Re: [still OT?] Google cookie problem - was [Re: [OT] Google search default lang.]
On 15/08/11 01:32, � wrote:
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
Yes it's a consequence of me deciding that not using UTF-8 was more
problem than using it - occasionally I flick over to the old iso to make
sure the black diamond is who I think it is.
<snipped>
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".
It's a natural consequence of shareholders flexing their muscles I guess
- now they're starting to tell the point-headed gits how to do their
job... every portfolio manager thinks they're Steve "throw a chair"
Balmer when they're holding blocks of shares they don't own. If I hear
Brin or Page are starting to sell shares I'd dump mine and run - it's
those folks and the brains they brought with them that make Google
attractive (that and the fact that without them it'd just be Microsoft
and Apple).
<snipped>
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
Noted: seems many of them post on youtube too :-(
Hence my use of the word "polite".
I don't know how people cope without Noscript and AdBlock Plus - that
they make Google more useable is just a bonus. Mainly the make pages
load faster and give pages back to content not annoying ads, spyware,
and bloody pop-up mouse-overs!
It's hard to believe they are not aware of this>>>:-)
<rant>
It's the nature of organisations - the people that build the products
(and care about them) get promoted to positions where they spend most of
their time in meetings, and the people on the front-line tend to be
empty headed Outlook using (no, I'm not making that up) techno fools -
with "people skills" - salespeople and *spit* marketers - making
promises the engineers can't keep. Take something beautiful and make it
ugly, mutter, mutter, mutter...</rant>
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? ;-)
Google search encrypted is, and Google image comparison search, and
Google voice search...
They announced the launch of Google psychic search at the start of April
- it still doesn't seem to work... so I'm guessing that's a beta too ;-D
<snipped>
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).
Rippem down.
<snipped>
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.
Adblock - leave the ads on the server where they belong. Unless they pay
me to view their advertising they can just go and try reproduce with
themselves.
- 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.
What is this advertisement thing of which you speak? ;-p
NoScript and AdBlock Plus - how Google search should look, not the lack
of mouse-over annoyances:-
http://ge.tt/8b7pBo6/v/0
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 :-)
Anything I'd normally shuffle around the place or move on a USB key
lives on gmail accounts. I thought every one did the same thing... maybe
I should be reading advertisements after all (and watching that
telemavision thingie).
(...)
Greetings,
--
“We gotta come to some new ideas about life folks ok? I'm not being
blase about abortion, it might be a real issue, it might not, doesn't
matter to me. What matters is that if you believe in the sanctity of
life then you believe it for life of all ages. That's what I hate about
this child-worship syndrome going on. "Save the children! They're
killing children! How many children were at Waco? They're killing
children!" What does that mean? They reach a certain age and they're off
your [beep] love-list? [beep] your children, if that's the way you think
then [beep] you too. You either love all people of all ages or you shut
the [beep] up.”
~ Bill Hicks
Reply to: