If Google Is Online Advertising, Why Does Malvertising Thrive?
March 14, 2023
I think this question struck me after reading a few paragraphs of “Malvertising on Google Ads: It’s Hiding in Plain Site.” The essay is designed to cause a reader to embrace the commerce malware service provided by Kolide. How do I know? Here’s the statement that tipped me off:
Want to see how Kolide can get your entire fleet updated, patched and compliant? Watch Kolide’s on-demand demo today.
Despite the content marketing sway in the article, I noted an interesting comment about Google. After citing a Googley statement about the online ad giant’s good intentions and methods for dealing with malware, the write up says:
Unfortunately, the search engine does not provide a definition nor examples of what falls under “egregious violations.” And given how easy it is for bad actors to simply make a new account when a new one is shut down, this approach doesn’t meet the requirements for reliability or scalability. Still, when you look at things from Google’s perspective, these policies make sense.
In my opinion, Google happily delivers malvertising because Google sells advertising. The company does not want to harm its revenue. Just as the pop ads running on top of YouTube videos, Google is not losing revenue. The company says, “No more overlays in a few months.” Why? Is it because Google will introduce Amazon-Twitch style unskippable ads, insert more unskippable commercials in videos, and add more end-of-video ads? Absolutely. Google is not going to give up revenue in my opinion.
Shifting the responsibility for identifying and remediating issues with Google ad-delivered malware is good for cyber security companies and super good for Google. My view is that we have one more example of specious behavior from a company unable to get its ethical compass focused on any direction but its revenue.
Stephen E Arnold, March 13, 2023
Is It Groundhog Day? Googzilla Chases Its Tail
March 10, 2023
In the buzz of Code Red, Google has a management fix for the damage caused by Microsoft’s ChatGPT marketing attack. “Google Dusts Off the Failed Google+ Playbook to Fight ChatGPT” states:
Google’s ChatGPT panic seemed a lot like its response to Google+, and several employees relayed that same sentiment to Bloomberg. Just like with G+, the report added that “current and former employees say at least some Googlers’ ratings and reviews will likely be influenced by their ability to integrate generative AI into their work.”
Google+ (try and search that, Google search fans). Does Google Plus work? How about a combo of “Google+ Plus Orkut” as a query?
The write up passes along a quote by an unnamed Google wizard:
“We’re throwing spaghetti at the wall, but it’s not even close to what’s needed to transform the company and be competitive.”
My take on this reference to Google+ or Google Plus is:
1. The sources for this story are not Googley and, therefore, cannot appreciate the management brilliance
2. The Google is out of ideas; that is, the Code Red thing and idea that it will be smart software everywhere is a knee jerk reaction
3. Googzilla is chasing its tail; that is, senior management has not idea what to do and hits upon this idea, “Google+ or Plus was a success. Let’s do that again.”
Net net: Is it groundhog day at the Googleplex? Next question: What confidence does one have in groundhogs?
Stephen E Arnold, March 10, 2023
Bing Begins, Dear Sundar and Prabhakar
March 9, 2023
Note: Note written by an artificial intelligence wonder system. The essay is the work of a certified dinobaby, a near80-year-old fossil. The Purple Prose parts are made up comments by me, the dinobaby, to help improve the meaning behind the words.
I think the World War 2 Dear John letter has been updated. Today’s version begins:
Dear Sundar and Prabhakar…
“The New Bing and Edge – Progress from Our First Month” by Yusuf Mehdi explains that Bing has fallen in love with marketing. The old “we are so like one another, Sundar and Prabhakar” is now
“The magnetic Ms. OpenAI introduced me to her young son, ChatGPT. I am now going steady with that large language model. What a block of data! And I hope, Sundar and Prabhakar, we can still be friends. We can still chat, maybe at the high school reunion? Everyone will be there. Everyone. Timnit Gebru, Jerome Pesenti, Yan Lecun, Emily Bender, and you two, of course.”
The write up does not explicitly say these words. Here’s the actual verbiage from the marketing outfit also engaged in unpatchable security issues:
It’s hard to believe it’s been just over a month since we released the new AI-powered Bing and Edge to the world as your copilot for the web. In that time, we have heard your feedback, learned a lot, and shipped a number of improvements. We are delighted by the virtuous cycle of feedback and iteration that is driving strong Bing improvements and usage.
