It feels kind of negative to start a post with a warning, but you’re all busy people and I’d hate for you to waste your time – so here goes: Today I’ll be talking about the ethics of personalisation online, and the potential issues which might arise as a result. As such I won’t be offended if you decide this isn’t quite your cup of tea and decide not to read on.
Still with me?
Thanks for sticking around, you look lovely by the way...
So this post was prompted by a seminar I attended this week where I was lucky enough to see Eli Pariser present on precisely this topic. He’s very passionate about what he calls ‘the Filter Bubble’ (i.e. the effects of online personalisation) so much so he’s written a book on the subject. So, what’s the deal with personalisation? Well, as Cyrus highlighted in his recent Personalised Search post:
“Google’s personalised search means nearly every result returned within a browser is altered one way or another. It’s rare that two different people on Earth ever see the exact same set of search results.”
What’s wrong with that? Google personalise results so people see the things which are most relevant to them. Normally we’d see relevancy as a good thing... Personalisation is the future – improved user experience – hurrah!
But wait - Eric Schmit says:
“It will be very hard for people to watch or consume something that has not been tailored for them.”
That sounds a little sinister... It’s going to be hard for me to see stuff that hasn’t been tailored for me? Why? I thought your algorithms were being used to show the ‘best’ results...
Well, it turns out that they are, it’s just that ‘best’ is subjective – ‘best’ is based on your point of view.
“Increasingly online, it’s becoming impossible to escape your own point of view.” - Eli Pariser
Fortunately my point of view is 100% correct. I am never wrong. Ever. I really like being right because I get a natural high thanks to the dopamine which is released by my very clever brain. It’s awesome when you see your own views reflected right back at you via the magic of the interweb.But what if I’m not right? What if I’m never again exposed to a contrary point of view?
And what happens when other sites get in on the act? Oh hai Facebook!
“A squirrel dying in front of your house may be more relevant to your interests right now than people dying in Africa.” – Mark Zuckerburg.
Uh oh – it’s beginning to feel like you’ve got me wrong... I want to hear about important stuff. I might not ‘like’ hearing about stories like that, but that doesn’t mean I don’t think that they’re important.
Pariser refers to this as ‘the psychological equivalent of obesity’. The personalisation filters which are currently being used may bias the content which you see – for example, if you mainly spend your time online seeking entertaining content which doesn’t seek to challenge you in any way (drunk party pictures on Facebook *like*) then that might soon be all that you see.
Now clearly, if people are going to head to Facebook for their daily dose of real-world news then mankind has got itself some massive problems. But if people are going to Google for news and are still only seeing a one-sided view of the world which just so happens to coincide with what they already believe is that really the ‘best’ result? On the face of it, it might seem to be a ‘good’ result from the user’s perspective – but is it for the greater good?
Here comes the ethics question – Is it ethical for search results to be personalised in this way?
In my view, it’s really not ok. Most people (i.e. those who work outside of search) don’t realise that their search results are personalised. Plus, as Cyrus quite rightly highlighted “...Google made sure it’s darned hard to turn off.” Much as it might comfort me to only view results which sit comfortably with my own politics, is it good for me? We’re handing over control to an algorithm that by design does not strive to provide a balanced mix of results.
This scares me.
But, is it reasonable to expect a corporate entity to act for the greater good? Particularly if providing users with a more balanced SERP results in them high-tailing it straight into the warm embrace of the competition? In any case – wasn’t it always this way? Before the internet people consumed news only via whichever media sat comfortably with their own political affiliation. Plus of course, even if a more balanced mix of results are shown, you can’t *make* people click through to read something they don’t want to.
So, what do you think? Should we be afraid of personalisation? Should we push for easier ways to turn it off? Should there be more ‘balanced’ results for certain types of queries? Should I get myself a tin foil hat, cancel my broadband, flush my smartphone and hide under my desk?
Over to you mozzers, I’d really like to hear your views – especially if they don’t coincide with my own.
Image credit: Lucky Lager - https://www.flickr.com/photos/laughingsquid/5281358464/sizes/m/in/photostream/
I would prefer it reversed. That Google shows us the "normal" non-personalized results by default - but with the possibility to set up a personalization for those who like it.But as you wrote most people don't realise that their search results are personalised - therefore they wouldn't know that there would be that possibility, too.
Not only regarding ethical issues - it annoys me that Google seems to think to know which results I want to see - and of course regarding the work flow of some seo items, too.
Geo-specific results seems to me ok and reasonable but on personalization I would prefer to have the choice.
You are right, it should be reveresed and we should have an option to turn it on when we want, it's not theirs to decide what results we see. In fact, if I look at the results I get for certain things based on the friends I have on Facebook, it has nothing to do with what I want and need. The opinions of my friends don't always match mine, in fact, they rarely do, and when it comes to tastes, well I can't see how personalisation can make up for that!
Either that or they should make the turn off button obvious for everyone, I shouldn't be forced to use a plugin for my browser to turn it off or do anything else for that matter.
