Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Merges Google+ Into Search

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the relating-to-related-links dept.

Google 279

SharkLaser writes "Google is today launching an update to their search engine. This update is intended to bring you personalized search results based on your Google+ friends, sharing, pictures and likes. They're calling it 'Search plus Your World,' and the update is going to automatically personalize all search results to a greater degree than before. These personalized matches will appear along your normal search results. For example, if you are searching for images of babies, Google will now personalize your search results and give high preference to baby photos from your Google+ circles. TechCrunch is speculating that over time they will also start adding search results from all the other Google services, including Google Docs, Gmail, Contacts, Music, Voice, wallet and so on. Today's launch also uses Google+ data for another purpose: helping you search for information about people on Google+. For example, if you are searching Google for 'music,' Google will now display relevant people and pages from Google+, like Britney Spears, Alicia Keys and Snoop Dogg." Update: 01/10 18:40 GMT by S : Changed the summary to reflect that the idea of adding search results from other services was speculation from TechCrunch, and not something Google said.

cancel ×

279 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Please no (5, Insightful)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 2 years ago | (#38652682)

Make it opt-in instead of opt-out. Please don't junk up my search results.

Re:Please no (4, Insightful)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38652724)

Slowly they will make those results more and more dependent on Google+. Resistance is futile.

Re:Please no (4, Insightful)

DCTech (2545590) | more than 2 years ago | (#38652766)

Google just doesn't understand why people want to use social networking sites and what people want. Here is blog post [thinkoutsidein.com] by a guy who worked at Google and decided to leave to Facebook, and here is another ex-Googler who worked on Google+ [rethrick.com] . They're both saying that Google only catched upon social networking lately and didn't care about it at all before. Yet they still continue to make so stupid mistakes. And of course, here is a good article about the whole transparency thing at Google [seobook.com] .

Re:Please no (2)

allo (1728082) | more than 2 years ago | (#38652838)

google had its SN before, orkut.

ALL YOUR PANOPTICON ARE BELONG TO US (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38652950)

Existential war with Facebook.

Re:Please no (4, Insightful)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 2 years ago | (#38652958)

There are a lot of companies that jumped late to the game and still did some hit, like Apple with MP3s or phones and even Google itself with search. The trick is doing it well. Will this move from google (or in general, the ongoing integration of all their services into/around G+) succeed or not? Time will tell

Re:Please no (4, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653064)

I don't think it's entirely lack of understanding; part of it is, but part of it is having ulterior motives for their social network, which includes a design requirement that it's got to somehow 'synergize' with their search business.

Re:Please no (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653136)

Shift those paradigms by giving 110%!

Re:Please no (5, Insightful)

mystikkman (1487801) | more than 2 years ago | (#38652726)

How is this different from MS integrating IE into Windows to beat Netscape? Google has a monopoly on search and is harming other industries such as social networks, maps and finance sites by integrating them by default into the search, whereas other competitors like Map Quest don't have this chance and are dying off slowly like Netscape did.

Re:Please no (4, Interesting)

DCTech (2545590) | more than 2 years ago | (#38652786)

How is this different from MS integrating IE into Windows to beat Netscape? Google has a monopoly on search and is harming other industries such as social networks, maps and finance sites by integrating them by default into the search, whereas other competitors like Map Quest don't have this chance and are dying off slowly like Netscape did.

The article actually covers that a bit.

Since the launch of Google+, Google has been putting a lot of muscle behind promoting and integrating the service into its core products. Fire up a new Android 4.0 device, and youâ(TM)ll be prompted to create a Google+ account if you havenâ(TM)t already. Theyâ(TM)ve given it TV ads, not to mention a priceless promotion on its homepage.

So not only search, but they're using Android and every other product to tie the user to Google+. They're going to get hit hard by antitrust issues.

Re:Please no (4, Interesting)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653004)

So not only search, but they're using Android and every other product to tie the user to Google+. They're going to get hit hard by antitrust issues.

