Google recently announced that it is launching new offerings related to increasing the relevancy of your searches using Google. Does this come at a cost to your privacy? Inquiring minds want to know.

First, Google will be attempting to further refine your search results based on 3 additional key areas of information: 1) Location, 2) Recent Searches, and 3) Web History.

Google has this to say:

Location. By default, we identify your approximate city location based on your computer’s IP address and use it to customize your search results. …

Recent searches. We take into account whether a particular query followed on the heels of another query. Because recent search activity provides such valuable context for understanding the meaning behind your searches, we use it to customize your results whenever possible, regardless of whether you’re signed in or signed out. In order to customize your results and show you the customization details, we keep the most recent query on your browser for a limited time. After that, the information is removed from your browser and disappears immediately if you close your browser.

Web History. If you’re signed in and have Web History enabled, we customize your search results based on what you’ve searched for in the past on Google, and what web sites you’ve visited. One important note about Web History: it belongs to you and you have complete control over it. You can remove specific items or pause the service at any time. …

So what do you have to hide? Does this violate privacy rights in your opinion?

Google has already been caching a great deal of information about your searches, and uses this information to support its advertising based business(es). This in and of itself is not sinister, because it supports the stalwart services we all come to know and love.

I wanted to call attention to that comment in Web History that states, “it belongs to you and you have complete control over it.” Anyone believing this has to be a fool. The Internet is full of cache-points where uniquely identifying information about you and what you do is stored. At this point, individual corporate privacy regulations have kept this information out of the hands of those wishing to troll the information for their benefit, but there are indeed works under way to unsecret this information as seen in RIAA’s case against Verizon.

What is perhaps most frightening is the simple power that Google now holds over information in general. As proposed in Jason Calacanis’s e-mail dialogue, Google is now exerting an interesting position within the information space, as it were. Some corporate entities are somewhat fearful of blacklisting by Google should they say or do something out of line, while others are more fearful of the mounting volume of information Google now holds in its possession.

While this is all very doom-and-gloom, Google has not taken a position of sway over you and I. No, in fact, they have responsibly leveraged the information they do have to monetize their advertisement business and drive free solutions to the normal person, like you and I.

You can choose to argue the merits or weaknesses of either side all day, but at this point Google is demonstrating a measured level of responsibility given its power in the information space. I would also like to point out that individuals, like you and I, have given Google “our vote” by use if its products and services.

In general, we will continue to watch the ebb and flow of Google, and other key players in the space. But fear not, it is the joint voices of us little people that ultimately - over time - that will determine the fate of things. Just be sure that you watch and listen attentively to ensure your privacy and protection are secured; and be sure you don’t have too much to hide.

Ken Stewart’s blog, ChangeForge.com, focuses on the collision between the constantly changing worlds of business and technology. Ken is also the Director of Technology at Kearns Business Solutions.

In Mark Evan’s post, Did We Get Suckered by Firefox 3?, he asks a very pointed question. Firefox topped 8 million downloads in a 24 hour period, which reports are stating could be a new world record (Chattahbox).

Mark wasn’t too pleased with Mozilla, and immediately points both barrels and fires:

Everyone likes something shiny and new so it didn’t come as much surprise to see eight million people download Firefox 3… While Firefox is becoming more popular, the reality is people who enthusiastically downloaded as soon as it was released into the wild may have been suckered.

Why is it that Mozilla has this mystique of greatness, anyway?

I’m not so sure anyone got “suckered”, and I’m not of the opinion Firefox is some messiah of browsers. For that matter, I’m certainly no fanboy of Microsoft’s Internet Explorer.

I get the impression that many almost feel as though Mozilla has some underlying obligation to fix world hunger or bring peace to the Middle East. I mean, come on! The fanatics that follow Apple or tout Google act as if they are some ’dynamic duo‘ out to stop the evils of Corporate America too.

It’s easy to get caught up in the positive spin of a company, but let’s cut the hype… Firefox is a browser just like IE, and just like Safari. I am a user who wants to surf the web, read e-mail, and conduct my business and personal affairs in a connected world. 

I will tell you that I have worked with FF 1 and 2 with no great applause. They’re OK, but interoperability with other suites in my line of business applications have been spotty. I was truly hoping FF3 would fix some of that, but it appears that in fixing some issues others have arisen.

Now that’s a shocker: a software company that has bugs in their code? No, not Mozilla. They’re curing AIDS in Africa with each download - aren’t they?

The black and white of browsers:

Listen folks, I don’t mean to downplay world events - or more importantly anyone’s role in helping others. I’m all for that. However, let’s look at this just like a business. These companies are in business. I love the competition that both Firefox and Safari bring to the table because it helped Microsoft get a clue and clean up some (I said some) of their crap code in IE.

Now speaking of code, FF3 has been all but working smoothly since I downloaded all but less than a week ago. My trusty RoboFormssoftware isn’t working properly and completely disappears at times - and let me tell you keeping track of all the passwords I have is a hassle without it. AJAXey sites don’t function very well that I can tell, like Plurk. Now who knows if that is truly Firefox or the A-Team just goofing with their code base again, but IE7 doesn’t seem to hiccup very much.

Well, maybe these are all tweaks, and maybe not. However, if I put on my, “I’m just a normal user” cap, I don’t care. I want my software to work, out of the box, with no customization. I know, call me lazy - call me idealistic, but don’t call me unrealistic!

