If you use Google+, you could become an ad next month(engadget.com)
engadget.com
If you use Google+, you could become an ad next month
http://www.engadget.com/2013/10/11/google-users-shared-endorsements-ads/
149 コメント
Nowhere do the ToS limit this to "public reviews." The ToS say that ads may display "your Profile name, Profile photo, and actions you take on Google or on third-party applications connected to your Google Account."
"Actions you take on Google" is incredibly broad, and could be construed to include your email activity, web searches, Google Checkout purchases, etc. This is what concerns me: I can't say for certain which of my actions may show up in ads. They claim that I can control these, but I can't find a way to disable them without making a Google+ account.
http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/update/
"Actions you take on Google" is incredibly broad, and could be construed to include your email activity, web searches, Google Checkout purchases, etc. This is what concerns me: I can't say for certain which of my actions may show up in ads. They claim that I can control these, but I can't find a way to disable them without making a Google+ account.
http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/update/
"Actions you take on Google" is indeed frighteningly broad. But although I'm not a legal expert, I think that the sentence you quoted has to be interpreted in a different way when you consider the entire paragraph, which limits the scope of that sentence.
"If you have a Google Account, we may display your Profile name, Profile photo, and actions you take on Google or on third-party applications connected to your Google Account (such as +1’s, reviews you write and comments you post) in our Services, including displaying in ads and other commercial contexts. We will respect the choices you make to limit sharing or visibility settings in your Google Account."
I interpret that last sentence as "only things that are publicly shared by you are subject to being displayed". I assume that means that email, privately shared G+ posts, web searches, etc. are safe from becoming public. Although I agree it's very vague.
"If you have a Google Account, we may display your Profile name, Profile photo, and actions you take on Google or on third-party applications connected to your Google Account (such as +1’s, reviews you write and comments you post) in our Services, including displaying in ads and other commercial contexts. We will respect the choices you make to limit sharing or visibility settings in your Google Account."
I interpret that last sentence as "only things that are publicly shared by you are subject to being displayed". I assume that means that email, privately shared G+ posts, web searches, etc. are safe from becoming public. Although I agree it's very vague.
Context matters. If I say something about a product in a comment or review, it will usually be seen as my honest opinion. However, if the same statement appears in a paid advert, it may appear as if I was endorsing the product for personal gain.
In other words, the whiff of dishonesty that adverts always have may rub off on me.
In other words, the whiff of dishonesty that adverts always have may rub off on me.
No. I'm upset if it's not shown. I write 1 star reviews as well. There appears to be no commitment to show reviews fairly instead of selling 5 star reviews to the higher bidder. Compare and contrast with the care for fairness in the core search functionality.
I like Amazon's best rated 5 and 1 star review comparison. I don't mind when one of my ratings comes up at the top either. The most truth lies always in the honest "bad rating" reviews (well, almost always) that others found useful. I really hope that Google does not just please their advertising customers and only show praising reviews but also the critical ones too. Let's wait and see if it's awesome.
When you can only +1 or like something, then the bad reviews do not exist. Advertisers win.
I'm not sure that's true, but that's not what this is about. When I search for something I want to know which places my friends have +1'd. I want the best, not the worst. I don't think Google is taking away the ability for you to see the bad reviews if you go click on badly reviewed local/search place.
But that's not what this is, it's reviews from Google+ Local.
I don't mind my image used in search results. That's not what you opt out of (you've no control over that, actually). The screenshots on the page are deceptive. https://plus.google.com/settings/endorsements?hl=en The third screenshot, of the avatar icon on top of a shaded background marked "Ad" is what you can opt out of, and what everyone's concerned about.
I opted out. For me, it's not privacy. I opted out because I didn't want my face taking up more real estate on an ad and pushing result #1 further down the page. I don't like seeing ads, and I don't want to be seen in them either -- unless you're paying me, perhaps.
I opted out. For me, it's not privacy. I opted out because I didn't want my face taking up more real estate on an ad and pushing result #1 further down the page. I don't like seeing ads, and I don't want to be seen in them either -- unless you're paying me, perhaps.
Exactly. Reviews do more good. Than harm.
- Reviews have helped me a lot in choosing better products and services thus saving time. I always search for reviews in Amazon, Flipkart and in Google before I make a buying decision.
- And a Social graph on top of reviews = win. Social reviews means, better buying decisions.
Social reviews will only help Internet community move forward!
- Lets not forget that — Google has the most Credible accounts(read-as verified) so this keeps reviews - real, unbiased and the data credible.
But, they should make sure that - they show updated reviews, not stale ones!
A Product review might remain the same(phone review), but a Service review(restaurant) might change over-time.
Finally, I wish good products and services for myself. And with social reviews, we are only helping each-other in a better and safer Internet experience.
- Reviews have helped me a lot in choosing better products and services thus saving time. I always search for reviews in Amazon, Flipkart and in Google before I make a buying decision.
- And a Social graph on top of reviews = win. Social reviews means, better buying decisions.
Social reviews will only help Internet community move forward!
- Lets not forget that — Google has the most Credible accounts(read-as verified) so this keeps reviews - real, unbiased and the data credible.
But, they should make sure that - they show updated reviews, not stale ones!
A Product review might remain the same(phone review), but a Service review(restaurant) might change over-time.
Finally, I wish good products and services for myself. And with social reviews, we are only helping each-other in a better and safer Internet experience.
Right. Also I am just happy the brightest tech minds in the world occupy themselves with this kind of BS.
Critics don't write reviews to be used for promotion. More experienced reviewers try to construct their articles in such a way that they are difficult to quote.
I am not really a fan of this (though it seems like not that different than what the review was meant for in the first place (unlike, say, construing a like on facebook as an endorsement of that thing), but complete lack of interest in associating myself with reviews of a company or product is why I don't write reviews with my G+ account in the first place), but I am a fan of publishing a diff of Terms of Service changes, especially with a nice plain-English summary at the top.
Of course, without this coverage, I don't know how the vast majority of people would have come across this page[1]. I don't appear to have been notified in my gmail account. To be fair, though, I've grown to hate the near constant ToS change emails I get from paypal, so there's some balance to be struck there too).
edit: actually, I take back my last point. I get a big blue bar on top of google.com notifying me of the change, and it's not even a "click here to see a ToS change" that I would never be interested in enough to click on, it's "Our new Terms of Service update how we display your information in content & ads." with a "Learn more" link. Still wouldn't want to be involved with the feature, but good for them for handling it like that.
[1] http://www.google.com/policies/terms/changes/
Of course, without this coverage, I don't know how the vast majority of people would have come across this page[1]. I don't appear to have been notified in my gmail account. To be fair, though, I've grown to hate the near constant ToS change emails I get from paypal, so there's some balance to be struck there too).
edit: actually, I take back my last point. I get a big blue bar on top of google.com notifying me of the change, and it's not even a "click here to see a ToS change" that I would never be interested in enough to click on, it's "Our new Terms of Service update how we display your information in content & ads." with a "Learn more" link. Still wouldn't want to be involved with the feature, but good for them for handling it like that.
[1] http://www.google.com/policies/terms/changes/
I just received a notification of that page in my G+ Notifications, so I think all G+ users will see it.
It's also being pushed to Google.com as a banner, if I understand correctly.
DISCLAIMER: I'm a Google employee, but I am not involved with any of these products.
It's also being pushed to Google.com as a banner, if I understand correctly.
DISCLAIMER: I'm a Google employee, but I am not involved with any of these products.
Am I the only one that sees the comedic potential in this?
Rate something 5/5. For example for a review of a restauraunt say "5/5. Sure beats eating rats infected with syphilis." or "4/5. Tastes like leprosy! Smells like porn locker!"
And I'm just being very bad here: http://www.amazon.com/Avoid-Huge-Ships-John-Trimmer/dp/08703...
Rate something 5/5. For example for a review of a restauraunt say "5/5. Sure beats eating rats infected with syphilis." or "4/5. Tastes like leprosy! Smells like porn locker!"
And I'm just being very bad here: http://www.amazon.com/Avoid-Huge-Ships-John-Trimmer/dp/08703...
This is exactly what I thought. How are they going to be sure that the review is actually honest and relevant. What if I say something contradictory in the review? Or post irrelevant stuff in it?
The only way they could avoid such face-palms would be to do some sort of natural language analysis. Or have humans curate and cherry-pick the reviews. The latter one would be worrying indeed.
People are already ruffled up about their emails being scanned automatically. If their G+ posts are going to be scanned and cherry-picked by humans, it's even more unsettling.
The only way they could avoid such face-palms would be to do some sort of natural language analysis. Or have humans curate and cherry-pick the reviews. The latter one would be worrying indeed.
People are already ruffled up about their emails being scanned automatically. If their G+ posts are going to be scanned and cherry-picked by humans, it's even more unsettling.
Emails are expected to be private. Publicly shared posts in a social network are expected to be public, so I would not be concerned that someone is reading them.
But they are not just doing this for publicly shared posts. Even posts which are shared privately will appear besides the ad when a person whom you have shared the post with is viewing the ad.
That by itself is not a problem. However, to curate the post, somebody from Google would have to read it. Else, they have really good natural language processors.
That by itself is not a problem. However, to curate the post, somebody from Google would have to read it. Else, they have really good natural language processors.
People are slowly leaving Facebook as they seek out more privacy control. Obviously Facebook still dominates the world of social networks, but there's a lot of friction involved in this aspect of it.
So what does Google decide to do? They decide to follow in the footsteps of Facebook and replicate all the same privacy problems, so not only are people going to leave G+ due to changes like this, but people aren't even going to be compelled to sign up unless more or less forced to do so.
This is not innovation. It's repeating the mistakes of others in exchange for a quick short-term profit.
So what does Google decide to do? They decide to follow in the footsteps of Facebook and replicate all the same privacy problems, so not only are people going to leave G+ due to changes like this, but people aren't even going to be compelled to sign up unless more or less forced to do so.
This is not innovation. It's repeating the mistakes of others in exchange for a quick short-term profit.
"It's repeating the mistakes of others in exchange for a quick short-term profit."
That's basically the definition of modern business.
That's basically the definition of modern business.
Google started out by doing the opposite: looking at other search engines, seeing specifically where they fell short, and then correcting those faults.
I don't think Google is evil for what they're doing with Google+. I think they're uninspired. They're not doing anything new, just repeating what others have done hoping to jump onto a bandwagon. Some minor Google+ tricks, like circles, are nice, but they don't address any of the reasons why someone might actually leave Facebook.
This practice has often proven to make a quick buck, but has rarely proven to be sustainable.
I don't think Google is evil for what they're doing with Google+. I think they're uninspired. They're not doing anything new, just repeating what others have done hoping to jump onto a bandwagon. Some minor Google+ tricks, like circles, are nice, but they don't address any of the reasons why someone might actually leave Facebook.
This practice has often proven to make a quick buck, but has rarely proven to be sustainable.
> People are slowly leaving Facebook as they seek out more privacy control.
No they aren't. This is just baseless nonsense.
No they aren't. This is just baseless nonsense.
You probably read far too much into my statement and ignored the one following it as well. You probably also ignored the word "slowly."
There was nothing sensationalist about what I wrote. People generally don't leave Facebook, but when they do, privacy concerns are one of the frequently voiced reasons.
There was nothing sensationalist about what I wrote. People generally don't leave Facebook, but when they do, privacy concerns are one of the frequently voiced reasons.
Can I easily delete my Google+ account w/o hampering my Gmail/calendar/etc? I made it once but I see only drawbacks in having it.
I'm already fed up with the repeated requests to merge my Youtube 'channel' (wtf? I don't have or want a channel, I've made <10 comments on youtube and that's it) with my Google+ pic/name, and I definitely don't ever want to do that - but there's a risk that at some time I'll accidentally misclick one of their prompts.
[edit] For example, I'm worried about their warning on Google+ deletion page 'You won't be able to use the "Sign in with Google" button to log in to third-party apps.', since I have used google-signin in some apps (IIRC that was even before google+ was a thing), and that would mean these apps becoming inaccessible.
I'm already fed up with the repeated requests to merge my Youtube 'channel' (wtf? I don't have or want a channel, I've made <10 comments on youtube and that's it) with my Google+ pic/name, and I definitely don't ever want to do that - but there's a risk that at some time I'll accidentally misclick one of their prompts.
[edit] For example, I'm worried about their warning on Google+ deletion page 'You won't be able to use the "Sign in with Google" button to log in to third-party apps.', since I have used google-signin in some apps (IIRC that was even before google+ was a thing), and that would mean these apps becoming inaccessible.
This a million times. I feel like I've been trying desperately hard to NOT let me youtube account 'merge' with a new 'channel' or with my main Google account. NO. NO. NO. I don't want to use my real name. I don't want a google+ account for my youtube name. I don't even want a channel. I just want to watch videos, and maybe [pseudo-]anonymously comment once in a blue moon. Am I really a minority user?
I've deleted my G+ account without it affecting anything that I've noticed, but it may vary based on what Google things you use. I still use Gmail, certainly, and deleting G+ didn't affect that.
I agree with you that the increasing G+ integration into YouTube has been pretty annoying. I also gave up a while ago on writing anonymous reviews on Google without having to create a fake account (not saying it's not possible, but I couldn't figure it out and just gave up).
Can someone tell me if it's possible to nuke a Google+ account and still keep all of the data in the other services, such as Picasa (now named Google Photos), Docs, Gmail etc? I really want to delete my G+ account, but I'm concerned it will inadvertently nuke something else I'm counting on.
Go to https://www.google.com/settings/account and follow "Delete profile and remove related Google+ features."
It will also delete your connected YouTube channel unless you disconnect it first and later re-enable it.
It will also delete your connected YouTube channel unless you disconnect it first and later re-enable it.
I attempted to understand what exactly this change means, but I could not. I then attempted to opt out, but I could not; I don't know if that means I am opted out or not. As a result I mistrust this change.
I saw the banner on the top of the Search page, linking to the new ToS. Here is what it says:
your friends, family and others may see your Profile name and photo, and content like the reviews you share or the ads you +1’d. This only happens when you take an action (things like +1’ing, commenting or following) – and the only people who see it are the people you’ve chosen to share that content with.
I don't understand what this means. A possible reading is that if I comment in a blog, Google might take a snippet from my comment, associate it with the profile picture it chose for me (which is a nonsense screencap from a YouTube video I uploaded five years ago), and then show it to people it has determined to be my friends, perhaps in the way that Google Buzz determined that my Realtor was my friend.
I don't know which pages this applies to: all of the Internet, Google properties, or Google+ pages only. Even if it's Google+, I fear that services like Blogger will get assimilated into Google+, and then my comments there will become fair game. I also don't know what "take an action" means. I fear that "take an action" includes "send an email" and that content from my messages will be showing up in the recipients' ads.
I want to opt-out. I clicked on the "Shared Endorsement Settings", but instead of giving me a way to opt out, I am encouraged to "Join Google+" in which my real name will be used "across all Google products." I don't understand if this means I am already opted out because I don't have a Google+ account, or if I need to make such an account to opt-out. I am reminded of the noxious YouTube popup, where in order to watch that cat video I have to convince Google to not use my real name, in whatever unspecified way.
Google's properties make me feel like I am Indiana Jones in the Name of God trap. I am forever one misclick away from irrevocably exposing my personal information.
I saw the banner on the top of the Search page, linking to the new ToS. Here is what it says:
your friends, family and others may see your Profile name and photo, and content like the reviews you share or the ads you +1’d. This only happens when you take an action (things like +1’ing, commenting or following) – and the only people who see it are the people you’ve chosen to share that content with.
I don't understand what this means. A possible reading is that if I comment in a blog, Google might take a snippet from my comment, associate it with the profile picture it chose for me (which is a nonsense screencap from a YouTube video I uploaded five years ago), and then show it to people it has determined to be my friends, perhaps in the way that Google Buzz determined that my Realtor was my friend.
I don't know which pages this applies to: all of the Internet, Google properties, or Google+ pages only. Even if it's Google+, I fear that services like Blogger will get assimilated into Google+, and then my comments there will become fair game. I also don't know what "take an action" means. I fear that "take an action" includes "send an email" and that content from my messages will be showing up in the recipients' ads.
I want to opt-out. I clicked on the "Shared Endorsement Settings", but instead of giving me a way to opt out, I am encouraged to "Join Google+" in which my real name will be used "across all Google products." I don't understand if this means I am already opted out because I don't have a Google+ account, or if I need to make such an account to opt-out. I am reminded of the noxious YouTube popup, where in order to watch that cat video I have to convince Google to not use my real name, in whatever unspecified way.
