Quantcast StorefrontBacktalk » Blog Archive » Google Experiment Could Place Friend Rants Above Retail Results
advertisement
advertisement

Google Experiment Could Place Friend Rants Above Retail Results

Written by Fred J. Aun
November 4th, 2009
Like this story? Share it
To share this story with people in your social network, please click on the network icons below.

For time immemorial, or at least for a decade, E-tailers have been using everything from alchemy to algorithms to try and master search engine optimization (SEO). The oft-elusive goal: to have the almighty Google find their sites and place them high on prospective spenders’ search results pages. Now, as blogger Paul Gillen perfectly points out, the Don’t Be Evil Gods have changed the rules. With its experimental new program, called Social Search, Google is including–high on the precious first page of the results it fetches–items culled from the searcher’s social network sphere.

Say John wants to buy a Gateway computer and does the regular Google search for the model he likes. With the new Google program, a Facebook rant by John’s trusted college buddy Joe about how, say, Best Buy weaseled its way out of matching a competitor’s price for a Gateway might show up right next to an expensively SEO-fertilized Best Buy listing. Granted, the Google Social Search listings appear at the bottom of the first page, but there are retailers and vendors that would kill for that chunk of real estate.


advertisement

2 Comments | Read Google Experiment Could Place Friend Rants Above Retail Results

  1. Patrick Says:

    Sounds good to me! Real observations from real people tend to be much more credible, don’t you think?

  2. Troy Says:

    I like the idea, but now I’ll have to rate my “friends” on their competence and objectiveness. Does google have a strategy for that?

Leave a Reply

Newsletter

Quickly catch-up on the latest in E-Commerce and Retail Tech with our free weekly newsletter, with urgent bulletins as news merits.
advertisement

Most Recent Comments

Kill All The Passwords

This article does mention, but does not give enough attention to, the fact that the attacks discussed are only feasible when the encrypted password file can be copied and subjected to an offline attack. The trick is to have authentication performed on a separate, much more strongly secured host - such as an Active Directory Domain Controller, or a Kerberos server, or a NIS+ server, or even using something as banal as an LDAP-over-SSL authentication dialog. In these environments, the odds of the "password file" being stolen and subjected to an offline attack go to near zero, and only online attacks may be carried out by the attacker. With sensible exponential backoff between failed password attempts, lockout after a modest number of failed attempts on a single account, and pattern detection, that minimum 7 character password is quite secure enough. Passwords aren't dead yet for security purposes, and they will be with us for a very long while to come for practical purposes. The trick is to employ them correctly. Read more...
The possibilities you describe are years away from being implemented at best, so for the moment passwords are an ugly reality. Luckily, password managers can easily manage hundreds of passwords of any length. The only thing a user needs to remember is the master password. It seems like an easier task to educate users on how to use password managers rather than implement complex security technology on a global basis. Read more...