• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

New Google Privacy Policy

zuben el genub said:
I did understand. The thing is - usually in any workplace, things get filed either in numerical or alphabetical order. Same for places with a lot of files. The phonebook is. Why should the search engines be any different? If most Office software regardless of maker or OS can sort that way, then coding it can't be too hard.

If the keywords were taken letter by letter like predictive text on a search, it wouldn't matter who input what. It's the search terms.

Maybe libraries are almost obsolete, but the Dewey Decimal System worked. So does sorting by alphabet.

You could still use keywords, but the results would come up in alphabetical order.
Click to expand...

This has got to be the most ridiculous search suggestion I've ever seen. I'm not joking.
 
OfTheDamned said:
You do realize at that point that almost ever single site on the web would become AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANDROID FORUMS or some such variation at that point to get a top ranking?
Click to expand...
At a quick glance, I thought you were screaming due to your frustration with all of those As. :p
 
Just interesting - haven't seen anyone else use a separate box for the internet.

I know you don't have to.

Just the fact that they are trying for non-Google users. There's still quite a few dial-up using AOL as a portal.
 
The thing that is disturbing is no one has mentioned sites that should be off-limits.
Your doctor has a website, and you schedule an appointment, you are dealing with a lawyer just about a will, or a government website for a title transfer on a house.

There should be no advertising need for these sites. Get an ad - go to Dr. XYZ, he's better?
 
zuben el genub said:
The thing that is disturbing is no one has mentioned sites that should be off-limits.
Your doctor has a website, and you schedule an appointment, you are dealing with a lawyer just about a will, or a government website for a title transfer on a house.

There should be no advertising need for these sites. Get an ad - go to Dr. XYZ, he's better?
Click to expand...

If you are exchanging information with your doctor, lawyer, bank, etc, it better be encrypted or you shouldn't be doing it. If you are exchanging that kind of information through unencrypted connections, Google is the least of your worries.

FWIW, your property title (in the U.S. anyway) is part of the public record and everyone has a right to know.
 
zuben el genub said:
The thing that is disturbing is no one has mentioned sites that should be off-limits.
Your doctor has a website, and you schedule an appointment, you are dealing with a lawyer just about a will, or a government website for a title transfer on a house.

There should be no advertising need for these sites. Get an ad - go to Dr. XYZ, he's better?
Click to expand...

Not sure I'm following you here. Doctors and lawyers shouldn't be allowed to advertise?
 
zuben el genub said:
The thing that is disturbing is no one has mentioned sites that should be off-limits.
Your doctor has a website, and you schedule an appointment, you are dealing with a lawyer just about a will, or a government website for a title transfer on a house.

There should be no advertising need for these sites. Get an ad - go to Dr. XYZ, he's better?
Click to expand...

Why should any site be off limits in advertising?

When you visit your doctor's website, maybe a group for cancer awareness wants to remind you to get a colonoscopy or a woman get a breast exam.

You go to a lawyer and are reminded that you should have a will or that legal zoom has helped plenty of people do things without paying a lawyer.

Maybe the site about the title transfer wants to show you the current interest rates on homes or offers a suggestion about refinancing your house. Maybe since it is a government site they want to show you an ad reminding you to look at the sex offender database in your area. It could be that they want to remind you to vote in your next election.

Not all advertising is bad and not everyone advertising something is trying to get you to buy anything. Sometimes they are just offering a public service announcement. Would you rather get something about keeping you dog (the one you don't own) being happy and healthy with Brand D dog food? How about a reminder when you go to a legal site that you need to see your gynecologist? Do you want to see great recipe sites for vegans while you are eating a rack of ribs? None of those make any sense for you do they?
 
I'm not interested. I just want the site I visited. I might not be interested in buying a home. I'm not interested in public service. If anyone reminds me live for health care I don't want, they get told where to go. If I want my cats happy and healthy, I'll ask my vet.

I worked with radio advertising and read all the trades the office got. I dislike some methods.

No one in advertising admits their product is crap. If the ads had to carry a rating for truth and customer satisfaction by an independent organization, I might be interested. Will the ads be vetted? If ads are not vetted, you could get a sleazebag that isn't even licensed advertising medical services. How about plain ambulance chasers? You already might be getting spam from the idiots. Now the ad is on Google search - "if it's on the internet, it must be true"

But wouldn't your insurance company love to know how many times you checked Web MD? Or looked for certain info? Your question might not be public, but the url of the site might be. That's the part I don't want to see.
 
zuben el genub said:
I'm not interested. I just want the site I visited. I might not be interested in buying a home. I'm not interested in public service. If anyone reminds me live for health care I don't want, they get told where to go. If I want my cats happy and healthy, I'll ask my vet.

I worked with radio advertising and read all the trades the office got. I dislike some methods.