The curse of an option is that you have to make a choice. I completely agree that a raw search algorithm will in fact expand our horizon and keep our perspective fresh/anew. However, my fear is for the 'rank and file' people out there. They are more interested in "squirrel dying in front of your house..." so to speak.
So I suggest like @Hannah that Google make it more obvious a person's search results are being doctored.
We've actually had some GREAT geo-targeting efforts which have reaped us fresh, new contracts, yet building upon it and expanding our targeted market seems to take more personal information....
Even though you say you'd "prefer to have the choice", that doesn't sit well with the SE's...
We as SEO "professionals" look, analyze and write what WE believe would be great content...
However, the average "Joe Schmo" doesn't know any better; therefore, it is almost a Catch-22....
Where to go from outside of what we've been trained to do now?
Personalised search bothers me. Not least because it's an absolute pain to disable.
But honestly, much as the author of this post pointed out, just because I like something or because someone I know likes something, does not mean that I want thatand similar sites made prominent for my viewing pleasure in the SERPs.
In fact, some of the people I know (whose previousTweets have impacted my search results directly) havetotally different interests and points of view to me and we wouldn't necessarily want to read the same material.
Besides, who wants to read and share sites that their friends have already shared all the time. Isn't half the fun in finding something neither you nor your online social circle have seen yet?
This is such a good point to make! Google personalization and social influenced serps runs on the assumption that my friends and other online connections all have similar interests and tastes. While that may be true with the people I hang out with personally, it's rarely true for the group of people I connect with online.
The easy solution to this whole issue is for Google and ALL search engines to provide a toggle button to turn personalization on/off...then just run a split test to see the numbers of folks that "choose" personalization versus non-personalization to determine what the default setting should be. Does that make sense?
Personalization of SERPs is something that should have to be optimized by Google.
Personally I wonder why Google did not thought to a - I believe - quite simple UI update (now that is playing with new colors, new icons, etc etc) that could be based on the omnipresent cookies and search history:
That could a good solution that could fullfill both needs.
If not, it is sad to think that I've to tweet something I'd personally would not instantly click in the Serps (or +1) to see it in my serps again.
Interesting post, but it only scratches the surface of an important subject.
The crux of the matter is whether web surfers should be treated as citizens or consumers.
I suspect most people on the forum instinctively incline toward the consumer view. After all, they are hired by companies who want to sell more stuff.
But there is another view, and Pariser expresses it eloquently: democracy is impoverished when search results are deliberately skewed for commercial purposes. Google attaches too much importance to our past behaviour and keeps us inside a filter bubble it has created to prevent us from seeing what we otherwise would.
That said, the factual basis of Pariser's book is very much in dispute. He attaches great importance on results he and a couple of friends got from a single search. Critics accuse him of basing an entire book on a random anecdote and have been unable to replicate anything like his results. So it would be interesting to see larger scale experiments. Otherwise, we might be talking about a phenomenon that doesn't exist.
I think it's fairly safe to say that the phenomenon does exist - although I've not seen results as dramatically different as Pariser highlights; when conducting some quick and dirty experiments here in the office there were differences in the results myself and my colleagues were seeing.
Agree it would be interesting to see some larger scale experiments.
This is exactly the same for a newspaper in the UK. People choose to read one with a certain politcal view and no one expects them to offer both sides of the argument. (As in the US, you dont expect FOX to provide a balanced view)
How is search results any different? If you dont like them, change you search engine, just like people do in real life. IF search engines dont provide what people want, new ones will cater to that audience
I think that the very fact that they make personalization so difficult to disable strongly suggests their motives are commercial. What would be wrong with a notice that says "These results have been personalized based on [...]"? and then a button to turn it off? Google's engineers could do that in a heartbeat. So, either they've decided that: (1) This is what's best for them, or (2) They KNOW what's best for us. Either option is a bit scary, IMO.
Love this post, thank you for raising the questions. It is clear to me that most people have no idea they are being served "personalized" results, beyond perhaps knowing that they get localized results. It is an important question to ask: does this practice exploit the users, since the users are not notified that they are being served "cooked" results? I like Dr. Pete's solution. Let users be given the opportunity for informed consent, or non-consent.
Personalising results doesn't kill free thinking; free thinkers will always seek more than one source.
In my opinion this is no different to forming a world view by always reading the Washington Post, or blindly adopting the opinions of the New York Times. News is, has been and always will be somewhat influenced by the writers and publishers of the content.
Personalised results absolutely make sense in some cases. Local results are an excellent example of this. Again though, if you don't have the ability to balance the results with your own opinions and observations you have bigger issues.
There are also varying degrees of personalisation, and SEO's and developers aren't the best sample group to measure by. We all have plug ins, toolbars, facebook/linked in accounts. We provide a lot of information; more than the average user. (Obviously we also have ways to block and tailor content more than the average user as well).
In response to some of the opinion above. You're not forced to use a plug in for your browser. You're not forced to use that browser. If you don't like the results that Google presents on Explorer, use Bing on Firefox. There are plenty of options. Lastly, in my opinion, Google absolutely has the right to deny neutral results to us. They are a commercial enterprise above all else. If they find that a change increases usage and profits, I expect them to adopt the change. Google isn't a charity or a philanthropic organisation.
Hmmm....
Not sure I buy the newspaper analogy.The best newspapers open their op-ed pages to dissenting views and try to tell both sides in news coverage. They have a sense of public trust. They often fall short and savvy newspaper readers know they are getting a certain view of the world.
Google purports to be neutral and objective. But it's not. It has yet to demonstrate an awareness of its enormous power to shape the public discourse. It is not acting as responsibly as the best newspaper and the major broadcast networks in their heyday. Or so Pariser argues.
Love your post Hannah! The whole personalization thing is a double edged sword--and any kind of weapon can never be a good thing. There are places we go where we expect personalization. A restaurant will give you exactly what you order (hopefully) --with all your requests (light butter, hold the onions) taken care of. Google is now acting like a waiter, remembering our favorite drinks and typical orders.
What scares me in the general bias we have. What's general bias--it's just plain disinterestedness (we will pretend that's a word). Remember in high school when it was time to do your homework and you avoided your least favorite subject like the plague? You weren't interested in it so you didn't try to expand your mind or learn something new. We all probably have those problems at work by avoiding the project we don't really feel like doing or care about. This is a problem. If Google wants to ask the question "How do we get knowledge?" and "How do we present knowledge?" they can't censor out knowledge. That's unethical.
If we search for "JFK assassination" --despite not clicking on the "2nd gunman on the Grassy Knoll" results, it still should be there. We should still have access to things we may not be interested in--otherwise Google is creating an ignorant bubble. One where no one questions anything or chooses to grow. For a search engine to cater to what we want , sure it sounds ok from one side, but from the other perspective, it's dangerous.
@StephStMartin
Well this post got people going! - and that's not a surprise. I had a recent (brief) rant about this on my own blog and it's encouraging to see others also with concerns.
Primarily my concern is that Google wants to think that it knows what interests me, more than I do myself. Personally I find that a little arrogant (sorry big G, but it is).
"“Increasingly online, it’s becoming impossible to escape your own point of view.” - Eli Pariser"
And it's that which concerns me - if Personalisation is on by default then it has wider ramifications than just simply what I or my neighbour see in the SERPs - it can narrow down everyone's worldview such that we become far to intolerant of people who are not like me (i.e. everyone) and reduces understanding of the world. That may sound apocalyptic but the potential is there.
There are two, maybe three outcomes I can see:-
1. Google carry on doing what they do and everyone follows along blindly (I hope not...)
2. There's such an outcry that Google make it easier to turn off personalisation
3. People start using other search engines.
Personally, I have to work with Google because that's what my clients are interested in. I do broaden the mindset to remind them other search engines exist, however. But for non-work searches, I will up my use of other search engines.
With this over-emphasis on Personalisation, it will either tie people into using G more (because people like their own opinion, as you said) or people will be turned off and G's market share may decline.
"...everybody follows along blindly."
Wouldn't that just be Bing follows along blindly? But Bing is leading the way in social metrics with the fire hose that Facebook is feeding them. Sorry, but I see no immediate fix to this problem.
As basic as I can put it: Personalized results suck.
Why?
You said it best: "But what if I’m not right? What if I’m never again exposed to a contrary point of view?"
Ethical or Unethical?
Either way, G will do whatever they want. However, I'm still stunned by the amount of people who don't know how to turn off instant or that they are seeing personalized results based on their search history.
I can't answer the ethics question, but I can say that G should do a much better job of informing users. How about a nice highlighted line on each SERP page saying "These results have been personalize for XYY, click here to turn it off".
Between personalized search and aggressive retargeting, I may lose my hair before I'm 30 :(
Excellent post, Hannah. It is definitely a potential ethical problem for users, and it's something that Lee Siegel spoke about at length in Against the Machine: Being Human in the Age of the Electronic Mob. If all we do is surround ourselves with information and people that coincide with our own beliefs, we greatly limit our ability to have empathy for other people with differing points of view. It is the dark side of being connected that we'll eventually become 6.5 billion connected but isolated users.
I have felt the same way for a long time. It is one thing to be biased and know that you see the world with tinted glasses. It's another for the search engine to feed that bias and distort individuals views of reality even further.
"We see the world not as it is but as we are." - Covey
The search engine's personalized results only complicate this even more. To make matters even worse, we will soon also be getting fed the bias of our social network with the integration of social metrics. Urghhhh...
Don't tell me what you think I want to hear. Tell me what I need to hear!
... And yes, the reason they want to taylor results is because they want users to like them and like the "suggestions" or paid advertisements that Google matches with them for the love of money.
You've raised a very interesting question - "can personalisation become a hindrance?" - however I don't agree that this is an ethical issue.
