Looks like this is in full effect now. In the last 3 days, my stats show Google encrypted search (with no search query referrer data) is accounting for 31% of Google traffic (5,000+ Google visits).

Not quite the single digit % that was expected.

well that will tell us 30% +/- of goog users fully drink the kool-aid. (based on your facts / niche / etc)

which was gmails trojan horse objective way back when. Now the net population is so stupid or drunk on kool aid they can't tell which way is up.

also this went into effect QUICK, I guess the only thing we can hope is due to load goog data centers catch fire.



webmasters UNITE - EDUCATE - USERS!

if we don't fight now there won't be a fight.

Unfortunately - even if they learn about it - the average user will probably LIKE the idea that their query terms aren't being reported to the websites they visit. There are still those who think every cookie is spyware.

Sadly, I have to agree with Tedster on this.

Fear is an easy sell these days and ignorance makes it even easier.

The irony is that ALL their data is being recorded and saved for eons by the very company they think is protecting them. These days with G+/+1 it's now personal, they record and track individuals, not just IP's.

The first step would be to educate and fight the ignorance.

Several have voiced interesting theories about the potentially sinister nature - or monopoly-leveraging nature - of this move by Google, but we'd need some evidence or proof of these alterior motives or monopolistic tendencies in action in order to compel change on Google's part. That said, if anything has said evidence, come forward. Otherwise, this is [as usual] just us on the outside fairly certain of our hunch, but nothing more than that really.

the average user will probably LIKE the idea that their query terms aren't being reported to the websites they visit.

###. How did I miss this thread?

I don't know how it works if you are a huge site with thousands of daily visitors. But I look at queries. If g### dumps the user on a page that doesn't have the information they're looking for, sure, it may mean that g### is flawed. But it may also mean that the page needs work. I've rewritten text. I've added links. I've changed pages from what I want to blather about to what people are trying to find out* ;) If I can't see the specific query that led people to that specific page, I wouldn't be able to do it.

And that hurts the average user.


* We will not talk about the ones where someone from Arizona's Board of Education googles to learn who is the governor of Delaware. (Details changed, duh.) Surely there's a more efficient way to find out?

Picture this: in a couple of years all the search engines and sites will have SSL! Its the future of secure internet when users would need to login before starting to browse!

We are forgetting about webmaster privacy here. You will get strange visitors from strange countries. I would not open this door to someone wearing a stocking on their head, will you?

We are forgetting about webmaster privacy here. You will get strange visitors from strange countries. I would not open this door to someone wearing a stocking on their head, will you?

If I were worried about that, I wouldn't be on the internet at all.

Picture this: in a couple of years all the search engines and sites will have SSL! Its the future of secure internet when users would need to login before starting to browse!

thats fine.... i don't care about SSL, i care about goog ditching data cause they are underhanded. Even if i had to create an https page so i could get the data, thats FINE! but they are just purposely being evil.

and no you don't need to login to the internet to be secure, or use SSL.

If I can't see the specific query that led people to that specific page, I wouldn't be able to do it.

goog doesn't want the user to purchase from you...... they want them to purchase from a "big brand" or "goog"

once that quota is in place and nobody is buying from lowly old websites then goog will shaft the big brands where its all a big circle of crap eatting goog. They already do it now... and they've even got a piece of poo in users pocket called android.

goog doesn't want the user to purchase from you...... they want them to purchase from a "big brand" or "goog"

Well, add that to the list of reasons to run separate searches for "buy" and "learn". People don't need a g### search to go to wikipedia, do they? (Answer: Actually, yes, because you will have better luck with a search engine than with your averge wiki's built-in search. But never mind that.) But if you're looking for information on a very, very, very niche subject, the search engine is probably as clueless as you are.

Incidentally, for my online marketing-focused blog, 73 of the last 110 Google organic visits were stripped of keyword referral data. That's 66.4%.

you'd think online marketing types would have enough sense to not surf goog logged in so they don't get personalized skewed results.

sounds like you've got some informing to do!

We are now showing 35% obsfucated queries for the full month of November. Privacy for 99.9999% of our queries really isn't necessary...whatever sells the future premium verion of G analytics I guess.

you'd think online marketing types would have enough sense to not surf goog logged in

This past week I noticed that even logged out, and specifically requesting "http" protocol in the location bar, I was being redirected to "https". That behavior stopped in the past 24 hours. However, if it was widespread it would account for the number of reports with a high percentage of "Not provided" keywords this week.

I guess this is just the phase one of them ultimately redirecting all requests into https .

Coming much quicker then we thought as well.

I guess this is just the phase one of them ultimately redirecting all requests into https .

Coming much quicker then we thought as well.

On the PPC side, companies I know who manage $1B+ in SEM spend are all saying Google's Q4 is going to be way over analyst estimates, driven primarily by dramatic year-over-year increases in CTR. Guess what the CTR increases come from? More real estate taken from organic and devoted to paid.

Google = a toll booth
taxpayer-funded highways = none

It is being rolled out worldwide now [insidesearch.blogspot.com...]

Ok, I've been out of the loop and not paying attention until yesterday, when I noticed the 'https://' when I was using Google search. So this ridiculous idea has gone live?

I remember reading something about some way Google was thinking about letting webmasters know when a visitor was coming from Google search, but without keyword data. I haven't been able to find any information on this now, so I guess it hasn't happened.

Is there a general consensus on the best way to deal with this, or have we all just decided to give up and accept that Google has gone evil?

Is there a general consensus on the best way to deal with this, or have we all just decided to give up and accept that Google has gone evil?

dataguy - There's probably not much in this to make you any happier about losing referrer data, but here's an update on the situation....

Google To Change SSL Search Referrer Data
Mar 20, 2012
http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4431397.htm [webmasterworld.com]

The best commentary I've seen about this most recent development is Danny Sullivan's March 20th article....

How A Google Change May Mistakenly Turn Search Traffic Into Referral Traffic
[searchengineland.com...]

IMO, the privacy problems relating to incorporating a social network into a search engine are apparently quite genuine. Facebook, even without the search engine part, has goofed up on the privacy part numerous times.

The "evil" part may have to do with preserving referrer data for ad buyers but not for non-customer webmasters, but I really haven't looked into the details enough to say.