A couple of questions? Is the word virtuous related to the word virgin? Pure, chaste, unsullied, and not corrupted by … advertising? Has it been a mere 30 days since Sundar and Prabhakar entered the world of Code Red? Were they surprised that their Paris comedy act drove attendees to Le Bar Bing? Is the copilot for the Web ready to strafe the digital world with Bing blasts?
Let’s look at what the love letter reports:
- A million new users. What’s the Google pulled in with their change in the curse word policy for YouTube?
- More searches on Le Bing than before the tryst with ChatGPT. Will Google address relevance ranking of bogus ads for a Thai restaurant favored by a certain humanoid influencer?
- A mobile app. Sundar and Prabhakar, what’s happening with your mobile push? Hasn’t revenue from the Play store declined in the last year? Declined? Yep. As in down, down, down.
Is Bing a wonder working relevance engine? No way.
Is Bing going to dominate my world of search of retrieval? For the answer, just call 1 800 YOU WISH, please.
Is Bing winning the marketing battle for smarter search? Oh, yeah.
Well, Sundar and Prabhakar, don’t let that Code Red flashing light disturb your sleep. Love and kisses, Yusuf Mehdi. PS: The high school reunion is coming up. Maybe we can ChatGPT?
Stephen E Arnold, March 9, 2023
Take That Googzilla Because You Have One Claw in Your Digital Grave. Honest
March 8, 2023
My, my. How the “we are search experts” set have changed their tune. I am not talking about those who were terminated by the Google. I am not talking about the fawning advertising intermediaries. I am not talking about old school librarians who know how to extract information from commercial databases.
I am talking about the super clever Silicon Valley infused pundits.
Here’s an example: “Google Search Is Dying” from 2022. The write up contains one of the all-time statements from a Google wizard I have encountered. Believe me. I have noted a few over the years.
The speaker is the former champion of search engine optimization and denier of Google’s destruction of precision, recall, and relevance in search results. Here’s the statement:
You said in the post that quotes don’t give exact matches. They really do. Honest.— Google’s public search liaison (that’s a title of which to be proud)
I love it when a Googler uses the word “honest.”
Net net: The Gen X, Y’s, and Z’s perceive themselves as search experts. Okay, living in a cloud of unknowing is ubiquitous today. But “honest”?
Stephen E Arnold, March 8, 2023
Google: Code Redder Because … Microsoft Markets AI Gooder
March 6, 2023
Don’t misunderstand. I think the Chat GPT search wars are more marketing than useful functionality for my work. You may have a different viewpoint. That’s great. Just keep in mind that Google’s marvelous Code Red alarm was a response to Microsoft marketing. Yep, if you want to see the Sundar and Prabhakar Duo do some fancy dancing, just get your Microsoft rep to mash the Goose Google button.
Someone took this advice and added “AI” to the truly wonderful Windows 11 software. I read “Microsoft Adds “AI” to Taskbar Search Field” and learned that either ChatGPT or a human said:
In the last three weeks, we also launched the new AI-powered Bing into preview for more than 1 million people in 169 countries, and expanded the new Bing to the Bing and Edge mobile apps as well as introduced it into Skype. It is a new era in Search, Chat and Creation and with the new Bing and Edge you now have your own copilot for the web. Today, we take the next major step forward adding to the incredible breadth and ease of use of the Windows PC by implementing a typable Windows search box and the amazing capability of the new AI-powered Bing directly into the taskbar. Putting all your search needs for Windows in one easy to find location.
Exciting because lousy search will become milk, honey, sunshine, roses, and French bulldog puppies. Nope. Search is still the Bing with a smaller index than the Google sports. But that “AI” in the search box evokes good thoughts for some users.
For Google, the AI in the search box mashes the Code Red button. I think that if that button gets pressed five times in quick succession, the Google goes from Code Red to Code Super Red with LED sparkles.
Remember this AI search is marketing at this time in my frame of reference.
Microsoft is showing that Google is not too good at marketing. I am now mashing the Code Red button five times. Mash. Mash. Mash. Mash. Mash. Now I can watch Googzilla twitch and hop. Perhaps the creature will be the opening act in the Sundar and Prabhakar Emergency Output Emission Explanation Tour. Did you hear the joke about Microsoft walks into a vegan restaurant and says, “Did you hear the joke about Google marketing?” The server says, “No.” The Softie replies, “Google searched for marketing in its search engine and couldn’t get a relevant answer.”