So for the dozen or so screens also baked into Android that allow use of Facebook, Twitter, and a host of other social and email services they will need to add a "Join Now" button? I know the SEC and the Justice Department are separate entities but it just feels like as long as Facebook is still privately held the feds don't really give a crap about what happens in social network land (beyond the extent that they can monitor it all at will).

Re:Please no (2, Insightful)

ganjadude (952775) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653132)

I am not a fan of the integrated search results But I have an honest question. How is google pushing its services "wrong" any more than fox showing an ad for the simpsons during an NFL game? If you are on that website (or network tv station) than wouldnt you expect, or even want information provided by that site or network? I dont want to see about jersey shore when im watching hell on wheels you know?

Re:Please no (3, Insightful)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653322)

The difference is that Google Search dominates the market, while Fox doesn't.

Re:Please no (0)

DCTech (2545590) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653198)

Those are just apps you can use if you want to. It's completely different if Google asks you to create Google+ profile when you're booting your Android phone.

Re:Please no (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653218)

Android isn't a monopoly, though, unlike Search.

Re:Please no (2, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653410)

So not only search, but they're using Android and every other product to tie the user to Google+. They're going to get hit hard by antitrust issues.

They probably have a monopoly that is similar to MS's in the OS and Office markets. So the rule is that they cannot leverage their monopoly in search to push out competitors in other areas.

They do not have a monopoly in smart phones, so they can push competitors off of their phones entirely if they think it would sell. They can try to use Google+ to encourage people to use other Google products, but it won't help them at all because no one uses Google+. If they start using search to crowd out Facebook in favor of Google+, then they will probably get themselves in trouble.

Re:Please no (1)

Lashat (1041424) | more than 2 years ago | (#38652840)

It's a push of dogfood (IE) vs pull of my personal info (G+).

Re:Please no (0)

diegocg (1680514) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653112)

Google has a monopoly on search

Yeah, because Google is forcing all of us into not setting Bing as our default search engine.

Re:Please no (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653258)

A monopoly, at least for antitrust laws, means they have a completely dominant position over that market. Microsoft didn't force you to buy Windows either, but they were still fined for violating antitrust laws.

Re:Please no (2)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653168)

First off, it is much easier to change search engines than it is to change operating systems. No one is required to use Google Search and there are plenty of competitors. Many people haven't looked at another search engine in years simply because Google does what they want and they presume it is the best. And, of course, many slashdotters wouldn't ever consider using Bing because it is made by the evil M$.

Secondly, you assert that MapQuest is dying off because of Google integrating maps into Google Search, but you offer no evidence. My experiences with MapQuest and it's user interface were far inferior to my Google Maps experience.

Finally, no one is being forced to use any particular service of Google's and no one is forcing one to use Google's other services if one uses Google Search.

Re:Please no (3, Informative)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653270)

>Secondly, you assert that MapQuest is dying off because of Google integrating maps into Google Search, but you offer no evidence

http://www.thewindowsclub.com/fairsearch-coalition-prepares-report-googles-alleged-anticompetitive-conduct [thewindowsclub.com]

>My experiences with MapQuest and it's user interface were far inferior to my Google Maps experience.

Netscape was pretty inferior to IE4 as well.

>Finally, no one is being forced to use any particular service of Google's and no one is forcing one to use Google's other services if one uses Google Search.

Microsoft never prevented anyone from installing or using Netscape either.

Re:Please no (1)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653390)

A) That link seems to be complaining that Google is adding services the way Yahoo and Microsoft did. Strange that they would complain NOW.

B) And, your point is what? Inferior products tend to die off.

C) Right, and because Netscape was, by your own admission, pretty inferior, it died off.

Seriously, Google isn't doing anything other than what other gateways did in the past. And, by many accounts, it is doing them in an inferior way. If you don't like what is happening or the services provided, don't use Google. Problem solved.

Re:Please no (1, Troll)

DCTech (2545590) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653338)

The antitrust issues rarely are from direct user point of view. It wasn't with Microsoft, it isn't with Google. With Microsoft they were trying to kill other browser and OS makers by making deals with PC manufacturers. With Google it's issue with advertisers, who are the actual customers of Google. Since Google maintains a monopoly on search, they can pretty much dictate pay per click advertising. And they do.