The bottom line:

Mozilla isn’t on some grand crusade to make the world a better place by downloading their code. They are a business looking for market share. I’m sure they would be the first to tell you that if you generally want to make a difference in the world, sitting in front of their browser is not the place to be.

Oh well, I’ll wait for a .1 release to fix some of the hiccups along with my software vendors releasing some updated code as well. Until then, I’ll probably kick back to my trusty IE - sorry boys and girls.

Oh well, this is my rant on Firefox 3 for now, do you have a beef with it, or just with what I’m saying? Speak up - because I can’t hear you!

I was listening to a few podcasts on TWiT where Paul T. and Jason C. were talking on various points of usability. The big ideas that stuck with me were 1) Paul stated that Microsoft had underestimated the ability of end-users to learn a new interface (speaking on Windows Mobile), and 2) Jason was debating on why so many websites and portals looked so much alike (speaking on the likenesses between AOL and Yahoo!).

I had simply filed those in the back of my filing cabinet to chew on, and then Dan posted an article over at BizTechTalk speaking on the interface and “findability”.

This really got me thinking again.

You see, I have really adopted the notion that a major metric of project management is end-user adoption. Overall, I can do everything right and if the culture or customer doesn’t adopt it - it’s a flop!

However, does this mean we can just throw up what the crowd wants regardless of quality? If the mob likes the product it’s a success?

The answer of course is, “No.” However, it is easy to become so focused on either form or function that we begin to sacrifice the overall vision of what it is we are trying to accomplish.

Jason, during the podcast, mentioned that many websites are now using the L.S.N. format for their portals, indicating a Logo, Search, News layout (from top to bottom respectively). He further goes on to state that it takes time and energy to retrain our minds to think a different way. In other words, we have grown accustomed to a sandwich being 2 pieces of bread, meat, lettuce, tomato, and some mayo or mustard.

What if I don’t like my sandwich this way? Well, that’s what’s being served, so eat it anyway?

In my humble opinion, the beauty of technology is it is so malleable. That is, it can be shaped, and re-shaped, to fit the situation. Is there now a huge trend in media consumption to provide a plethora of channels of choice for consumers to feast upon?

On the other hand, if I can’t “find” what I need, or something is not where I expect it to be, statistics show a large majority of consumers will move on in search of what they want, impatient and disatisfied.

Hmmm… is form or function the more important choice?

Google is a great example of function. I think all would agree the interface is spartan, but do you generally find what you need quickly? In other words, Google understands its mission is to provide a clear egress to another source; in other words, don’t get in the way of what I am looking for - enable me!

Most endpoints will be a little more rich in form. However, beauty for its own sake is a cardinal sin - at least in UI development.

For instance, YouTube’s homepage, I would argue, is on the edge of being too busy. However, it has some similar features a consumer might be used to such as a few navigation links at the top right, some tabs, and some general content. I would venture a guess, most people don’t make it past the top 1/3 of the page before they move on to another page. If that is the case, YouTube has indeed done their job on layout.

In summary, form and function play a vital role in “findability”. It is not sufficient to dismiss one or the other in a majority of situations. This being said, the creator must understand the goal of the content and design according to need of the customer rather than his or her own perceptions.

There has been a lot of buzz around the blogosphere today on why Facebook isn’t getting along with Google. Scoble wrote an interesting post:

There’s a TON of money in that little tree and the hundreds of millions of little trees that YOU have added into Facebook and MySpace and other places.

How do I know that? Well, there’s a little stealth company that I’ve started hearing about. Media6.

A friend told me about them. They figured out that if, say, Mike Arrington buys something, that his friends are two to 10 times more likely than the general public to buy the same thing. Take that into advertising on Facebook: if Mike clicks on, say, a CocaCola ad, Media6 knows that his friends are far more likely to click on that ad than the rest of the 100 million people on Facebook.

I bet Facebook is building its own internal database of exactly the same data too.

Truth is your social graph tells the world a HUGE amount about you. Facebook doesn’t want you to move that other places easily.

Translation: there are billions of dollars at stake here.

Connectedness is a funny thing. There is a fine balance between too much and just enough. Since the online community has demonstrated it doesn’t want to pay for most services, advertisement is the only real method of sustaining the continuation of the services.

Naturally, extremely targeted ads are on the horizon. With more information now available about you and your habits, it is becoming easier for marketers and advertisers to determine how to angle in on you.

This reminds me of an article I wrote some time ago, Are We Too Connected to Social Media, in response to a post by Dan over at BizTechTalk.

Well, the technology and business world is a buzz with all of the latest prognostications on whose the loser and whose the winner. I must say, I’m a bit disappointed with Scoble’s “proof” on the matter - the stock market?

I’m not a big fan of Ballmer, I certainly agree Microsoft needs a web strategy, and Yahoo! is going to go in the tank if they don’t get a clue - but I just don’t agree with using the stock as an indicator of whose right and whose wrong. These are a bunch of analysts on Wall Street who freak out when the wind blows the wrong direction.

Who are we kidding here, that was just a merge that would’ve ended up like Time-Warner and AOL - a culture clash akin to Clash of the Titans!

I will say Scoble is on track with the real winner in all of this being Google, but does that really take a brain child. I think Ballmer was flat out stupid for considering the Yahoo! purchase in the first place. But, Scoble - buddy - I thought better of your cognitive resources than to start yipping right along with the wall street dogs my friend!