Google's properties make me feel like I am Indiana Jones in the Name of God trap. I am forever one misclick away from irrevocably exposing my personal information.
It would be fun to mess with Google's algoritms -- +1 this product is amazing -- the rats in my apartment are now twice as big, considerably more numerous, and openly aggressive.
I've always been the biggest Google fanboy but I've had it with their creep towards maximum value extraction while pruning useful services that don't support the stock price. Consider my opting out a tiny protest.
Headline should read "If you use Google+", yes? No other Google services are affected that I understand. Frankly, at this point if you use Google+ you deserve what you get.
The concern, at least for me, is not that a "public" review being used in a "public" way, it's that these businesses are now paying Google for my review and I get no cut. When I wrote this review I didn't write it to help this business out, per se, I wrote it because I wanted to help potential consumers decide where to do business based on my experiences.
Why did you put public in quotes?
Emphasis. A good number of those defending Google are saying they can do whatever they want with your reviews because they are public.
This will give everyone a useful tool to grief companies for using google ads. Just pick a obscene picture, and write obscene "review" for that product (maybe even rate it 5 stars to encourage google to use your review), and instant have the world see your profanity associated with that brand.
Can't possible see how this couldn't backfire for google.
Can't possible see how this couldn't backfire for google.
The truth is the link to profile may only appear if you've written A PUBLICLY VISIBLE REVIEW of the business. If the author of this shitty article bothered even a little with some research, he'd find it out. But the truth doesn't make for a loud linkbaity title.
You have to opt in, in order for Google to start using your name. If you do not want this to happen, you are all set. (That is, unless prior settings i had in google pre-selected the option to not let Google use my name in their ads)
https://plus.google.com/settings/endorsements?hl=en visit here and disable it simple !
So, the expectation when you write a positive review on a Google service is that the review will not be displayed as an endorsement of the product?
Isn't that the entire point of writing the review?
Isn't that the entire point of writing the review?
I write reviews because I want other people to read my opinions.
Front page placement on google seems like a great deal to me!
Can imagine many people wiull get overly creative with there profile pictures.
But in fairness the choice is by default disabled so you would have to enable it - as it stands today.
But in fairness the choice is by default disabled so you would have to enable it - as it stands today.
I had a Google+ account but then I deleted it. Now that link to opt out of the face endorsement is telling me I have to setup a G+ account to be able to set it.
Why, your friend John Doe searched for [jock itch] just last week! And he bought Gold Bond(tm)!
The TOS says "Actions you take on Google". Heh.
The TOS says "Actions you take on Google". Heh.
I'd be fine with this as long as it was opt-in rather than opt-out.
Bad move, Google.
Bad move, Google.
Are we getting a cut of the ad revenue if we are endorsing it? ;)
This appears to be opt-in for Google Apps accounts.
can someone create a f*ckgoogle.com so that i can +1?
exaggerated title IMO
Opt out link for the lazy: https://plus.google.com/settings/endorsements
Looks like an opt-IN link for me... Does that mean I'm already opted out somehow?
Probably this?
https://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/changes/
> If you previously told Google that you did not want your +1’s to appear in ads, then of course we’ll continue to respect that choice as a part of this updated setting.
https://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/changes/
> If you previously told Google that you did not want your +1’s to appear in ads, then of course we’ll continue to respect that choice as a part of this updated setting.
Just make sure there is no check in the box.
I seem to have opted my whole domain (Google Apps) out somehow
> Based on your domain's current settings, your name and profile picture will not appear in shared endorsements paired with ads. If your domain administrator changes this in the future, your choice here will be honored.
https://plus.google.com/settings/endorsements?hl=en
though I don't know exactly how. Anybody knows which domain-wide setting is responsible?
> Based on your domain's current settings, your name and profile picture will not appear in shared endorsements paired with ads. If your domain administrator changes this in the future, your choice here will be honored.
https://plus.google.com/settings/endorsements?hl=en
though I don't know exactly how. Anybody knows which domain-wide setting is responsible?
My domain is also set like that and it is a fairly fresh google apps account, so it's probably the default.
Why would someone write a review for something but then not expect to have that review used by the business to further their sales?
It's generally not the review that's the problem, but tying it to a user's image and real name without their permission.
It's very much with their permission. They have even signed in just to be able to write the review with their real name and photo.
WTF? What review system, exactly, doesn't link to the reviewer's profile -- permission implied by posting? It's not even a generalism; it's a fact, full stop.
I seem to remember that some review system allowed the use of pseudonyms or anonymity. In fact, here is a random example from Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/AG48K5RA3M4FK/ref=cm_cr...
Who is Joe? I have no idea. I still find Amazon reviews useful though. I've long refused to rate or comment on apps in the google Play store because of their real name policy. I would do so anonymously though.
For me, it's simply that I don't feel comfortable with the world knowing so much personal information about me. What sorts of hobbies I have, restaurants I frequent, etc. It's really a massive privacy problem. So I no longer review products in Google's system.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/AG48K5RA3M4FK/ref=cm_cr...
Who is Joe? I have no idea. I still find Amazon reviews useful though. I've long refused to rate or comment on apps in the google Play store because of their real name policy. I would do so anonymously though.
For me, it's simply that I don't feel comfortable with the world knowing so much personal information about me. What sorts of hobbies I have, restaurants I frequent, etc. It's really a massive privacy problem. So I no longer review products in Google's system.
[deleted]
"My God! That review I posted publicly on G+, the one associated with my real name G+ profile, is visible on the Internet!"
If you write a review, then someone searches for that place on Google Maps, your review will come up on the place page--with your name and picture next to it, now less! It's... not really much different, except that this is being used in ~~ads~~.
If you write a review, then someone searches for that place on Google Maps, your review will come up on the place page--with your name and picture next to it, now less! It's... not really much different, except that this is being used in ~~ads~~.
Presumably, if you wrote that review on Google+, those would appear by the review anyway?
Disappointing.
Facebook's decision to use people in their ads, and also automatically subscribe people to spam from Facebook Pages, has already made clicking the Like button a 'heavy' action—meaning I have to think about it before doing it, and most likely won't click nowadays.
Google Plus is the same now. I used to consider handing out a quick +1 to any post I liked, or a cool site/service. But now, I have to think about whether I would be okay with my profile being associated with whatever that article/site/service is doing, and whatever they may do in the future.
I've already opted out, but I've now lost my trust that clicking +1 is a lightweight/safe action.
The only social button/action that seems safe anymore is the 'Tweet this' button... Hopefully Twitter doesn't screw that up.
Facebook's decision to use people in their ads, and also automatically subscribe people to spam from Facebook Pages, has already made clicking the Like button a 'heavy' action—meaning I have to think about it before doing it, and most likely won't click nowadays.
Google Plus is the same now. I used to consider handing out a quick +1 to any post I liked, or a cool site/service. But now, I have to think about whether I would be okay with my profile being associated with whatever that article/site/service is doing, and whatever they may do in the future.
I've already opted out, but I've now lost my trust that clicking +1 is a lightweight/safe action.
The only social button/action that seems safe anymore is the 'Tweet this' button... Hopefully Twitter doesn't screw that up.
It is worth noting here that endorsements are only shared to the circles that can see the original review.
For an endorsement to appear to a user in search, that user has to have access to your review in the first place. Data that was once private is not being leaked publicly.
For an endorsement to appear to a user in search, that user has to have access to your review in the first place. Data that was once private is not being leaked publicly.
>>made clicking the Like button a 'heavy' action—meaning I have to think about it before doing it.
I may be in the minority here, but I think that is a feature, not a bug. "Liking" something should be a heavy action that you think about. I remember when I started getting page-spam from weird pages I'd liked in the early days of Facebook and went back and cleaned up my likes, there were some things in there I didn't remember liking or ever want to like. Now, I really have to think about it, and it leads to my ads and page updates being much more relevant and interesting to me. Also, the Graph Search capabilities should also be encouraging people to think before they like.
As an online marketer, I like it too, because it means my audience is marginally more likely to truly be interested in the targeting I choose.
I may be in the minority here, but I think that is a feature, not a bug. "Liking" something should be a heavy action that you think about. I remember when I started getting page-spam from weird pages I'd liked in the early days of Facebook and went back and cleaned up my likes, there were some things in there I didn't remember liking or ever want to like. Now, I really have to think about it, and it leads to my ads and page updates being much more relevant and interesting to me. Also, the Graph Search capabilities should also be encouraging people to think before they like.
As an online marketer, I like it too, because it means my audience is marginally more likely to truly be interested in the targeting I choose.
At least on Facebook, there's no way to (for instance) list which bands and TV shows you like on your profile anymore without Liking their pages and all the potentially undesirable consequences that come with it. Facebook have systematically and intentionally replaced lighter-weight mechanisms with Likes.
Not to alarm you, but actually I think a company would be entitled to use your tweet in their ads (with or without involvement by twitter).
A tweet is meant for public consumption (if it's public), you mention their product...as long as they don't make it look like you're saying something you're not, saying that you said that seems to be just stating a fact (which is well covered by the first amendment), and as long as they've only taken a sentence or a fragment of a sentence, they should be well covered by fair use as far as copyright is concerned.
I'm having trouble finding case law on this, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
A tweet is meant for public consumption (if it's public), you mention their product...as long as they don't make it look like you're saying something you're not, saying that you said that seems to be just stating a fact (which is well covered by the first amendment), and as long as they've only taken a sentence or a fragment of a sentence, they should be well covered by fair use as far as copyright is concerned.
I'm having trouble finding case law on this, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
Twitter has made it known they do not want people using Tweets in ads without following their brand guidelines.
Do you have a link? It's hard to search for this stuff without just getting links about advertising on twitter.
Its quite trivial to follow their brand guidelines.
You just have to worry about other people with Twitter: http://mashable.com/2013/10/11/new-york-comic-con-promotiona...
This actually doesn't seem terrible to me: If I published a public review on a product, why should Google not auto-match this up to a search result?
That's the logical next step. It's what I'd expect from Google. I don't see anything privacy breaking about it of it's own...
As long as the review was public, ofcourse -- or only being shown to those it was published to.
That said, I just went ahead and opted-out of it because I don't know if it means what I think it means... and I don't want Google publishing things that I didn't say.
That's the logical next step. It's what I'd expect from Google. I don't see anything privacy breaking about it of it's own...
As long as the review was public, ofcourse -- or only being shown to those it was published to.
That said, I just went ahead and opted-out of it because I don't know if it means what I think it means... and I don't want Google publishing things that I didn't say.
I think the issue here is not much about privacy, but about your image being associated with a product without your prior consent(for each product), and for free.. when they do this, you become the product together with the thing you are endorsing..
To make this more clear, imagine you signup for a new cable television channel, and you watching it, suddenly your image shows up with a product in your hands, smiling, and saying: "This is the best product i ever used", and you realize that its being broadcasted to everybody watching it.. would you fell comfortable about that?
Once we settle down for this kind of things, and think its normal, we are contributing to a world where we are constantly sold as a product; and that my friend completely diminish the human nature.. its a slow and erosive dead of humanity (in the confucian sense of it)..
All values we give importance today as freedom, truth.. will lose more and more value, and the only thing valuable in society will be money..
I know it may look like a exacerbation, but this is a systemic process, going on from several front lines.. and that one is one of them..
This is not much about privacy implications (despite it has some too), but more in a ethical degree.. and the failure to detect it properly can have severe consequences to us all in the long term
To make this more clear, imagine you signup for a new cable television channel, and you watching it, suddenly your image shows up with a product in your hands, smiling, and saying: "This is the best product i ever used", and you realize that its being broadcasted to everybody watching it.. would you fell comfortable about that?
Once we settle down for this kind of things, and think its normal, we are contributing to a world where we are constantly sold as a product; and that my friend completely diminish the human nature.. its a slow and erosive dead of humanity (in the confucian sense of it)..
All values we give importance today as freedom, truth.. will lose more and more value, and the only thing valuable in society will be money..
I know it may look like a exacerbation, but this is a systemic process, going on from several front lines.. and that one is one of them..
This is not much about privacy implications (despite it has some too), but more in a ethical degree.. and the failure to detect it properly can have severe consequences to us all in the long term
As I said below, I've opted out (I was already opted out, actually, but I also don't write reviews with my name in the first place), but my only real problem with this is the +1s part of it.
I have no problem with quoting a review that you wrote with your name and face associated and putting your name and face next to it for your friends to see. For context, see the ads that appear at the top of yelp search results. They usually quote someone's review and have their profile picture next to it, which is fine, because all they're saying is "here's a good review someone gave of this place", and using a review that was intended for people to see publicly. The person didn't "become an ad", their review was just quoted in an ad with their public profile picture next to it.
I have more of a problem with the +1 thing, but it's theoretical right now, and will come down to how they actually execute it. It's the same problem as the ambiguity of the "like" endorsements on Facebook. A +1 on a restaurant is probably fine to show (in the same way as with reviews), as long as they say something like "magicalist +1-ed this restaurant!". If, however, I +1 a cool photo that Red Bull posted about Felix Baumgartner's skydive, for instance, and my friends start getting ads saying "magicalist +1-ed Red Bull!", then we're in false statement territory, since that is not at all what I meant.
+1s (and "likes") are inherently ambiguous (which aspect of the thing I'm +1-ing am I approving of? It's often not all aspects), so they really should tread carefully. The rest I don't really have a problem with.
I have no problem with quoting a review that you wrote with your name and face associated and putting your name and face next to it for your friends to see. For context, see the ads that appear at the top of yelp search results. They usually quote someone's review and have their profile picture next to it, which is fine, because all they're saying is "here's a good review someone gave of this place", and using a review that was intended for people to see publicly. The person didn't "become an ad", their review was just quoted in an ad with their public profile picture next to it.
I have more of a problem with the +1 thing, but it's theoretical right now, and will come down to how they actually execute it. It's the same problem as the ambiguity of the "like" endorsements on Facebook. A +1 on a restaurant is probably fine to show (in the same way as with reviews), as long as they say something like "magicalist +1-ed this restaurant!". If, however, I +1 a cool photo that Red Bull posted about Felix Baumgartner's skydive, for instance, and my friends start getting ads saying "magicalist +1-ed Red Bull!", then we're in false statement territory, since that is not at all what I meant.
+1s (and "likes") are inherently ambiguous (which aspect of the thing I'm +1-ing am I approving of? It's often not all aspects), so they really should tread carefully. The rest I don't really have a problem with.
Yeah this is the issue. If you click to "endorse" one thing and then all of a sudden that's generalised to a whole range of other stuff from the same brand, vendor, organisation etc. it can be very misleading. Also there are often incentives given for "likes" (eg. a competition) or you might "like" something as a favour to someone and then all of a sudden ads show up saying how much you like the ANZ bank which makes you look like a bit of a spazz.
This said, you can't opt out of being featured on search results. If you +1 a webpage, it will show up more in friends' search results when relevant, and your name and face will appear under it with your endorsement. That's not going to change. All the opt-out does is stop this same placement from occurring when an advertiser is relevant -- it stops your face from appearing in Google's ads, formerly known as sponsored links.
I don't mind appearing in search results, as that's just useful to others. But ads, by definition, are less relevant to a search result than the search results themselves. I don't want my recommendation appearing where a sponsor dictates. That said, I personally wouldn't mind as much if Google was paying me and shared the stats on when my face showed up ;-) (Wouldn't that change the nature of Google+ though...)
I don't mind appearing in search results, as that's just useful to others. But ads, by definition, are less relevant to a search result than the search results themselves. I don't want my recommendation appearing where a sponsor dictates. That said, I personally wouldn't mind as much if Google was paying me and shared the stats on when my face showed up ;-) (Wouldn't that change the nature of Google+ though...)
The ads are the tribute we "pay" as users of free services that are convenient and useful for us in some way..
Theres nothing wrong with the model in itself, it works, it make some things free for us..
The review model you have pointed out, is a ok model i think.. because there's social benefit for all users involved.. this is much more a "facebook like model".. and that can be done because its up to you and your own choices to sponsor some idea, a place or a product if you wish..
But the proposed model will not depend on you, or your will.. and thats what's bad about it.. its just disrespectful.. and we are talking about the possible customers of the sponsored services and products..
But if they really need to do that, at least they should share the profits with the people being exposed to do that..
That way people would consciently participate of this process(by choosing to opt-in and not to opt-out)..
The other thing that is pretty disrespectful and make people anger about, is the fact that people would automatically get into this advert model thing and to choose to opt out of it.. so people that dont even know wahts happening will have their faces and privacy exposed, and maybe look to their friends that they wish to do it...
The correct way to do that would be create this, and invite people to opt in.. if they wish.. this show that the company, whoever they are respect the user of its service..
Otherwise the message looks like: "You use our free services therefore we own you"
I dont care if its google, facebook, microsoft or apple.. i know that things dont used to be like this.. things are getting scary with time.. in a way we wonder what sort of transformation are happening to them? they used to have such a cool services.. and they were profitable in the same way..
Somewhere over the rainbow, they lose their track.. its time to get back to its own roots, before its too late
Theres nothing wrong with the model in itself, it works, it make some things free for us..
The review model you have pointed out, is a ok model i think.. because there's social benefit for all users involved.. this is much more a "facebook like model".. and that can be done because its up to you and your own choices to sponsor some idea, a place or a product if you wish..
But the proposed model will not depend on you, or your will.. and thats what's bad about it.. its just disrespectful.. and we are talking about the possible customers of the sponsored services and products..
But if they really need to do that, at least they should share the profits with the people being exposed to do that..
That way people would consciently participate of this process(by choosing to opt-in and not to opt-out)..
The other thing that is pretty disrespectful and make people anger about, is the fact that people would automatically get into this advert model thing and to choose to opt out of it.. so people that dont even know wahts happening will have their faces and privacy exposed, and maybe look to their friends that they wish to do it...
The correct way to do that would be create this, and invite people to opt in.. if they wish.. this show that the company, whoever they are respect the user of its service..
Otherwise the message looks like: "You use our free services therefore we own you"
I dont care if its google, facebook, microsoft or apple.. i know that things dont used to be like this.. things are getting scary with time.. in a way we wonder what sort of transformation are happening to them? they used to have such a cool services.. and they were profitable in the same way..
Somewhere over the rainbow, they lose their track.. its time to get back to its own roots, before its too late
What if you publish a negative review of a restaurant? Now it's super easy for them to find you and possibly harass you. What if you're in a marginalized group? Now online harassment can move into real world harassment if you've reviewed local places you enjoy.
Lots of people are harmed by a "real names" policy: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Rea...
Lots of people are harmed by a "real names" policy: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Rea...
> What if you publish a negative review of a restaurant? Now it's
> super easy for them to find you and possibly harass you.
Like Afterlife I really don't see what the big deal is. They're taking data that's already public and presenting it slightly differently.
But it's not presenting them in search results. What you opt out of isn't search result featuring, but instead featuring on a little shaded section of the page someone else is paying for. That's money Google collects because I'm the product. And in this case, they're cashing in twice -- featuring my smiling face, using one product to sell another. That's too much. I care about other people's search experience and I want them to have less ad space on a page, not more. So I opt out so my friends can more easily ignore ads and focus on content. If I recommend something, social search should mean it appears in search results for friends anyway, why should I give Google extra cash for using my face to advertise to my friends if they're not paying me?
If you are scared that someone will come after you it's blindingly obvious to not publish a review under your name. Google's change here has nothing to do with the issue either--you can certainly be recognized by a review on Amazon, Yelp, Google, Facebook or any other public venue. Google does allow easy to use privacy controls though, so that's at least a step in the right direction.
Why would Google show a negative review as an "endorsement"? If you rate a restaurant 1 out of 5 stars, Google isn't going to show "Cloudwalking rated this 1/5 stars!" in an ad.
Actually, I would really hope they do. One of the principles behind Google's ad systems is that they're useful for users and advertisers, that a good ad can benefit everyone involved.
If they show me an ad for something that my friends have negatively reviewed, I damn well want to see those negative reviews right along-side the ad.
Disclaimer: Googler
If they show me an ad for something that my friends have negatively reviewed, I damn well want to see those negative reviews right along-side the ad.
Disclaimer: Googler
Honest question: how do you rationalize the influence of bid amount on AdWords ad positioning? In other words, if two companies buy ad space, and one of the ads has a slightly lower quality score but a much higher bid price, it will be placed above the higher quality ad. How does this benefit users? Isn't this detrimental to the quality of the information being presented?
If a recommendation service prioritizes a recommendation because it was paid more to do so, isn't that akin to bribery? Why have we normalized the morality of this kind of business practice?
If a recommendation service prioritizes a recommendation because it was paid more to do so, isn't that akin to bribery? Why have we normalized the morality of this kind of business practice?
I don't know a ton about how it works (but there are articles out there), but as far as I do know, the quality, CTR and bid amount are all considered in the ranking so that an ad with a lower bid amount, but higher quality can easily show above the lower quality ad.
That's fair. I realize that bid amount is just one factor among a few, but I suppose my concern stems from the fact that there is a positive correlation between bid price and ad ranking at all.
To put it another way: increasing bid price, all other things being equal, will increase ad ranking. I would posit that this relationship has zero benefit for the ad consumer, and may even serve as a detrimental force, essentially degrading the relationship between ad ranking and ad quality by introducing a completely arbitrary factor.
(I believe some economists have postulated that the amount a company spends on advertising actually serves as an informational signal about the quality of the underlying product. I'm doubtful, but I'll admit it's a potential weakness in my argument.)
As far as I can tell, the only reason AdWords uses a bid auction system is to make more money; I would be interested to hear how factoring money into ad ranking could possibly add value to AdWords for the end-user.
To put it another way: increasing bid price, all other things being equal, will increase ad ranking. I would posit that this relationship has zero benefit for the ad consumer, and may even serve as a detrimental force, essentially degrading the relationship between ad ranking and ad quality by introducing a completely arbitrary factor.
(I believe some economists have postulated that the amount a company spends on advertising actually serves as an informational signal about the quality of the underlying product. I'm doubtful, but I'll admit it's a potential weakness in my argument.)
As far as I can tell, the only reason AdWords uses a bid auction system is to make more money; I would be interested to hear how factoring money into ad ranking could possibly add value to AdWords for the end-user.
It's interesting -- how does Google actually measure quality? The naive approach would be to measure the number of clicks an ad attracts, as an initial indication of usefulness is how many people click. But that encourages ads that look like search results, frankly. Or ads for products people would have naturally found through organic searching. And Google's never point-blank asked me if I found an ad useful, though perhaps they could time how quickly I clicked another link from the same search result, and how often advertisers themselves keep paying for the same keywords.
Ultimately, ads need to make more money for a company than they cost to run. And my main issue is I'm being sold twice here -- first by being shown ads, and second by being featured in ads. This "double dipping" seems a bit much to me, so I opted out.
Ultimately, ads need to make more money for a company than they cost to run. And my main issue is I'm being sold twice here -- first by being shown ads, and second by being featured in ads. This "double dipping" seems a bit much to me, so I opted out.
Better yet, Google should not show ads for products that my friends rate poorly...
Good point.
I've always thought that ads that were reviewed, and could be reviewed very negatively, would be an interesting check on scams and bad products. You gladly take the advertisers money, but if people rate the ad poorly it's a waste and possibly negative value. This might encourage good ads and ads for good products.
I've always thought that ads that were reviewed, and could be reviewed very negatively, would be an interesting check on scams and bad products. You gladly take the advertisers money, but if people rate the ad poorly it's a waste and possibly negative value. This might encourage good ads and ads for good products.
that sounds like a really good idea, both from a consumer perspective and an advertiser perspective. i don't want to see ads for things that my friends don't think i'd be interested in, and i don't want to pay to have my ads shown to people whose friends are just going to warn them away from me.
But I (and probably no one) trust(s) all my friends about every topic or type of product/service. So better to show me the ad and which friend(s) gave the review so I can determine if that is actually a mark against the ad or not.
>Actually, I would really hope they do. One of the principles behind Google's ad systems is that they're useful for users and advertisers, that a good ad can benefit everyone involved.
...
>Disclaimer: Googler
I actually think this is both a strength and a weakness of google. They've gotten their (often very smart) employees to believe the company line.
I mean, don't get me wrong; I think that google ads (at least, before the doubleclick thing) are less bad than most ads online. They are less annoying.
And yes, consumers benefit from some of the things paid for by advertising, so I can understand the argument that google is overall good for consumers, because they use ads that are less annoying than usual for services that are actually worth paying for. In a real sense, google has lowered the "price" consumers pay for services and content that is paid for by advertising.
However, this isn't what you are saying. You are saying that ads in and of themselves are good for consumers. that it's /better/ to find a product through paid advertising than through 'organic' search results, as if an advertiser has an interest in giving the customer the lowest possible price, or the best possible service for a given price.