Ho, ho
Stephen E Arnold, March 6, 2023
A Xoogler Explains Why Big Data Is Going Nowhere Fast
March 3, 2023
The essay “Big Data Is Dead.” One of my essays from the Stone Age of Online used the title “Search Is Dead” so I am familiar with the trope. In a few words, one can surprise. Dead. Final. Absolute, well, maybe. On the other hand, the subject either Big Data or Search are part of the woodwork in the mini-camper of life.
I found this statement interesting:
Modern cloud data platforms all separate storage and compute, which means that customers are not tied to a single form factor. This, more than scale out, is likely the single most important change in data architectures in the last 20 years.
The cloud is the future. I recall seeing price analyses of some companies’ cloud activities; for example, “The Cloud vs. On-Premise Cost: Which One is Cheaper?” In my experience, cloud computing was pitched as better, faster, and cheaper. Toss in the idea that one can get rid of pesky full time systems personnel, and the cloud is a win.
What the cloud means is exactly what the quoted sentence says, “customers are not tied to a single form factor.” Does this mean that the Big Data rah rah combined with the sales pitch for moving to the cloud will set the stage for more hybrid sets up a return to on premises computing. Storage could become a combination of on premises and cloud base solutions. The driver, in my opinion, will be cost. And one thing the essay about Big Data does not dwell on is the importance of cost in the present economic environment.
The arguments for small data or subsets of Big Data is accurate. My reading of the essay is that some data will become a problem: Privacy, security, legal, political, whatever. The essay is an explanation for what “synthetic data.” Google and others want to make statistically-valid, fake data the gold standard for certain types of processes. In the data are a liability section of the essay, I noted:
Data can suffer from the same type of problem; that is, people forget the precise meaning of specialized fields, or data problems from the past may have faded from memory.
I wonder if this is a murky recasting of Google’s indifference to “old” data and to date and time stamping. The here and now not then and past are under the surface of the essay. I am surprised the notion of “forward forward” analysis did not warrant a mention. Outfits like Google want to do look ahead prediction in order to deal with inputs newer than what is in the previous set of values.
You may read the essay and come away with a different interpretation. For me, this is the type of analysis characteristic of a Googler, not a Xoogler. If I am correct, why doesn’t the essay hit the big ideas about cost and synthetic data directly?
Stephen E Arnold, March 3, 2023
Another Xoogler, Another Repetitive, Sad, Dispiriting Story
March 2, 2023
I will keep this brief. I read “The Maze Is in the Mouse.” The essay is Xoogler’s lament. The main point is that Google has four issues. The write up identifies these from a first person point of view:
The way I see it, Google has four core cultural problems. They are all the natural consequences of having a money-printing machine called “Ads” that has kept growing relentlessly every year, hiding all other sins. (1) no mission, (2) no urgency, (3) delusions of exceptionalism, (4) mismanagement.
I agree that “ads” are a big part of the Google challenge. I am not sure about the “mouse” or the “maze.”
Googzilla emerged from an incredible sequence of actions. Taken as a group, Google became the poster child for what smart Silicon Valley brainiacs could accomplish. From the git-go, Google emerged from the Backrub service. Useful research like the CLEVER method was kicking around at some conferences as a breakthrough for determining relevance. The competition was busy trying to become “portals” because the Web indexing thing was expensive and presented what seemed to be an infinite series of programming hoops. Google had zero ways to make money. As I recall, the mom and dad of Googzilla tried to sell the company to those who would listen; for example, the super brainiacs at Yahoo. Then the aha moment. GoTo.com had caused a stir in the Web indexing community by selling traffic. GoTo.com became Overture.com. Yahoo.com (run by super brainiacs, remember) bought Overture. But Yahoo did have the will, the machinery, or the guts to go big. Yahoo went home. Google went big.
What makes Google the interesting outfit it is are these points in my opinion:
- The company was seemingly not above receiving inspiration from the GoTo.com, Overture.com, and ultimately Yahoo.com “pay to play” model. Some people don’t know that Google was built on appropriated innovation and paid money and shares to make Yahoo’s legal eagles fly away. For me, Google embodied intellectual “flexibility” and an ethical compass sensitive to expediency. I may be wrong, but the Google does not strike me as being infused with higher spirits of truth, justice, and the American way Superman does. Google’s innovation boils down to borrowing. That’s okay. I borrow, but I try to footnote, not wait until the legal eagles gnaw at my liver.