European Union was looking into Google's monopoly issues because Google was denying advertisers from running same ads on other networks [bloomberg.com] if they want to use Google's ad services. This is already bad in US, but in several European countries Google has a market share of 90-99% in search. There are just no alternatives, and if there are, Google is doing everything they can to kill them off. Hence the antitrust issues.

Re:Please no (2)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653192)

How is this different from MS integrating IE into Windows to beat Netscape? Google has a monopoly on search and is harming other industries such as social networks, maps and finance sites by integrating them by default into the search, whereas other competitors like Map Quest don't have this chance and are dying off slowly like Netscape did.

That's an easy one; with MS the customer was the person sitting at the computer, and they were also tasked with deciding which browser software to use (from a range or free and for-pay packages). With Google, the only people who could be construed as customers are those purchasing ad space; if you are using the search engine you are not their customer, you are part of their *product*. Because the ad war for eyeballs stops at basically nothing, it is hard to argue they are abusing a market position in one that *doesn't exist* when really they are just providing more paths for advertisers to spend money with them. Now, argue that they are somehow unduly harming the marketplace for advertisers or ad companies, and you may have a case (as it is, Facebook has such a huge lead in the social space that this will all be irrelevant for several years.)

Re:Please no (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38652844)

I just searched for "music" and got no results from Google Plus on the first page. A more specific query, "Snoop Dogg", doesn't turn up his Google Plus page. His twitter page comes right up though. What have they actually done here, because it looks like the same old search to me.

Re:Please no (1)

DCTech (2545590) | more than 2 years ago | (#38652862)

They're launching it today, and Google always rolls updates slowly to all users. Article has pictures showing what it looks like.

Re:Please no (3, Funny)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 2 years ago | (#38652874)

Microsoft doesn't even need to do anything but stick with what they're doing at this point for Bing to grow. Google is junking up the search results, as you would say, more and more with each passing month

Re:Please no (1, Interesting)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38652928)

Agreed. I tried Bing last week because Google results were so useless and my first thought was 'hey, this looks just like Google did before it started sucking ass'.

Re:Please no (0)

DCTech (2545590) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653152)

I also agree. Just that preview panel on right side makes google search results suck, and they went and shoved cache link under it too. Bing doesn't have any of crap and works great.

Re:Please no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38652938)

Agreed. I use Google to learn new things, about people and places I don't know. I don't want my search feed cluttered with crap from my social sites. That's what my social site feeds are for.

Re:Please no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38652956)

All you have to do is sign out and search.

Re:Please no (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38653084)

Not even. There are two buttons at the top of every search that lets you choose between these personalized results and the normal non-personalized results. This is whether you're logged in or not. People are getting worried about nothing. As usual.

Re:Please no (2)

xaxa (988988) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653116)

All you have to do is sign out and search.

I leave my main web browser logged in to my personal GMail, which over the last year or two has led to me being logged in on all kinds of other Google sites -- YouTube, Google search, G+. Presumably Google Analytics from anything I look at is tied to my account.

I already use a separate browser for anything "dodgy". I wonder if I should get a third browser, and use that only for Google-related things. Then I can block all cookies from anything related to Google in my main browser.

Re:Please no (3, Interesting)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653188)

Toooooooo laaaaaaaaaaaaate [makingithappen.co.uk] . Soon we will all live within our own socially-bounded thought bubbles, and the Internet's power to connect people will just be an abstraction layer on top of the physical world. Say goodbye to having your culture, values, and beliefs challenged. Advertising has spoken, and advertising hates having to pander to multiple audiences at the same time.

Terminator Reference (4, Funny)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#38652698)

I'm pretty sure that Google is Skynet, but instead of nuking us it will just embarrass us all to death once it achieve sentience.

Re:Terminator Reference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38652732)

Trust me - there is life after embarrassment-to-death.

Desperation? (1, Insightful)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 2 years ago | (#38652710)

I guess they need to find some way to get people to use Google+...

