Comments on: Google Invests in Privacy for Profit

By: deepsand

deepsand — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 06:44:28 +0000

Quite right.

The problem is that there are so very many for whom the web begins & ends with Google, to the extent that they lack any real perspective.

They are wholly clueless as to how these things came to be, how and by whom they were designed, and for what purposes. And, Google knowingly feeds on their ignorance.

By: Steve Magruder

Steve Magruder — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 17:56:18 +0000

It seems like it never fails that when a topic like this comes up, a few chime in to say “stop whining, it was free.” And they always miss the point, at least as far as the providing of search keywords in referrer data is concerned.

It’s actually an expectation of the web that a website sees the referring URL. It’s supposed to be free, and part of the natural data website owners expect to see.

That Google would be suppressing a natural data stream, and thus ending a free piece of data isn’t the point. The point is that there was always an expectation that this data would always be there, and therefore naturally people came to depend on this data for various purposes. And Google with little warning suppressing this natural web data isn’t technically about taking something away they were giving away for free, but taking away something they were expected to supply, because this is how the WWW works!

If anything, this is a breach of web/Internet ethics. And no entity on the web should be able to get away with such a breach. Website owners have a WWW-designed right to referrer data.

By: deepsand

deepsand — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 23:54:08 +0000

Unlike other companies, Google is also being globally scrutinized for multiple instances of anti-competitive behavior.

By: Ani Lopez

Ani Lopez — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 23:38:08 +0000

I tend to misuse ‘public’ word, sorry about that, due to bad translation of concepts. Yes, it is a public stock company, not a government-owned corporation.

Yes. Google is globally being scrutinized as any other company when related to privacy protection and such. Nothing strange here.

By: deepsand

deepsand — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 20:26:08 +0000

To the contrary, and setting aside the fact that Google is a PUBLIC STOCK COMPANY, being a business of any type does not confer unfettered rights or privileges.

Have you not noticed that Google is globally being scrutinized re. matters re. anti-competitive behavior.

Furthermore, said query data is NOT GOOGLE’S PRODUCT/SERVICE, but common data intended by convention for the target site.

By: Ani Lopez

Ani Lopez — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 19:18:27 +0000

(I can not reply to your comment #61 so I’ll do it here)
Google is a non-public company with the right to do whatever they want with their products. Nothing related to principles here.
Take or leave it

By: deepsand

deepsand — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 19:15:15 +0000

The point is one re. the principle.

We do not need to acquiesce to that which is bad simply because it’s presently unavoidable.

By: Ani Lopez

Ani Lopez — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 18:46:43 +0000

Again, it is up to you.
We’ll have to live with any % they want to give to us. Even if it becomes something like a 20% SEO is adapting to circumstances every day.

By: deepsand

deepsand — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 18:44:12 +0000

So, as long it remains petty theft, it’s acceptable?

At what point does it become grand larceny?

By: Ani Lopez

Ani Lopez — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 18:32:21 +0000

There is no absolute guarantee for anything involving SEO + Google as you might know.
small harm acceptable? it is up to you to consider that small or big. I try to put those things on context and taking into account the general level of inaccuracy we usually deal with SEO matters it is not something remarkable in my opinion even if it rises to a 5% in example