Google Nabs Patent To Monitor Your Cursor Movement 198
bool2 writes "Google has been awarded a patent for displaying search results based on how you move your mouse cursor on the screen... Google's plans are to monitor the movements of the cursor, such as when a user hovers over a certain ad or link to read a tooltip, and then provide relevant search results, and ads, based on that behaviour. It means that it does not require users to actually click a link to know that they were interested in it, opening a world of opportunity for even more focused ads."
Adverts... (Score:3, Insightful)
Fuck adverts.
Not Accurate Metrics. (Score:3, Insightful)
What about people who inadvertently leave their cursor at a certain spot that happens to be a link while reading the results? It seems to me that this wouldn't produce very useful information.
The only problem with that... (Score:5, Insightful)
...is most people I know use their eyes instead of their mouse to see. Why would you need to move your mouse over to a certain part of the screen when you can just look there? Also, there's times where the mouse is just sitting in a portion of the screen idly, or sometimes people randomly move their mouse around to fulfill their OCD-ish needs (I'd know, I do that). A better alternative would simply be to see which links people end up clicking, which I'm pretty sure lots of search engines already do, and it works very well from what I've seen.
Re:Not Accurate Metrics. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not Accurate Metrics. (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems like that would be easy enough to sort out. If someone moves their cursor toward something, then away that might be a potential interest. If they leave the cursor in one place for an extended period of time, probably not interest, it's probably "reading." Seems like it wouldn't be too hard to tell if the page had a lot of text as well. Similarly, if you walk away from the computer, the cursor is going to be in one place for a comparatively long time, they'd presumably be able to tell that it was idle.
Re:Not Accurate Metrics. (Score:4, Insightful)
I now see a bright side to the 'touchscreen devices can't support mouse movement and Javascript hover behavior' complaints about web development for Android, iPhone, iPad, WebOS etc.
For me, it'll be incorrect data (Score:3, Insightful)
If I'm reading something, I move the mouse out of the way. So, if Google want to track what I'm interested in, they'll need to look at what the mouse is _not_ hovering over, or certainly not stopped over.
There is all sorts of prior art on this.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hover on this comment (Score:3, Insightful)
My thoughts exactly. This goes beyond searches submitted to Google. Hopefully it will be opt-in only.
Hooray! (Score:5, Insightful)
I am all for more focused ads. I dream of the day i will get an advert for something i will actually buy.
No, there isn't, nor is it obvious... (Score:3, Insightful)
I've worked at two companies where we created libraries for monitoring cursor movement, what the business folks used it for I'm not certain but this has been done over and over. What is so new and innovative about their implementation that it is patentable?
First, to say something is prior art, you have to read the claims of the patent, not the title of the Slashdot summary. For one, were your two companies providing search results and modifying the relevance of the results based on the cursor movement? Probably not.
Second, flip through the comments here on Slashdot:
Good luck with that [slashdot.org]
For me, it'll be incorrect data [slashdot.org]
The only problem with that... [slashdot.org]
Not accurate metrics. [slashdot.org]
Apparently, ordinary "skilled in the art" programmers and computer folks think that this method won't work, will have problems, will yield inaccurate metrics, etc. If people are saying something won't work, then it's seemingly obvious to them not to try it. The person who said the Wright brothers' machine could never fly probably didn't think that it was an obvious flying machine. Same thing here.
Apparently, the idea has some problems with it before it is a usable solution. If Google has solved those problems, then good for them!
Dumb idea (Score:1, Insightful)
I usually move the cursor OUT of my vision so I can read better. I don't think that's going to be very helpful for them...
Re:The only problem with that... (Score:4, Insightful)
As with all the various habits mentioned in this topic, your case will either be factored into the algorithm, or disable it for you if you are truly too random for the algorithm. There's no reason to assume the algorithm won't be personally tailored to the extent you provide a unique visitor profile.
People tend to forget that algorithms are where Google excels. They shouldn't to be underestimated so easily.
Re:Legally (Score:3, Insightful)
They wouldn't be tracking your mouse movements anywhere other than when you are on their page.
When I click on something, it is implied that I am giving them permission to do something. That's how the internet works, after all. Google and others have up to now taken liberties with click data, assuming that they can do what they want with it. And so far, no one has seriously objected.
However just visiting a page, with no warning that I am going to be "tracked", does not imply consent to be "tracked". I have indicated a desire to visit a page, nothing more.
They can already collect this data. It's called a "mouseover" event.
That is done by my browser, and the information stays on my browser. My browser doesn't (up to now) send mouseover events to a server and have the server read those and serve me content based on it. The HTML/javascript reacts in pre-arranged ways when the event happens, nothing more. No data leaves my computer.
meaning every keypress is sent directly to the host rather than text boxes being simple text boxes.
Again legally it could be argued that because the purpose of a text box is to collect data, the user is aware that what they enter into the box will be sent over the internet. So whether it's done instantly or after pressing Enter or a button is a moot point.
However the mouse is an input device between you and your computer. They are not allowed to listen in on THAT conversation, record it, process it, and even sell it, without your explicit permission. That permission, up to now, has been granted by the click of a link or a button. What they are trying to do is ASSUME that they have permission, without your consent. Hey I am not even a lawyer and I can see how tricky this can be. Real lawyers must be salivating...
Re:The only problem with that... (Score:2, Insightful)
You aren't kidding. Back in the earlier days of the Internet, I used to have my color palette inverted, so I was more comfortable with white text on a black background. I got fond of it, but as the internet began to rely more and more heavily on embedded and background images and that started resulting often in pages I couldn't see or wouldn't render properly, I finally went back to the 'normal' palette. Now I find I compulsively highlight text with the mouse, sometimes text I'm reading, because it makes it "look right" according to what I'm used to, and sometimes just random text or links as I glance at them, even if I have no interest in them. I'm also constantly rehighlighting and unhighlighting text as I read it, often without realizing it unless someone else is reading over my shoulder (in which case I drive them a wee bit nuts).
As a result, my cursor movement would drive any analysis software completely batshit, as it would appear like my cursor made click-through decisions, then dropped into a psuedo-random walk+click+drag routine while I read each page, without ever accidentally clicking a link until I was ready to move on.
I figure I can't be the only one that does this.
Re:Adverts... (Score:4, Insightful)
Fuck adverts.
Really? So you're willing to pay a monthly subscription to all your favorite search engines, news sites, etc. then?
Re:A great user experience awaits in 2030 (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft used to be in the same position. Bill Gates wanted patents for defensive purposes. For a long time they didn't sue anybody over them. That changed.