Re:Desperation? (3, Insightful)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 2 years ago | (#38652878)

I guess they need to find some way to get people to use Google+...

And yet I think that this move creates one of the better reasons not to have a Google+ account.

Re:Desperation? (4, Informative)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 2 years ago | (#38652984)

I guess they need to find some way to get people to use Google+...

Google has been up front from the beginning that the long-term plan for Google+ (and the reason for the name) was that it was going to be an integrated social layer that interacted deeply with the rest of Google's services, not a separate standalone service.

Uhg (1)

geek (5680) | more than 2 years ago | (#38652714)

Ive stopped using google because of all this Plus nonsense. No Chrome, gmail, search, nothing. I switched all my service elsewhere. Maybe google will turn the ship around but I doubt it. They seem like the are on a downward slide, maybe they just got too arrogant.

Re:Uhg (1)

Tharsman (1364603) | more than 2 years ago | (#38652780)

I am ready to quit their mail and have quit everything else. Only thing I still cant find a viable replacement for is Reader... ugh....

Re:Uhg (0)

DCTech (2545590) | more than 2 years ago | (#38652816)

Why would you use Google Reader when you can use any desktop based RSS reader, like FeedReader?

Re:Uhg (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#38652884)

Because google reader is not desktop based? I have more than one computing device.

I ran feedonfeeds for years on my own server, but eventually switched to GR.

Re:Uhg (1)

BRSQUIRRL (69271) | more than 2 years ago | (#38652912)

Not to answer for the original poster, but for me personally, I like having a centrally-stored list of feeds and a reader UI that I can access from any web browser. My favorite news reader app for iOS [apple.com] also happens to only support Google Reader as a feed source.

Re:Uhg (1)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653014)

Your comment is a great example of why I don't think anti-trust issues will be a big problem for Google, at least in the US.

Re:Uhg (1)

geek (5680) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653266)

Calling google a monopoly is repugnant. We still have tons of choices (ironically we have most of these choices because of google). Google isn't so much a monopoly as just a parasite. They leach ad revenue off anything and everything they can. They latch themselves on pretty firmly but it's still quite possible to ditch them.

If anyone reading like this is like me and upset with google then the best thing you can do to remove them is to stop using "google" as a verb. Start "searching" and correct people when they use google as a verb too. Don't hand the internet over to them so handily.

Re:Uhg (1)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653066)

We should start a fund-drive to take out full page ads that say "Google, you are not our overlords". Since there is no way to "contact" google, it would take something that drastic for them to realize how douchey they are being.

HOWTO: Remove G+ without losing Gmail (2)

bornagainpenguin (1209106) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653264)

I have just closed my G+ account due to this latest announcement. I'm tired of Google crapping up my search results and changing the layouts to darn near everything on me. This was the last straw.

This guy has a tutorial [troublefixers.com] on how you can safely remove your G+ account without losing your Gmail account or Picasa pictures. After you go through the process Google asks why you are leaving--I recommend everyone drop them a link to this article so they know exactly why we're fed up. Maybe it will open some eyes?

This kinda breaks things for me (5, Insightful)

OS24Ever (245667) | more than 2 years ago | (#38652722)

When I'm searching it's because 'my world' doesn't know the answer and I have to go elsewhere. Filtering out people I don't know first makes it harder to find things.

If I had a google+ account I guess I would care, unless this forces me to create one which means I have an issue.

Re:This kinda breaks things for me (4, Insightful)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 2 years ago | (#38652796)

The idea isn't increasing utility, the idea is promoting Google Plus.

Re:This kinda breaks things for me (1)

genghisjahn (1344927) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653272)

Bing!

YESSSSS!!!! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38652740)

I AM SO EXCITED! LOL! I HAVE BEEN WAITING 4 THIS DAY FOR LIKE 4EVER! I CAN'T WAIT TO TELL MY BFFS THAT THEY CAN SEARCH AND B ON SOSHUL NETWORK TOO. I CN GT LADY GAGA & SNOOKI UPDATES.

