Misunderstanding the Google Hidden URL Play
July 4, 2020
I read “Where Am I?” The write up address the void in the browser’s address bar. The point is that Google hides urls.
The author address the “problem” this way:
Based on the contents of the page, I’m clearly on a NYTimes property, but based on the address bar I’m clearly on
google.com. If I click in the address bar I seehttps://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/05/22/technology/google-antitrust.amp.html.
The write up points out that Google wants the user to click on the “address bar” and then try to figure out who owns the Web page displayed.
Phishing is a popular sport, and it seems that Google’s blank or modified address bar is a giant opaque lake for bad actors.
The author of the write points out:
Google serves NYTimes’ controlled content on a Google domain.
The write up adds:
In work security trainings and guides on the Internet we are trained to look at the URL bar to help make a decision on whether to trust a site, but the Google AMP Cache requires contradictory assumptions.
Here’s a diagram of Google as the Internet. What’s “in” Google becomes the Internet:
Stephen E Arnold, The Google Legacy and Google Version 2, both published by Infonortics (now defunct like many publishing house). Users, partners, advertisers, and developers only “know” what Google decides to provide. Blank urls are an overt indication of Google’s “ownership” of the “Internet.” The diagram was first created for an Arnold lecture about Google in 2003.
Several observations:
- Google’s apparent objective is to become the gateway to the Internet. This is a variation of its walled garden approach. What you “receive” and “see” is the Internet. Obfuscating urls is one step toward this goal.
- The way to “find” certain content is to buy ads. Scrubbing urls for PDFs means that if someone wants content found, there is a road. That road is Google Advertising.
- Confusion in a Google service is understood by the happy Googlers. The confusion increases dependence on Google to locate information.
This is what some might characterize as “just business.” DarkCyber’s view is the Google is creating opportunities for bad actors to make phishing easier than ever.
Hey, how hard is it to create a spoofed page, SEO that puppy, and display it to one of my neighbors’ bridge partners?
Easy, gentle reader. Without ethical control or meaningful guidelines, the Google is — in case you have not figured it out — is the Internet.
A blank address bar is just the beginning too. Think of this control as a form of “independence.” Life is simpler when it is controlled.
Stephen E Arnold, July 4, 2020
Google and the EU: Bureaucracy Versus Clicks
July 2, 2020
The Google is providing a “free” Web search system. The European Union seems unwilling or unable to understand the logic of providing a “free” service.
“EU Throws New Rule Book at Google, Tech Giants in Competition Search” explains:
Driven in large part by a conclusion that multiple antitrust actions against Google have been ineffectual, the EU’s new strategy aims to lay down ground rules for data-sharing and how digital marketplaces operate.
What’s the EU going to do?
So as US antitrust enforcers prepare yet another possible case against Google, the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) could instead force big tech firms to offer smaller rivals access to data on reasonable, standardized and non-discriminatory terms.
Sounds good. The problem may be that Google — like other US technology centric monopolies — operate in a digital environment.
Regulatory authorities operate in a bureaucratic environment. Like the Great Firewall of China, digital information seeps through barriers.
Maybe the regulators should consider other options? Meetings, fines, and white papers are ideal complements to levying fines which appear to have minimal impact.
Like advertisers boycotting Facebook, the digital monopolies continue to accrue clicks and revenue.
After two decades of consistent digital behavior, regulatory methods seem to be consistently ineffective.
Stephen E Arnold, July 2, 2020
Google and Winston: Confusing Relationship for Sure
July 2, 2020
Computer glitches happen, even at large companies like Google. The timing of this one, though, looks a little suspicious. The Belfast Telegraph reports, “Google Says Churchill Image Missing Because of Bug in System.” The problem occurred just as the former prime minister’s statue was being walled away to protect it from protesters. Writer Martyn Landi explains:
“Winston Churchill’s image briefly disappeared from Google search results because it was being updated to be more representative of the former prime minister, the tech giant has said. However, that update had been delayed by a bug in Google’s system, the firm said in a statement. It comes after some users complained that Churchill’s image was not appearing in search results for UK prime ministers, although his name was still listed. Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden was among those to express ‘concern’ and said he had spoken to the tech giant over the incident, which occurred during the ongoing debate about Churchill’s statue in Parliament Square, which was boarded up last week.”
