Previous entry: "8-Jan-2002 -- Saving Microsoft from mob rulers" WebWord Home Page Next entry: "11-Jan-2002 -- MEPP: A Case Study in Online Education"

01/08/2002 Archived Entry: "8-Jan-2002 -- WebWord Comment"

WebWord Comment -- It seems that everyone loves Google. I love Google and I bet that you love Google. Here is the problem. I'm afraid that Google is going to screw up. I'm afraid that they will go away or that they will do something terrible. Are they secretly grabbing information from my hard drive in an attempt to gather information on everything? The issue is that we all have very high expectations of Google. We use it because it is fast, simple, and fun to use. But will they become evil over time? I realize that they are user focused and user driven today, but what about the future? And yes, everyone loves the Google toolbar right now, but are they collecting too much information about us all? What do you think about Google? Will they continue to be the best search engine? Do you think they are going to screw up? How much do you trust Google as a company?

Replies: 39 comments

"...but I've gotten addicted to looking for combinations of common words which have the lowest incidence of appearance on web pages, as indexed by google. So far, I have yet to find a set of two common english words which do not appear together on any web pages." (more...)

See Fark.com for comments!

Posted by John S. Rhodes @ 01/08/2002 08:54 PM EST

"gay smarmy" did not return any results on Google. Ha!

Posted by Don M @ 01/08/2002 10:16 PM EST

Google can screw up. I suspect what has kept them going this long is a single powerful person in the company that has insisted on keeping the interface simple. When Google's visionary leaves, or gets hit crossing the road, or slips in the shower, Google is doomed to a life of mediocrity.

IMHO, Google is already slipping. The usenet "groups" button is fine for nerds, but most people don't understand or care about newsgroups.

Likewise, show me evidence that the Open Directory Project (the "Directory" button) is as effective at helping people as Google's basic search box.

Google became popular because of its engine. Only its engine. These two services are unfocused feature creep and I expect we'll see more of it.

Posted by Jack Schonchin @ 01/09/2002 12:07 AM EST

>Are they secretly grabbing
>information from my hard drive

How on earth do you think they can do this, John? :)

Posted by MadMan @ 01/09/2002 01:43 AM EST

MadMan, I was being somewhat facetious about Google grabbing information from my hard drive. However, I am running the Google toolbar and they are collecting some information from me. Of course, to be fair, when you download and install it, they do tell you that the toolbar connects with them. Also, their toolbar privacy page is pretty clear. I think it is possible to stop this flow of information if you want.

On a related topic, has anyone seen anything recent about the toobar voting functionality?

Posted by John S. Rhodes @ 01/09/2002 08:28 AM EST

Hi, John. I need to ask: why did you link the word "facetious" to its dictionary definition? I believe you've done this (link to a definition) before, as well. I'm sure this wasn't your intent, but I think it comes across as rather insulting to the reader -- especially when the word is not that "difficult."

Posted by amm @ 01/09/2002 09:17 AM EST

FYI, you can turn the toolbar reporting off under it's options settings.

Posted by mick @ 01/09/2002 09:33 AM EST

http://www.google.com/corporate/today.html

That seems like a pretty good indicator that they've got their direction firmly set. It's not in corporate mission statement-ese. It's straightforward and I bet everyone at Google is committed to it.

Posted by bbrown @ 01/09/2002 11:00 AM EST

Sounds like Larry Page might be their visionary. Thanks for the link, I'll go to work on their vision statement...

1) Focus on the user and all else will follow.

If that were true, Google would add a tagline on their front page (which has been suggested by me and probably many others) that indicates Google is a search engine. I am tired of referring friends to Google and having to explain that Google is a search engine, not some children's web site (because of the goofy logo colors).

I am also tired of explaining what the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button does and I never have an answer their next question, "Why would I want that?"

2) It's best to do one thing really, really well.

BZZZT! They have broken this rule. How do Usenet newsgroups and the Open Directory Project fall into the category of "search engine?"

That's right, you have to broaden your definition of Google to cover "all information-finding-like services." At that point the company is prone to all matter of feature creep.

There is a night-and-day difference between Google's engine and the ODP directory listings. Two different user experiences and widely different levels of effectiveness. And what's special about ODP? I can get ODP anywhere. I come to Google for Google.

3) Ehhh, I've had enough for today. I'm beginning to depress myself.

Posted by Jack Schonchin @ 01/09/2002 11:44 AM EST

I find it interesting that marketers, software companies and the internet in general has made us all so cynical that this issue about what google is scheming would even come up. The search engine is great and i personally don't download any extra features to any software/web app, assuming that it will either do something bad to my already unstable system, or will know more about me than i want it to.

Posted by Dave Murphy @ 01/09/2002 12:15 PM EST

google directory is special bc it uses data from the search engine side to rate the dmoz entries based on popularity, imo.

I do think the catalog search is a prime example of mission creep.

Posted by george @ 01/09/2002 12:21 PM EST

OK, this is weird.

1. Search for the word 'dolphins' returns 542,000 hits.

2. Search for the word 'dolphins' minus the word 'miami' returns 557,000 hits.

How come I get 15,000 *more* hits after I narrow my search. I encounter funky weirdness all the time on Google. I especially hate their 404 message that creeps up sometimes.

Oh wait a minute... Google's precise wording is "about 542,000" and "about 557,000." Curious that their estimates would vary so widely and inaccurately.

Posted by Jack Schonchin @ 01/09/2002 12:28 PM EST

Jack, when I clicked on your link for dolphins without Miami, Google returned 496,000 hits. Hmm...

Dave, I agree that Google is great. They are great right now, and that is what I am concerned about. Will they stay great? How do we know? (The mission statement certainly helps us understand their intentions, I'm happy to say.) More importantly, have our expectations risen too high for Google? Do we expect too much or not? What I am saying is that I don't want them to fail. Indeed, I love Google and I want them to succeed.

Jack, regarding Google's scope I would not say their scope has expanded too much or that the experiences are that different from their search engine to their directory. I'm saying this in a relative sense versus and absolute sense. To be specific, if you look at Yahoo vs. Altavista vs. Google, it quickly becomes apparent (to me) that Google's scope is perfectly reasonable and sane. Indeed, I actually think they might be able to expand just a bit more. Finally, there is no reason to assume a slippery slope. just because Google spreads their wings in a few areas, it doesn't mean they will continue to branch out. Perhaps we need to cut them some slack in this respect? What do you think?

AMM, your comment about "facetious" is insightful. I'm not trying to be condescending. Instead, "facetious" is one of those words that some people don't truly understand (and don't know how to spell). If I use words that I think are big, I simply don't feel bad about linking to a definition. If nothing else, it allows WebWord readers to understand that I know that I am using the word in a very particular way. Lastly, despite most WebWord readers being very intelligent, there are some readers who don't know what the word means. Wouldn't you agree?

Posted by John S. Rhodes @ 01/09/2002 01:42 PM EST

Jack, if you've got to go to result #542000, either you're searching for something rare or Google just isn't doing a very good job. LOL.

Posted by MadMan @ 01/09/2002 01:47 PM EST

John, When I click now I get 489,000 in both searches. That's different from my first search and yours as well. Either we're seeing realtime database changes, or Google is funky on the junk.

Madman, why are the hit counts important? Hey, because when I'm looking for the spelling of an obscure word, I do a Google search. The variant that gets the most hits is the one I use. I can't have Google playing fast and loose with its statistics! ;-)

John, you said, "Google's scope is perfectly reasonable and sane [...]"

I say, rethink your comparison of Google to Yahoo and Altavista. That's not apples to oranges. That's apples to two-week-old roadkill. Looking at extreme good and extreme bad makes the extreme good look damn near perfect. It is not. Google has a lot of room for improvement.

Use this measure... Is Google better than it was a year ago? I do not think so. The pure search aspect of Google is better, but most of the projects I see Google spending money on are out in left field. How much better would Google be today if they stayed focused on what made it great?

That is what you should worry about. Has Google learned the lessons of the dot-com-crash? I'm most worried Google will blow it and go bankrupt. Conserve the VC money and stick with what they're good at.

Everyone else... consider the beneficial aspect of extreme criticism. It's the 70-year-old cranky retired man who attends every city council meeting and writes critical letters to the editor and gets people riled up and thinking that keeps the council in check. (God knows the news media have abandoned this responsibility.) The last thing Google needs is a bunch of Yes Men.

Posted by Jack Schonchin @ 01/09/2002 02:20 PM EST

John, please don't take this the wrong way.

If you're writing for yourself, anything goes. But if you're writing for an audience, you have to make sure that you write in a language they can understand. So many writers use "big" words merely to say, "hey, look at my vocabulary. I know what [big word] means - and you don't. Ha ha!"

To quote Strunk and White, never use a big word where a small one will do. Simplicity in writing is not to be scorned, but embraced. Call it "user-centred writing" if you will.

Simplicity, clarity, humanity - essential traits of good writing.

Posted by MadMan @ 01/09/2002 02:37 PM EST

Hey, if they would keep it private, I would pay google to search my own drive.

Perhaps that would be feasible when desktops are based more on linking primitives for explicit linking. Search already provides implicit linking of documents (related page stuff)

Another question: how much would you be willing to pay google a month to keep it going clean? I'd pay $10 a month, its that useful.

Posted by Rahul Dave @ 01/09/2002 03:23 PM EST

MadMan, sometimes simplicity conflicts with clarity when it comes to languages use. If it takes me 73 words to describe a condition or situation or conceptual nuance that can be done with one complex word, I'll do it. In my mind, "facetious" is not a trvial or simple word. And, as I said above, it is difficult to spell for some people -- yet another nuance to consider.

So, I will keep things simple when I can. But the final thing to consider is that complex language use is entirely appropriate if your user base is intelligent.

I'm often torn on WebWord: Should I use powerful yet potentially complex words, or should I instead stick with simple words? My readers are intelligent (i.e., I can use complex words) yet this site is about usability (i.e., pressure to use simple words). My resolution is to sometimes point off to definitions. If you know the word, skip the link. If you don't know the word, click on the link.

Splish splash, that takes care of things...

Posted by John S. Rhodes @ 01/09/2002 03:43 PM EST

I analysed the google toolbar .DLL
and found nothing to worry about.

When you navigate the web, the toolbar connect to google to get PageRank info if you want it to be displayed. Their privacy policy is clear and as far as I know is respected (when I turn pagerank off no more data is sent to Google via the proxy).

The automated query for pagerank is like this one:

www.google.com/search?client=navclient-auto&ch=1582453878&dq=hello&q=info:http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Egoogle%2Ecom

ch is the checksum of the url, I think it's used as a key in google's indexes. dq is the keyword actually displayed in the toolbar and q is the url of the webpage shown in the browser.

Use a proxy like InternetJunkbuster in debug mode and you will find the same sort of queries.

The voting features of the last beta version of the toolbar don't use the proxy settings and goes strait to google.

Google also make use of a cookie that stay alive until 2038 and that have a unique ID but cookies are a known problem and are easy to avoid using internet junkbuster proxy or tools to remove cookies.

So as for many website and tools there is a great potential for abuse, you have to trust them or leave them ...

I digged as far as I can in the toolbar and I didn't found anything frightening.

Posted by Roland @ 01/09/2002 03:47 PM EST

John says: "If you don't know the word, click on the link."

Jack chortles back: I have a different interpretation. On Webword, when I encounter highlighted body text, I assume it links to significant content. You know, like John has previously posted a link or report about whatever he is being facetious about. I'd suggest linking to a dictionary when you're a using really obscure word.

Posted by Jack Schonchin @ 01/09/2002 05:18 PM EST

Hey, so any chance we can pull someone from Google over here to address our various concerns? We are the most important people in the whole world, right? Oh yeah, that's just me.

Posted by Jack Schonchin @ 01/09/2002 05:37 PM EST

or for a difficult word doing something like this:

MadMan, I was being somewhat facetious (def.) about Google grabbing information from my hard drive.

or whatnot.

Posted by Boysimple @ 01/09/2002 05:44 PM EST

If any of you are in the San Francisco Bay Area, I suggest you come down to Stanford on Friday, where Larry Page will be giving a talk entitled, "Google is not an anomaly: A blueprint for inventing and building innovative and successful user-centric products." Details are on my website, bradlauster.com.

If you can't make it, you can watch the video, afterwards.

Posted by Brad Lauster @ 01/09/2002 06:21 PM EST

The linked definitions are especially bothersome to me because, as people above have already noted, I assume the link goes to an old article in which you were being facetious or something along those lines. To wind up at a dictionary definition is just irritating. I'd rather not have to hover over one-word links from now on just to make sure I'm not being led to dictionary.com.

Re: your point about some readers not knowing what "facetious" means... well, that's kind of my point. You're making the judgement that enough readers won't know what it means that it warrants a definition, but that judgement just sets a tone -- a kind of "bar of literacy" (ick) so to speak. You can argue that some people won't know what the word means or how to spell it, but you could also make that argument/judgement for many other words. It might be best to let the reader weed out the difficult words for him/herself.

I think many people are accustomed to using a dictionary when they come across a word they don't know, but are NOT accustomed to "definition links." I'd say it's not expected behavior for a link to go to a definition, so it's not very good from a usability standpoint.

Sorry to be so wordy and over-analytical here! I only brought it up because I'd seen you do it a couple of times before. All-in-all, it's not THAT big a deal -- I just wanted to hear your reasons. Thanks, John, and keep up the good work!

Posted by amm @ 01/09/2002 06:42 PM EST

Madhu and John come to blows! Excellent! Can I get it on Pay-Per-View!?

Posted by Gay Smarmy @ 01/09/2002 08:48 PM EST

Pay-Per-View? We're setting up the e-commerce functionality as we speak. This is going to be a big even all right ;)

John, can we agree on rules about what kind of holds are allowed? Or is this going to be a "the only rule is: there are no rules" type of brawl? I'm thinking we should charge about $10 for the event. You got any ideas? :D

Hey Mr. Smarmy, do I know you from somewhere?

Posted by MadMan @ 01/10/2002 02:16 AM EST

OK, folks. I feel I should contribute something more productive to this discussion, so I've got two tips for John (and anyone else who might be interested):

1) The TITLE attribute of the anchor tag in HTML is wonderful for explaining where a link is going. For example, here's a link to Webword.com. Hover your mouse over that hyperlink please. Ta da! Problem solved. Improved usability.

2) Some site searches suck so much that I often use Google to search the site.
To search a site using Google, use this in the search box:
[search term] site:[site_url]

For example: MadMan site:www.webword.com

I often use it on support.microsoft.com. It's much faster.

Posted by MadMan @ 01/10/2002 02:25 AM EST

FWIW: I like the linking to dictionary.com John. I'm not a native speaker, but I enjoy discovering new words. Hell, I even enjoy *inventing* new words. I think john is doing it in that spirit.

Posted by Peter @ 01/10/2002 04:53 AM EST

It's nice that so many of you still retain the illusion of personal privacy.

Let's see, maybe we can start a new urban legend concerning Google search results before/after the WTC 9-11 event.

The solution to this life troubling dilemma is simple: to the best of your ability, do not participate in those activities that worry you.

postscriptus: just joking folks, no offense intended to those of you who believe this to be a concern of serious personal importance.

Posted by Resting Leaf @ 01/10/2002 07:41 AM EST

>IMHO, Google is already slipping. The usenet "groups"
>button is fine for nerds, but most people don't understand or
>care about newsgroups.

Very untrue. Usenet is a terrific resource for all sorts of stuff. Okay, and a flame war of two ;)

Posted by locust @ 01/10/2002 07:46 AM EST

...of course, one purpose of the original posting was to get people talking at WebWord. It was kind of an experiment. The results are obvious I think. People are willing to talk if the topic is interesting enough.

On a side note, it seems to me that as the number of postings increases, the more that postings are likely. Reminds me of donation gravity. What do you think?

Posted by John S. Rhodes @ 01/10/2002 08:16 AM EST

Locust, do you have evidence to suggest Usenet is anything other than a niche service used mainly by nerds and long-term Internet users? How often is Usenet taught in Intro-to-the-Internet courses? Usually never. It is a left-field service. Don't confuse your personal tastes ("it's a terrific resource for all sorts of stuff") with everyone else ("Usenet? Newsgroups? What's that?")

Posted by Jack Schonchin @ 01/10/2002 08:52 AM EST

Jack, Usenet is only for us "old timers". Apart from not being taught in Internet classes, they don't get much mention in the IT media either.

I used to frequent Usenet way back in 94-95 when the WWW was still taking off. Of late, email discussion lists and other community Web sites have replaced them. Besides, Usenet is crawling with spambots and posting your real email address there is asking for trouble.

Lastly, I have so much email to handle that I just don't have time for Usenet. Your mileage may vary.

Posted by MadMan @ 01/10/2002 10:38 AM EST

I declare this debate officially dead. Someone please sweep up the mess.

Posted by Jack Schonchin @ 01/10/2002 05:15 PM EST

Jack, please don't confuse *your* personal tastes with everyone elses. Just because the masses don't know about Usenet doesn't mean it isn't a terrific resource. Acquiring the DejaNews archive was one of the best things Google has ever done.

Most of us use Google to search for answers. Extending this search to Usenet groups makes it much more likely we'll find these answers.

Posted by Neil Negandhi @ 01/11/2002 07:04 PM EST

Most comments so far are not on your original posting, and that is a pity. Perhaps you could summarize this forum at the top of this page, with links to the corresponding contributions. Thus distinguising between the main subject and sidelines in the discussion.

Triggered by your Newsletter #65 I went for a look and I was a bit disappointed by the lots of messages that were not of relevance to your original question. People start reacting to postings, and not to the original posting, and of course, this is what they should not stop doing and which should never be prevented. But the consequence is that a lot of interesting information remains buried inside and will never be found by outsiders, UNLESS something like Google uncovers them.

Google is a business, which also whishes to go public, as far as I know. That means that, no doubt, they will over the years change and that they shall commercialize as much as possible their products.

But what is against that? When they forsake their 'duty' to serve our searching needs, no doubt another initiative will come to the surface. When I started searching the internet, I used mainly AltaVista, and we know what has become of them!

I think that the research people of Google are very smart by incorporating the newsgroups in their main navigation. Newsgroups play an important role in 'self help', whether that is for technical, therapeutical, medical or general questions. There lies a whole new service for the main stream users, when made useful for others than 'nerds' or 'creeps' (thinking of some adult content groups). We all know that help desks of many companies are very much open for improvement. Hence I am envisioning Google coming in, with a fully automated help desk and FAQ serving (surfing) facility.

No doubt Google, or some of its (future?)competitors, will come up with an automated solution to filter useful from less useful postings and navigate through all of the chains following a posting.

Yes, there are some childish aspects in the lay-out of Google, but unless these aspects, Google is by now the most used search engine in my home country, the Netherlands. Think of that! No advertising ever done that I know of and yet millions of visits!

BTW, as long as Jacob Nielsen is a member of Google's Technical Advisory Council, I don't feel worried about there future. Keep a close watch on who their execs are(http://www.google.com/corporate/execs.html), is my advice.

Posted by Eric van der Linden @ 02/06/2002 06:39 AM EST

Back to Google, I find their catalog search feature to be helpful. I have to wonder how they came up with the idea - did they ask their users, or did they create it internally? Also, the image search has been useful as well.

Did we ever have any success in getting someone from Google in to visit us?

Laurie

Posted by Laurie Gray @ 02/06/2002 11:38 AM EST

They're already beginning to screw up: Now that Google returns ads, they try to double their clicks on these - so although they tell you it's an ad (different background color), they handle these links different in another way.

Instead of being a regular link (as the other non-ad results are), these have the onClick event opening the respective location. So if you're trying to open an ad link in a new window (cause you're a multi-window type-of-person, right?), you'll end up with the same page in both the new and the original results window.

That's because when the click occurs, the browser opens the link in the new window (as you told it to), and the script attached to the link's onClick event opens it in the current window. Sorry, but that is a nuisance, I would have never expected such crap from Google.

For now, I can live with it, I'm just not clicking on ads anymore (not that I fell for any of those before that much, but still..)
So let's all sit back and watch Google go down the drain, the evil already lurks "in site"...

Posted by Ren� @ 02/07/2002 09:02 AM EST

Posted by Ren� @ 02/07/2002 09:24 AM EST

Subscribe to Webword.com
Receive the best free usability newsletter on the Internet.

URL: http://www.WebWord.com/weblog/