Feeds- 64
- Sphinn It!
Went Hot: Dec 07, 2008 - 07:17 pm
Posted By: graywolf 468 Days ago
Source: http://www.forbes.com
Category: SEM
Web researcher Net Applications recently discovered that between 11% to 30% of traffic streaming out of Google’s Mountain View, Calif., office is stripped clean of the usual identifying information that accompanies such traffic. That begs the question: What secret is it that Google doesn’t want the rest of the Web to know?
14 Comments
Comments
Lots of companies use in house proxies to by pass user agent request, I doubt this is anything more than that.
well ofcourse, not surprising.. As always they demand one thing from us, and another from themselves.
Google is evil and does evil things. They are no longer the dogooders they used to be. Like any other for profit they are about making money. Just don’t take a piece of their pie.
The story says, "It’s not a natural process". I believe the opposite.A company that basically lives on the internet, and whose online activity is monitored, analyzed and publicized by thousands of people 24/7, should be able to keep as much potentially revealing information from leaking as possible.Microsoft not doing this? It’s because no-one cares what they’re up to.
it was nice to see that you track their fastest growing search termsSame here :-)
From the article "A proxy server shouldn’t cause such a block because it would block everything, which Net Applications sees all the time. With the one-third obfuscated Google visitors, it was only the OS that was removed. "I read that as, chances are that google is not using a proxy server, since we are able to determine 2/3’s of the traffic using a specific OS, while 1/3 hid the OS. Proxy server would block all OS user agent strings if configured, correct?I would almost say, all those that are complaining about google being secretive about the OS they are using would probably say that its unfair that Google keeps their algorithm and doesn’t share it with all the webmasters..
I’m with Olivier - why should we expect Google to share their browsing data, as it would be pulled apart by Wemasters tryign to work out a competitive advantage...it would mae sense to do anything else in my opinion.It’s funny how they block/hide their details and it’s because they ’must’ be devloping an OS? They may well be, but it’s a funny jump in logic...did I miss something in that post?
has no one realised that the origional story is a pile of dog do do they say that X11 is an OS for fracks sake!
This article just goes to show that Forbes, WSJ etc. should not publish articles relating to technology.WSJ boldly proclaimed that Chrome was an operating system.They obviously don’t have a clue most of the time.
How cool would a Google OS be? Seriously.Then again, if the G1 is anything to go by, a Google OS would basically be Google.com on your desktop, 24/7.
@TannerC - yeah I think this will be one way that offline / online will become less distinctive - the lines are certainly blurring...and if Google can make more advertising revenue by making by subtly streaming in ads then why would it do anything else!
...although that is is supposing they are indeed making an OS of course!
That article was such blatant, technologically challenged drivel, it made my eyes water. At least I hit them with the tag "poor man’s cloaking" which is arguably something you don’t see Forbes featuring every day... :)
No actual facts to back up the story, which seems to mis-connect different issues (user agent and OS)