Despite the timing, Google insists the snafu had nothing to do with the statue, protestors, or the former prime minister’s alleged racism. The search platform’s Knowledge Graph had been pulling a picture of Churchill from his younger days, which is not the iconic image most of us are familiar with. Googley humans blocked that image from the algorithm, forcing it to choose another one. Between those steps, however, the mysterious “bug” halted the update. Users searching for Churchill received only portrait-free text descriptions. The company stated:
“As a result, Churchill’s entry lacked an image from late April until this weekend, when the issue was brought to our attention and resolved soon after. We apologize again for concerns caused by this issue with Sir Winston Churchill’s Knowledge Graph image. We will be working to address the underlying cause to avoid this type of issue in the future.”
Just what this bug entailed is not revealed. Sounds like a “dog ate my homework” response to us.
Cynthia Murrell, July 2, 2020
Google on the Hot Spot: Ad Pancakes One Way and That Is Our Way
July 1, 2020
Google is so darned lovable. How could anyone interpret the company’s actions as overbearing. Take for instance the article “Google Stymies Media Companies from Chipping Away at Its Data Dominance.
The write up reports as “real” news and information:
Publishers had expected to use data privacy measures going into effect Aug. 15 to bar Google from storing insights about readers, sapping the data advantage that has enabled it to dominate a market filled with advertisers hungry for information to target potential customers. But Google said it will cut off publishers from a lucrative flow of ads if they follow through with curbing its data collection. Negotiations continue, but Google holds greater leverage because it dominates in both advertising tools and access to advertisers within the $100 billion annual global banner ads market.
There must be a misunderstanding.
Google is a partner. The write up points out:
Media companies must share revenue with Google to access the unparalleled number of advertiser clients it attracts with its data. Globally, publishers’ share of Google ad revenue has fallen in half to 16% over the last decade, according to a paper released this month by Yale University antitrust fellow Dina Srinivasan, who also consults for News Corp.
The tension would not exist if publishers accepted the fact that there were not Googley. Wishing it so will not make alter the reality of online traffic and clicks.
Stephen E Arnold, July 1, 2020
Alphabet Spells Cable Model
July 1, 2020
Cable company business models work. Alphabet Google faces some competitive pressure, looming regulatory handcuffs, and softness in its 20 year old “black box”magic ad matching machine.
The fix is to push aggressively and as quickly as possible to lock down clever ways to make money. The most recent example is to charge more than $700 per year to watch YouTube’s millennial cable programming.
You can get details in “YouTube TV Jumps 30% in Price Effective Immediately.” I found one passage interesting:
The news came at the end of a lengthy announcement of various new channels, which users cannot opt out of, all coming from the CBS/Viacom family of cable TV networks.
Does this bold, aggressive move mark the limit of Alphabet’s land grabbing?
No, it is one step on the path of locking down revenues in order to weather the approaching storm.
There are some flaws in Alphabet’s approach. For some YouTube quasi cable consumers, the other options have price tags too. Whatever the competitive environment offers, Alphabet will find inspiration.
What about the “cannot opt out.” That’s the new Google. Like it or leave it. Leaving may make perfect sense to the employees whose bonuses were gutted to pay for Google’s diversity aspirations.
Stephen E Arnold, July 1, 2020
Alphabet Wants to Spell Money with Shop-able Ads
June 30, 2020
Yes, YouTube will become more shop-able. The news shocked no one on the DarkCyber research team. YouTube videos are almost unwatchable. Pre-rolls, interstitials, and post-rolls. Auto-playing of ads when autoplace is set to off. Such convenience, such excellent user experience.
“YouTube Launches a New Ad Format That Showcases Product Images” reports:
YouTube created a new ad format that makes the platform more shoppable. The ad format will feature product images for viewers to browse, by integrating company pages into the video platform. Companies can have products displayed through the new ad format by syncing Google Merchant Center with video ad materials. Following that companies can decide which products to feature.
This sounds exciting. Perhaps advertisers taking a break from Facebook will embrace the new platform? What’s next? How about videos which contain zero YouTube creator content. Just one ad surrounded by the “See Also” ads the magic algorithm suggests.
Relevance? Perfect. Efficient. Plus Aerie might get another Google ad research outsourcing contract. The internal professionals are just too darned busy.
Stephen E Arnold, June 30, 2020
Google: The Me Too Innovation Juggernaut
June 28, 2020
Like Microsoft, Google will have an opportunity to explain its business practices. Perhaps the company will explain how its magical black box interacts with the layers of software wrapped around the smart software too? Maybe, maybe not.
Turning to more practical matters, Microsoft’s decision to kill off the empty spaces called Microsoft Stores illustrates that me too innovation does not work reliably. Hey, Microsoft tried. Also, Microsoft’s interesting attempt to clone Amazon Twitch has ended by creeping to Facebook on little cat’s feet. Hasta la vista, Sr. Mixer. The hope is that Facebook’s magic returns and converts Mixer into a Zucking winner. Hope is useful for some.
The real news, however, concerns Google’s embrace of me too innovation. “Group Video Calls Now Arrive on Google Nest Hub Max.” I don’t know what a Nest Hub is. I don’t know what a Nest Max is. I don’t know what a Hub Max is. What I do know is that Google wants to be JLZ. That’s an acronym for “just like Zoom.” News flash: Zoom has a one word product name, “Zoom.” Google is four times more creative because the GOOG uses four words. Efficient, clear, and memorable: Google Nest Hub Max. Who will be the first Stadia addict to have the letters GNHM tattooed on his or her mouse hand?
The second Google item concerns Google’s acquisition of a me too company which developed some glasses like Google Glass. That was a product that sparked one wit to coin the term “glasshole”.
Google’s Parent Alphabet Is Reportedly in Final Stages to Buy Smart Glasses Maker North, As the Augmented Reality Race with Apple Heats up” reveals that Google is acquiring a company which practices the me too approach to product innovation. What happens when two me two innovation teams collaborate? That sounds like one of those discussion questions bandied about in Dr. Francis Chivers’ phenomenological existentialism classes at Duquesne University. Exciting, eh.
Although not on the scale of virtue signaling practiced by other high technology companies, Google wants to be more diverse. Okay, that’s original.
“Google Execs Say We Need a Plan to Stop A.I. Algorithms from Amplifying Racism” reports:
Two Google executives said Friday that bias in artificial intelligence is hurting already marginalized communities in America, and that more needs to be done to ensure that this does not happen.
Haven’t I read this sentiment before? You?
See. Me too works!
Stephen E Arnold, June 28, 2020
Complaints and Protest: But the GOOG Has Been Googling for 20 Years
June 23, 2020
My goodness, we live in the Era of Complaining. The print version of the “flagship podcast” published “Google Employees Demand the Company End Police Contracts.” Let’s put this Google tie up with the US government in context.
Google was poking around the US government as early as 1999 when the chatter about indexing US government content surfaced. The company bid on the FirstGov.gov project and lost. (The US government selected the really interesting solution proposed and provided by AT&T.) Google acquired Keyhole which the CIA investment unit In-Q-Tel supported with cash. In 2005, In-Q-tel sold its shares in Google in 2005. In 2008, Google and In-Q-Tel jointly invested in Recorded Future. Along the way, Google has performed “work” for a number of US government agencies. Despite the low profile of some of these activities, Google has been in the DC game for more than 20 years. I know because I receive a snotty email about why Google should have been selected instead of the AT&T Fast Search solution.
The point is that Google employees are dazzled by their perceptual baloney. The company today is similar to the wonky outfit it was after Backrub took a break, venture money arrived, and in a moment of adulting thrashed about for a way to make money. The solution was, as you and some Googlers may not care to know, was to “be influenced” by Yahoo’s Overture/GoTo online advertising concept. Google settled the Yahoo legal complaint about this “influence’ prior to the firm’s IPO and may have coughed up about $1 billion to grease the skids for the IPO. Yahoo took the deal, and the Google morphed into the online ad outfit it is today.