It appears a lot of people have confused getting relevant results returned with getting the same opinion returned in those results. There is no evidence (in my experience) that this is the case.
For example you might search for 'glastonbury festival news' and get two completely different opinions on the event (e.g. one from The Guardian, one from The Sun). Just because your results are personalised, it does not follow that the opinion in those results is uniform and in agreement with yours.
Hi Stuart,
Pariser used an example within his presentation which was pretty compelling (but as highlighted elsewhere in the comments) - people have tried (and failed) to replicate his results.
Like you I've not personally seen evidence to suggest that users are only seeing one particular opinion displayed in a set of search results right now. But I'm still nervous about the way things might go in the future.
Me, paranoid? Not at all *surreptitiously dons tinfoil hat* :)
I'm surprised you made it out of your bunker to write this post!
I do see what you're saying but (I may be wrong here) I just don't see a way in which a search engine could assess the opinion in a piece of content, or why they would want to. The complexity involved in even defining how to do it is immense - and the value it would deliver to the user as you pointed out, is limited.
As you've got paranoia covered I'll handle glib optimism.
I'm not interested in going tit for tat with some of the people who have already commented but some perspectives are clearly the result of an axe to grind.
One lofty objective of personalization is to help the small local business with no web or SEO knowledge compete and this it does successfully. Oh, sorry...did that just kill someone's over SEO's business directory made for AdSense? Darn!
Case in point, the mom and pop local pizza joint. Ideally they should not need to have deep SEO knowledge to compete with a corporate entity. In the past, a user such as my mom would have needed to type in a long query string including the KW term plus city and perhaps even the state to get the desired result. Now she just needs to type "pizza."
I'd argue that this personalization is good for the average user, it provides the result they're looking for in the easist possible manner and may or may not add a penny to the bottom line other than develop more loyal users due to the added usability of the system.
No, I don't think it should be turned off by default. Again the average user would not have the level of knowledge or skill to take advantage of the feature. Those who fear personalization are going to be more motivated to find a way to work around it.
Since employed on an algorithmic level, is there the possibility to do harm, of course! But there is always some risk when you're dealing with scalability. With so many new sites coming online on a daily basis, I ask you to imagine the very real threat of highly SEO'd disposable overseas sites competing on a local level with no personalization. The amount of complaints of web spam would far exceed those you see today.
Just to clarify - I see localisation of results as separate to personalisation (I definitely didn't make that clear enough in my post - so apologies for that).
I have no issue with localisation - as clearly for searches such as 'pizza' - users want to see businesses nearby. However the sorts of personalisation which I was referring to in my post go way beyond tailoring results based on whereabouts a given user is searching from - they are based on past search activity on Google.
personalisation is merely a subset of localisation (which is itself a subset of language or tld area). its all shades of grey
Loved this post... I couldn't agree more...
The personalisation era is here to stay. I believe it's important that we recognise (in the way we do with traditional media) that the points of view we are being fed are in some way biased, and that their is a corporation behind the algorithm that has vested interests.
Google has effectively sold itself over the past decade as being the only search engine that gives you fair results because their algorithms are based on a kind of voting system controlled by the web users, as such I believe we've (the general public) fallen into the trap of not recognising that Google's primary function is to make money out of its users.
In the search community we have an interest also in promoting better understanding about how Google works, and this includes personalisation (I wrote a blog about that here: The Personalisation Era.
If Google is going to personalize results like they are doing, then they need to create a nother section where those personalized results appear. Leave the standard results along, and just have another column for the manipulated results.
Attention Google, Give us Results, not what you think we need to see!
I think that we are always going to see someone trying to control what we see and how we see it. Whether it is google, yahoo, facebook etc we are going to see them GUESSING at what we want because they get their ego in the way.
They think they know what we want to see.
I believe the next 24 months are going to be a very interesting time in the SEO world.
In SEO, next 24 months are always interesting :)
With google panda update every now and then? Yeah, even the next 12 months in SEO are always interesting :))
Forget the next 24 months man....
Every day that we sit back and "wonder" is costing our clients gross sales, if not net visits to their website...
Don't want to be tracked by Google? Install this:
https://www.google.com/ads/preferences/html/intl/en/plugin/
Charles (KnNell) Knell
I'm not a fan of personalised search results. However, you can temporarily disable Google Personalised Search by adding &pws=0 in the address bar at the end of a Google search URL.
It would be far better if we could opt into this not out of.
Like cookies, people would spend a day with it off and then switch it on by default. pretty useless to have it off in practice
You raise a very interesting point here. Not everyone really wants to spend their time looking at other points of view and it has been proven that people do tend to read things that reflect their own philosophies. However, I question whether it is Google's right to deny us more neutral results as much as their right to only provide us with results it thinks are more relevant to us. After all, human beings are complex creatures. We might have a habit of visiting the same few sites on a regular basis but that doesn't mean that Google should profile us based on that and therefore prevent us from discovering something new.
Anway, it's a very interesting topic; worthy of some PhD level communication research I think.