NOW IF I CN JUST GET MY AOL MAIL THEIR 2, IT WULD BE SOOOOOOOOO COOL

Re:YESSSSS!!!! (2)

ifrag (984323) | more than 2 years ago | (#38652942)

At least now we know who their target market is.

Re:YESSSSS!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38652968)

When I posted this, I wondered if it would get modded troll or if folks would think about it and get it. Sometimes my "art" gets pulled into a tug of war... I find it all very amusing on many levels.

Re:YESSSSS!!!! (1)

game kid (805301) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653418)

Remember to tell your friends to +1 you on every comment, too. Don't say "OMG LADY GAGA IS SINGING LIVE!", say "OMG LADY GAGA IS SINGING LIVE! +1 IF YOU WANT TO SEE HER! LOL!"

(Really, I never thought the whole YTMND "VOTE 5" thing [ytmnd.com] would get as pervasively and seriously adopted by big corporations in the guise of "Subscribe us on YouTube! Follow us on Twitter and Facebook!" as it has. It makes the companies sound so very childish and desperate. At least YTMNDers were, or are, mostly playing around; this is the corps' fucking marketing strategy. Ugh.)

Now with fewer hits... (2)

Holammer (1217422) | more than 2 years ago | (#38652754)

You don't agree with!

Bubbling... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38652770)

...Is a selling point now? It was why I stopped using Google in the first place!

"Real names" policy still in play? (1)

aestetix (1426595) | more than 2 years ago | (#38652788)

So, uh, how's that "support for pseudonyms" coming along?

Re:"Real names" policy still in play? (1)

allo (1728082) | more than 2 years ago | (#38652858)

interesting question. And will it be pseudonyms for everything in the google account, or just "we do not show your realname to strangers"?

Re:"Real names" policy still in play? (4, Interesting)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653042)

Apparently pretty well. I have my "real name" G+ page and a G+ pages business page or whatever you want to call it, for what amounts to an electronics club I promote/curate/whatever you want to call it.

As near as I can tell, someone looking at the club page has no idea I'm the one running it.

So you create a real name page for the real you which you never use, then create a business page for "aestetix" which you always use, then I think you're all good?

As a bonus I guess you'd have your "real name" page for Mom to circle, and everyone else can circle the "aestetix" page.

I have not tested this extensively because I'm not paranoid enough to care, but this seems to function.

eww (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38652806)

And today was the day I changed the default search engine on every computer in my campus..... to Bin....Yaho.... oh fuck it they go to the library and look it up. Seriously though I think I am changing the default search google just isn't as shiny as it used to be.

Really if I wanted to look up people and information I already knew from way of my friends. I would ...ask them.. on a social network....

Re:eww (1)

allo (1728082) | more than 2 years ago | (#38652880)

maybe "ask"? Or something like ixquick.

This could get google+ jumpstarted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38652810)

If the results are included in searches, then companies might actually bother to have a google+ presence and encourage friending on google+ (or whatever it's called).

Why search? (2)

moorhens (564268) | more than 2 years ago | (#38652812)

Is it me, or am I the only person who searches for things *they don't already know?* As personalisation increases, our very idea of relevance becomes more limited. If I search for music and this new-fangled searchy thing is going to throw me stuff that I already like, how am I ever going to get the chance of liking anything radically different? Oh, I know. How about by not using Google+

Re:Why search? (2)

allo (1728082) | more than 2 years ago | (#38652892)

yeah. most of the other people google for "facebook.com" and "weather today".

Improve results (4, Interesting)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 2 years ago | (#38652820)

I am not sure this will actually make results more relevant. I mean I have and I would assume most other people have a kind of mental catalog of if now what they have stored, what types of things they have stored and know how and where to look for it.

If I wanted pictures of friends and families babies, I'd probably go to my images/family folder in my home directory, or to that person's facebook or G+ page. Same thing for e-mail if I am looking for personal correspondence I'd search my own e-mail archives, even if those happened to be g-mail.

Seems to me when I am keying something into Google.com I am looking for things primarily that are actually quite impersonal. What's the address of this business?, who is a good local plumber?, how to make that netfilter rule work, does anyone have Slackware packages or buildscripts for $project, What is a $object?, How does $object work?, etc.

