have to become protocols and service providers. People will start to understand that living in the Facebook walled garden has all sorts of issues that actually make it undesirable. Privacy is just one of these issues.
  So we move towards sntp://myname.com and I get my sntp site from facebook (or google, or CheapArseSocialNetworks or IronSN), then I send a "friend" request to my target friends address and his service provider then knows that when he updates something he should let me know. I can then have my SMBrowser render that event however I want it to etc etc
  The walled gardens hate the idea, but much like old lockin email systems, they will start with gateways out to the real world and then they will fail....
Well then... by StripedCow · 2012-01-23 10:35 · Score: 1

Perhaps facebook could open up their APIs so that other social networks would have a fighting chance of getting into existence, and we'd actually see some competition.
And perhaps twitter could do the same, so that we can choose whichever company we want as a tweet-service. Imagine that e-mail was handled by one company, quite a ridiculous situation!

--
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
Hypocrisy at its finest by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 10:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

Twitter to Google: "You can't search or index our content. You need to pay us millions of dollars to get a feed of our data"
Twitter to Media: "Google isn't searching and index our content! They're being evil!"
Give me a break. Twitter and Facebook put up walled gardens and prevented Google from crawling them, forcing Google to make their own social network and now that it's a threat, they pay PR firms to smear Google in the media and complain that they're not being included in new Google features. You want to be included? Set robots.txt to allow the googlebot to crawl your site.
1. Re:Hypocrisy at its finest by hhawk · 2012-01-23 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly... Twitter can't have it both ways but are clearly trying..
  
  --
  http://www.hawknest.com/
2. Re:Hypocrisy at its finest by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 15:43 · Score: 0
  
  The deal that Google refused to renew—Google refused, not Twitter—was only for Google Realtime. Google's search index still crawls twitter.com just fine.
3. Re:Hypocrisy at its finest by esocid · 2012-01-23 16:00 · Score: 1
  
  You're spot on. I can't even fathom how ridiculously idiot this whole debate is. Facebook and Twitter don't want Google to index them? Fine. They don't get to complain about a decision that they, themselves, made.
  
  --
  Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
4. Re:Hypocrisy at its finest by allo · 2012-01-24 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  just have a look in twitters robots.txt
5. Re:Hypocrisy at its finest by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-24 15:21 · Score: 0
  
  What about it?
  
  User-agent: Googlebot
  # Crawl-delay: 10 -- Googlebot ignores crawl-delay ftl
  Allow: /*?*_escaped_fragment_
  Disallow: /search
  Disallow: /*?
  Disallow: /*/with_friends
  That permits crawling anything that doesn't contain a query string. All user profiles and tweet permalinks are crawlable.
6. Re:Hypocrisy at its finest by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-24 19:33 · Score: 0
  
  https://twitter.com/robots.txt
  #Google Search Engine Robot
  User-agent: Googlebot
  # Crawl-delay: 10 -- Googlebot ignores crawl-delay ftl
  Allow: /*?*_escaped_fragment_
  Disallow: /search
  Disallow: /*?
  Disallow: /*/with_friends
  facebook.com/robots.txt
  User-agent: Googlebot
  Disallow: /ac.php
  Disallow: /ae.php
  Disallow: /album.php
  Disallow: /ap.php
  Disallow: /autologin.php
  Disallow: /checkpoint/
  Disallow: /feeds/
  Disallow: /l.php
  Disallow: /o.php
  Disallow: /p.php
  Disallow: /photo.php
  Disallow: /photo_comments.php
  Disallow: /photo_search.php
  Disallow: /photos.php
7. Re:Hypocrisy at its finest by allo · 2012-01-27 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  "?" means exactly one char of choice, not questionmark literally
so they sent an email that said by cod3r_ · 2012-01-23 10:38 · Score: 0

don't be evil. kthx bye.
Pot calling the kettle black by DaMattster · 2012-01-23 10:40 · Score: 1

Well, maybe Facebook should swallow a heaping teaspoon of its own advice. After all, they were being evil about user privacy. Even Mark Zuckerberg deluded himself into believing that users don't care about privacy.
1. Re:Pot calling the kettle black by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 11:11 · Score: 0
  
  When your paycheck depends on believing that users don't care about privacy...
2. Re:Pot calling the kettle black by mjwx · 2012-01-23 14:46 · Score: 1
  
  Well, maybe Facebook should swallow a heaping teaspoon of its own advice. After all, they were being evil about user privacy. Even Mark Zuckerberg deluded himself into believing that users don't care about privacy.
  Deluded?
  
  Most users dont care about privacy. They'll happily trade privacy for recognition. Why the hell do you think so many people try out for reality TV.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Ironic? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 10:40 · Score: 0

Like a black fly in your chardonnay?
1. Re:Ironic? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 11:38 · Score: 0
  
  Or maybe a free ride when you've already payed?
  Who would've thought? It figures!
Smoke screen by ettusyphax · 2012-01-23 10:42 · Score: 1

Not only is this obviously hypocritical on the part of Facebook and friends, it's also a highly transparent attempt to discredit Google's social services. Now, do I agree with Google's Search+ Your World? No, it's stupid and indeed somewhat evil, but I don't see how it's any different than Facebook's attempts to rip off Foursquare or searching Twitter for just about anything - in fact those services are usually more revealing than a simple search assist from Google. Does anyone honestly believe that if Facebook had Google's search market share they would do the same? Zuckerberg may be a smart guy, but he got where he is by dicking people over and then pissing on their corpses. Sergey and Larry got where they are through ingenuity and hard work. (I'm sure there was some dicking over involved but nowhere near as much.) Google has lost its way, and I can't blame them for grasping at straws to gain market share in any arena they can. They have tried doing social networking the "nice" way to no avail, although Orkut is still popular in some Latin American countries I believe. Fact is, people want this crap because they're dumb. You and I may say "why would I want my grandpa's G+ posts to show up in search" while the average social networker says "durr neat grandpa's tweets are in my search for 'hi grandpa how are you.'" The web isn't built for us anymore. Unfortunately, Facebook apologists will lap this up as stone-set fact. I don't really care though - I switched to DuckDuckGo and dropped social networking ages ago.
1. Re:Smoke screen by whoop · 2012-01-23 12:16 · Score: 1
  
  Say you want to go to some restaurant. You type it in to Google to find the closest one near you. Then, you see that a long time ago, your grandpa put up a post about how he got E Coli there. He recovered, so that isn't on your mind anymore. Now you see it and it sparks your memory. Do you still want to get directions there?
  It can be a handy thing depending on the situation. If you are just searching for the history of the Statue of Liberty, then you wouldn't want to do the social search.
  Like anything in life, you have to learn how and when to use it.
LOL by msauve · 2012-01-23 10:45 · Score: 4, Funny

Facebook telling someone how not to be evil? /. needs a comedy section. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Honestly by trunicated · 2012-01-23 10:55 · Score: 0

If you buy this, you're either horribly misinformed, willfully ignorant, or in on the lie.

--
There's a reason there is no "Disagree" mod...
Scraping of data by Enderandrew · 2012-01-23 11:04 · Score: 1

Is Facebook fine with Google scraping data from their network? If Google did that without asking, wouldn't that make Google evil?
If Facebook is voluntarily offering up said data, then certainly Google should use it.