The thing that most bothering and confusing about personalised search results is that surely a search engine should be used to find things that you do not know about.
There are things such as bookmarks to make it easy to return to pages we like, this is simply not the function of a search engine. As to facebook, .... well, as far as I am concerned it is just a big toy, where people give away their secrets to big companies so they can be flooded with adverts ......
Started reading "the Filter Bubble" yesterday as it happens, I agree with everything Mr Pariser has to say
Laters
Great article, couldn't agree more, and have had several discussions about this VERY SAME thing. I don't want anything else deciding for me what I want to see or read -- especially if it's just MATH deciding.
But it's not "math" deciding. Nor is there anything remotely random or neutral about Google's current approach.
Human beings at Google have made some very deliberate decisions.
The issues Pariser raises are whether those decisions are wise. Whose interests do they serve? What is their impact in society and democracy?
I've felt recently that the user would benefit from an "additional viewpoints" list below certain results which would list about 5 pages with different viewpoints - particularly if it is a political result. Maybe add a section to the algorithm to search for "X is bad" and then list a site that says "X is good" below the the result (indented). It would be personalized, yet offer a different viewpoint.
Maybe even add an "other opinions" link below the result.
Very interesting post. What is interesting that even wanting "normal" results from Google...they are still personalized. They are personalized to what Google is determining are the factors for showing the result. In a sense, we are being shown what Google wants us to see. :) Sounds a bit like the control of big media groups to advertise what they want. Now, I'm not saying Google has an agenda, just mearly commenting on the observation that everything is in a sense "personalized".
However, I agree that "personalizing" as discussed in the article is not necessarily the best. It has the potential to compartmentalize our thinking and keep us narrowminded. We are not exposed to world new and events possibly because all I care about or typically view is sports. Or what if I am searching to learn new ideas or theories and all I see is results by people I know with the same point of view? Knowledge and the ability to access that knowledge has always been about being able to spread ideas and open the discussion among people. That's where things like facebook have incredible power (look at what happened in Egypt).
I think tailoring SERPs to have some degree of personalization is great, especially as a marketer, however, I think it needs to be a small flavoring to the search.
Hi, Hannah! First of all, I want to say that this is an excellent post and an interesting topic to focus on. That being said, I wonder if you wouldn't mind me taking a point/counter-point stance and providing maybe a different point of view to the whole topic. Devil's Advocate, if you will. Actually, I had written an entire point/counter-point article as a response to this one, but the Moz moderators thought it would be better for me to post it as comment here instead of as a separate blog article. So, Here Goes:
"Before I begin, I would just like to make it absolutely clear that I both admire and respect Hannah Smith very deeply. Also, although my view of this particular issue or subject is different (that’s the beauty of subjectivity!), I feel that all of the ideas and opinions she expressed in her article are perfectly valid and well articulated, I might add. This is, indeed, a very interesting subject.
Now, while I see the merit in having a fair and balanced view of the world and not just receiving data and search results that only re-enforce your own subjective view, I believe that there is one critical issue or flaw (if you will) in Hannah’s assertion that Google’s Personalized Search Results feature is leading to a personal biased view of things. Even if the Personal Results Feature was removed, THE SEARCH RESULTS ARE BIASED TO BEGIN WITH.
That’s right! The results are already biased and they have been ever since a lil’ thing called SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMIZATION came into the picture. Think about it: Even though it is true that many SEOs, including myself, have made it our principle to only do work for reputable, integrous companies, our job is to get the companies that pay us onto the front page of the search results whether they actually are the best or not. And with the increasing integration of SEO with Social Media, Video, and Viral Marketing, its not regular search results that we are trying to get them ranked first for, it’s news results as well!
Plus, I think that we're in no real danger of being made oblivious to important matters because of Google’s Personalisation feature. Using the ‘Squirrel vs. People in Africa’ analogy which Hannah quotes in her article I would say that, ‘Yes, A squirrel dying in front of your house may be more relevant to your interests right now than people dying in Africa’- for some people. But that has never to do with the personalization of search results because I left the personalized filter on but when I did a search for the query “people in Africa” I still saw plenty of disturbing results about deaths in Africa.
The point is that if you do, in fact, want to hear about the important stuff, you still can. But if you don’t “like hearing stuff like that”, as Hannah had said, then YOU WON'T - Google Personalization or not. That’s just how search engines work. If you don't type in a search query about the people dying in Africa, then you won’t hear about stuff like that - at least from the search engines. So, to my mind, there really is no ethical issue of personalization online. If anything, the ethical issue is with people’s own lack of interest with the important things that are going on across the world and I believe that there really isn't a darn thing that search engines can do about that, one way or the other.
Anyway, that’s how I see things. Now, is that the truth? Well, I suppose that’s really up to every of you to decide"
Again, I say this with the utmost respect for you, your point of view and this excellent article that you have written. Cheers.
The majority of the public that I interact with who are not SEO's are more worried about the ethics from a different angle - datamining - although they don't usually call it that, of course.
