Rating Search Engine Disclosure Practices
636754
Which search engines are adequately disclosing their paid placement and paid inclusion practices? Which ones are failing to do so?  A new report offers some surprising insights.
16020
"Google bowling" and other forms of "negative SEO" are out there and should be understood.
262022
Tips for keeping your Web activities secret, or as secret as the Internet allows.
211189
Revamped search engine allows users to store and share results.
52332
A new tool seeks to make your searches more private by hiding them in plain sight. TrackMeNot periodically sends fake, innocuous queries to search engines, making it harder for someone to glean your actual search habits by reviewing the companies' logs that contain your queries.
429406
One of the major issues plaguing search engines right now is the growing list of web documents available online. While no exact numbers are available, there are billions of search results to sort through. But, they can&#8217;t all be relevant both on material content and time &#8212; can they?  Of course they&#8217;re not, and Google [...]
297850
Google is in the online ad-service business. Why does it lavish attention on software developers and open-source projects? Kicking offline Web apps into gear
134742
SEO has a pivotal role in reputation management, as it can push down negative results and enhance positives in search results.
642210
(InfoWorld) - When it comes to protecting the privacy of its users, Google ranks worse than any other Internet company, according to an interim report by Privacy International. The international watchdog group also accused Google of engaging in a smear campaign in response to its findings and demanded an apology. Privacy International's findings, based on six months of research, placed Google at the bottom of 23 Internet companies examined by the group. Google was the only company to earn the bottom ranking for "comprehensive consumer surveillance and entrenched hostility to privacy." Other companies, such as Microsoft and Yahoo, rated slightly better that Google. Microsoft was given a rating of four out of six for "serious lapses in privacy practices." Yahoo was given a ranking of five of six, one better than Google, for "substantial and comprehensive privacy threats." "We are aware that the decision to place Google at the bottom of the ranking is likely to be controversial, but throughout our research, we have found numerous deficiencies and hostilities in Google's approach to privacy that go well beyond those of other organizations," Privacy International said. In particular, the group cited the large amount of data that Google collects about its users and lack of privacy controls. "Google's increasing ability to deep-drill into the minutiae of a user's life and lifestyle choices must in our view be coupled with well defined and mature user controls and an equally mature privacy outlook," Privacy International said. "Neither of these elements has been demonstrated." Privacy International plans to issue a final report in September. Google executives were not immediately available to comment on the report's findings. But an open letter to Google CEO Eric Schmidt from Privacy International Director Simon Davies accused the company of engaging in a smear campaign in response to the group's findings. "Two European journalists have independently told us that Google representatives have contacted them with the claim that 'Privacy International has a conflict of interest regarding Microsoft.' I presume this was motivated because Microsoft scored an overall better result than Google in the rankings," Davies wrote. Google allegedly claimed a conflict of interest exist because one of 70 people on Privacy International's board of advisors is a current Microsoft employee. Davies rejected the charge and listed five critical actions the group has taken against Microsoft, including support for the European Commission's investigation into Microsoft. "Can I be so bold as to suggest that your company's actions stem from sour grapes that you achieved the lowest ranking amongst the Internet giants?" Davies wrote, demanding an apology from Schmidt. This isn't the first time that Privacy International has raised privacy concerns about Google. In 2004, the group filed a privacy complaint over Google's Gmail service with regulators in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Greece, Italy, Spain, the Czech Republic, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Ireland, Portugal, Poland, Austria, Australia, and Canada, as well as with the European Commission. To date, Google has rejected concerns over the information it gathers and stores about users. Speaking recently in South Korea, Schmidt dismissed privacy concerns over the data collected by the company, saying users worried about privacy can always choose not to use the company's services. He also said Google deletes information about users after a certain period of time but did not say how long that period is. Privacy concerns about Google have also been raised overÂ the company's acquisition of DoubleClick, sparking anÂ investigation by the U.S. Fair Trade Commission (FTC). That investigation is ongoing. While Google has taken flack from critics for its privacy policies, the company has acted to protect users in at least one case: In January 2006, Google was the only company to resist a U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) subpoena for a random sampling of 1 million Web addresses that users searched for. AOL, Microsoft, and Yahoo did not fight the DOJ's request, which did not seek information that would have identified the users who made the search requests contained in the sample. Ultimately, Google shared a smaller amount of data with the DOJ.
619634
By John McBride, The Charlotte Observer, N.C.  Sep. 10--You go to Google and get your search results -- then what?   How do you know whether the sites Google returns can be trusted? You can't. It's you against the world.
482788
Found in the search marketing forums: Playing the Stock Market with Search; Reputation Management and Google; Client Wants to Change URL After 15 Years; and more.
