[com2kid]

> 1) a record of searches and user clicks for the past 20 years

From what I can tell, Google cares a lot more about recency.

When I switch over to a new framework or language, search results are pretty bad for the first week, horrible actually as Google thinks I am still using /other language/. I have to keep appending the language / framework name to my queries.

After a week or so? The results are pure magic. I can search for something sort of describing what I want and Google returns the correct answer. If I search for 'array length' Google is going to tell me how to find the length of an array in whatever language I am currently immersed in!

As much as I try to use Duck Duck Go, Google is just too magic.

But I don't think it is because they have my complete search history.

Also people forget that the creepy stuff Google does is super useful.

For example, whatever framework I am using, Google will start pushing news updates to my Google Now (or whatever it is called on my phone) about new releases to that framework. I get a constant stream of learning resources, valuable blog posts, and best practices delivered to me every morning!

It really is impressive.

[latexr]

> Also people forget that the creepy stuff Google does is super useful.

For the same reasons you’re exalting them, I have non-technical friends who asked me how Google knows so much about them (and suggestions on how to avoid it) because they found it too creepy.

I don’t think people forget Google’s results are useful; some just think they’re more creepy than valuable. You seem to have picked your side in that (im)balance, and other people prefer the other side.

There’s also the relevant consideration that no matter how useful they may be, they should have no right to impose themselves on you. By this I mean that one should be free to refuse their creepiness, understanding the price is their usefulness. Yet, Google is the subject of privacy violations all the time, and they are caught time and again lying about what they collect on users.

[DoreenMichele]

I don’t think people forget Google’s results are useful; some just think they’re more creepy than valuable. You seem to have picked your side in that (im)balance, and other people prefer the other side.

Just as a general observation without taking either side:

People routinely fail to recognize both sides of a particular thing. It's why we have sayings like "You don't know what you've got til it's gone."

[lostctown]

I wish interfaces were more straight up about their intentions and made it easier to implement account level partitions. For work I love Google's magic tracking effects, but at 1 am, hell no.

[arwineap]

You can have multiple identities in chrome[0], even guest identities.

[0] https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/2364824

[lostctown]

Right. I'm just saying it should be clearer. Ex: I want to have a list of accounts, netflix style, that I'm presented with on an empty chrome window. If in fact multiple identities don't merge data implicitly in anyway than this is just a UI issue.

But I have a hard time believing google truly partitions everything in a multi account setup.

[mjevans]

It would be immensely useful if Google understood that normal people have multiple facades that they use in different contexts. Probably several professional (which project / component was I working on again), private but family friendly (planning gifts for relatives, etc), and private but clearly out there (stuff you don't want to shock 60 year old parents / young kids / etc with) profiles.

Also, for incognito stuff, it'd be nice to have read-only basing on stock profiles related to various activities or people.

[reroute1]

It is actually possible to operate without relying on Google or any other big tech firm. Who is forcing you into these privacy dilemmas? All of their services are a choice you are making. You don't need to accept any of it if you don't want to.

[latexr]

> You don't need to accept any of it if you don't want to.

Tell that to the people who had their privacy violated by Street View[1]. And the people who specifically disabled location services on their Android devices but were still tracked[2]. Or all the people who have no idea what Google Analytics is and never consented to it, but are profiled by it everyday.

> All of their services are a choice you are making.

I do my best to avoid privacy invading companies, and as a technical user I find it tiring and know I deal with consequences (e.g. broken websites). It perplexes me that comments like yours still pop up. We’re not the only segment of the population that exists; non-technical users are the majority, and they have the same right to privacy as we do, with a modicum of transparency. If even technical people are regularly tripped by privacy invasions we didn’t know about, what chances do non-technical users have?

[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/technology/google-pays-fi...

[2]: https://qz.com/1131515/google-collects-android-users-locatio...

[reroute1]

Street view is debatably invasive. I understand this might seem hand wavy to someone really concerned about privacy issues, but

1.generally speaking I would think VERY few people care about an image of their property being on street views. 2. It's not really illegal to take pictures so even from a legal standpoint it seems like a gray area. 3. I understand there can be individual reasons for not wanting this, but it seems to be a very large net positive. And I would apply that statement to most other tracking and data policies they have.

If they are lying about how their services track people, that is definitely grounds for concern. The transparency can definitely be improved, but still these are people with Android phones and people using Google Analytics. No one is forced to use these things they are free to use any other service or create their own.

And my attitude is out of pragmatism and how I think privacy issues should be handled. I don't have any problem with the way Google uses my data so I don't care to fix a non problem. And I don't see it as their responsibility to change a way of business when anyone is free to use any other service or create their own, since I don't find it offensive.

[latexr]

The first sentence of the linked New York Times story:

> Google on Tuesday acknowledged to state officials that it had violated people’s privacy during its Street View mapping project when it casually scooped up passwords, e-mail and other personal information from unsuspecting computer users.

That answers your first three paragraphs. There’s no “if” to their lying and privacy invasions. They’ve been caught and admitted their actions time and again.

> No one is forced to use these things they are free to use any other service or create their own.

It is here I will respectfully give up on continuing the conversation with you. You’re either ignoring my main point or truly don’t care for the majority of users. Most people don’t understand the ramifications of these choices and for good reason; they are hard to understand. By suggesting non-technical users create their own services and devices, I’m now wondering it you’re trolling me.