I know many, many people who have been conditioned to fear giving out any information online, let alone what they've been searching for. Plus, they don't want to login. It's a big brother thing. "The more info they know about me, themore control they have over my life."
Google's motto of do no harm may sound good now, but even I have to admit that I get scared when I hear things like:
"It will be very hard for people to watch or consume something that has not been tailored for them"
Really? I've been doing it for years. Even since before Google came into existance to help me know what I liked. This has a pre-WW2 propaganda feel to it.
It may be paranoid but just look at the reaction on other, non-seo sites. Here's one from Reddit:
"That was an inevitable result of Google buying Youtube. In a few years all social media and commerce will be crosslinked and datamined into the transweb entity Omnigoogabook and you won't even be able to tweet a meme without generating mountains of microdemographically optimized recommendations (you-might-also-likes) and fnord."
Hi Hannah,
Interesting thought provoking post.
My personal opinion is that personalisation is good as at the end of the day, we as searchers want to be presented with the most relevant results that match our own personal requirements. If you remove all personalisation from search results we could end up with results that are not what we would want.
For example if I search for a plumber and Google gives me a personalised set of results based on previous searches, ip address, social circle etc. This is a good thing, as Google are trying to give me the best results based on my past bahaviour and current circumstances.
But let's not forget though that it is not just about presenting relevant organic results. The more Google or any other site knows about he searcher, the more targeted the advertising is; and that is the end goal for the likes of Google and Facebook.
I definitely think people should be given the choice though. Or maybe two sets of results. Those based on past searches and other personal info and those that are not?
I think that as with many things, extra options (such as personalized results) are a good thing, as long as there's a choice involved.
Also, the fact that we have these types of choices should be made obvious; otherwise, for many people (those used to going along with the flow) a choice being hidden isn't so much of a choice as it is a subtle manipulation.
I saw Eli's talk on TED a couple of weeks ago and was impressed. Both with him and for myself--for recognizing this as being worth discussing, here, or elsewhere.
Good post Hannah!
Thanks for the post Hannah, I was nodding in agreement with your question and response on if it is ethical for search results to be personalised in this way and I liked the comments saying we should have both personalised and non-personalised search results, each clearly marked.
Fabulous post, Hannah. I think it's safe to say that Google treats its users as consumers, rather than information-seeking citizens. With that in mind, we can wager that the personalization aspect of the algorithm is sales and information-driven, rather than purely information-driven. As far as ethics are concerned, it's really a question of motives. If the people at Google, in an honest attempt to give users 'better' search results, have been naive in their interpretation of 'better', then we place blame on their ignorance. However, if a well-aware search giant has continued to push towards results that do not meet its true definition of 'better' (seeking only 'better' profits), then ethics certainly come into question. Here's to hoping Google doesn't think it knows me better than me, and that a mixed batch of personalized and purely organic search results awaits an intermixing of consumers and citizens.
From our perspective as SEOs, personalised search can be a pretty big challenge, and I personally find it unnerving. From a personal perspective, as long as it doesn't go too far and Google doesn't show me results based on what my friends like, I don't have that much of a problem with it. Occasionally Google does show me results which aren't anywhere near what I'm looking for, so personalised search could help with that. - Jenni
Hannah -
This really is a great post! I agree that sometimes it scares me that Google has such power, to really control what we see and consume. I guess I have to hope that the sites I am reading are also pointing me to alternative points of view. Also, I think it is our human responsibility to try to find the alternative views and consider them well.
From an SEO perspective, do you think the fact that everyone is seeing personalized results should lead us to not focus on broad-scope rankings as much anymore? I mean, there are still a LOT of Internet users without Google profiles. Part of me wants to argue that we shouldn't care about rankings as much (and most of us don't as much as we used to, though rankings definitely still matter) and instead focus on usability and providing great content.
Hi John,
I'm a bit confused about your comment re Google Profiles - but to be fair I've only had one cup of coffee so my brain function is sub-optimal :)
My understanding is that you'll see personalised results whether or not you have a Google Profile - see https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/personalized-search-for-everyone.html
"Previously, we only offered Personalized Search for signed-in users, and only when they had Web History enabled on their Google Accounts. What we're doing today is expanding Personalized Search so that we can provide it to signed-out users as well. This addition enables us to customize search results for you based upon 180 days of search activity linked to an anonymous cookie in your browser. It's completely separate from your Google Account and Web History (which are only available to signed-in users)."
But that's an aside and not really what you asked anyways - see - brain function is definitely sub-optimal!
From an SEO perspective I'm kind of undecided. Clearly rankings are still important - it's just that they are much harder to track :)
I think lots of SEOs are paying more attention to the traffic / conversions that they're receiving from the keywords which they're tracking, rather than simply looking at rankings (which seems like a better measure to me in any case). Otherwise, as you say a focus on usablity and great content (plus the promotion of said content) is definitely the way forward.
Hannah
While search hasn't always been "personalized" for individual users, it seems to me that search results have always contained "a popularity edit."
