Google always publishes querys for their contests before, as well as display it on a big scrolling board in their main office for all to watch, and what not. So already anyone really has access to all that info.
Only if that person is logging every query (and remember, those are a random subset -- probably a small one!). Suggestions seem to hit some pretty obscure queries, in my very limited trial.
Let's say I search for Ernest Fizzlewink, an obscure person people don't tend to look for. Later, someone looks for Ernest and it suggests Ernest Fizzlewink, so someone looks him up.
It's not my privacy per se that I'm worried about, in people tying a query to me, it's that I don't want people outside google seeing my query.
I've been to conferences (not to mention a couple of google sites) where random queries are displayed on monitors. This is already questionable IMHO, but displaying it once and keeping it around to offer to people who come close to it sometime later are very different things.
Perhaps they have a policy that queries have to occur a certain number of times to be suggested, and that would help. Even better if the queries have to come from different people. But I'm still not at ease....
I'm surprised no one has commented on privacy yet. It looks to me like it uses past queries to suggest future ones, because as soon as I zoomed in on an unusual name, it offered a couple of bizarre queries that could only have been typos (one was a two-word query, so it wasn't simply every word indexed -- unless they know every pair of words that quickly?).
I don't mind Google knowing what I ask, but I'm not sure I want the world to see them.
Not completely irrelevant. For instance, companies will split their stock to make it more attractive (because stock buyers consider the price, no matter whether they should), and more to the point, they may do reverse splits when the price gets too low. One reason for that is that a lot of mutual funds and institutional shareholders won't buy stocks below $5.
So the higher it starts, the further it is from the $5 magic floor.
Attacked via email? Or are you referring to other things like web vulnerabilities? I'm surprised. Your domain isn't aol.com or msn.com by any chance?:)
I'll echo this experience. I get a little mail to webmaster and such, which I auto-direct to my spam folder. I haven't had any occasions for dictionary attacks to lots of names, probably because it's a personal domain that doesn't attract so much attention.
If I ever run into trouble, I'll simply identify the valid emails explicitly and put everything else into spam.
Yes, and from seeing the USENIX presentation I can understand why the article referred to Cantrill as "energetic". After his presentation, the next speaker even joked about having to live up to the high standard that had just been set. If USENIX gave a "best presentation" award I suspect that talk would have won hands down.
I disagree completely. Research labs come up with new cool stuff all the time. Didn't Java come out of SunLabs? It's just that it's so hard for many labs to impact the rest of the company. That's a relationship management problem, not a question of the environment of the folks doing the innovation.
When I first saw the article, it sounded like Google was busted. When I saw that Google offered to compare the code, I realized it might be Affinity that's blowing smoke. I gather Affinity's not public, so the backlash on them can't be as great as in the stock market. I wonder if Google will counter-sue?
Hilarious! Yeah, orkut's a big disappointment to me for two reasons: unreliability and spam (because I can't unsubscribe from big spam-happy groups like "computer science" without missing mail to more personal groups.
Certainly the unreliability (bugs?) might be inherited from this earlier system, but it's awfully hard to tell without details.
However, I stand by my comment, which after all was: It costs me no money and 99% of the time I don't even notice the ads. So, I wasn't saying it was free, I was saying I wouldn't have signed up had it cost me money. And as for the privacy aspects, this is part of why the only mail I send there is bulk mail, so I don't much care who sees it.
Finally, I don't view the privacy cost in the targeted ads as being a big deal. I'm used to the ads when doing web searches, and here they are infrequent, unobtrusive, and usually appropriate for some definition of appropriate. That doesn't mean I don't sympathize with the lawyer whose gmail ads point at other lawyers.
I've never seen the collapsing threads in any other mail client. Which one has it?
Re:Donate Gmail invitations to troops
on
Gmail in the News
·
· Score: 1
Very nice idea. Let's hope Google notices the suggestion of opening up to the troops immediately and eliminates the need for gmailmilitaryswap.gov. I'll even send a suggestion pointing at the blog, tho I suppose many may have beaten me to it.
I'm not sure about this. I've used 4% of my 1GB in a couple of months, but without any "personal" mail (meaning no camera images and such)... just mailing lists for the most part. And this is with occasional move-to-trash operations for things I know I want to get rid of. I suspect I could fill this 1GB in a year if I got all my personal mail here too and never moved to trash (as they expect people [not] to do).... based on an assumption that instead of 2% per month it's more like 8-10% per month.
