Re: IT's called priciple and you are missing it -->
 

Cornell

You know nothing about me and even less about my principles. You have made asumptions about what we use or do not use this information for, with absolutely zero knowledge of the facts.

I asked a simple question to get some feedback, not open myself up to an offensive response.

To compare the condom scenario (a highly personal one) with someone seeking current information about an item already in the news is fatuous. You can talk all you like about "it's the principle" (with which I tend to agree, but not to an extreme extent) but this comparison is invalid.

I stopped accusing people of what I THINK they believe or are doing ages ago. You might try the same.

Garry Boyd sums it up where I'm coming from quite well in his post.

Thanks anyway for the feedback, Cornell - it's ALL interesting!

Philip

boils down to how you obtain the
> information....up front by asking the
> person, or covertly without them knowing.

> Spying and secretly recording a persons
> moves and then saying it is in their best
> interest is akin to the Big Brother scenario
> of chipping everybody so the government
> knows your every move.

> Hmmmm...let's take a similar scenario...away
> from computers, but that could happen from
> covert info gathering....

> In your sexual activity you use a certain
> brand of prophylactics. One day you open
> your mail and see a fantastic special sale
> on just your brand. Great news....you're
> happy and order. But how did they know what
> you preferred...would you be happy to know
> that they had invaded your home, your
> privacy, with technology to explore and
> perhaps even watch your sexual habits to get
> the information?

> I don't think you or any one else would be
> too pleased about it.

> Nothing wrong with giving your customers
> what they want, but it is the principle of
> how you go about it.

> Use the appropriate software to let your
> viewers personalize your site to their
> needs...let them tell you what they want and
> then provide it.

> I would hazzard a guess that if I marketed a
> similar site to your user list and quoted to
> them the methods you use, by your own
> admission here, that your user list would
> shrink by at least 90%.

> No justificsation for this...This isn't
> really necessary info....if your designer is
> doing his/her job properly he/she would
> check the pages in all the browsers, on all
> the platforms, to make sure it was
> displaying properly.

> Then do it properly...ask them...don't
> invade their privacy by spying on them.

> Nothing wrong with that...this is expected.

> Unless I am mistaken, you have just admitted
> that YOU are one of the do-badders that we
> have to protect ourselves from.

> Sure you do...give your viewers what they
> want but go about it in the proper way -
> with ethics.

> Cornell

Thanks Garry
 

At least YOU are getting it:-)

I'd love to be able to customise our site in response to a broswer's needs, just like Amazon does, but it just isn't possible. I'll give you an example.

A while ago, someone did a search on Google for "Iran+Pars+oilfield+Korean", found one of our articles and signed up for a trial (which he had to do to be able to read the whole article). He was looking for information about a recent contract for a large Korean concern to do some work in the Pars oilfield in Iran. Try categorising that effectively! The essence of Google - free-form text searches - makes the Amazon style customisation all but impossible.

Now, you'd have to agree, this guy is NOT a casual browser. He's looking for very specific information and, buried in our thousands of stories, we may well have more information which he wants. The trick is guiding him with enough precision to be useful without upsetting his privacy sensibilities! Sorry, but I do believe that there's sometimes a danger of common sense being submerged beneath an ocean of principle!

Having said that, there are two scenarios here. First of all, someone has carried out that search, found the article and freely asked for permission to read the article by specifically requesting access. Alternatively, someone carrying out that same search has arrived at our site and has NOT requested access, for whatever reason. However, we still know what he's looking for and can still help him.

In the first scenario, do I NOW have the right to say - "you are looking for info on blah blah, because that's the topic of the article you have specificaly requested permission to read. We have more info over here." (That's the sentiment, not necessarily the words) Or am I still going to upset people!?

Cheers and thanks for your comments

Philip

> After reading this thread, I am not sure
> everyone is speaking the same language here.
> Seems that Philip is drilling down into the
> log files that most any web site keeps. Is
> that a problem? The logs are freely
> acknowledged. All the data is there about
> you. Conversely, is it possible to track my
> cereal preference and customise an offer for
> me? Probably. Just compare the supermarket
> register file with my debit card.
> All that is being mentioned is a way to more
> closely target specific niches. If you know
> (from your log file) a few people type a
> very specific search term related to a
> product you sell, then you would probably
> build one or more pages related to that
> search term.
> In fact I would only semi customise the
> information I used to target the customer. I
> would prepare some faq files, 3 or 4
> versions, that cover the most requested
> areas. I'd decide which one to send people
> based on the information I knew about them.

Re: IT's called priciple and you are missing it -->
 

> I don't think you or any one else would be
> too pleased about it.

I think your taking an unfairly sensitive subject to illustrate your point. Nobody can refute that they don't want their sexual habits to be public. Generally people don't want to get into that sort thing. (of course ther are always exceptions, but I digress...)

> Hmmmm...let's take a similar scenario...away
> from computers, but that could happen from
> covert info gathering....

> In your sexual activity you use a certain
> brand of prophylactics. One day you open
> your mail and see a fantastic special sale
> on just your brand. Great news....you're
> happy and order. But how did they know what
> you preferred...would you be happy to know
> that they had invaded your home, your
> privacy, with technology to explore and
> perhaps even watch your sexual habits to get
> the information?

The other mistake you make is that here, you say that there is an intrusion. I don't believe that Philip's site makes any sort of intrusion into your computer, rather your computer, and also the server that your doing your searches on is freely giving this information to Philip. I think you'll find that pretty much every site you go to takes into account what browser you have, and keeps a log of it.. quite a few sites check where you came from either as a security measure, or perhaps as a partnership or linking deal.

Let us take another example of how Philip is gathering his information.

You goto a video store. You spend some time searchign through the videos. To take the videos out, you need to get a membership (giving up some personal details - ie how to contact you). Lets say you take out a very defined selection of B-Grade Horror or some other cult niche. The video store remembers that, and either uses that information to send you notification when they get in other videos you might like, or they look at all peoples choices and get in more of the types of videos that people most take out.

I believe the process at energyreview.net is pretty much exactly the same as the example above. You do a search, you find an article. To read the article, you need to sign up, and give them your contact details. What kind of idiot doesn't listen to what their customers want? Just because they don't write mail to you saying "hey i want more blahblah" doesn't mean they don't want you to get more blahblah.

> Nothing wrong with giving your customers
> what they want, but it is the principle of
> how you go about it.

Should we make a law to make all people behind counters wear blindfolds?

> I would hazzard a guess that if I marketed a
> similar site to your user list and quoted to
> them the methods you use, by your own
> admission here, that your user list would
> shrink by at least 90%.

You probably could. It would probably be the same sort of techniques they use to start mob riots. You can get people all worked up over anything if you tell them the right things. (And exclude others!!)

> No justificsation for this...This isn't
> really necessary info....if your designer is
> doing his/her job properly he/she would
> check the pages in all the browsers, on all
> the platforms, to make sure it was
> displaying properly.

I think it is. If 100% people that goto your site use "Bonza Bob's Browser"(TM) that uses "Super Nifty Technology"(TM) or even that you find that people don't use "Browser X" that doesn't support any of the usual browser standards. It means you don't have to lower what you can do with your presentation to suit all the different types of browsers.

> Then do it properly...ask them...don't
> invade their privacy by spying on them.

Perhaps Philip can have a note below his trial signup saying that "Warning: we might capture some information from your browser when you hit submit"

I think i've illustrated my point.

If you find logic against what I've said. Please post it for the sake of clearing this sort of thing up.

Regards,
Z.

Gary you are right, and I owe Philip an apology....
 

Hi Gary:

> After reading this thread, I am not sure
> everyone is speaking the same language here.
> Seems that Philip is drilling down into the
> log files that most any web site keeps.

After reading both your posting and Philip's last one, and before responding to this I asked a few other people about the wording in the initial posting and what conotation they drew from it.