At their core, aren't links the same as social likes and shares in terms of popularity signals?
I guess the true difference is that while links are a "system-wide" signal, personalized results use a much smaller data set, that being your social circle.
I'm not sure that there is a genuine distinction between historical popularity edited search results and personalized search results, except of course for the data set being used, which obviously is an important distinction.
I guess my point is that many people have this false sense that traditional organic results are somehow pure of editorial bias. But we as SEOs know that this is simply not the case.
When you create a new google account, there is a checkbox named 'enable web history' which is selected by default. I can bet an average user doesn't know what it means and doesn't bother to uncheck it while signing up. Also Google doesn't highlight this option and tell you explicitly that it is going to track your surfing habits and store your private, sensitive information. So once you have signed up for any google service you are automatically enrolled for 'being tracked' in the name of personalised search. Is this an ethical business practice? If Google changes the name of the 'enable web history' checkbox in the signup form to 'Allow Google to track you to deliver better search results' then how many people will not uncheck this checkbox?
Now talk about the relvancy. How many times you see same/similar results on a previously searched topic? How many times you feel this frustration of being trapped in a stale biased search? Don't we all have diverse interests and our own opinion or we need some search engine to decide what is best for us. I search to look for something new, otherwise why i will search. Personalised search greatly narrowed down our search options, forced us to have narrowed biased vision and is a crime against humanity.
personalisation happens all around you, every day: when you go into a shop, you may get a different experience to that of a homeless person
Personalisation is a natural and obvious conclusion here and we will always have an option to turn it off or work around it. This is such a non issue, but im sure it will drive plenty of press
No one complains that in the UK we get a different set of search results to that of the US or anywhere else in the world.
I think that there's a difference between personalisation and localisation. It's totally appropriate that we see different results in the UK to the US. I definitely should have clarified that within my post.
I was a little confused by your comment -
"Personalisation is a natural and obvious conclusion here and we will always have an option to turn it off or work around it."
I think it's actually pretty tricky to turn off personalisation - plus it's a fair assumption that the majority of users don't realise that their results are personalised. SEOs / online marketers might be able to work around it, but what about everyone else?
you can always turn it off by choosing to take your attention elsewhere
I read a great article a few weeks ago (can't remember the title) where the author talked about how personalization is taking the joy of discovery and the unknown out of our online world. While I can appreciate that Google is trying to customize the results just for me, it does narrow my world quite a bit. One of the great things about the internet is that you can find new information ay any given moment. Will personalization take that away from us?
I don't know why personalization became so big part of the SEO blog and forums in the last few weeks. It's a "problem" that exist at least a year.
In my opinion the perosnalization will boost the importance of the social media. Why? If all of my top results are dominated by the sites that I *like* or *+1* and the themes that I'm most interested in, there is a very slight chance to go to something different by using search engines. But if many of my friends recommend me something I'll go and check and if it's awesome I'll *like* and *+1*. So you have to build great content AND make it visible for the right people who will spread it like cancer.
Recently i read an article in New York Times which compared personalisation to the old broadcast world. Earlier the TV /Newspaper editors based on there point of view or biases broadcasted or published things which they feel we should be seeing or knowing. They have been replaced by the codes put up by Google, Facebook etc . Personalisation helps in finding things which are relevant to me based on my past behaviour but one shouldnt be devoid of knowing the contrarian view.
Interesting points you raise, but one funny issue is all these web based rank tracking tools on offer,
I don't think it is ever going to be possible for ranking tools to track personalized search now is it.
I also agree we should have an option to search with personalized on and off becuase when I search for something say "Google Maps" as I did today, I see something shared by a friend on Twitter around a year ago. I do not want to see something from a year ago I want freshness. This is the problem also if friends share something it needs to be fresh not 1 or 2 years old.
Interesting space but, what will the future show =)
It also bothers me because they aren't very good at it. For example my personal facebook keeps advertising pages belonging to groups I have ranted against - simply because i've mentioned them in facebook posts.
Plus i'm not sure narrowing people's horizons and helping people stagnate is particularly what the world needs right now.
Excellent post, hopefully in time, Google for example will give an extra main option :
Google Search | I'm feeling Lucky | Personal Search
This will enable people to change type of search dependant on what you're searching for, benefits of personalised results will vary dependant on what you're re looking for...
FIMS, that's a great idea.
I find the problem is that most regular people (non SEOs) have no idea about completing out their Google Profile, localized search or personalized search.
I am more troubled about the fact that with personalized results I have no idea what I am not seeing! The whole point of search is to find new things, not necessarily what my friends or acquaintances like.
There is a difference between being interested in your social circle on Facebook than searching for news, information etc on Google...
However I feel this is more of a privacy issue at best than an ethical one. The herd effect that is the basis for so many conflicts between people and nations is also worrying, why should I conform with what my friends like and who the heck does Google think they are telling me what I should see?
I have very different point of view for personalization. I am searching anywhere & anything. But, personalization data feels me lucky!!