No one in advertising admits their product is crap. If the ads had to carry a rating for truth and customer satisfaction by an independent organization, I might be interested. Will the ads be vetted? If ads are not vetted, you could get a sleazebag that isn't even licensed advertising medical services. How about plain ambulance chasers? You already might be getting spam from the idiots. Now the ad is on Google search - "if it's on the internet, it must be true"

But wouldn't your insurance company love to know how many times you checked Web MD? Or looked for certain info? Your question might not be public, but the url of the site might be. That's the part I don't want to see.
Click to expand...

So basically you don't want any ads at all?
 
A.Nonymous said:
So basically you don't want any ads at all?
Click to expand...

That is the way I am reading it as well.

I often wonder what people believe the status of gmail, google calendar, google docs, maps, navigation, Android, google search, google voice, android market, google earth etc. not to mention all the people that Google employs would be right now if there was no revenue from advertising to fund these projects. Where would smartphone technology be at this moment if there was no revenue from ads to start off the huge development kick that Android helped create?

We wouldn't have to worry about this conversation that is for sure. Without any of the revenue for ads there wouldn't be Android as we know it. We certainly wouldn't be talking about any privacy policy changes because there would be no changes and probably no privacy policy to worry about. This forum wouldn't even exist because there wouldn't be Android phones to talk about and the ad revenue that keeps this site up and running while also making it completely free to the end user wouldn't be needed either.
 
OfTheDamned said:
That is the way I am reading it as well.

I often wonder what people believe the status of gmail, google calendar, google docs, maps, navigation, Android, google search, google voice, android market, google earth etc. not to mention all the people that Google employs would be right now if there was no revenue from advertising to fund these projects. Where would smartphone technology be at this moment if there was no revenue from ads to start off the huge development kick that Android helped create?

We wouldn't have to worry about this conversation that is for sure. Without any of the revenue for ads there wouldn't be Android as we know it. We certainly wouldn't be talking about any privacy policy changes because there would be no changes and probably no privacy policy to worry about. This forum wouldn't even exist because there wouldn't be Android phones to talk about and the ad revenue that keeps this site up and running while also making it completely free to the end user wouldn't be needed either.
Click to expand...

Its that entitlement complex again. Everyone wants the best without paying for it. If people don't want ads, they can go use paid solutions for nearly everything except search... but they aren't, are they?
 
No ads unless they abide by truth in advertising. (not that "as seen on TV" nonsense.) I would pay for the OS on the phone, just like the older versions of Windows, except it isn't offered. I usually buy my apps.

Phone is rooted and most everything except market is gone. I've never used maps, live, don't need navigation or half the other services on Google anyway. I buy my phones outright.

I can avoid Google search, don't have to use Chrome, have a Flickr account, have other email accounts. I paid for Opera when it first came out.

Except for the phone I can actually avoid Google if I choose. If Palm had succeeded, I would have stayed with it.

If it weren't for the fact that only Apple and Android have the apps I do want (all paid) I'd be gone.

I really do have a phone account for my convenience. I simply don't have to answer it, or make the rest of the family lose calls since I have turned off the answering machine.

I see the phone as a large encyclopedia with all required info at a glance.
It's not a social or entertainment device. It's a PDA. I can't carry a bag full of nature guides anymore. That's why the phone is a plus.
 
zuben el genub said:
No ads unless they abide by truth in advertising. (not that "as seen on TV" nonsense.) I would pay for the OS on the phone, just like the older versions of Windows, except it isn't offered. I usually buy my apps.

Phone is rooted and most everything except market is gone. I've never used maps, live, don't need navigation or half the other services on Google anyway. I buy my phones outright.

I can avoid Google search, don't have to use Chrome, have a Flickr account, have other email accounts.

Except for the phone I can actually avoid Google if I choose. If Palm had succeeded, I would have stayed with it.

If it weren't for the fact that only Apple and Android have the apps I do want (all paid) I'd be gone.

I really do have a phone account for my convenience. I simply don't have to answer it, or make the rest of the family lose calls since I have turned off the answering machine.

I see the phone as a large encyclopedia with all required info at a glance.
It's not a social or entertainment device. It's a PDA. I can't carry a bag full of nature guides anymore. That's why the phone is a plus.
Click to expand...

What is truth? Someone asked Jesus that question 2,000 years ago and wasn't the first to ask it and wasn't the last either. There are obviously blatant lies in some advertising and there are laws against that. I can't say my product will make you lose X lbs in X weeks unless I can back it up somehow. I can say that my product is by far the greatest weight loss product on the face of the planet all day long. It might be nothing more than snake oil, but I can claim it's the greatest all day long and there's nothing illegal about it.

There's a local burger joint who's slogan is, "It just tastes better." Is that a true statement? Well, it depends on what you put it up against. Better than some foods for sure. Worse than others. It's not a falsifiable statement at all. It's complete and total hype.

