I have from the begining just used webmaster tools, non of the other tools they have or accounts. I just wonder will it maybe with time be so you have to login to do a search

I just wonder will it maybe with time be so you have to login to do a search

And then human users will wonder why their searches become less and less successful, as fewer and fewer sites can see their search terms.

It was a nasty enough shock to find that my g### and YouTube accounts had been consolidated, since I use a different name on YT and only have the account at all because someone sent me a link to "Hot for Words" and you have to swear in blood that you're over 18 :(

They also attribute 4 books to me-- that is, titles on Google Books. Three of the four I have absolutely no recollection of ever having looked at. (Why would I? I've already read 'em-- who hasn't?-- and even own them) So I went straight for Delete. The 4th title is only there because Google Books thinks it's WorldCat.

The automated Profile tools are impressive, btw. They can tell which part of your portrait is the face. Even if, as in my case, you just recycle the picture you use as an avatar in another Forum. I later found the fine print that says it has to be a picture of yourself, but oh well, too late now. ::snrk::

I am not saying this is a good thing, but I am less offended by them doing this.

Think of it this way.... not as a webmaster, but as a internet user.

You use Google, you use YouTube, you use Gmail... what are you paying Google for using these services? The answer is obviously nothing.

Yes Google can make money from your visits through ad revenue but I don't think a couple ads pay for all the bandwidth you would eat if you watched a few hours of Youtube and had opened lots of emails with attachments daily.

There is also the issue of adblockers which reduces the amount Google gets per eyeball.

Why wouldn't you expect Google to try to monetize you in some way? Do you really expect Google to foot the bill of someone who blocks ads, and watches score of videos daily? They need to turn that user into dollars.

Tracking trends and selling statistical data is a great way of doing that. I go in with eyes wide open, I don't mind if they tell some retailers that 10% of people who watch lol cat videos also buy things from an online pet store store if that means Youtube is free, Gmail is free, Google search is free..... all the nice apps they provide are free.... and so on.

I do understand why people are cautious with their data but see it from their side too. They spend a lot of money ever minute on bandwidth... they have to recover that cost and just using ads is a single revenue stream and no big company wants a single revenue stream.

Until they are tying data to an individual then I am ok with it. I know the consequences and I accept. I'd rather have them sell my data and me get to watch videos for free over paying $8 a month like Netflix just to access Youtube.

If you really don't like this, then don't just have an opt out day... just opt out forever. You are expecting something for free and then complaining when they try to recoup their costs. It is no secret what they are doing, you can either accept it and move on or get out of Google altogether, but it sounds like many of you want your cake, want it for free, and want to eat it without anyone knowing.

I think it was seven years ago that I first started promoting the idea of a not for profit search engine perhaps developed with international collaboration. Any time I have raised this issue in here over the years I have been mostly shouted down as a romancer.

I think the time is getting closer. :)

A lot of people don't want to be tracked when making searches and will switch to Bing. This could be what brings the crack in the google empire and the ascent of bing and yahoo.

they have to recover that cost

Someone else said it first, sorry I don't remember who, but if you aren't paying for the product, you ARE the product.

I don't see any mention of forcing users to log in in order to do a search. Only that IF they log in, they must allow their data to be shared across all properties. And if I am logged in, I already assumed I was being tracked across their properties.

So how long will it be before some of your friends / co-workers / family will be using Google, and will see a little notice next to a listing that says "Here's a site that Tedster found useful" ... or ... "Here's a YouTube video that Tedster enjoyed".

And suppose this is a site and/or video with controversial or adult content, and you DON'T WANT your friends / co-workers / family to know what you read or look at. Why? Because it's none of their business.

Oh, that's right ~ good old Eric said "If you don't want people to know what you do on the internet, then you shouldn't be doing it" (or words to that effect).

Think that Google will not do that? Think they won't someday alert your "interests" to your friends / co-workers / family?

We'll see ~ I predict they will.

...........................

Think that Google will not do that? Think they won't someday alert your "interests" to your friends / co-workers / family? ..We'll see ~ I predict they will.

I predict the exact same, just as i predicted today's G some 6-7 years ago. I must admit though that they never stop to amaze me... their latest "innovations" and obscene privacy policies are well and beyond anything i ever dared imagining.

A company running amok... nothing more nothing less.... stealing, lying, misleading and constantly abusing privacy laws.

The only way is to educate your family, friends and colleagues.

There is no Google in our house, my 10 years daughter thinks they are the big bad wolf (thats what daddy says).... well thats exactly what they've become IMO and anyone not seeing this already should seriously check his pulse.

P.S.
I wish this place would give *better stage* to the alternativs... G has become very bad for the WWW...maybe it is time for it to be deprecated... for the better good of all.

I wish this place would give *better stage* to the alternativs... G has become very bad for the WWW...maybe it is time for it to be deprecated... for the better good of everyone.

Can't do that. When wandering around in the wilderness, one must know all the dangers. :)

Seriously, the web is what it is and we should know all the possibilities!

Google Jumped the Shark...

The tragic, double irony of this thread's title is not lost on me: Henry Winkler can currently be seen promoting reverse mortgages in a television infomercial.

It was a nasty enough shock to find that my g### and YouTube accounts had been consolidated, since I use a different name on YT and only have the account at all because someone sent me a link to "Hot for Words" and you have to swear in blood that you're over 18 :(

Do tell, Lucy. As for me, I'm nuts for numbers. To each their own.

I've deleted everything Google except my AdSense account and one tablet PC which will be finding a new home soon.

There is no Google in our house

That's the Google you can see. The Google you can't see is insidious and pervasive, from Analytics codes to APIs, embedded maps and videos and G+ buttons and on and on.