I am little bit confuse with following statement:
“Personalisation is the future – improved user experience – hurrah!”
If Google suppose to use this data in future so, it may helpful or not??
Because, different people have different taste. I can understand that, during that data human psychology is similar but selection procedure from search result is quite different.
This is just my mind bubbles. What Google thinking about it? And how Google will use to make result sharp? That’s really important question for everybody who are dealing with online marketing specially on Google.
Sorry I confused you :)
The point I was trying to make (albeit somewhat clumsily) was that ordinarily web marketers see personalisation as a good thing for users; however I'm not sure that it's *always* a positive.
Yes, that's true. But, personalisation may good for users. If it will come up with fresh data.
I must admit that I have to agree with both the pros and cons; however, personalization as we see it only makes sure that we come up in our own search rankings once the SE's are cached...Otherwise, we may be deliberatley wasting our time to ensure that WE see ourselves and NOT the users....After all, it's all about the user experience, is it not?
every person have diffrent taste but the need are same if they are seraching the same data, like I want to buy a Iphone online and i Make a search. you do the same if your want to buy the Iphone.
They can store every thing our cache our web histroy and many other things to further analize and improvment of result. you can understand it like that, If some one search on google and move to fist search result and bounce back and move on second result it surly be that first website does not provied it the resonable data. if many user perform the same action due to severl reason, so google surly recheck this website.
The problem for me is, which personlisation info do they use? Do they use my Facebook profile for my social life or the Facebook profile I've setup to play games with. Or do they use my LinkedIn profile or one of my Twitter feeds. Maybe this will rise to different type of search engines, one focusing on research, another on social happenings, and then one for online shopping and bargains.
The thing to do is to allow us to personalise our own profile, or not to personlise. We will save them LOTS of manhours if they allow us to personalise our own search profile, or a couple of search profiles, instead of trying to guess what is our search profile. Will also make search and marketing more relevant, so I think it's a win-win situation.
Nice article and an important issue that needs repeating over and over. There is nothing good about personalisation. Google are abusing their monopoly for commercial gain; it's all about dollars. No matter what you do on Google properties, they are selling you at every stage. Something needs to be done.
Don't be Evil doesn't work when there's money in the equation.
That really depends.
Often, Don't be Evil doesn't work when shareholders are in the equation.
The pressure of going public can change things.
How is it that we are to succeed and be able to compete with ICANN's recent new domain extensions?
Do you all have an extra 1/4 million to throw away?
Hannah,
It's ethical to show people that which they are interested in. If you truly don't believe that, then you have little understanding of what it means to be ethical. You don't need to use a search engine to pick out a magazine from a drugstore newsstand. Yes, they still have those. Furthermore, you may turn off the personalization features if you don't like them. You don't need more than a 4th grade intelligence to accomplish it. You got my attention by disagreeing with what I believe. So, you do have a few good points.
Charles (KnNell) Knell https://ethical-marketing.rrco.biz
Hi Chuck,
I don't think it's unethical to show people stuff that they're interested in, but (as I said) -
"Much as it might comfort me to only view results which sit comfortably with my own politics, is it good for me? "
I guess I'm asking - is this level of personalisation for the greater good?
The example you give of picking a magazine from a shelf isn't quite the same I don't think.
I'd hope that said drugstore would give shelf space over to a variety of publications which offered a spectrum of political standpoints etc. So sure you can go pick out your usual magazine, or you are free to pick up something else if you want.
However, if Google were the drugstore they would only give shelf space to the sorts of publications which already conform to (their perceived view) of your politics. You don't have the opportunity to pick up something different - your choice is limited - arguably without you even realising it.
I'd also disagree with you re turning personalisation features off - it's actually pretty difficult. Plus, as I said above, I'd suggest that the majority of users don't realise that they're seeing personalised results.
Hannah
re: "The example you give of picking a magazine from a shelf isn't quite the same I don't think.
I'd hope that said drugstore would give shelf space over to a variety of publications which offered a spectrum of political standpoints etc. So sure you can go pick out your usual magazine, or you are free to pick up something else if you want."
The drugstore's primary concern is about what sells! They have to pay rent, employees, and make a profit. The magazines are there because they SELL and little OTHER reason. There is little concern for ethics at a magazine stand. If you doubt this you need to look at one today. Then, come back here and tell us how easy it was to find "National Geographic". Was it right up front? People only actually buy that which interests them.
re: "However, if Google were the drugstore they would only give shelf space to the sorts of publications which already conform to (their perceived view) of your politics. You don't have the opportunity to pick up something different - your choice is limited - arguably without you even realising it."
That is true for the average 5th grader, and therefore it is also true for the average person. But, you are not required to stop at Google for information, just like you are not required to stop at Walgreens for a magazine. You have no knowledge of how Walgreens' management decides what magazines they will put into their displays, but you see a difference because Google is doing a better job at learning what interests you. That is the American way.
Charles (KnNell) Knell
https://ethical-marketing.rrco.biz