These things are not going to be found in my own library of stuff if they were to be found there I'd already be using a much more target search. I honestly think my own stuff would be more of a distraction in Google results most of the time.

It will be interesting to see if people find any value in this.

Re:Improve results (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38652972)

It will be interesting to see if people find any value in this.

Presumably this will mean that people have to search more to find the things they actually want, which will mean that Google will serve more ads, which will mean they'll make more money.

Re:Improve results (1)

owlnation (858981) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653142)

It will be interesting to see if people find any value in this.

People will. But... those people are advertisers, not users.

This will likely result in more successful targeting of ads: the fact that it probably skews your search results and means you don't find what you are looking for easily, is of little consequence to Google -- at least not until there's some sort of backlash. They can happily ride the extra carriage on the Gravy Train until then.

Search, despite being Google's core business, has been getting worse and worse for a decade now. That Google added it's own "Places" spam, was a significant drop in quality -- this seems like the same kind of drop again, and in addition.

The sad truth, is that in 1997 the difference between using Google and Altavista was profound in their differing search results. But in 2012, using Google is exactly the same as was using Altavista in 1997. That's how bad search is now, and for exactly the same reasons -- profiting from ads.

Re:Improve results (2)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653226)

Seems to me when I am keying something into Google.com I am looking for things primarily that are actually quite impersonal. What's the address of this business?, who is a good local plumber?, how to make that netfilter rule work, does anyone have Slackware packages or buildscripts for $project, What is a $object?, How does $object work?, etc.

And, if your friend Joe used Steve's Plumbing and posted about it, Joe's post will show up in your results. The same goes for everything else you have mentioned.

Good job, Google (3, Insightful)

socrplayr813 (1372733) | more than 2 years ago | (#38652854)

All this means is that I will never again sign into my Google accounts in my browser. You can't give me screwed up results if you don't know who I am. If it gets too much worse, I'm probably just going to bail altogether. Thanks, Google.

Re:Good job, Google (1)

Gideon Wells (1412675) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653104)

You say that now. They'll find a solution for not logging on. Don't forget they were trying to make a Google OS for desktops before Android took off. Look at the Android model and ask yourself just how fast a new desktop OS could spread.

XP is going to be soon out dated. People still using XP are either on the cheaper end of the PC spectrum or not-nerds capable of upgrading to anything better at this point. Google has enough design saviness that they could compete on that battlefield with Apple, but with cheaper hardware. Vendors will be given a free OS that won't cut into their margin if they promote it over Windows.

You then would see computer by computer slowly require logging into a Google account to use because Google is Google, and they want to help you use their cloud services easier. Google would be your domain server at home.

Re:Good job, Google (1)

iztaru (832035) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653186)

You can't give me screwed up results if you don't know who I am.

What makes you believe that Google needs you login to their products to know who you are?

I am pretty sure they could make a reasonable guess about who you are based on the search profile of the IPs you use.

Re:Good job, Google (5, Informative)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653372)

Or you can just click the button they offer that disables the G+ personalization.

Britney Spears, Alicia Keys & Snoop Dogg? (1)

bADlOGIN (133391) | more than 2 years ago | (#38652868)

So integrating Google+ has screwed up their search engine so it's confusing crap with music?
Alicia Keys is the only actual musician in that list.

Get off my lawn....

This will be a serious problem. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38652904)

So if your girlfriend emails your gmail account a "private" picture of herself, then uses your computer to Google her own name, you'll be freshly single for putting on the internet for everyone to see.

Unless they put a very large, bold, blinking and arrowed "THIS IS NOT PUBLIC ON THE INTERNET" on every search result that is, this is a huge privacy problem.

Re:This will be a serious problem. (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653392)

They don't fetch images from Gmail, just G+. And the content is still private, it just shows up to you.

Deleted it (2)

Dwedit (232252) | more than 2 years ago | (#38652910)

And now I've deleted my unused Google+ account.

Please don't (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38652920)

Or at least make it optional. When I search the web, I want to search the web and not my emails.

Re:Please don't (1)

masterz (143854) | more than 2 years ago | (#38652948)

It is optional.

Re:Please don't (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38652986)

Or at least make it optional. When I search the web, I want to search the web and not my emails.

You could just not hand all your personal information over to Google by setting up a Googlebook account.

Can we know what public servants search for? (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 2 years ago | (#38652924)

No? Then why can they know what we search for? Do we work for them, or the other way around?

Personalized search results are not always helpful (1)

realsilly (186931) | more than 2 years ago | (#38652970)

People use Google to search for information, it that search becomes personally biased in favor of people you "friend" this makes Google's search page less helpful for the user.
This should be a check box on the screen left unchecked to allow for the broader search. With a simple toggle of the check box it can then simplify the search to your personalized search.

Re:Personalized search results are not always help (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38653308)

It basically does this.

Re:Personalized search results are not always help (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653416)

From TFA:

Finally, the launch includes a few options for managing the new features. A new tab will let you select either the 'Search plus Your World' results, or you can toggle back to the old-fashioned, unpersonalized results. There's also an option in Google settings that will let you opt out of the experience entirely.

what about when I search for porn? (5, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 2 years ago | (#38652982)

Will it show my friends dick pics? :(

Google likes to answer the question (2)

jack the ex-cynic (978760) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653022)

"What if we could" instead of "Why would they want it". Sometimes it works out really great. I don't think this will be one of those times.

I don't want to search what I already know... (1)

eepok (545733) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653030)

I don't want to search within "my world". I know everything here. It's MY WORLD.

When I need to find information online, I do a search of ALL OTHER KNOWN WORLDS.

Google is just racing for fail over and over lately. I don't know if they're just shooting the dark or actually think that their users want this.

FUCK OFF Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38653036)

I would think that if I wanted to see pictures of my friends' babies, I'd hop onto google+, facebook, or even better, send them an email asking for pictures instead of using a search engine and doing a generic search that would have their photos peppered in. If I wanted some sort of stock photo of a baby for something, then why would I want to have my friends' kids muddying up the result?

Do we need to block this in our Google ad blocker? (4, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653044)

We're releasing a Google ad blocker [sitetruth.com] , which is in test now. It lets one ad through, and blocks the rest, to de-clutter Google results. We could add some other blocking capabilities. Let me know what Google won't let you turn off. If you try this, and there are new "social" ads which slip through, we'd really like to hear about it. Thanks.

Google's recent direction seems to follow H. L. Mencken's line "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." Google is getting better at answering dumb questions, and worse at answering hard ones. The problem is that Google now assumes the question is dumb, auto-correcting in the direction of common words and questions. That's yet another problem with feeding "social" data into search. Then they try to patch this by profiling each user with "search customization". But that assumes there's a pattern to an individual user's hard questions. (This leads to the concept that search customization should estimate how smart each user is, a data item which can be sold to advertisers to generate sucker lists.)

Re:Do we need to block this in our Google ad block (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38653400)

Google is getting better at answering dumb questions, and worse at answering hard ones. The problem is that Google now assumes the question is dumb, auto-correcting in the direction of common words and questions.

I think Google must ultimately have the same natural contempt for their users that a rancher has for their cattle. They're a valuable product to be kept fat and healthy, but ultimately they're just a product being sold, and so you really don't want to become too familiar with them, or feel too much empathy for them, because your interests and those of your customers who buy them will always come first.

The human population of the United States no longer develops under the pressure of Evolution. Somewhere around the middle of the last century the driver of change went from being a process of Evolution to one of Domestication. We sold ourselves into bondage in exchange for short term happiness and all the physical possessions we could conspicuously consume. As a society, we now daily sidle up to the food trough that is commercial television, and "free" internet services like Google, Facebook, etc. where we are not the customer but in fact the product being sold to advertisers.

G.

Putting on blinder (2)

IcyHando'Death (239387) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653054)

I'm not exactly thrilled about the idea of Google narrowing my world view for me, but I suppose this is just an incremental step down a path we set out on long ago. Remember when "Site of the Day" was everybody's favorite spot on the web?

