http://www.google.com/googleblog/2005/0 ... refox.html

What a *really* bad idea!

They admit that that it will screw up people's site logs by adding hits that didn't exist. They admit that it will add a cookie to the user's computer if the #1 page plants one, and the only thing that a user can do is delete ALL cookies - or go searching for those that.....well, that's just too silly to continue the sentence. And they admit that it will cause another page to be stored in the computer's cache - again deleting ALL cached pages is the way to get rid of them.

That last one isn't so bad, but what happens if the page does things like add bookmarks, change the home page, etc. I don't think they will occur as long as the page doesn't get displayed - will they?

To my way of thinking, interfering with the log files is the worst effect. What the hell do they think they are doing by taking some control of people's machines and websites like that?

What with autolink and now this, I'm sorely tempted to type in a load of expletives at this point (they'd be twinkled out). But what the hell - I am getting angry with that bloody company! Too much damned interference with other people's sites from them.

While, I agree that the potential for abuse (especially regarding the logs) is high, I've only been able to find this implemented for mega authority sites. For example, large universities, and corporations etc. I have yet to run across an example where google is pre-loading a site that might even care about the potential false hits on the logs. Have you found any examples of everyday sites that are turning up preloaded?

I haven't seen it at all. I only read about it an hour ago. But even if it only applies to big sites (for now), they still want statistics from their logs.

Google says:-


They don't suggest that the size or type of site makes any difference. And I'm sure that, the better they get at doing it, the more sites it will affect. How can they determine whether or not the #1 site is likely to be clicked on? Presumably by tracking clicks, which they do. So the more your #1 rankings get clicked on, the more your site's statistics get screwed up.

hmmm sounds like a more sinister motive to me....

think about it...

how do you get more widespread adoption of a browser that is competing with your now chief competitor?
by giving it an advantage.

I bet MSN doesn't like this one bit...because with more firefox users, the more google users...cause firefox is automatically set to google as the homepage after installtion (quite similar to it's chief competitor eh?)

I agree with you though.

Definately FUBAR!

I just tested it to...

yep.

It's now certain.

MSN is now staying my homepage.

(I rank better anyways on it)

...

but i do LOVE LOVE LOVE firefox though.

It just kicks so much booty crack what with all the extension for it.

Phil,

I just found this
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum39/3227-3-30.htm
Some server side soulutions to ban, redirect, or add referer info to logs

Hands down, worst idea ever.

"Do no evil"? Right.

The more your #1 rankings get clicked on, the more you should be smiling and congratulating yourself. I personally have no problem with this idea but at the same time I don't think they NEED to implement a feature like this. I just think that it won't really help the everyday user to get a smoother ride online.

The fix may work for some people, but why the hell should *every* website need to implement fixes to prevent bloody Google from interfering with them? I wrote this in an SEW thread:-

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some people have voiced concerns that Google wants to control/take over the Web. Until now, I have written that particular idea off as being rather far-fetched. But, for me, this latest innovation is a step too far.

They may or may not want to control the Web, but this latest interference with websites (log files), together with the recent AutoLink interference with webpages, shows that they have no regard whatsoever for other people's property and sites, and that they consider the entire web is there for them to do whatever they want with. They have no qualms about it, and I would say that they have no scruples either.

They don't give a damn that website owners rely on statistics from the logfiles - it's not like they don't know, and they don't give a damn that most of us want our webpages to display as we designed them and not as Google thinks they should be displayed. In fact they don't give a damn about anyone else's property. They ride roughshod over it all, and treat it as their playground.

With their cache system, which acquires images from the cached website, they have stolen from the pockets of website owners from the beginning (cost of the bandwidth for those images). They don't care.

They have managed to get one or more programmes running in millions of our computers (toolbar, desktop search), and today I read in this forum that one of their employees works full-time on the Firefox browser, which they are busy promoting, of course. More ways to interfere with the rest of the world coming from that direction?

Frankly, it's all beginning to look quite sinister and alarming to me. They are busy pushing their programmes into our machines, and at the same time, they show that they are willing to do whatever they like with whatever they want, and without giving a second thought for the rights of anyone else.