But employees at Google, based on my limited exposure to these fine individuals, are generally unaware of the company’s interest in US government work, the fascinating way systems and methods arrive at the company, and the old fashioned idea that when you accept money for work you shut up or quit.
Not today.
The online word version of the “flagship podcast” states:
Employees are specifically calling out Google’s ongoing Cloud contract with the Clarkstown Police Department in New York, which was sued for allegedly conducting illegal surveillance on Black Lives Matter protestors in 2015. They’re also highlighting the company’s indirect support of a sheriff’s department in Arizona tracking people who cross the US-Mexico border.
Okay, Google is not the center of the universe when it comes to management sophistication. The company employs what I call “the high school science club management method.” The inability to keep information private and the hiring procedures which seem to favor those who want to decide what a publicly traded commercial enterprise do to earn money illustrates the challenges Google faces.
Mr. Brin’s showing up in senior elected officials’ offices wearing a T shirt and gym shoes with sparklies on them is trivial compared to the larger strategic recent issues at Google.
Not only are employees at Google complaining despite the money, the ping pong tables, and the benefits of working at home — the employees want Google to extricate and no longer pursue revenue producing activities.
Several observations:
- Google does and will continue to do government work despite caving to employee demands over Project Maven. Hey, good news for Anduril, right?
- Employees don’t know much if anything about the history of Google, the type of decisions its founders made, and efforts the company has made to obtain government work. Candidate vetting and employee training is working well at the GOOG, don’t you think?
- Google management cannot contain confidential information. But the larger question is, “Why is the hiring process failing to recruit individuals who do work and make time to complain about Google’s government work. The contracts don’t just drop from the sky. Effort, sometimes years of effort, are necessary to land these projects. So quit tomorrow? Sure, good for the attorneys, not for the government customers.
Complain, complain, complain. There’s nothing like employees grousing. Why not do something other than send email? Here’s a suggestion: Quit.
What’s Google going to do about this quite embarrassing state of affairs?
Many years ago (I can’t provide details because I signed a document wittingly) a Google senior wizard told me:
Some day it will end. Until then, rock and roll.
And to what does this Gnostic phrase refer?
Google has been putting the pedal to the metal for 20 years. Now the company is operating, like a few others, without meaningful constraints, adult leadership, and much of a purpose other than making money, reducing costs, and dealing with backlashes. The push back against Google is manifesting itself in the government investigations, the talk about monopoly behavior, and the dwindling likelihood that a trip to Brussels or Strasbourg will be a holiday. It is possible that some Google attorneys will enjoy discussing the fines and legal restraints fun, but that’s a sign of changing times.
Net net: The employee grousing reflects a lack of meaningful regulation, a failure of Google leadership, and remediating hiring processes which allow the printed version of the “flagship podcast” to explain that lots of Googlers want to tear the house down. Take direct action. Resign. I am old fashioned. Employees accept job offers. Before hooking up with a publicly traded company as an employee (look up the definition, gentle Googlers with protest on your mind) — learn about the company. That’s your obligation. After accepting a job, like it or leave. Easy. I, however, think these complainers will follow the thought processes I characterize as “Casey Newtonesque.”
Wonderful. Flagship podcast. Real news, yeah!
Stephen E Arnold, June 23, 2020
Short Cut Debater Delight: URL to a Snippet
June 19, 2020
Let us journey back in time. I was a high school and college debate person. I think one of my “advisors” called us “debaters,” but I think he was saying, “De-daters.” Yeah, popular.
The year is 1964, and my debate partner was a silver tongued Greek American named Nick G. I was a fat, bespeckled trailer court person who hid in the library. My job was to read stuff and write summaries on 5×8 note cards. Remember those?
If I spotted a useful fact about the National Defense Education Act or similar burning topic for a 19 year old, I would cross reference the factoid, index it with a color tinted pencil, and organize the note cards in my really big wooden box. Cool, right?