I wasn't alone in the way I took it, and alas the problem with the printed word.

Philip used the word "capture" and that immediately triggered the word cookie in thought which was what I based my response on. Had Philip mentioned he was using logs to garner his info then the response would not have been made at all....again the problem of the printed word and how it is perceived by different readers and how it can get us in trouble - including me here.

Thank you for posting your reply...it cleared the way to see my misunderstanding.

Cornell

Philip an apology.....
 

Philip:

I owe you an apology...I explained somewhat in the response to Gary above...what it boiled down to was how I perceived your wording that triggered my reply...my misunderstanding, and I apologize for it. I took your wording with the conotation the you were 'capturing' the info using a cookie (invasive) rather than from your log files.

Having said this, perhaps if you look at the way I took it as invasive, then you will understand why I used a comparison to a sexual nature as that too would be about as invasive as one could get.

Again my apologies.

Cornell

Matching search terms used to find a site to email addresses....
 

Hi Philip and everyone,

I think that the problem here perhaps is that some may not realize that this kind of information is essentially available in all web logs....

When you go from one site to another, usually the "referral" link is known to the web site you visit. This isn't due to the web site - sharing this info is built in to your web browser (it's there thanks to Microsoft and AOL/Netscape)....

That is, the referral information is information which is readily provided to the web site by your browser software. This info is also automatically "logged" by most web site logging software. From the web site owner's point of view, it helps them to know exactly where there visitors are coming from.

How can they know which search terms you used to find a site, then? Let's say you go to "Google" and type in the phrase "small business" (without the quotes). If you look at the address of the web page giving you the search results, you'll see it's something like

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=small+business

Now, let's say you click through to the first link of the search results (which is www.sba.gov ).... This site can then see your "referral" info - that is, they know you came to their site from the above Google web page. The Google web page above tells exactly what search term you were using - you used the words "small business".

This is all public information.... Nobody had to do any "digging" - it's presented to you on a plate. If there's someone to blame for this, the people to blame are the creators of your web browsing software (Microsoft, AOL/Netscape, etc.), and the search engine sites (Google, Altavista, etc.) since they present the search term info right in the URL of the web page.

I'm not exactly sure how Philip is tracking this data for *specific* users - that's a little more difficult, but not that difficult. I think you could either do it by sorting through and matching IP addresses (again, which is just using info which is given to you in your log file), or by using cookies or something like that, to match email addresses to the search term info....

Here's where it may start getting into the "personal" type of issues, at least if you use the "cookie" method. If you use the "IP address method" - while it would be more difficult, again you are simply using info that is presented freely to your site thanks to Microsoft or AOL/Netscape browsers, combined with Google, Altavista, etc. search engines.

Anyhow, I think the main point here, though, is that some people are clearly uncomfortable with this, and it's good to take that into account in your actions and communications....

- Dien Rice

Re: Philip an apology.....
 

Absolutely no problem at all - you're welcome

Words, words words - who'd use em eh? :-)

Philip

> Philip:

> I owe you an apology...I explained somewhat
> in the response to Gary above...what it
> boiled down to was how I perceived your
> wording that triggered my reply...my
> misunderstanding, and I apologize for it. I
> took your wording with the conotation the
> you were 'capturing' the info using a cookie
> (invasive) rather than from your log files.

> Having said this, perhaps if you look at the
> way I took it as invasive, then you will
> understand why I used a comparison to a
> sexual nature as that too would be about as
> invasive as one could get.

> Again my apologies.

> Cornell

Going deeper
 

I do not really think there are "privacy issues" regardless of the way users are tracked. Until you become a customer, by signing up for a trial, there is no way for them to contact you.

However, I do wonder if you are asking the right question. Your perception is that your audience is not finding the full depth of coverage you have, without assistance. Assuming that the search string used to find you is exactly relevant to what articles they may want could lead you up the garden path. You need to deliver a picture of the depth you have directly to the browser. Actually doing this gets into some fairly heavy search theory, but there are some simple things you could do.