145460
Andreas Gohr has posted some info and code about one of the social networking/linking services out there, StumbleUpon. His post includes PHP code to figure out what your site's StumbleUpon ranking is.   StumbleUpon recently(?) added a "search result enhancement" feature to their toolbar. It adds StumbleUpon "star ratings" to Google results (See screenshot). This got me interested and I had a closer look at their extension...   As part of this "closer look" he came up with the code to return a general ranking for the URL you would give it. It does require a StumbleUpon auth key and username, but if you use the service already, you're one step ahead on that.
39364
(InfoWorld) - What if there were a giant database that contained your hidden insecurities, embarrassing medical questions, and the fact that you still think from time to time about your high-school girlfriend? Well, such a data store does exist -- if you've ever plugged such private topics into a search engine. The fact is, search engines like Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft Live Search all record and retain in their vast data banks any term that you query in addition to the date and time your query was processed, the IP address of your computer, and a cookie-based unique ID that -- unless you delete it -- enables the search engine to continue to know if requests are coming from that particular computer, even if the connection changes. Microsoft Live Search also records the type of search you conducted (image, Web, local, etc.), while Google additionally stores your browser type and language. And when you click on a link displayed on Google, that may also be recorded and associated with your computer's IP address. While Google recently announced that it would make its search logs anonymous after 18 months' time by deleting part of the IP address and obfuscating cookies associated with search queries, Microsoft and Yahoo haven't yet made their retention policies public. AOL stores this data for just one month. The upshot: If someone were to ask one of these search engine companies to produce a list of IP addresses or cookie values that searched on a particular search term, they conceivably could. Or, conversely, given an IP address or cookie value, the search engine firm could produce a list of terms searched by the user of that address or cookie value. Don't worry; be happy Some people say there's not much to worry about because the server logs don't associate these search terms with personally identifiable information, such as your name or e-mail address. However, if you have an account with or have registered for any of the additional services on a search engine site -- e-mail, social networks, calendars, shopping lists -- it's feasible that that connection could be made, says Brad Templeton, chairman of the board at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group that protects liberties and privacy in cyberspace. In the case of Microsoft and Yahoo, that information can be extensive because of how much personal information these search engine firms ask for on their account registration forms, including your occupation, job title and marital status, and the number of children in your household. According to Whitney Burk, public relations manager at Microsoft, "There is no systematic way of identifying, isolating, or cross-referencing search data with personally identifiable information." Google also says it stores the two types of information separately. However, according to Templeton, "it would be very difficult to make it impossible for someone to make that correlation." Templeton emphasizes that he doesn't know exactly how any of the search engine systems are designed, but -- given typical designs -- there are many different ways that someone with the right access and knowledge could make a retroactive correlation between search terms and personally identifiable information. Considering that search terms can reveal personal information that ranges from medical prescriptions to religious beliefs and political preferences, that's not an association many of us would be happy to see. Even if you didn't provide any personal information, an IP address alone could be traced back through a reverse DNS lookup to the Internet service provider and city of the IP address, according to Danny Sullivan, editor in chief of Search Engine Land, a blog dedicated to search news. Contacting the ISP could result in a positive identification of the account holder by finding out which account accessed the search engine at the time recorded in the search log. Last year, reporters at The New York Times didn't even need an IP address to track down the identity of an AOL user when AOL published anonymous search logs of 500,000 users over a three-month period. The identification was made possible simply based on the specificity of the search terms the user queried, such as real estate searches in the small town where she lived. (If you have any question as to what collected search terms reveal about an individual -- accurate or not -- check out those AOL search logs.) Hello, George Orwell? If all this sounds Big Brother-ish to you, you're not alone. Individual users, consumer interest groups, government regulatory committees around the world, and privacy groups are growing increasingly worried about how much personal data search engine firms retain and what they could do -- or be forced to do -- with this information. In recent months, Google seemingly hasn't been able to make a move without drawing speculation and suspicion about its ability to construct personal portraits of user behavior. Several consumer interest groups have filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission regarding Google's acquisition of DoubleClick. The groups claim it would give Google unprecedented insight into consumer behavior because it could track both people's Internet searches and their Web site visits. And when Google released its History feature, which associates individuals' search and page visitation histories with their account information, some observers, such as veteran blogger Anil Dash, called it both "brilliant" and "scary." "With the release of Web History, especially in the context of its recent acquisitions and announcements, Google may have crossed the line where regular users start to react with skepticism and caution instead of unabashed enthusiasm," Dash says in his blog (see "Google hostile to privacy, group says"). The creepiness factor surrounding online search data was also upped by the revelation in early 2006 that the U.S. Justice Department had subpoenaed Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and AOL to turn over a random list of Web queries conducted over the course of a week, divorced from the names of those submitting them. AOL, Microsoft, and Yahoo turned over some of the requested information, but Google resisted. Although Google set a good precedent by doing so, "Governments can and will do things that companies have to comply with," says Chris Sherman, executive editor of Search Engine Land, referring to the Chinese government pressuring Yahoo to turn over the name of a user who posted to an online forum. "The [U.S.] government is a growing concern because over the last several, years it's been expanding its power to ask for such information, especially as the political climate has changed," Templeton says. For instance, he points out, warrants have been easier to get since the USA Patriot Act was enacted. "It's something we should worry about more than in the past," he says. Of course, some in the government are trying for more, not less, protection for online data. Congressman Edward Markey (D-Mass.) introduced a bill in early 2006 (H.R. 4731) to require owners of Internet Web sites -- not just search engine firms --- to destroy obsolete data containing personal consumer information. Putting aside the government, there are other ways for private data to be revealed, Templeton says, in the form of internal employees. "Everyone knows the history of most large database [breaches] comes down to a story of corrupt employees who sell access to private records," he says. "In the private investigation world, they can use bribes to get people's tax returns." Brass tacks All of this raises the question: Why do search firms store all this data? Google offers three reasons: It can help the company improve its services, maintain security and prevent abuse by looking for patterns indicating fraudulent activity, and comply with legal obligations to retain data. The company asserts that it can use this information to determine how often users are satisfied with the first result of a query and how often they proceed to later results. Or it can determine how many times an advertisement is clicked in order to calculate how much the advertiser should be charged. In his blog, Sullivan is more direct. "Google is big on personalization," he writes. "Big, big, big. For Google, getting up close and personal with individuals is seen as a big leap forward on many fronts -- and 2007 is the year Google is going all out after it." The more Google can know about you, Sullivan explains, the more it believes it can deliver you a better experience, not to mention more targeted ads. "But in particular," he says, "personalization is seen as the next generational step in delivering better search results." But Templeton questions whether the search firms need to store as much information as they do and for as long as they do. "We regularly advise [Google] that they're keeping too much information," he says. While some people, such as Sullivan, applaud Google's move to limit the amount of time it retains search logs, saying that will make it nearly impossible to trace any query back to a particular computer, Templeton thinks total destruction of the data would be far better. "History is full of [incidents] where people thought they could anonymize or destroy data, but people find a way to recover it," he says. "You have to be more thorough in their destruction -- you have to eventually destroy the connection between the IP address and the searches." Plus, Google's move may or may not address backup data, which Sullivan notes is not as easily accessible or altered. And the 18-month window also doesn't address data stored via its Web History feature. That information, Sullivan says, is not being destroyed or anonymized over time. "If you want it wiped out," he says on his blog, "Google says you have to do that separately." On the positive side, Web History lets users know exactly what data pertaining to them is stored, and they can take it into their own hands to delete those histories at any time. The same is true of Yahoo's MyWeb feature, which stores user searches if it's been switched on. With all the focus on user privacy, the search engine firms say they are taking measures to increase the anonymity of users. Google has said it will build privacy protections into its nonsearch products, including Google Talk's "off the record" feature, as well as Google Desktop's "pause" and "lock search" controls. It has also said it will provide easy-to-understand privacy policies for users on its Web site. For its part, Microsoft says it's actively engaged with data protection authorities around the world on what user information is collected and for what purposes as well as policies around notice and consent. "There is no universal consensus on the 'right' policies," Burk says. "However, we will continue to be active with privacy advocates and authorities as these decisions are made." In the end, Sherman says, it's up to individual users to decide whether they trust search engine firms with their personal information. "It's something everyone has to decide -- at what level am I comfortable with the reality of improving my search results vs. my identity being connected with the types of queries I do?" he says. And he's careful to note that the question extends way beyond Google, which in his eyes takes strong measures to secure user data. "When you go to Google, you can't get anywhere near their data centers," he says. "There are levels of security in the company where few people are cleared to get into areas where people can see personally identifiable information." But to Templeton, that's not enough. "Even when people try to do a good job, things happen, and data still gets out," he says. "If it's collected and in a place that can be accessed, it can get out." Furthermore, Sherman points out, it's not just search engines that store personal data. "Your ISP knows more about you than any search engine -- not just what you're searching on but every Web site you've visited," he says. On his blog Sullivan adds, "Google may be anonymizing its records, but your ISP might not be."
56162
Opinion: Whether they realize it or not, many people leave sensitive information out in plain view on Web sites. But sooner or later, a Google search will dig it up.
517445
Tips for improving the efficiency of job searches on the Web.
177252
Links to this week's topics from search engine forums across the web: Click-Fraud Said to be 50% of Clicks - PPC &#91;Pay Per Click&#93; And Affiliate Marketing, Will It Last? - Press Releases for Link Development - New Adwords Traffic Estimator - AdWords: Is Broadmatch Really Bad? - Marketing Tactics with Shopping Search Engines - How To Optimize PDFs
763088
How forthcoming are search engines in disclosing their paid placement and paid inclusion policies?  They're better than they were a couple of years ago, but there's still room for improvement, according to a prominent watchdog group.