Flash forward to a debate at some empty campus in January and a “debate tournament.” Sad affairs? You bet. Nick and I were listening to a couple of swifties from Dartmouth explain that Nick and I were stupid, losers from an intellectual nowheresville, and candidates for life in a tuna packing plant owned by one of the Dartmouth wizard’s family.
I spotted a note card, a snippet, and a cross reference. Coincidence, maybe. Cut to the punch line: The Dartmouth rebuttal person changed the factoids and quoted an edited version of the information I had recorded in my blissful hours of alone-ness in the library.
My turn to speak arrived, and I began by pointing out that snippets out of context were not the stuff an Ivy Leaguer was fabricated. The “fabrication” of misstatements, misquotes, and misrepresentations were proof that the arguments constructed by the shortcut artists from Hanover, New Hampshire (wherever that was) were fluff.
Bingo. I summed up our case and sat down.
We won the debate and the tournament. I think my father-in-law used the trophy as a tie rack.
I thought of Eleazar’s losers. Nick and I ate a pizza at some joint before the bus ride back to the frozen Midwest where our one-horse college pumped information into hungry Illinoisans.
Google is allegedly going to facilitate short cut thinking if the information in “Google’s New Chrome Extension Lets You Link Directly to Specific Text on a Page” is accurate, but today, who knows?
The idea is that a person creates or fabricates a factoid, creates a link, and leads the Dartmouth-type research to just what is needed to support a castle of clips.
The old fashioned approach mostly required finding information, reading something, copying or photocopying the pages, converting the information to a note card, and going through the indexing thing.
The process had the effect of imprinting the information on the mind. If one had a good memory as Nick or I did, we could pull information, find the source, and convert that item into a useful addition to our argument.
What happens if one takes a shortcut? You get the Dartmouth approach to information; that is, fix it up and skip the work.
The write up states:
The Google extension builds upon a new feature that was recently added to Chromium called Text Fragments, which works by appending extra linking information to a URL after a #. It’s the same technology that Google now sometimes uses to link to specific parts of a webpage in search results. However, these URLs can be long and difficult to manually create if you’re linking to longer sections of text, or complex web pages where the same words are repeated multiple times. This extension simplifies the creation process.
Right, who needs context? Also, what happens when Google “hides” urls so one has to use Google search to locate a source?
Any wonder why some of the arguments presented by “real” lawyers and journalists are so stupid?
The intellectual rigor has not just relaxed; it has checked into Hotel California and chilling out. Bump, bump, bump. Hanover arrives in La La Land.
Stephen E Arnold, June 19, 2020
Real Estate Firm Wants to Be Real
June 19, 2020
Digital business listings can be just as lucrative as physical property holdings. The right domain name can sell for thousands and videogames sell digital objects and upgrades in micro transactions. When a digital holding that belongs to you, however, is “stolen” it can be difficult to reclaim it. The Fisher Group shares how this happened to them in the blog post, “Google Gave Away Our Business Listing To A Competitor And Our Fight To Get It Back.”
A real estate firm associated with Summit Sotheby’s had their Google Business account merged with another agent’s. There was not an explanation for the sudden merger and the firm was forced to rely on webmaster support manned entirely by volunteers. The forums offered no help and the real estate firm spent over year trying to track down someone who could assist them.
The real estate firm wanted their old page back, because I had positive reviews from clients and through hard work they reached the top of searches for their area. Without anywhere else to turn, they were forced to write a plea:
“So at this point we’ve decided to write about it more publicly in hopes of getting the attention of someone at Google who can help us out with this unique and annoying situation. We’ll be also seeing what the SEO community thinks and if they’ve had this experience before, we certainly couldn’t find anyone else with this issue searching around on Reddit, Facebook groups and other SEO forums.
While we’re sad we’re losing out on some business, we would like to see that this doesn’t happen to anyone else in the future because we know how precious those reviews can be to businesses of all sizes.”
The issue still is not resolved. Remember: If one is not findable in Google, one may not exist or be “real.”
Whitney Grace, June 19, 2020
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
