Re: [still OT?] Google cookie problem - was [Re: [OT] Google search default lang.]
On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 00:39:05 +1000, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> On 14/08/11 23:31, � wrote:
^
You're still with the black diamond issue :-P
>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 23:01:55 +1000, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>>> Google has used cookies since day one.
>>
>> Not as agressively as it is doing now.
>
> Mea culpa - I thought that comment was made by Richard...
Yep, it was me.
My relation with Google is now very distant and cold. But it's not just
me who thinks in that way, the web is full of complaints about this new
Google policy of "use our services like we want to be used or fly away".
>> Cookies were used -and are sill used- for tracking users and displaying
>> adds (which I find it okay) but I've never had to use a specific URI
>> for Google to look like it was used to.
>
> It's annoying - some of the Google people are very responsive, and other
> are downright obtuse.
>
> Politely letting them know you miss the functionality helps - Sagar
> Kamdar and Matt Dunn are very nice, , smart, responsive, and helpful
> (and influential). They understand tipping points and the importance of
> keeping bleeding edge adopters happy. *You* should find a friendly ear
> there ;-p :-D
I will take note. But again, Google forums are full of unger users about
this:
http://www.google.com/webhp?complete=0&hl=en#sclient=psy&hl=en&complete=0&site=webhp&source=hp&q=google+disable+autocomplete&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=43b3d7638083a689&biw=1280&bih=888
http://www.google.com/webhp?complete=0&hl=en#sclient=psy&hl=en&complete=0&site=webhp&source=hp&q=google+disable+instant+preview&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=43b3d7638083a689&biw=1280&bih=888
It's hard to believe they are not aware of this >>>:-)
>> As Google has been adding more and
>> more services it also has started to be more and more strict to what
>> they services have to look like.
>
> Some of that is understandable as the products leave beta and have to be
> supported better (the Ned and Chav factor). But they could give us the
> choice to between beta testing products with choices, or using the
> stricter production products (closing the labs is one of my biggest
> complaints).
But Google search is not in a Beta stage, right? ;-)
>>> Edit => Preferences => Privacy => In the history section use the
>>> drop-down bar to select Custom => untick both of the cookies boxes.
>>
>> And what you get with that setting turned on?
>
> No cookies. Which don't bother me - I clear them at the start of new
> sessions (and I never install flash, so flash cookies are not an
> option).
Ah, okay, you are doing the same as me with the flash exception (I have
it installed, but hope the flash plugin can be finally removed from the
face of the Earth as soon as possible :-P).
>>>> - Can you remove auto-complete? Nope
>>>
>>> "Apparently" it's still possible in preferences - but preferences
>>> requires you to be logged into iGoogle, which counts as no (for me).
>>
>> Exactly! How in the hell would I need to "login" in a web search engine
>> for getting such option? That's no-sense.
>
> If we could set those options in a plain text file... oh wait - that's
> like cookies :-D
> Seriously - most of the privacy concerns Google users have would
> evaporate if Google cookies were renamed Google preference and stored
> ~/.google_prefs with human readable values like:- autocomplete=off
> autosuggest=off
> etc, etc.
True is that I don't care about they track me. They provide a free
service and have to make money from "something". Google adds are annoying
but not the ones we encounter when using Google search, I find most
annoying the adds that another sites are using in their web pages because
they are not very well identified and clicking on them by mistake is very
easy.
>>>> - Can you get rif off the small preview image? Nope
>>>
>>> Do you mean those annoying mouse-over javascript pop-ups page
>>> previews? xul-ext-noscript fixes that.
>>
>> I know there are many addons to avoid that but I neither want to keep
>> my browser full of third-party addons... an addon to fix each of the
>> things Google breaks? No, thanks, better fix Google>:-)
>
> NoScript (and that's the Debian build) is the single most useful
> Iceweasel plugin (IMNSHO). AdBlock_Plus'd be the second.
I will have to review it.
>> But I don't want to be plenty of addons! And what happens when you are
>> not in your computer or you use more than one browser? You have to care
>> about getting every addon to fix Google services just to have a happy
>> browsing? Nooope, not me. I'm not going to waste my time on that. When
>> I feel tired enough of what Google provides I will just do the same I
>> did with their webmail and use another MUA, so in this case, I'll use
>> another search engine.
>
> I use two extensions and one search plugin - they live on a gmail
> account, so I install them where ever I use a browser. Generally I have
> access to my own machine - otherwise I've got USB keys (I prefer not to
> use computers I don't own).
He, nice trick that of having the addons in your Google cloud space :-)
(...)
Greetings,
--
Camaleón
Reply to: