5 ms·

People are freaking out -> Marketers are freaking out. Ended a bunch of free data -> Increased users' privacy. Seems like a win to me.

vdaniuk 13y ago
Yeah, marketing is bad right? Google is evil unless it takes something from marketers, then its good. The fact that startups use the same data, who cares? Actually, I think it will fuel some interesting innovation on traffic sources attribution, but I just can't comprehend this hate for "marketers".
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
dmix 13y ago
My side business depends on SEO, but I also care enough about privacy to use DuckDuckGo (which also doesn't share keyword data), so I'm ok with the decision overall. Webmaster tools is pretty sufficient. Privacy has trade-offs. Marketers/data miners will have to adapt to it if their customers demand it.
- ams6110 13y ago
  I almost never click on links, I retype them or copy/paste them into the search bar. You really have no idea where you're about to go or what extra data will be tacked on otherwise. Edit: sorry this is unclear; I am talking about search engine result links. Of course within a site or app I do click links though even then I often glance at the status line to see what's about to happen.
  - mfincham 13y ago
    What kinds of websites are doing this now? That seems like a really grotty thing to do to your readers.
  - vdaniuk 13y ago
    What? How is that possible without JavaScript? And javascript is trivial to switch off or control.Copying and pasting links. That's nearly as hardcore as browsing websites Stallman way.
    - lukifer 13y ago
      I don't get how copy-paste is more onerous than crippling one's browser. I C/P links all the time too, to prevent click-jacking, and to know what site I'm hitting, and what type of content I'm likely to expect.
    - ams6110 13y ago
      I clarified above, I'm mostly talking about search engine result links. Yeah with most javascript-heavy sites, doing this everywhere is impractical.
chc 13y ago
Yeah, I hate those dirty marketers who wrote the HTTP spec. I'm sure glad Google is thwarting the evil IETF's schemes. Let's be real here: the biggest marketing company in the world still has all this data and way more. They are simply forcing site owners to pay to get at it now.
- vdaniuk 13y ago
  Yep, while I have objections to most Google criticisms, I totally agree that killing off search referrers is bonkers. I guess there will be some starttyups springing up that will try to correlate your search rankings and page visits, creating fuzzy but actionable stats concerning an search keywords.
AJ007 13y ago
How are people finding your web site? Who knows. Just because you own a web site doesn't make you a marketer or even looking to turn a profit. Google is going dark because they are scraping web sites and keeping their visitors on google.com. Take a look at Google Images today verse a year ago. You can also see glimpses on certain mobile searches related to wikipedia keywords where they outright scrape the page, and the information boxes they show on the right hand column for certain terms on desktop. Good business? Most likely.
- DougWebb 13y ago
  How are people finding your web site? Who knows. Just because you own a web site doesn't make you a marketer or even looking to turn a profit. Owning a web site also doesn't give you any right to know how people are finding your site without you having to ask them to volunteer the information. That's what businesses in the real world do: they ask you, and you choose to tell them or not.
  - vdaniuk 13y ago
    The right to know is codified in the HTTP spec.
    - DougWebb 13y ago
      The referrer header has always been optional, and nothing governs the specifics of its contents beyond the host and page. Google never had to provide anything beyond "Google search results page" as the referrer, and probably never should have. After all, the search page is a form, and form submissions generally use POST rather than GET. Both are valid, but if Google used POST then the search terms would never have been part of the url for the results page, and never would have been passed on in the referrer urls.
  - nemothekid 13y ago
    I think comparing it to real world business is disingenuous. When a customer walks into a store there is a whole wealth of information that you can get without asking the customer that would cause an uproar if made visible online.
x0x0 13y ago
perhaps, if you are so concerned about privacy, you shouldn't be using the site period; are you now going to claim that the site owner has no right to see how people use their website? but oh! google is happy to sell that data

vdaniuk 13y ago

Yeah, marketing is bad right? Google is evil unless it takes something from marketers, then its good. The fact that startups use the same data, who cares? Actually, I think it will fuel some interesting innovation on traffic sources attribution, but I just can't comprehend this hate for "marketers".

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

dmix 13y ago

My side business depends on SEO, but I also care enough about privacy to use DuckDuckGo (which also doesn't share keyword data), so I'm ok with the decision overall. Webmaster tools is pretty sufficient. Privacy has trade-offs. Marketers/data miners will have to adapt to it if their customers demand it.

ams6110 13y ago
I almost never click on links, I retype them or copy/paste them into the search bar. You really have no idea where you're about to go or what extra data will be tacked on otherwise. Edit: sorry this is unclear; I am talking about search engine result links. Of course within a site or app I do click links though even then I often glance at the status line to see what's about to happen.
- mfincham 13y ago
  What kinds of websites are doing this now? That seems like a really grotty thing to do to your readers.
- vdaniuk 13y ago
  What? How is that possible without JavaScript? And javascript is trivial to switch off or control.Copying and pasting links. That's nearly as hardcore as browsing websites Stallman way.
  - lukifer 13y ago
    I don't get how copy-paste is more onerous than crippling one's browser. I C/P links all the time too, to prevent click-jacking, and to know what site I'm hitting, and what type of content I'm likely to expect.
  - ams6110 13y ago
    I clarified above, I'm mostly talking about search engine result links. Yeah with most javascript-heavy sites, doing this everywhere is impractical.

chc 13y ago

Yeah, I hate those dirty marketers who wrote the HTTP spec. I'm sure glad Google is thwarting the evil IETF's schemes. Let's be real here: the biggest marketing company in the world still has all this data and way more. They are simply forcing site owners to pay to get at it now.

vdaniuk 13y ago
Yep, while I have objections to most Google criticisms, I totally agree that killing off search referrers is bonkers. I guess there will be some starttyups springing up that will try to correlate your search rankings and page visits, creating fuzzy but actionable stats concerning an search keywords.

AJ007 13y ago

How are people finding your web site? Who knows. Just because you own a web site doesn't make you a marketer or even looking to turn a profit. Google is going dark because they are scraping web sites and keeping their visitors on google.com. Take a look at Google Images today verse a year ago. You can also see glimpses on certain mobile searches related to wikipedia keywords where they outright scrape the page, and the information boxes they show on the right hand column for certain terms on desktop. Good business? Most likely.

DougWebb 13y ago
How are people finding your web site? Who knows. Just because you own a web site doesn't make you a marketer or even looking to turn a profit. Owning a web site also doesn't give you any right to know how people are finding your site without you having to ask them to volunteer the information. That's what businesses in the real world do: they ask you, and you choose to tell them or not.
- vdaniuk 13y ago
  The right to know is codified in the HTTP spec.
  - DougWebb 13y ago
    The referrer header has always been optional, and nothing governs the specifics of its contents beyond the host and page. Google never had to provide anything beyond "Google search results page" as the referrer, and probably never should have. After all, the search page is a form, and form submissions generally use POST rather than GET. Both are valid, but if Google used POST then the search terms would never have been part of the url for the results page, and never would have been passed on in the referrer urls.
- nemothekid 13y ago
  I think comparing it to real world business is disingenuous. When a customer walks into a store there is a whole wealth of information that you can get without asking the customer that would cause an uproar if made visible online.

x0x0 13y ago

perhaps, if you are so concerned about privacy, you shouldn't be using the site period; are you now going to claim that the site owner has no right to see how people use their website? but oh! google is happy to sell that data