3 ms·

Constantly attacking Google over something the vast majority of users don't care about seems like a bad idea. I was ready to try duckduckgo if it could give me

by axod 16y ago

Constantly attacking Google over something the vast majority of users don't care about seems like a bad idea. I was ready to try duckduckgo if it could give me the results I wanted (Despite the hugely irritating UI and infinite scroll). But the constant attacking Google seems bad business to me. It IS FUD. Google doesn't track you. Your browser sends a referer header, which it has done since the dawn of time. Who cares? flagged. I think you're going to lose a lot of goodwill Gabriel.

epi0Bauqu 16y ago
This is my last post on the subject. I felt that my position was being read unfairly, and I wanted to set the record straight. I apologize if it did not come off that way as it was clearly not the intention. I truly believe this is an unnecessary leaking of personal information. And I address the browser argument directly in the post, as well as the argument that no one cares.
- axod 16y ago
  Looking forward to some posts from you on improved UI, removal of infinite scroll, and improved search results :)
- joh6nn 16y ago
  Gabriel, there seems to be some confusion here in the thread about "breaking HTTP_REFERRER" or in some way changing the current referrer behavior, which was not how i understood your post. can you confirm quickly that you are proposing that search engines sanitize/anonymize referrer data, and not that they somehow change the referrer behavior?
  - epi0Bauqu 16y ago
    I guess it depends what you mean by "break." I meant what you just said, i.e. just drop the search terms.
blub 16y ago
The Google TOS clearly states that they have the right to analyze your content in order for them to provide ads. This includes Gmail, Docs and whatever else you may use. When it comes to search they save your search history for customized searches. Let me put it this way: they don't target those ads so precisely by not having any information on you. On the contrary, they have lots of info. How safe and how anonymous that info is, that's up for debate.
joh6nn 16y ago
"Google doesn't track you. Your browser sends a referer header..." that's missing the forest for the trees, i think. while it's true that the browser is what sends the referrer, Google has some say in 1) what the referrer is (ie, what url is sent as the referrer) 2) and what Google itself does with that information once they (Google) have received it. Google could have a stated policy of discarding or anonymizing referrer data. to my knowledge, they do not (i will gladly be corrected on this). they could also structure their results pages urls in such a way that the search terms are not sent as part of the referrer. for the record, i think that Gabriel has seriously messed up here. i think he's approached this issue in entirely the wrong way, that he is going to lose a lot of good will over it. however, that Gabriel has done something foolish does not detract from the technical merits of either his search engine, or his argument with regards to search leakage. either they're sound, or they're not. i don't use duckduckgo (yet?). but his argument with regards to search leakage seems to be sound, even if his ad campaign is not.
orangecat 16y ago
Google doesn't track you. I'm having a hard time coming up with a reasonable context in which this statement is true. I think you're going to lose a lot of goodwill Gabriel. FWIW, I switched my default search in Firefox to DDG last week, partially as a result of the recent "FUD". It's working well and I've already used it for queries that I would prefer Google didn't associate with my IP address. (I'm not logged in to any Google accounts in Firefox, but I am in Chrome, and I'd expect Google to be able to correlate them).

by axod 16y ago

epi0Bauqu 16y ago

This is my last post on the subject. I felt that my position was being read unfairly, and I wanted to set the record straight. I apologize if it did not come off that way as it was clearly not the intention. I truly believe this is an unnecessary leaking of personal information. And I address the browser argument directly in the post, as well as the argument that no one cares.

axod 16y ago
Looking forward to some posts from you on improved UI, removal of infinite scroll, and improved search results :)
joh6nn 16y ago
Gabriel, there seems to be some confusion here in the thread about "breaking HTTP_REFERRER" or in some way changing the current referrer behavior, which was not how i understood your post. can you confirm quickly that you are proposing that search engines sanitize/anonymize referrer data, and not that they somehow change the referrer behavior?
- epi0Bauqu 16y ago
  I guess it depends what you mean by "break." I meant what you just said, i.e. just drop the search terms.

blub 16y ago

The Google TOS clearly states that they have the right to analyze your content in order for them to provide ads. This includes Gmail, Docs and whatever else you may use. When it comes to search they save your search history for customized searches. Let me put it this way: they don't target those ads so precisely by not having any information on you. On the contrary, they have lots of info. How safe and how anonymous that info is, that's up for debate.

joh6nn 16y ago

"Google doesn't track you. Your browser sends a referer header..." that's missing the forest for the trees, i think. while it's true that the browser is what sends the referrer, Google has some say in 1) what the referrer is (ie, what url is sent as the referrer) 2) and what Google itself does with that information once they (Google) have received it. Google could have a stated policy of discarding or anonymizing referrer data. to my knowledge, they do not (i will gladly be corrected on this). they could also structure their results pages urls in such a way that the search terms are not sent as part of the referrer. for the record, i think that Gabriel has seriously messed up here. i think he's approached this issue in entirely the wrong way, that he is going to lose a lot of good will over it. however, that Gabriel has done something foolish does not detract from the technical merits of either his search engine, or his argument with regards to search leakage. either they're sound, or they're not. i don't use duckduckgo (yet?). but his argument with regards to search leakage seems to be sound, even if his ad campaign is not.

orangecat 16y ago

Google doesn't track you. I'm having a hard time coming up with a reasonable context in which this statement is true. I think you're going to lose a lot of goodwill Gabriel. FWIW, I switched my default search in Firefox to DDG last week, partially as a result of the recent "FUD". It's working well and I've already used it for queries that I would prefer Google didn't associate with my IP address. (I'm not logged in to any Google accounts in Firefox, but I am in Chrome, and I'd expect Google to be able to correlate them).