> And my attitude is out of pragmatism (…) I don't have any problem with the way Google uses my data

Which is valid, but irrelevant. I’ve already mentioned in the top post different people make different choices. I presented another side and used facts to justify it. If you’re going to answer with mere opinion, you’re not adding to the points made by the original poster.

[Karunamon]

That snippet of the NYT story omits critical context: The data they captured were random wifi packets (probably for use in Skyhook-type location fixes by way of mapping out where APs are). Sounds like they were doing the equivalent of a wardrive and captured more than the AP advertisement message.

This is information that Google doesn't have any need for (noise) and didn't want in the first place.

They also self-reported the failure, where they could have just nuked it and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[reroute1]

What? You seem to be misunderstanding my statements.

My first points were about the streetview product. Scooping up passwords is obviously not the intent of that product, maybe that was an error or they changed the core product at some point? I can't read the paywalled article.

I'm not suggesting non-technical users create products... you're reading so far out of context. Just because user X can't create a new product does not mean that we should place sanctions on company Y. I'm glad you used facts somewhere else because in this post you just illogically connect a bunch of dots.

Yes some of it is my opinion and alot of this is yours. But a fact is still no one is forcing you to use these products, then you went off about stolen passwords and trolling and resigned yourself from the argument. That sounds like a rationality of a completely one-sided biased individual in itself, respectfully.

Yes everyone agrees transparency is good and lying is bad. Google is not Evil Or Benevolent. They're just people...

"And I don’t use them. I hoped that by continuing to mention non-technical users you’d get it, but this was never about me. You keep bringing up that argument, but read what you replied to in the first post — I recounted the experience of non-technical people I know, not my experience. Stop telling me I have a choice; the point is not us, it’s non-technical users who don’t have the knowledge to make informed choices!"

Haha you are so ridiculous. This was your first post:

There’s also the relevant consideration that no matter how useful they may be, they should have no right to impose themselves on you.

Then you say you don't know why I bring up that you don't need to use Googles services... C'mon man get real. That's why the point about using alternatives or creating new ones is very relevant and this entire thread is about sanctions. Don't start a convo you can't participate in and then just claim you won and leave, that's childish behavior.

[sobani]

> It is possible to operate without relying on any big tech firm.

Some writer from Gizmodo tried that last February. Let's just say that you are technically correct that you don't need any of the big tech firms.

https://gizmodo.com/i-cut-the-big-five-tech-giants-from-my-l...

[smsm42]

I was curious about this, as I work in multiple languages every day. I almost never use Google though except as last resort if other engines can't find anything. So the result I got for array length was for Javascript. Which is quite high on the hype cycle now, but I only very rarely use it and search anything about it even less frequently.

Sо I wonder how much of the magic you perceive might be just your interests matching the interests of the most other people using Google and thus it's not just Google magically guessing you're into Javascript (for example) now, but Javascript being popular and this being the cause of both Google returning matches for it and you starting to use it? Did you ever do a clean experiment - e.g. try to learn APL or some other relatively obscure language and have Google return all results about APL and none about Javascript?

[nojvek]

Going back to OPs point. Google is real good at associating search query to search result. Every time you search and click on something, google learns that association.

So it could very well be that as more users adopt the new language/framework in the first couple of weeks they have taught google those associations.

Google isn’t a search company. They are a distributed machine learning company that make most of their money from learning what people want and showing relevant ads to them.

[kingludite]

They have adds to show first, telling what people want comes after that, knowing what people wanted is only to make the second easier and only interesting up to serving the first.

Really good or really bad only exists if there is something else to compare it to.

[majormajor]

I always see posts like this here, and then I try it, and I get a page full of "array length" results for Javascript, while everything in the last year that I've searched for has been Java or Kotlin...

Same when I owned a Pixel after hearing about Google Now and their ML magic there. Nothing more magical than an iPhone in terms of suggestions. The camera was amazing, but not all this supposed contextual stuff.

[lrem]

Wild guess: in a surge of privacy consciousness you told Google to stay the heck away from your data. These checkboxes stick forever and couple years down the line some magic feature won't be able to learn from your data. E.g. despite working there, I still haven't figured out how to let Photos recognize people in my pictures, something that definitely is on by default.

[amelius]

Question: have you ever visited this webpage?

https://myactivity.google.com/

For many people it is enough to be totally creeped out about Google.

Also, that Google remembers context can be handy but it is not essential. Without context, I am sure you would be equally capable of finding what you are looking for, although it might take a little more typing since you'll have to supply the context yourself. Imho, convenience is not a good argument for giving away your personal information.

[torbjorn]

Yeah I must echo your sentiments wrt their Google Now product, it is great. Not only does it provides relevant content but some of it is very new and or obscure which I really appreciate. I have linked people to videos I pulled off my Google Now feed and they are amazed that I know about a video on our very specific shared interest that is less than a couple hours old and has only a few hundred views.

[feanaro]

The flip side of this is that it makes it harder for you to stumble upon something related, but new, outside of the filter bubble Google is making for you.

There's no arguing what you're describing is useful, but it's nice to keep in mind that there are downsides even if you ignore the privacy argument (which, IMO, shouldn't be ignored).

[r-w]

Your results may be bad for the first week, but the better results you get later on have everything to do with Google’s long-term user-base.