What a horrible idea (1)

diegocg (1680514) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653078)

There is no way normal people are going to like being able to google into the ever increasing amount of social data. Nope. Not at all.

I'm going to delete my google acount, because extending search to other sets of data is something I don't like and Google shouldn't do it.

Social Network as a whole (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38653106)

what really amazes me with everyone using these social networks is that;

a. Your data ends up being owned by the respective social network holder (I don't care what they say in terms of user rights)
b. Your data is correlated analyzed in ways you don't even realize
c. Your data is NOT secure

Years ago in the late 80s and early 90s we had the concept of a super record which could be built about you and used against you. It's only a matter of time before massive scams take place and guess what, your going to be on the hook for it because guess what, you put all your info personal, work, other onto a network and made it public (or private). We all complained about "big brother" yet people are willing to put stuff up on a site for everyone to see. Heck the gov doesn't need to worry about building tracking systems, we are stupid enough to go ahead and do it to ourselves.

BTW, I'm just as guilty. I use to use Facebook a lot when it first started, then realized just how bad an idea it really was and limited my usage. Google has done a bit of a better job with user rights but in the end they are just both as bad. BTW, Facebook is there to mine, steal and abuse your data they really don't care about you in any way shape or form. They are there to make money and that's that. If people get hurt along the way to bad, Facebook marches on.

my less then 2 cents comment

ugh... (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653120)

I like Google, and have stuck with google+ for that sole reason. I even still use iGoogle, I like all the widgets and such. But this sort of thing makes me want to drop it all. It's bad enough that Google's tracking everything I do, but to have them tailoring my friends and families searches based on my own online activities? That's just asking for some very embarrassing screw ups on both my part and googles.

Use DuckDuckGo instead (5, Informative)

gQuigs (913879) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653200)

I've pretty much switched to http://duckduckgo.com/ [duckduckgo.com]

Check out http://dontbubble.us/ [dontbubble.us] and http://donttrack.us/ [donttrack.us] . This would be an example of bubbling, btw.

And if you don't find results (I'd say Google has better results about 20-30% of the time) !g brings that search term to Google.

Contrarian View I Suppose (2)

CatsCradle (788004) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653216)

Really? Can you describe what is it about Google's current search that you find so pristine that you've bought into the idea that all and any change == bad? Was it that way last month or last year because Google changes their search all the time ...

Google's self declared mission is to "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" So much of our lives and a great portion of worlds information is now happening on social networks. Of course that data should be made accessible and useful and the ability not to use it will be a power feature for those that need or want it just like they do everything else.

what happened (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38653220)

to the days of getting good accurate search results back instead of something muddied by our "circle" or past searches.
fortunately we still have scroogle for the time..

No more lmgtfy (4, Insightful)

CharmElCheikh (1140197) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653278)

So now we won't be able to copy-paste a google search to someone to brag "AHAH ! First page, first result!" because everyone's result will be different. Not sure that's a great feature.

If it ain't broken and all that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38653374)

The purity of Google's search results and simplicity of interface was what made google so wildly popular in the beginning, with google being more the equivalent of the reference section of a library than either the fiction and/or nonfiction sections. It was a totally different animal. By mucking up the search results with bullshit that people don't care about for the sole purpose of making themselves even more money, google is just begging for a new, simple, powerful and accurate competitor to come along and take all their business. With the amount of crap that google constantly keeps pulling with search results, changes to gmail, etc, I know I'm waiting for just such a competitor. Who will be our champion?

A man walks into Google HQ... (0)

Cragen (697038) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653380)

And asks for a drink of water. Google gives him a 5-course meal instantly, is utterly surprised that he doesn't really want that meal, just a glass of water, and is FLABBERGASTED that the man doesn't want to pay for a 5-course meal. Cuz the cost of meal is what they charged the advertisers whose logoes they stuck on every piece of dinnerware in the meal. May be time for that man to look elsewhere for his cup of water. Good grief.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>