Isn't it time for the web community to undo what we did some years ago? We were the ones who made Google popular, by spreading the word. Isn't it time to try and stop them? Heck, AutoLink on its own should inspire us all to do everything we can to stop them. The web community told them of our concerns about it - we even suggested a way to make us happy without them ditching it, and it didn't change a damn thing. This new logfile interference should inspire us even more. We should not let these things go by or they will just keep abusing the web, and us, more and more.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It hadn't crossed my mind at the time, but this is another way that website owners are going to pay real money for Google's nastiness. Every time that a page is prefetched, it costs bandwidth, and that often costs real money - somebody else's money!

Imagine Firefox being widely used, and a page ranking at #1 for even a moderately popular searchterm. *Every* time somebody searches on it, the page is downloaded from the website - at the website's expense.

As you said, it won't matter a fig for users. But I don't agree that anyone should be pleased about it. If the ranking gets clicked on - yes. But this isn't about it getting clicked on - it's about *not* getting clicked on.

Presumably this also applies to users, and with the increasing number of metered accounts its not doing them any favours either.

Have you read the newest google patent that was just released?

It states their new algo could be reading cookies and other data such as favorites etc to rank sites in some degree, etc.

Scary stuff for a company that states they want to "Do no evil".

I also notice I use the G SE less and less. To me it seems they have to much developers that all want to get their little idea into practice or something like that. They'd better focus more on click-fraud prevention and regional search.

I take it back, this idea sucks

I am still young in the game, but if the big G is doing things like this why don't we work either one of the other two? We could get organized and start a negative pr campaign beyond the forum? We could do like google and start a search engine. What can we organize that would push them back? This fourm only gets looked at by specific people. The world isn't aware of what is going on.

I think they have gotten to big. It would be hard for anyone to bring them down and because of the amount of traffic everyone gets from them no one really wants to mess with them.

yeah. I think it's only something MSN or Yahoo could take on.

Imagine this ad...

Use our search engine/toolbar.

You'll get what you are looking for...
d
and WE won't invade your privacy.

(insert patent here)

It also would not surprise me if the privacy people got in on this if it was discovered google was doing this.

Great commentary Phil, What do you propose?

Wrong wrong wrong (the G - not you lot ). They're doing my head in more and more and they DO think they own the web. They know they're good at what they do and they've just got really big headed about it. After all, what can we do exactly? They'll piss off webmasters and cost them money all they want, it'll bring them more visitors and keep them happier and that makes them money. If your site was preloaded then is could have a positive impact on you too, with less visitors on slow connections pressing the back button. Overall though, not good. Whether good or bad though, it's certainly NOT their decision to make in the first place!

Let's hope it's a step closer to a Google free web, our job would be sooooo much easier

>> how do you get more widespread adoption of a browser that is competing with your now chief competitor?

I was thinking about that one too, which is why I'm surprised that G has provided only IE with the official keys to the PR db, and not good ole FireFox.

Sup with that, eh?

if you're referring to the toolbar pr...firefox has an official extension that makes it show in the bottom right corner....

and I likee

Is there any way we could approac Yahoo or Google to embrace SEO's with a committment of some support from us? Our customers depend on us to make good decisions for them. If we are having a hard time with an advertiser (which is what SE's are) then we should have some kind of power to take our (their) customers somewhere else.

I liked Phil's aticle http://www.webworkshop.net/google_embrace_seo.html.

We would still continue SEO our sites for G but without the emphasis on them. If we can concentrate our link power to a few good sites why couldn't we do the same thing with our general advertisers? I would be willing to promote one SE over another as long as it helps us keep the entire field level and fair.

The people in the rest of the forums are dead against it too. Google knows all about the web community's objections of it - but it won't make a scrap of difference. We can't start another engine, and besides, there are other suitable engines already. But people can recommend the other engines wherever they can - just like we did with Google to make them popular.

And everyone can start using MSN, Yahoo or Geeks On Steroids, instead of Google to do their searches.

I've heard of MSN and Geeks On Steroids, but who the heck is Yahoo? What kind of silly name is that???

I don't think privacy is a show-stopper for most users unless it become malicious but even then they don't know where it came from or who to be angry with.

The average user won't be concerned with the ethics/privacy issues that this latest google idea brings up

And *that's* the biggest problem with both AutoFink and preloading. Users will like both of them. They don't know the theft that's involved - and it is theft and how websites are being affected.

Correction - they may not like the cookie and site visiting that's been done by them without their knowledge. They should dislike that a lot.

Maybe the average user won't mind the cookies and site visiting, but there are plenty of people for whom it could be a real problem - people in offices where they check on their employees and find that they've visited sites that they shouldn't have visited, for instance.