Yes, of course I use archive. I'm referring to new mail coming in. I believe it's possible to auto-archive things when applying the filter, which would be close to what I meant. But my point was really that if I get 100 messages a day, I want it prioritized so my wife's mail is highlighted or something, then my buddy, then the mail from expedia offering the weekly deals. The star is a binary prioritization. But outlook express, for instance, lets me assign different colors based on sender/subject/... and I wish gmail would let me have the same level of visual distinction.
Slashdot Mirror
Only if that person is logging every query (and remember, those are a random subset -- probably a small one!). Suggestions seem to hit some pretty obscure queries, in my very limited trial.
It's not my privacy per se that I'm worried about, in people tying a query to me, it's that I don't want people outside google seeing my query.
I've been to conferences (not to mention a couple of google sites) where random queries are displayed on monitors. This is already questionable IMHO, but displaying it once and keeping it around to offer to people who come close to it sometime later are very different things.
Perhaps they have a policy that queries have to occur a certain number of times to be suggested, and that would help. Even better if the queries have to come from different people. But I'm still not at ease....
I don't mind Google knowing what I ask, but I'm not sure I want the world to see them.
CNN has a tally room, which I think is what Nobbin is getting at.
RPI's not a huge surprise? I expected MIT at number one... not below the top 25. Same for many others. WTF?
Then there's always BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC, selling at a cool 88K at last check....
So the higher it starts, the further it is from the $5 magic floor.
Attacked via email? Or are you referring to other things like web vulnerabilities? I'm surprised. Your domain isn't aol.com or msn.com by any chance? :)
If I ever run into trouble, I'll simply identify the valid emails explicitly and put everything else into spam.
Maybe this is what will help lift them out of the doldrums?
Yes, and from seeing the USENIX presentation I can understand why the article referred to Cantrill as "energetic". After his presentation, the next speaker even joked about having to live up to the high standard that had just been set. If USENIX gave a "best presentation" award I suspect that talk would have won hands down.
I disagree completely. Research labs come up with new cool stuff all the time. Didn't Java come out of SunLabs? It's just that it's so hard for many labs to impact the rest of the company. That's a relationship management problem, not a question of the environment of the folks doing the innovation.
Isn't this what Microsoft Research is supposed to be about?
No, actually, I'm just a Frasier fan. But I was amused by the "gratuitous" reference.
When I first saw the article, it sounded like Google was busted. When I saw that Google offered to compare the code, I realized it might be Affinity that's blowing smoke. I gather Affinity's not public, so the backlash on them can't be as great as in the stock market. I wonder if Google will counter-sue?
Certainly the unreliability (bugs?) might be inherited from this earlier system, but it's awfully hard to tell without details.
However, I stand by my comment, which after all was: It costs me no money and 99% of the time I don't even notice the ads. So, I wasn't saying it was free, I was saying I wouldn't have signed up had it cost me money. And as for the privacy aspects, this is part of why the only mail I send there is bulk mail, so I don't much care who sees it.
Finally, I don't view the privacy cost in the targeted ads as being a big deal. I'm used to the ads when doing web searches, and here they are infrequent, unobtrusive, and usually appropriate for some definition of appropriate. That doesn't mean I don't sympathize with the lawyer whose gmail ads point at other lawyers.
Much as I like the interesting conversations about gmail, isn't there any other news out there?
It costs me no money and 99% of the time I don't even notice the ads. (Not what Google wants to hear, perhaps, or that's what's expected.)
I've never seen the collapsing threads in any other mail client. Which one has it?
Very nice idea. Let's hope Google notices the suggestion of opening up to the troops immediately and eliminates the need for gmailmilitaryswap.gov. I'll even send a suggestion pointing at the blog, tho I suppose many may have beaten me to it.
And BTW, I just got 5 more invitations --- seems to be about 5/day this week. But I still have a backlog from my orkut spam...
I'm not sure about this. I've used 4% of my 1GB in a couple of months, but without any "personal" mail (meaning no camera images and such)... just mailing lists for the most part. And this is with occasional move-to-trash operations for things I know I want to get rid of. I suspect I could fill this 1GB in a year if I got all my personal mail here too and never moved to trash (as they expect people [not] to do).... based on an assumption that instead of 2% per month it's more like 8-10% per month.
Yes, of course I use archive. I'm referring to new mail coming in. I believe it's possible to auto-archive things when applying the filter, which would be close to what I meant. But my point was really that if I get 100 messages a day, I want it prioritized so my wife's mail is highlighted or something, then my buddy, then the mail from expedia offering the weekly deals. The star is a binary prioritization. But outlook express, for instance, lets me assign different colors based on sender/subject/... and I wish gmail would let me have the same level of visual distinction.
Guess so. I suppose that's functionality that appeared after I learned everything there was to know about gmail filters :)