- Related Stories
-
New Google desktop tool offers customization
August 22, 2005 -
Gartner: Google desktop search not enterprise-ready
December 14, 2004 -
Search companies vie for the desktop
December 10, 2004 -
Google unveils desktop search
October 14, 2004
I've been cozying up to Google's latest desktop search software for five days now, and despite all the time we've spent together I feel it doesn't quite know me as well as it should.
We got off to a great start. It was fast to download and simple to use. Before I knew it my hard drive was indexed and the Sidebar news personalization feature was dutifully bringing me all sorts of RSS feeds, stocks, weather and other tidbits from the Web it thought I would like. But I've been disappointed by some of its moves since then.
For instance, it was easy to see my preference for any information about, well, Google. And it was clear I'm a sucker for Salon.com and Jon Stewart. But right now it's boring me with sports stories. I don't care why the Orioles' first baseman lost his job or who will be the starting quarterback for Oklahoma State on Saturday.
I asked around and discovered I'm not alone.
"There's a lot of miscellany in there that's not particularly relevant coming from the sites I've been to," Greg Sterling, managing editor at The Kelsey Group, said Monday. "For instance, there's a lot of stuff on Fox News, which I really don't care about...Over time it will get better. I would give it a six on a scale of 10."
Brad Hill, author of "Google for Dummies" and writer of the Unofficial Google Weblog, was similarly disenchanted with all the generic news he seemed to be getting.
"The upshot is that I get a lot of general news in Sidebar," he wrote in an e-mail in response to questions. "The news panel is less useful than Google News when I want general news, and less useful than my newsreaders when I want topical news."
Gartner analyst Allen Weiner was having better luck. "From my couple of days of trying it, I thought it was pretty powerful in its recommendations," he said.
Admittedly, the beta of Desktop 2, released a week ago, has a lot to offer. In addition to how quickly it scours all the types of files on my desktop when I type in a keyword search, it discreetly and conveniently gives me other useful information. It displays a running inventory of my latest Gmail and Microsoft Outlook e-mails and frequently used Web pages and files, provides a scratch pad, photos from Web sites viewed and a quick search for files that offers an easy way to open up applications. It doesn't serve ads to match the content, like Gmail does.
I was a bit shy about signing up at first, but security concerns that critics had after the initial release of Desktop last year appear to have been mostly resolved.
Now Desktop doesn't index or store secure Web pages or password-protected files, and the index can be encrypted. The corporate version also allows administrators to restrict the indexing of specific files.
None of the desktop search data is sent back to Google servers unless the user enables the Advanced Features required for the news personalization in Sidebar, in which case Google will know which Web sites the computer visited, according to the Google Desktop Privacy Policy.
"From everything I've read, Google has done everything they can to make it clear that they have no intention of leveraging that store (of information) at all," said Stephen O'Grady, an analyst at RedMonk.
None of the information Google receives is personally identifiable, the privacy policy states. However, some privacy advocates were still concerned that just because Google isn't currently linking Web search data to specific users doesn't mean it won't in the future or that law enforcement can't, especially if Google knows more about consumers who have signed up for Gmail and other Google accounts.
"I'm worried about data leakage," said Bruce Schneier, chief technology officer of Counterpane Internet Security and the author of several books on computer security. "It's frustrating because I want to use a good desktop search program."
"Having a third party know all of the news you read is troublesome enough," said Kevin Bankston, staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "It gives away key details about your beliefs, your opinions and your interests."
Google declined to comment. (Google representatives have instituted a policy of not talking with CNET News.com reporters until July 2006 in response to privacy issues raised by a previous story.)
See more CNET content tagged:
Google Desktop, managing editor, desktop search, Google Inc., Gmail
For your information, many of us, who are NOT "lefties" as you so inanely put it, do not like Fox News. It is not the bastion of facts, as you would like to believe. I am tired of you far right wingers painting everyone who disagrees with you as a "lefty liberal." Your tactics worked in an earlier time, but now they are getting old and stale.
For your information, many of us, who are NOT "lefties" as you so inanely put it, do not like Fox News. It is not the bastion of facts, as you would like to believe. I am tired of you far right wingers painting everyone who disagrees with you as a "lefty liberal." Your tactics worked in an earlier time, but now they are getting old and stale.
So that so called "neo cons" are so brain washed by this Media monsterosity, which controls every orefous of information, that they have no idea what right & wrong is anymore.
But there is hope, after a long search I have found it, it is called AnooX (www.anoox.com).
Now their search results are not as good about non-business matters because they are currently running on few servers, small business you know, but their search results are fundemntally better because they are driven by the Vote of the people. Remember "people", us, not just machines or Big Wig Media moguls deciding what is the truth.
So that so called "neo cons" are so brain washed by this Media monsterosity, which controls every orefous of information, that they have no idea what right & wrong is anymore.
But there is hope, after a long search I have found it, it is called AnooX (www.anoox.com).
Now their search results are not as good about non-business matters because they are currently running on few servers, small business you know, but their search results are fundemntally better because they are driven by the Vote of the people. Remember "people", us, not just machines or Big Wig Media moguls deciding what is the truth.
Is Google blocking News.com, like the way they wont respond to News.com? I doubt it, but I hope not.
Oh well, maybe I just missed it when it was available on the Sidebar.
Is Google blocking News.com, like the way they wont respond to News.com? I doubt it, but I hope not.
Oh well, maybe I just missed it when it was available on the Sidebar.
I can't help but feel this is some sick punishment from Dreamworks Intelligence Corps.
I can't help but feel this is some sick punishment from Dreamworks Intelligence Corps.
Folks I think its time to dump all these ridiculous toolbars and the junk they force on us.
I now have Google desktop search and never even downloaded it but Google has put it on my PC for me. Now they have gone too far as far as I'm concerned. They and there toolbar will be removed promptly.
Folks I think its time to dump all these ridiculous toolbars and the junk they force on us.
I now have Google desktop search and never even downloaded it but Google has put it on my PC for me. Now they have gone too far as far as I'm concerned. They and there toolbar will be removed promptly.
I believe there has been very few (I would like to say "no" here actaully, but I want to be careful) pretty good "practical" technology that does such reasoning effectively.
Of course, I meant "personalization" here as the magical way of learning user's preference from the usual searh terms entered or routine mouse click streams, instead of directly asking bunch of obvious questionares in the beginning directly.
- Can anyone do "real" personalization technology now?
- by September 6, 2005 3:13 PM PDT
- Has Yahoo's Konfabulator done a better job of personalization? Obviously no.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(34 Comments)I believe there has been very few (I would like to say "no" here actaully, but I want to be careful) pretty good "practical" technology that does such reasoning effectively.
Of course, I meant "personalization" here as the magical way of learning user's preference from the usual searh terms entered or routine mouse click streams, instead of directly asking bunch of obvious questionares in the beginning directly.