--
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
1. Re:Scraping of data by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 11:55 · Score: 0
  
  But in the latter case, Facebook would be evil...
2. Re:Scraping of data by DragonWriter · 2012-01-23 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  Is Facebook fine with Google scraping data from their network? If Google did that without asking, wouldn't that make Google evil?
  If Facebook is voluntarily offering up said data, then certainly Google should use it.
  Facebook (and Twitter, et al.) seem to be saying this: "We are going to do everything we can to stop you from getting our data, unless you pay us vast amounts of money to get access to it; but, if you do manage to index any of our data, we demand that you use it as much as possible to promote our services."
True Face of Google by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 11:08 · Score: 0

Now thats the true face and business of devil Google:
Fool people by selling their own info/data to them.
MySpace? by EoN604 · 2012-01-23 11:27 · Score: 1

What's Myspace?
I expect by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 12:02 · Score: 0

That since I can no longer "check in" with latitude unless I have a G+ account that soon you may find you need a G+ account to use Gmail, perhaps even all their services.
Facebook is used by idiots. End of story. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 12:05 · Score: 0

Social networking is bullshit.
Yes, there are plenty of idiots and Facebook will make money
exploiting them, but that doesn't change the fundamental truth
that it is both unnecessary and a bad idea to post the details of
your personal interactions on a website which will use the data
as it sees fit, for profit.
Linked In is a different story, it is very useful for career reasons. But Facebook
is for stupid people. And yeah, if you use it I am saying you're stupid, and
I am right.
It is amazing how all you fools fall into line like sheep waiting to be sheared.
P.T. Barnum knew all this many years ago, when he said "There's a sucker born
every minute."
To the one who erected the wall ... by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-01-23 12:21 · Score: 1

All these FUDs amount to one thing, and one thing only --->
Those erected the walls that kept everyone away from their precious exclusive walled garden think that all the Netizens are as brainless as the users of their walled gardens
They think that we Netizens who grew up OUTSIDE their pathetic walled gardens would believe in their FUDs
Grow up, FaceBook !! Learn to compete in the real world !!

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
1. Re:To the one who erected the wall ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 12:52 · Score: 0
  
  Five minutes later, I'm still trying to unravel that mess of a post. It's like a little evening puzzle!
Blake Ross's bookmarklet is a Trojan horse by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 12:23 · Score: 0

At least according to the video, the bookmarklet seems to add Twitter and Facebook social plugins. That is extremely clever; they essentially launched a Trojan horse that reports users Google searches to Facebook servers.
1. Re:Blake Ross's bookmarklet is a Trojan horse by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 13:30 · Score: 0
  
  At least according to the video, the bookmarklet seems to add Twitter and Facebook social plugins. That is extremely clever; they essentially launched a Trojan horse that reports users Google searches to Facebook servers.
  If this is true, it may have pretty big implication considering the previous FTC case.
As long as it's optional by wiedzmin · 2012-01-23 12:40 · Score: 1

SPYW should surface results from all social networks, not just Google+.
As long as you can turn this off - first time I googled myself after SPYW was introduced I nearly s#@! a brick thinking all those Picasa pictures got somehow indexed for everyone to see.

--
Bow before me, for I am root.
Evil? by evstauffer · 2012-01-23 13:56 · Score: 1

SPYW is a finely tuned search for Google users and their Google accounts. Seems obvious. Ross and co, thanks for sharing. If you drop the inter-Company politicizing we might not think you are "evil". Beyond that you're just shown us how many of your engineer friends it takes to write a bookmarklet for Google that does what you would like. I'm sure all sorts of folks, from disgruntled exes to law enforcement will find it all very useful. Ooops, too late to drop the politics.....
Another self-serving bias by devastopol · 2012-01-23 14:01 · Score: 1

Very annoying to see on Google's search page the "Install Google Chrome" button when browsing with Firefox
Dumbfounded here, can't seem to replicate results by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 14:10 · Score: 0

I'm logged into Google+ and went to Google.com. I typed in Hugh Jackman like the website says. Shows a single line with 6 personal results (Team Coco, Conan had him on recently), IMDB, Wikipedia, Google Images, Twitter, News Feed, and then Hugh-jackman.com
Seems relative to me, and even has Twitter in there. No mention on any of those links to Google+ except a single forgettable line on the top.
It would be fitting by jvkjvk · 2012-01-23 14:48 · Score: 1

It would be fitting if the majority of users who were directed to the myface site concluded that they actually liked, or wanted to use google's features now that someone let them know they were there...
How stale is the social data? by pkinetics · 2012-01-23 14:49 · Score: 1

Maybe I'm behind, but didn't Google stop crawling FB / Twitter / etc data after their deals went south.
If they had, then the social data would be stale.
And who wants stale social data?
Forced? by DnaK · 2012-01-23 14:55 · Score: 1

If not happy with a provider, find another! I don't see a reason to get mad at a company that is promoting itself through its OWN website. Guess i just don't understand.
They're describing DuckDuckGo by Rozzin · 2012-01-23 14:56 · Score: 1

They're describing exactly the sort of results that http://duckduckgo.com/ gives; try the equivalent search for "john battelle", for example: it lists a whole slew of social-networking pages for him in the `social networking bar'. Right after his Wikipedia page and his official website.

--
-rozzin.
Slashdot just loves every Google smear campaign by walterbyrd · 2012-01-23 15:31 · Score: 1

Seriously, is there anybody who can't see though this?
Bookmarklets? MySpace? by WillHirsch · 2012-01-23 15:37 · Score: 1

And people wonder why Firefox is losing ground and the future of Google+ hasn't been written off as a foregone conclusion...
That is the pot calling the kettle black by gVibe · 2012-01-23 15:46 · Score: 2

By evil...do they mean - don't steal personal information and use it to make profits, and don't change security processes without letting the users choose, and don't force users to opt-out of privacy feature "enhancements" in the effort to protect their personal information, and certainly don't call things "privacy enhancements" when the enhancement is actually a way to make more profits from other people's private information. If memory serves me...when I signed up to Google+, I was asked up front and directly during the sign up process whether I would allow Google to use my personal information to target advertisement while using the site. To me...that is the exact opposite of evil. I think Mark Suckerberg needs to wake up from this dream he is in.

--
Keywords for the NSA overthrow oppressive regime true believers marathon Manhatten the financial district blueprints I
Google is evil, for other reasons by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 16:05 · Score: 0

They aren't taking down a LOT of phishing and malware sites. Sites and bloggers and email accounts that are making criminals $ while they figure out the next thing to keep up with chasing dreams only to turn into a nightmare.
Facebook and Twitter are not "walled gardens." by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 16:12 · Score: 0

Why don't you guys RTFFAQ before repeating the false claim that Google doesn't have access to Facebook and Twitter? From https://www.focusontheuser.org/faq.php:

Q: I thought Google needed a deal and more info from social sites to integrate them into its new social features?
A: This is clearly not true. The bookmarklet never accesses any server or API outside of google.com. The information has already been indexed and ranked by Google.
You really want Google to index your FB profile? by imperio59 · 2012-01-23 16:41 · Score: 1

What about all those pics of you drunk at that frat party a few years ago? You want them to cache those pictures and results forever? ...Yea, I didn't think so. I think if Facebook allowed Google to fully access their data, people would be up in arms over "Privacy issues". Somehow though no one is crying about Google displaying Google + results... Maybe because no one really uses Google +... :-/
Subtle...The group posted it on a website... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 16:56 · Score: 0

Subtly acronymed, FU (Focus on the User)... awesome comeback, guys :)
SPY World by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 17:56 · Score: 0

Talk about hiding in plain site
(Don't) BE EVIL ! Why not "BE NICE"? :) by sakari · 2012-01-23 18:41 · Score: 1

What do you think this kind of slogan reminds you? Of being nice? Of course not, it reminds you of first to "Be Evil", and then think about the "Dont". When will we learn that by focusing on negatives (dont do this, dont think about white rhinos) we will only remind us of the thing we are trying to negate.
When a man tries to quit smoking, all he can see is "Smoking Allowed" everywhere. Constant reminders of the thing we are trying to negate with the "NOT, DONT" operator. I believe our Human Programming doesn't really understand negatives, we should always choose the positive versions:
"Be Nice" "Friendliness Allowed"
Or such ways of expressing our thoughts. We do not understand NOT -operators in our brain, we have to first think about the thing and then try to inverse it. Takes too much energy! Why not focus right away on the positive version of the command. Think about it.