Most people outside the advertising industry find that position laughable.
Now, on the surface, this looks good for google. Employees buy the company line. And really, it seems like it's probably a useful way for an Engineer who is building an advertising platform to look at the problem. You want your ads to harm the consumer as little as possible, and your employees will feel better about building something to help people instead of building something to trick people. But, I think, if you dig deeper, there are problems. Because the company line is false (and it is in nearly all companies; I'm not singling google out on that part. The difference is that at most companies, nobody buys the company line.) you have employees with a false worldview, which can lead to incorrect decisions.
Because Google employees seem to feel that google has the best interests of the customer at heart, it becomes quite difficult for google employees, then, to predict when the rest of us (who assume that google does not have our best interests at heart) will feel that they've crossed the 'creepy' line.
At a more systemic level, within the space of running a search engine people use to find products and running advertising in the same space you will always have a conflict of interest. The better your organic search results are, the less likely the user is going to click on an ad. Google employees believing that the ad really is the best result will accelerate that process.
(of course, for now, google has such a good reputation that this doesn't matter until someone becomes better than them at search by a noticeable margin. I think it's a long-term problem, while the "don't be creepy" issue is more immediately urgent, but is easier for google to ameliorate that issue in the long term. )
...
>Disclaimer: Googler
I actually think this is both a strength and a weakness of google. They've gotten their (often very smart) employees to believe the company line.
I mean, don't get me wrong; I think that google ads (at least, before the doubleclick thing) are less bad than most ads online. They are less annoying.
And yes, consumers benefit from some of the things paid for by advertising, so I can understand the argument that google is overall good for consumers, because they use ads that are less annoying than usual for services that are actually worth paying for. In a real sense, google has lowered the "price" consumers pay for services and content that is paid for by advertising.
However, this isn't what you are saying. You are saying that ads in and of themselves are good for consumers. that it's /better/ to find a product through paid advertising than through 'organic' search results, as if an advertiser has an interest in giving the customer the lowest possible price, or the best possible service for a given price.
Most people outside the advertising industry find that position laughable.
Now, on the surface, this looks good for google. Employees buy the company line. And really, it seems like it's probably a useful way for an Engineer who is building an advertising platform to look at the problem. You want your ads to harm the consumer as little as possible, and your employees will feel better about building something to help people instead of building something to trick people. But, I think, if you dig deeper, there are problems. Because the company line is false (and it is in nearly all companies; I'm not singling google out on that part. The difference is that at most companies, nobody buys the company line.) you have employees with a false worldview, which can lead to incorrect decisions.
Because Google employees seem to feel that google has the best interests of the customer at heart, it becomes quite difficult for google employees, then, to predict when the rest of us (who assume that google does not have our best interests at heart) will feel that they've crossed the 'creepy' line.
At a more systemic level, within the space of running a search engine people use to find products and running advertising in the same space you will always have a conflict of interest. The better your organic search results are, the less likely the user is going to click on an ad. Google employees believing that the ad really is the best result will accelerate that process.
(of course, for now, google has such a good reputation that this doesn't matter until someone becomes better than them at search by a noticeable margin. I think it's a long-term problem, while the "don't be creepy" issue is more immediately urgent, but is easier for google to ameliorate that issue in the long term. )
> that it's /better/ to find a product through paid advertising than through 'organic' search results, as if an advertiser has an interest in giving the customer the lowest possible price, or the best possible service for a given price.
Nope, I said no such thing. Of course some strawman statement, that you hypothesize that I support, would be seen as laughable by a hypothetical population outside the advertising industry. But let's stick to what real people have actually said.
Considering that, and looking at my original statement, perhaps I should have said "can be useful for user and advertisers", like I said "a good ad can benefit everyone". That's a little more clear that there's the potential for this, and hopefully less Kool-Aidy.
I'm pretty sure this has been stated by actually official company representatives at some point, and I think it stands as relatively obvious, depending on what your definition of "good ad" is. If you're optimizing for the short term, and you're an ad marketplace, then a good ad is one that sells for a high commission - that is, one that has relative high CTR and bid price for a large total earn. But if those ads are scammy, then users will eventually either not click those ads, not click any ads, stop using the marketplace or the sites that display the ads, etc. So if you optimize for the long term you want users to be glad that they clicked on an ad, so that they'll continue to do that over the the long term, and that means making them good for the user. This means that a "good ad" has some usefulness to the user: if highlights a product or service they were looking for, it educates, it offers a good price, etc.
Yes, it's idealistic, but not overly so. The premise is just that built right, an ad system can produce good results for everyone. Good free content; relatively useful ads; revenue for content producers, ad marketplace, and advertisers; etc. I think this ends up being the case at least some of the time, and it's important to realize that it's not just by accident, it's by design. And it's not strictly capitalistic or benevolent, but a case where the two can coexist if done right.
Again, no where did I ever say that an ad is better than an organic result. Please don't claim that I did. It's simply not true.
Nope, I said no such thing. Of course some strawman statement, that you hypothesize that I support, would be seen as laughable by a hypothetical population outside the advertising industry. But let's stick to what real people have actually said.
Considering that, and looking at my original statement, perhaps I should have said "can be useful for user and advertisers", like I said "a good ad can benefit everyone". That's a little more clear that there's the potential for this, and hopefully less Kool-Aidy.
I'm pretty sure this has been stated by actually official company representatives at some point, and I think it stands as relatively obvious, depending on what your definition of "good ad" is. If you're optimizing for the short term, and you're an ad marketplace, then a good ad is one that sells for a high commission - that is, one that has relative high CTR and bid price for a large total earn. But if those ads are scammy, then users will eventually either not click those ads, not click any ads, stop using the marketplace or the sites that display the ads, etc. So if you optimize for the long term you want users to be glad that they clicked on an ad, so that they'll continue to do that over the the long term, and that means making them good for the user. This means that a "good ad" has some usefulness to the user: if highlights a product or service they were looking for, it educates, it offers a good price, etc.
Yes, it's idealistic, but not overly so. The premise is just that built right, an ad system can produce good results for everyone. Good free content; relatively useful ads; revenue for content producers, ad marketplace, and advertisers; etc. I think this ends up being the case at least some of the time, and it's important to realize that it's not just by accident, it's by design. And it's not strictly capitalistic or benevolent, but a case where the two can coexist if done right.
Again, no where did I ever say that an ad is better than an organic result. Please don't claim that I did. It's simply not true.
>Again, no where did I ever say that an ad is better than an organic result. Please don't claim that I did. It's simply not true.
Hm. I'm sorry. That is the impression I've gotten from multiple google employees... that is the impression I got from your post, too. However, you are correct. that's not what you said, that's my interpretation of what you said, which yeah. Is a very different thing. (I mean, I could say I was using "saying" to mean 'meaning' but... yeah, I was incorrect, and rudely so. I'm sorry.)
>So if you optimize for the long term you want users to be glad that they clicked on an ad, so that they'll continue to do that over the the long term, and that means making them good for the user. This means that a "good ad" has some usefulness to the user: if highlights a product or service they were looking for, it educates, it offers a good price, etc.
I agree that making ads "less bad" is a good long-term goal for an advertising company (and I think google has actually done a pretty good job of that) I think my disagreement comes when you start calling ads 'good' rather than 'less bad' (outside of the content or services those ads pay for.)
The essential point of disagreement, I think, is that all other things being equal, both the merchant and the customer are better off if they make the exchange without paying a middleman. Sort of how many people feel that groupon is bad. Thus, when you say "a good ad can benefit everyone involved." I hear, perhaps incorrectly, "an ad can be better than an organic search result"
>Yes, it's idealistic, but not overly so. The premise is just that built right, an ad system can produce good results for everyone. Good free content; relatively useful ads; revenue for content producers, ad marketplace, and advertisers; etc. I think this ends up being the case at least some of the time, and it's important to realize that it's not just by accident, it's by design. And it's not strictly capitalistic or benevolent, but a case where the two can coexist if done right.
You still have the long-term problem that your organic search results are competing with your ads, creating a long-term conflict of interest within google. Nobody is going to click on your ads if your organic results are better than your ads.
Hm. I'm sorry. That is the impression I've gotten from multiple google employees... that is the impression I got from your post, too. However, you are correct. that's not what you said, that's my interpretation of what you said, which yeah. Is a very different thing. (I mean, I could say I was using "saying" to mean 'meaning' but... yeah, I was incorrect, and rudely so. I'm sorry.)
>So if you optimize for the long term you want users to be glad that they clicked on an ad, so that they'll continue to do that over the the long term, and that means making them good for the user. This means that a "good ad" has some usefulness to the user: if highlights a product or service they were looking for, it educates, it offers a good price, etc.
I agree that making ads "less bad" is a good long-term goal for an advertising company (and I think google has actually done a pretty good job of that) I think my disagreement comes when you start calling ads 'good' rather than 'less bad' (outside of the content or services those ads pay for.)
The essential point of disagreement, I think, is that all other things being equal, both the merchant and the customer are better off if they make the exchange without paying a middleman. Sort of how many people feel that groupon is bad. Thus, when you say "a good ad can benefit everyone involved." I hear, perhaps incorrectly, "an ad can be better than an organic search result"
>Yes, it's idealistic, but not overly so. The premise is just that built right, an ad system can produce good results for everyone. Good free content; relatively useful ads; revenue for content producers, ad marketplace, and advertisers; etc. I think this ends up being the case at least some of the time, and it's important to realize that it's not just by accident, it's by design. And it's not strictly capitalistic or benevolent, but a case where the two can coexist if done right.
You still have the long-term problem that your organic search results are competing with your ads, creating a long-term conflict of interest within google. Nobody is going to click on your ads if your organic results are better than your ads.
That's actually as much, or more, of an argument for better ads as it is for "worse" content.
Competition is generally considered good, and I see competition all around here. In search Google is not simply going to slow down, that would be a recipe for obsolescence. If Google can make search results 10x better, I'm sure they can figure out how to monetize it. If Google lets Bing catch up, that's trouble. In ads, if the ads compete with search results, then make the ads better. Showing endorsements from friends is an example of this, just like such endorsements can show up in search results (I think, not sure). Ad networks also compete against each other, so another search engine that does ads in a way that's better for users will hopefully get rewarded for that, making others respond.
Competition is generally considered good, and I see competition all around here. In search Google is not simply going to slow down, that would be a recipe for obsolescence. If Google can make search results 10x better, I'm sure they can figure out how to monetize it. If Google lets Bing catch up, that's trouble. In ads, if the ads compete with search results, then make the ads better. Showing endorsements from friends is an example of this, just like such endorsements can show up in search results (I think, not sure). Ad networks also compete against each other, so another search engine that does ads in a way that's better for users will hopefully get rewarded for that, making others respond.
>That's actually as much, or more, of an argument for better ads as it is for "worse" content.
That's certainly a healthy way to look at it, but google is still competing with itself internally, which I think is rather different from competing with an external company.
>Competition is generally considered good,
There are two ways of competing; making your product [appear] better, and making the other guy's product [appear] worse. The difference between external and internal competition is that with external competition, you have the option of trying to make your competitor's product appear to be worse, but it's pretty difficult to actually make it worse. With competition within a company? It's much easier to actually make the competing product worse. (Note, I'm not saying that google is doing that... just that competition between departments within a company is often not as beneficial as competition between companies with different ownership.)
>I see competition all around here.
Well, first, I am glad that you (as a googler) see competition, but my view, as an outsider? you don't have serious competition. I mean, as a business owner (and someone who buys ads) your competition is... meat-space ads, mostly. And relationships with sites your customers care about. (Sponsorship and the like, which is higher labor, but I think often gives higher value to the advertiser than display ads. I'm not sure it's an approach that scales.)
As a consumer, I don't see serious competition for low-cost email. I don't see serious competition for search. You have a big lead, in most of your consumer products.
Obviously, Google doesn't have a lead at all in social networking, and, I think, google shifting so much of their emphasis to that market is a symptom of not having serious competition in other markets. (I believe, well... I hope that the social networking market is not as big or as important as the market right now thinks it is.)
>If Google can make search results 10x better, I'm sure they can figure out how to monetize it.
There's a difference between "oh, that would be nice" and "we must do this or we will no longer exist as a company (or lose significant market share.)"
I can tell you this from recent personal experience. Two years ago, increasing ram and disk allocations for my customers "would be nice" - and I started moving on it. some customers got upgraded, but not many.
Today? it's an existential problem. I've lost 15% of my customers in just a few months. If I don't get users upgraded (and open new signups) with dramatically more resources per dollar soon...
So yeah; Consider me motivated. Between my previous post and this post, I caused nearly a terabyte in ram (and servers to put said ram in) to appear in my van.
(I know that the motivations of public companies are... different. But generally, this is the narrative that is used to explain why competition is good, even if this narrative does not always fit the data.)
That's certainly a healthy way to look at it, but google is still competing with itself internally, which I think is rather different from competing with an external company.
>Competition is generally considered good,
There are two ways of competing; making your product [appear] better, and making the other guy's product [appear] worse. The difference between external and internal competition is that with external competition, you have the option of trying to make your competitor's product appear to be worse, but it's pretty difficult to actually make it worse. With competition within a company? It's much easier to actually make the competing product worse. (Note, I'm not saying that google is doing that... just that competition between departments within a company is often not as beneficial as competition between companies with different ownership.)
>I see competition all around here.
Well, first, I am glad that you (as a googler) see competition, but my view, as an outsider? you don't have serious competition. I mean, as a business owner (and someone who buys ads) your competition is... meat-space ads, mostly. And relationships with sites your customers care about. (Sponsorship and the like, which is higher labor, but I think often gives higher value to the advertiser than display ads. I'm not sure it's an approach that scales.)
As a consumer, I don't see serious competition for low-cost email. I don't see serious competition for search. You have a big lead, in most of your consumer products.
Obviously, Google doesn't have a lead at all in social networking, and, I think, google shifting so much of their emphasis to that market is a symptom of not having serious competition in other markets. (I believe, well... I hope that the social networking market is not as big or as important as the market right now thinks it is.)
>If Google can make search results 10x better, I'm sure they can figure out how to monetize it.
There's a difference between "oh, that would be nice" and "we must do this or we will no longer exist as a company (or lose significant market share.)"
I can tell you this from recent personal experience. Two years ago, increasing ram and disk allocations for my customers "would be nice" - and I started moving on it. some customers got upgraded, but not many.
Today? it's an existential problem. I've lost 15% of my customers in just a few months. If I don't get users upgraded (and open new signups) with dramatically more resources per dollar soon...
So yeah; Consider me motivated. Between my previous post and this post, I caused nearly a terabyte in ram (and servers to put said ram in) to appear in my van.
(I know that the motivations of public companies are... different. But generally, this is the narrative that is used to explain why competition is good, even if this narrative does not always fit the data.)
In ads, if the ads compete with search results, then make the ads better.
Or hide the content way down, or make the content slightly worse than ads, or make ads look like content. I mentioned the scams that Google, your employer does. This http://i.imgur.com/mhJhc5W.png is good for everyone, long term, right ?
Or hide the content way down, or make the content slightly worse than ads, or make ads look like content. I mentioned the scams that Google, your employer does. This http://i.imgur.com/mhJhc5W.png is good for everyone, long term, right ?
Who's to say they won't start doing that in the future, where a competitor could purchase the negative review? And, what about my second point, which applies to any kind of review?
The new strategy for negative reviews on Google products will be to offer five star reviews (for visibility) where the text talks about their terrible experience (for truth).
Because people form a stronger rapport with those who share negative experiences than positive experiences. Granted, trying to take advantage of this is walking a very narrow tightrope, however if executed well then it could be hugely profitable.
Confirmation bias tells us that negative reviews will always be more numerous than positive reviews, however those people writing negative reviews will feel a stronger cohesion with each-other. As such, negative reviews will be more valuable to how people form first impressions.
Confirmation bias tells us that negative reviews will always be more numerous than positive reviews, however those people writing negative reviews will feel a stronger cohesion with each-other. As such, negative reviews will be more valuable to how people form first impressions.
I don't think anything you've mentioned is relevant at all. Google isn't going to show your negative review beside a paid ad because it'd help you build rapport with friends...
Keep in mind these are paid ads, Google is trying to further promote/endorse the advertiser.
Keep in mind these are paid ads, Google is trying to further promote/endorse the advertiser.
It would certainly be interesting to analyze a game theory model for ads if one could surface negative reviews about competitors.
What if you publish a negative review of a restaurant? Now it's super easy for them to find you and possibly harass you.
That actually happened to a friend of mine, and he enjoyed it. Made the restaurant look even worse when he posted their infantile response.
That actually happened to a friend of mine, and he enjoyed it. Made the restaurant look even worse when he posted their infantile response.
Happened to me too. I got an email from their lawyer making vague threats and I thought about it, and replied that they could sue me if they so wished. They had no case (obviously) and I've the time and money so I was kind of curious to explore the legal system in that light.
What you mean like how people publish negative reviews right on the restaurant's Yelp profile?
So you publish a PUBLIC negative review, with your name and photo, and then you're surprised it this same review appears somewhere else (in ads, this time)?
No, you'd publish a public review with your Google account, which has a Google+ profile attached (otherwise Google won't let you leave reviews for Android applications on their app store anymore), and that account will have your name and photo.
I would be very surprised if my name, photo and review appeared in advertising.
Who wouldn't ?
Who wouldn't ?
What if you publish an anonymous negative-review for a competitor? Now it's super easy for you to harass them. What if you're in a non-marginalized group? Now online harassment can ...
Why there are so many Google apologists?
Does not bashing everything Google does immediately make someone a Google apologist?
The fact that they do a lot of very questionable things does not mean everything they do should be immediately condemned. Judging a single action as neutral or useful does not preclude disapproving of the actor in general, and general disapproval should not preclude viewing specific actions neutrally and in context.
The fact that they do a lot of very questionable things does not mean everything they do should be immediately condemned. Judging a single action as neutral or useful does not preclude disapproving of the actor in general, and general disapproval should not preclude viewing specific actions neutrally and in context.
> Does not bashing everything Google does immediately make someone a Google apologist?
Of course not. However, there is no denying that HN as a community is really biased in favor of Google.
Just for comparison: when the news came that you'd be searchable by name in Facebook, half the discussion focused on "delete your account!" and "they are trying to kill privacy!". Google puts your name and picture on ads online, something that in the "real" world requires a ton of paperwork and usually money exchanging hands (including yours)? Nah, dude, that's fine.
I know they are only slightly comparable, but my point is: the bias in favor of Google is there. May not be everyone, may not be an organized PR campaign, but it is definitely there.
Of course not. However, there is no denying that HN as a community is really biased in favor of Google.
Just for comparison: when the news came that you'd be searchable by name in Facebook, half the discussion focused on "delete your account!" and "they are trying to kill privacy!". Google puts your name and picture on ads online, something that in the "real" world requires a ton of paperwork and usually money exchanging hands (including yours)? Nah, dude, that's fine.
I know they are only slightly comparable, but my point is: the bias in favor of Google is there. May not be everyone, may not be an organized PR campaign, but it is definitely there.
I dunno. Why are there so many people so angry with Google that anyone who doesn't think this is "THE END OF THE DAMN WORLD AS WE KNOW IT?!?" is an apologist?
i prefer to think of myself as reasonable, rather than an apologist. if i publish a public review of something, i do it specifically so that other people can see that review. I'm not going to get mad because google has done with my review exactly what i wanted to happen with it.
if you don't want people to see what you write, maybe you should consider using a diary rather than a publishing service.
if you don't want people to see what you write, maybe you should consider using a diary rather than a publishing service.
[deleted]
"i prefer to think of myself as reasonable, rather than an apologist. if i publish a public review of something, i do it specifically so that other people can see that review."
See it where? On every billboard on earth? CNN, BBC, Superbowl commercial? (without any compensation for you)
See it where? On every billboard on earth? CNN, BBC, Superbowl commercial? (without any compensation for you)
Maybe for the same reason there are so many FOSS apologists.
"That said, I just went ahead and opted-out"
Right, that's my problem. Here's something that's been bugging me for some time, and that applies to all services that turn in features by default: do they do it because they believe most people will want this feature, or do they do it because that's important for their business and they hope that most people won't bother to turn it off / won't know the thing is turned on. Note that I'm not being cynical here, I'm honestly wondering which it is.
So to go back to our specific case: why is that thing not turned off by default? When google created gmail, they didn't say: "look if you want to use google now, you will have to use gmail too, that's how it is". Gmail was simply great, so people adopted it. If this new feature is so great, people will see it and turn it on, why force it down on the user?
Right, that's my problem. Here's something that's been bugging me for some time, and that applies to all services that turn in features by default: do they do it because they believe most people will want this feature, or do they do it because that's important for their business and they hope that most people won't bother to turn it off / won't know the thing is turned on. Note that I'm not being cynical here, I'm honestly wondering which it is.
So to go back to our specific case: why is that thing not turned off by default? When google created gmail, they didn't say: "look if you want to use google now, you will have to use gmail too, that's how it is". Gmail was simply great, so people adopted it. If this new feature is so great, people will see it and turn it on, why force it down on the user?
> If this new feature is so great, people will see it and turn it on, why force it down on the user?
Because they're trying to expand the way they monetize their user base and they suspect that most people won't give a shit either way. So if you're looking to roll out this new thing that you think will be more useful to your customers (advertisers), you want maximum value from your product (users).
So, on by default. A few people will complain and threaten to leave Google services, nothing will come of it, and Google expands the sophistication of it's core money generation platform.
Because they're trying to expand the way they monetize their user base and they suspect that most people won't give a shit either way. So if you're looking to roll out this new thing that you think will be more useful to your customers (advertisers), you want maximum value from your product (users).
So, on by default. A few people will complain and threaten to leave Google services, nothing will come of it, and Google expands the sophistication of it's core money generation platform.
But it's hard to say what extent this can have. What if you like a video on youtube that happens to be related to a product and google decides to spin that into an ad? Product endorsements can be a valuable component of a social service but there is a great potential for manipulation here.
Do you guys think I should remove my reviews of all of the adult toys that I own?
lol speaking of this, one day I was looking for hotel reviews on the interwebs. At the top of the list were 4 and 5-star hotels. Toward the middle, 3-star ones I might consider, then down lower a bunch of sleazy-sounding ones with hourly rates implied.
Some service, I doubt it was google, as this was about two months ago, was connecting facebook profiles to some of the reviews and it added something like this to the descriptions, "Jane Doe, a friend of $my_education_professor" stayed here and rated it good.
I _really_ didn't need that mental image of $my_education_professor's friends enjoying themselves in sleazy-sounding hotels. I don't know that it reflects on him directly - it shouldn't, and I think more power to him, but damnit if that software didn't facilitate that image to be briefly projected on my brainpan. :) Next time I see him, I sure hope I don't get overcome with urges to ask, "SO HOW OFTEN DOES JANE DOE ENJOY THOSE SLEAZY HOTELS. DO YOU EVER GO THERE WITH HER?" icky, icky icky :)
This is exactly why we shouldn't have software generating images of other's lives for us, false or otherwise.
Some service, I doubt it was google, as this was about two months ago, was connecting facebook profiles to some of the reviews and it added something like this to the descriptions, "Jane Doe, a friend of $my_education_professor" stayed here and rated it good.
I _really_ didn't need that mental image of $my_education_professor's friends enjoying themselves in sleazy-sounding hotels. I don't know that it reflects on him directly - it shouldn't, and I think more power to him, but damnit if that software didn't facilitate that image to be briefly projected on my brainpan. :) Next time I see him, I sure hope I don't get overcome with urges to ask, "SO HOW OFTEN DOES JANE DOE ENJOY THOSE SLEAZY HOTELS. DO YOU EVER GO THERE WITH HER?" icky, icky icky :)
This is exactly why we shouldn't have software generating images of other's lives for us, false or otherwise.
nah they've been very helpful ;-)
Don't be evil
Oh, wait its 2013...
carry on
Oh, wait its 2013...
carry on
Just opted out and got this confirmation message:
"Are you sure? When you disable this setting, your friends will be less likely to benefit from your recommendations."
Seriously?
"Are you sure? When you disable this setting, your friends will be less likely to benefit from your recommendations."
Seriously?
Is this not true...? Don't get me wrong: I've disabled this too, but it's with the full knowledge that my friends are potentially losing a useful surfacing of my relevant review at a time when they indicate they would be interested in that information.
[deleted]
I really don't get it. What if your review was the first search result instead? Isn't that the same thing?
If I search for a product on Amazon, it shows me the number of stars for each product, and if I click on that it shows me excerpts of different people's reviews. How is that any different? http://imgur.com/7FC2jfx