- Google management, in my experience, were clueless about the broader context of their blend of search and advertising. I don’t think it was a failure of brainiac thinking. The brainiacs did not have context into which to fit their actions. Larry Page argued with me in 1999 about the value of truncation. He said, “No truncation needed at Google.” Baloney. Google truncates. Google informed a US government agency that Google would not conform to the specifications of the Statement of Work for a major US government search project. A failure to meet the criteria of the Statement of Work made Google ineligible to win that project. What did Google do? Google explained to the government team that the Statement of Work did not apply to Google technology. Well, Statements of Works and procurement works one way. Google did not like that way, so Google complained. Zero context. What Google should have done is address each requirement in a positive manner and turn in the bid. Nope, operating independent of procurement rules, Google just wanted to make up the rules. Period. That’s the way it is now and that’s the way Google has operated for nearly 25 years.
- Google is not mismanaged from Google’s point of view. Google is just right by definition. The management problems were inherent and obvious from the beginning. Let me give one example: Vendors struggled with the Google accounting system 20 or more years ago. Google blamed the Oracle database. Why? The senior management did not know what they did not know and they lacked the mental characteristic of understanding that fact. By assuming Googlers were brainiacs and the dorky Google intelligence test, Googlers could solve any problem. Wrong. Google has and continues to make decisions like a high school science club planning an experiment. Nice group, just not athletes, cheerleaders, class officers, or non nerd advisors. What do you get? You get crazy decisions like dumping Dr. Timnit Gebru and creating the Stochastic Parrot conference as well as Microsoft making Bing and Clippy on steroids look like a big deal.
Net net: Ads are important. But Google is Google because of its original and fundamental mental approach to problems: We know better. One thing is sure in my mind: Google does not know itself any better now than it did when it emerged from the Backrub “borrowed” computers and grousing about using too much Stanford bandwidth. Advertising is a symptom of a deeper malady, a mental issue in my opinion.
Stephen E Arnold,March 2, 2023
Google: Share Googlers As You Did in Kindergarten. No Spats over Cookies!
March 1, 2023
The 2023 manifestation of the Google is fascinating. There was the Code Red. There’s the Supreme Court and the European Union. There’s the anti-Microsoft Bing thing.
And now we have the kindergarten mantra, “Share, kiddies.” Sorry, I meant, “Share, Googlers.”
I read “Google Cloud Staff Asked to Share Desks in Real Estate Efficiency Drive.” The article reports as absolute real journalism:
Google has reportedly asked employees to begin sharing desks at several sites across the US as part of a “real estate efficiency” drive. Employees at Google’s cloud division will be asked to pair up with colleagues and alternate in-office shift patterns as part of the move…
How will this work in Kirkland and Seattle, Washington, Manhattan, San Francisco, and maybe TC3 or MP1? The write up explains:
“Most Googlers will now share a desk with one other Googler,” the documents state. “Through the matching process, they will agree on a basic desk setup and establish norms with their desk partner and teams to ensure a positive experience in the new shared environment.”
Have you been in a Google, DeepMind, Alphabet, or YouTube meeting? Ah, well, if the answer is “yes,” you will know that reaching agreement is an interesting process. If the answer is “no,” you can replicate the experience by visiting a meeting of the local high school’s science club. Close enough I would suggest.
I remember when:
- Tony Bennett performed in the Google cafeteria
- Odwalla (a killer health drink) filled fridges
- A car wash service was available in the parking lot on Shoreline Drive
Yes, I remember.
In 2023, the Google is showing its age (maybe maturity) after the solving death and Loon balloon era.
Reducing costs is a cookie cutter solution to management running out of ideas for generating new revenue. How many McKinsey or Booz, Allen consultants did it require to produce the idea of sharing a sleeping bag? A better question is, “How much did Google pay outside consultants to frame the problem and offer several solutions?
Googzilla is not dead. The beastie is taking steps to make sure it survives after the Microsoft marketing wild fire scorched the tail of the feared online advertising, relevance killed creature.
And Odwalla? Just have a New Coke? Oh, sorry. That’s gone too.
Stephen E Arnold, March 1, 2023
Google: Good at Quantum and Maybe Better at Discarding Intra-Company Messages
February 28, 2023
Google has already declared quantum supremacy. The supremos have outsupremed themselves, if this story in the UK Independent is accurate:
Okay, supremacy but error problems. Supremacy but a significant shift. Then the word “plague.”
The write up states in what strikes me a Google PR recyclish way:
Google researchers say they have found a way of building the technology so that it corrects those errors. The company says it is a breakthrough on a par with its announcement three years ago that it had reached “quantum supremacy”, and represents a milestone on the way to the functional use of quantum computers.
The write up continues:
Dr Julian Kelly, director of quantum hardware at Google Quantum AI, said: “The engineering constraints (of building a quantum computer) certainly are feasible. “It’s a big challenge – it’s something that we have to work on, but by no means that blocks us from, for example, making a large-scale machine.”
What seems to be a similar challenge appears in “DOJ Seeks Court Sanctions against Google over Intentional Destruction of Chat Logs.” This write up is less of a rah rah for the quantum complexity crowd and more for a simpler problem: Retaining employee communications amidst the legal issues through which the Google is wading. The write up says:
Google should face court sanctions over “intentional and repeated destruction” of company chat logs that the US government expected to use in its antitrust case targeting Google’s search business, the Justice Department said Thursday [February 23, 2023]. Despite Google’s promises to preserve internal communications relevant to the suit, for years the company maintained a policy of deleting certain employee chats automatically after 24 hours, DOJ said in a filing in District of Columbia federal court. The practice has harmed the US government’s case against the tech giant, DOJ alleged.
That seems clear, certainly clearer than the assertions about 49 physical qubits and 17 physical qubits being equal to the quantum supremacy assertion several years ago.
How can one company be adept at manipulating qubits and mal-adept at saving chat messages? Wait! Wait!
Maybe Google is equally adept: Manipulating qubits and manipulating digital information.
Strike the quantum fluff and focus on the manipulating of information. Is that a breakthrough?
Stephen E Arnold, February 28, 2023
Stop ChatGPT Now Because We Are Google!
February 21, 2023
Another week, another jaunt to a foreign country to sound the alarm which says to me: “Stop ChatGPT now! We mean it. We are the Google.”
I wonder if there is a vaudeville poster advertising the show that is currently playing in Europe and the US? What would that poster look like? Would a smart software system generate a Yugo-sized billboard like this:
In my opinion, the message and getting it broadcast via an estimable publication like the Metro.co.uk tabloid-like Web site is high comedy. No, the reality of the Metro article is different. The headline reads: “Google Issues Urgent Warning to the Millions of People Using ChatGPT” reports:
A boss at Google has hit out at ChatGPT for giving ‘convincing but completely fictitious’ answers.
And who is the boss? None other than the other half of the management act Sundar and Prabhakar. What’s ChatGPT doing wrong? Getting too much publicity? Lousy search results have been the gold standard since relevance was kicked to the curb. Advertising is the best way to deliver what the user wants because users don’t know what they want. Now we see the Google: Red alert, reactionary, and high school science club antics.
Yep.
And the outfit which touted that it solved protein folding and achieved quantum supremacy cares about technology and people. The write up includes this line about Google’s concern:
This is the only way we will be able to keep the trust of the public.
As I noted in a LinkedIn post in response to a high class consultant’s comment about smart software. I replied, “Google trust?”
Several observations:
- Google like Microsoft cares about money and market position. The trust thing muddies the waters in my opinion. Microsoft and security? Google and alleged monopoly advertising practices?
- Google is pitching the hallucination angle pretty hard. Does Google mention Forrest Timothy Hayes who died of a drug overdose in the company of a non-technical Google contractor. See this story. Who at Google is hallucinating?
- Google does not know how to respond to Microsoft’s marketing play. Google’s response is to travel outside the US explaining that the sky is falling. What’s falling is Google’s marketing effectiveness data about itself I surmise.
Net net: My conclusion about Google’s anti-Microsoft ChatGPT marketing play is, “Is this another comedy act being tested on the road before opening in New York City?” This act may knock George Burns and Gracie Allen from top billing. Let’s ask Bard.
Stephen E Arnold, February 21, 2023
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