--
GeoKone.NET :: Create Sacred Geometry in your browser
in other news by cas2000 · 2012-01-23 20:30 · Score: 1

Charles Manson sent out a heart-felt message to school bullies telling them to be nicer to the other kids.
Advice to Facebook, Myspace, Twitter et all... by wertigon · 2012-01-23 22:08 · Score: 1

Stop being isolated islands. Google could use your data, but you won't supply it on an open, federated basis. So what should Google do about that?

--
systemd is not an init system. It's a GNU replacement.
Sour grapes? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 22:41 · Score: 0

Methinks Twitter, Facebook and MySpace need to remind themselves of this: Sour Grapes
Good on them. by toddmbloom · 2012-01-24 00:41 · Score: 0

Google has never been more "evil" with their current trend toward harvesting all of your data (the Google+ farce is just a smoke screen) for their ad-bots.

It amazes me that so much of the tech world continues to fawn over them.
1. Re:Good on them. by geekoid · 2012-01-24 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  "It amazes me that so much of the tech world continues to fawn over them."
  Did it occur to you that you are wrong?
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Don't Misunderstand by b4dc0d3r · 2012-01-24 05:10 · Score: 1

No, the video shows these people have no idea what SPYW is all about.
Google is not searching for the most relevant results. It is searching for the most relevant results, plus your world. If your world includes Jamie Oliver's FaceBook page, that will come back in the "your world" results, not search results.
And, Google doesn't have links to *your* facebook, myspace, etc. Just the public information. So that's not your world, it's just a social search. They say this is how the algorithm works. Take the "your world" results, and do a search on each one.
This is actually just enhancing the your world search to show outside links relevant to your world. Which is a neat feature. But "Your World" is supposed to be your world, not outside stuff relevant to you.
This is just the logical extension of the search, and a neat idea. But it still depends on Google having access to your G+ information, and still does not access your FaceBook, MySpace, Twitter, or whatever else. So it doesn't fix anything
Haha. by geekoid · 2012-01-24 07:15 · Score: 1

Companies about to become irrelevant think replacement is evil.
What a joke.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Search my world? Meh by bobmajdakjr · 2012-01-24 07:32 · Score: 0

I do not use Google to Search My World, my world is boring as hell. I use Google to search the entire World Wide Web.
Algorithm? What algorithm? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-24 11:33 · Score: 0

My understanding is that the Facebook and Twitter links are simply scraped from whatever the G+ user filled in their profile. Why stop at affiliated social networks data? Should Google be revealing other stuff from the said profile: introduction, places lived, gender?
Re:Don't Misunderstand by coolmadsi · 2012-01-24 22:54 · Score: 1

No, the video shows these people have no idea what SPYW is all about.
This is what I was thinking.
I did a very quick test (so take with a grain of salt): I checked my Google+ stream for something recent that I could search for (I saw a news story posted about a compary called "Delta"). I then did a search for that term ("delta" in this case), and there was the option to see the personalised results - this included the news item that I had seen, so something very relevant (as it was part of my "world" as Google says). I used the bookmarklet to see what the "don't be evil" had, and it didn't have this item at all, nor anything else from other social networks. The refined search results were less relevant (or less relevant according to what my expetations of including "my world" would be).
I suspect for additional testing (I only did a quick one) I should check my Facebook/Twitter stream for something (so it is relevant and I know it exists in my "world") and do a search for that using the bookmarklet, to see if it comes up.