I tried blocking my machine's connections to googleapis.com, ajax.googleapis.com, etc., but too many sites were either non-functional or nearly non-existent.

For example, my medical insurance company revamped and based their site's functionality on Google APIs -- the logged-in "member" pages, not just the public pages.

That's when I opted to pay for an anonymouse.org account.

The proxy's cheesy looking and sluggish but at least I know G does NOT know when my static IP views "member" subdir-based pages with URL-telling titles relating to e-mails and lab reports, prescription refill orders, annual deductible breakdowns, etc.

I shudder to think how many sites, not just HIPAA-iffy ones, rely on and relay 'private' data to Google APIs.

That's the Google you can see. The Google you can't see is insidious and pervasive, from Analytics codes to APIs, embedded maps and videos and G+ buttons and on and on.

I agree, my Analytics were removed a couple of years back, don't use APIs, Google Maps and Videos, my alarm bells were ringing loudly as it was but when G+ came along that was it for me, it was pretty obvious what they were going to try and do.

I wonder if the EU will let them get away with it?

I also wonder if they ever really did pay that USD 500 million fine? Do we need conspiracy theories here? None whatsoever IMHO.

Here are a couple minor changes I just made to my Google account:

I went into my "Account Settings" and changed my gender to "Other" (as goofy as that may sound!) and then I changed my "Profile discovery" to "Profile not visible in search". Regarding gender, I had never used my full first name when I established the account, only the initials (for ex: A.Z. Smith), so changing gender more or less works for me.

I had never added anything to any of the other fields, so there was no need to further modify. However, if you have filled out any of that and are now concerned about it being shared, you can clear whichever one is an issue (Occupation, Employment, Education, etc).

If they ever do what I predicted above (notify others of our interests), they'll hopefully have the decency to add an option to the Account Settings which will say something like "Turn off interest notifications". If so, I'll post it here as soon as I'm aware that it exists, and hopefully others will do the same if they find it first, so we can all stay on top of this eroding privacy protection.

.......................

Analytics if you really want to replace that, which I think is a good idea, I would recommend piwik a opensource software its great, always used that.

Can't do that. When wandering around in the wilderness, one must know all the dangers. :)

Seriously, the web is what it is and we should know all the possibilities!

"Knowing" is one thing but what about working together to fight and protect the web from this clear and present danger. Chucking out them +1 buttons would have been a great start..... :)

Chucking out them +1 buttons would have been a great start..... :)

WebmasterWorld is still a big property however I do not see many +1s on posts, at the moment this one has 17 tweets and 0 +1s...says it all to me.

Today, Google published a clarification. There are several points, but these points address some common misunderstandings, even in the mainstream press.

You still have choice and control. You don't need to log in to use many of our services, including Search, Maps and YouTube. If you are logged in, you can still edit or turn off your Search history, switch Gmail chat to "off the record" control the way Google tailors ads to your interests, use Incognito mode on Chrome, or use any of the other privacy tools [google.com] we offer.

We're not collecting more data about you. Our new policy simply makes it clear that we use data to refine and improve your experience on Google - whichever products or services you use. This is something we have already been doing for a long time.

[googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com...]

There's what they used to do; there's what they're doing now; and there's what they could do in the near future. Years ago not many people had concerns; now, LOTS of us have concerns; and soon, they may be a genuine threat capable of doing genuine damage.

We all know they've been collecting data on us. We also know that as they gather more & more, they seem to give their users even less control over the manner in which that data will be utilized.

This could be settled very quickly: When a person logs into their Google account, place a box near or at the top of all the other settings:

[] KEEP ALL MY DATA PRIVATE.

That's not asking too much ... and we'll never see it.

..........................

^ What Reno says. ^

Seriously, the web is what it is and we should know all the possibilities!

That may be true but the fact is that all of us do not know. Google is built on this fact.

ok that was a little scary, i just the first time went to google docs and saw they had stored the pdf files i have been looking at on google, I think thats just pure bad behavior, I never been to this google doc and would NEVER ad my docs online im not stupid and then I see they have got a few pdf files which i have been looking at, damn.

PDFs you open in gMail are also added to your Google Docs collection.

I only use webmaster tools and adsense from google, never touched anything els.

google are really pushing the fact that they are changing their rules. in the last few days i have received an email about it for each of the services that i use, and i've just noticed they've started putting a big in-your-face yellow box at the top of all their SERPs pages too.
they really want the public to know.

if it was me i would have tried to keep it as quiet as possible, because they're just drawing extra attention to their privacy issues.

The plot thickens - Google announces that if you are with the US Gov't, or a Gov't Contract customer, it will NOT track you and you will get a different privacy policy. Hmmm

[computerworld.com...]

In the article, Jeff Gould from Safegov.org:

"Google's new privacy policy allows them to look at everything you do on their services and draw a connection between them," he said. "If you put something in your calendar that says you'll be in Oklahoma City next week, Google will look at Google+ to see if you have any acquaintances there and ask you if you want to notify them of your visit."

"A government user does not want Google studying everything they do and drawing correlations about what they are doing. Basically Google should not be making inferences about them," Gould said.

... so they'll not track US gov't employees but in effect they will openly create security risks for employees of foreign governments.

PDFs you open in gMail are also added to your Google Docs collection.

Whoa that's weird.

Whoa that's weird.

Weird?

They are way past that.... more like "twilight zone" stalking stuff now.

A government user does not want Google studying everything they do and drawing correlations about what they are doing

Why do they think that only applies to government users?

Because only governments can enforce the preference ;)