Also, your use of your phone is completely different from the vast majority of people's usage of their phone. Perhaps you should look at an e-reader if all you're looking for is a portable way to carry tons of books around.
 
I'm afraid you will never get what you want in a society that thrives on open commerce. Android is simply one iteration of an advertising delivery vehicle that benefits both the user and the advertiser. Look at television networks or magazines and newspapers. Advertising pay for the lion's share of content and production. You can't get a version of Sports Illustrated with no ads, even if you were willing to pay $50 an issue. Neither could you view the current episode of The Big Bang Theory through an exclusive ad-free cable subscription for $500/month.

You can't ride on an ad-free bus or train by buying a premium ticket and you can't eliminate billboard advertising by driving only on toll roads. It's the nature of our society and the foundation of modern commerce. The only way to eliminate the daily barrage of advertising is to completely disconnect yourself from society.
 
We canned our landline for DSL. So we need phones. Ereaders tend to be proprietary. I had a Nook and traded it for a tablet. Half the books I would buy aren't in digital format anyway, except for Android and Apple.

Since we watch mostly PBS, there aren't many ads, and what there are are usually for support.
Yes, we subscribe. I get 2 Astronomy mags - they have ads, but mostly for astronomical equipment. No Viagra or Cialis. We watch sports, but there's a mute button on the controller. I'm collecting World Series games of the past - no ads. We don't do commercial TV or movies.

If you have read most of Shakespeare, most plots are covered, It's more like how many ways can we "shoot em up".

I have tried the ad-free version of some apps to see if I liked them. I've seen a couple of ads for dating sites that are just a tad off-color. Who vets these ads? What's to stop some of the sleaze companies from offering free ringtones and charging your cell bill $9.99 a month?
It's done by text spam now. Why not push type ads? Do you want your kids hitting this ad for a "subscription?"

I know I'm the odd man out. Always have been.
 
I also only watch paid channels so I see very little ads.
I used to buy lots of magazines but not any more.
And with apps, I use free apps but the ads in it never really registered in my mind.

However, as someone on the side of placing ads, optimized advertising is great.
Why spend money advertising to everyone when you know that what your selling will not interest that "everyone".
The only reason advertising is annoying right now is because it gets shoved in your face whether you like it or not.
But if it was properly optimized, it would become "useful information" and you might actually like it.

I think right now the internet is at a point where it is trying to come up with ap process that works, and if that means google needs info about stuff, then I am ok with it.
 
Ads are only good to announce new products. You can never get the information you really want from the BS copy. I might want to know how easy it might be to save messages as text, and what format. No one ever puts that in ad copy.

If Google uses info like Market, then it's still flawed. It will be flawed until they mark "uninstalled" against apps that were uninstalled. If you are looking for info before trying and you get nothing but "installed" - you get the impression that the app is great. Half the reviews are useless. "It's great/It sucks" reviews tell you nothing.
A listing of 100 installs 50 uninstalls might give you a clue that you need to dig further. You have to dig through forums like this to find the answer.

If I am interested in something, I usually subscribe to a newsletter. In the case of magazines, I'm not dropping subscriptions, so trying to get me to subscribe is preaching to the choir.

What's Google going to do about Amazon? If Amazon doesn't share the info about what you bought - doesn't do Google any good. Amazon does sell stuff that Google doesn't. Google doesn't do kitchen gadgets for example. Or automotive doodads. I don't want a mess of ads for something I only bought once and never will buy again.

Google won't be able to get rid of the sleazes. Someone will start screaming about their right to advertise to anyone and the whole mess will wind up in court.
If a court decides that just targeted ads are OK - that is a form of censorship and sets a precedence for censorship. If we want an open internet with all kinds of info, then we put up with the BS. I'd rather put up with all the BS and ignore it.
 
I generally don't have anything against advertising, since it's funding a lot of free services.

But, i am reacting when people say " I don't care, I am not doing anything illegal.. ".
What if the law changes? What if you live in a repressive country?

That is just my 5 cents. Do you think that I might need a tinfoilhat? :confused:
 
lunatic59 said:
If you are exchanging information with your doctor, lawyer, bank, etc, it better be encrypted or you shouldn't be doing it. If you are exchanging that kind of information through unencrypted connections, Google is the least of your worries.

FWIW, your property title (in the U.S. anyway) is part of the public record and everyone has a right to know.
Click to expand...

Been a while since I paid attention to this thread. Regarding the above, they don't need to know WHAT you're doing at that doctor's (or lawyer's) site in order to direct advertising for related sites, just that you were there. It has nothing to do with securing the information you transfer to them, a site hit alone can trigger the directed advertising.

FWIW, I never see the ads on pages, I use ABP in Firefox to block them, and it does a FINE job of it, too. I recently reinstalled my gaming machine, haven't installed ABP in FF on there yet and was absolutely astounded at the number of cookies the ads wanted to set (all DENIED of course).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom