Google Patent for User Targeted Search Results 168
lorenbake writes "Scoble is one of many to report that Google has filed a patent for user targeted, or attention targeted, search results which will change the ranking of Google's organic results per each individual user based upon that user's search behavior, location, sites visited, and even 'typing behavior'. How could Google build such user profiles to serve customized organic (non-paid) results to? Tracking via their network of desktop apps, advertising, Gmail, and other network services."
Re:Help me Slashdot!!! (Score:1, Informative)
Well no actually, but it's close. You get 'Goole' plus i, v and d left over.
Goole [google.com] is a whole different kettle of fish...
It's already being done (Score:5, Informative)
What were you expecting? (Score:3, Informative)
TANSTAAFL.
Re:Help me Slashdot!!! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Help me Slashdot!!! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Filing a patent is EVIL (Score:3, Informative)
Queue someone claiming that it's a defensive patent, and Google is just using the system to defend themselves. Of course that sort of claim is pure nonsense.
Anyways, it's hardly new - Google has been using the patent system since they first hit the scene with PageRank [uspto.gov].
Bloody 'ell! (Score:2, Informative)
If you don't want to support the 767-buying [independent.co.uk], patent-filing search engine [google.com], you could switch to ...
... the search engine [yahoo.com] that snitches on dissidents [iht.com] to the secret police of totalitarian China!
... the search engine run by a bullying monopoly that has run afoul [cfo.com] of anti-trust laws.
... the search engine [a9.com] of another company looking to exploit the patent system.
Suddenly I'm wishing at least one university had held on to its search engine (Stanford had Google and Berkeley Inktomi) before spinning it out to make bucks.
Re:Temptation risk VERY high (Score:3, Informative)
It is a part of the 'owner's manual' included with their SEC filing.
Co-founders release Google 'owner's manual' [com.com]
Perhaps not so much 'buyer beware' as 'buyer be advised'. Investors know up front what the company is about and Google is not obligated to aggressively pursue short term profits by whatever means for its share holders. It has explicitly told them it will not do that.
Grant your trust for the right reasons (Score:5, Informative)
Helped Chinese authorities to censor their subjects' Internet access.
(http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.asp
Selectively approved and refused ads, based on political content.
(http://www.unknownnews.net/google.html [unknownnews.net])
(http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040830/reilly [thenation.com])
Permanently collected search history for everyone who has ever used their site.
(http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacypolicy.html [google.com]
(http://www.techweb.com/wire/ebiz/161500535 [techweb.com])
Permanently collected/indexed the email history and content of all gmail users, for marketing and law-enforcement use.
(http://mail.google.com/mail/help/privacy.html [google.com])
Filed obvious software patents.
(Refer to this slashdot story.)
For me, when people's actions directly contradict their words, I reduce my trust in them accordingly. Google can keep claiming to "do no evil," but the words are becoming more and more empty.
"How is it evil? It could be evil because its very powerful but in the right hands.. it could be good for everyone."
There's a simple way to tell if someone is likely to abuse power. When someone collects power over you, and states that it's for a purpose which doesn't require that power, you are being misled.