Google referring links

[epanagio]

I am trying to figure out what some strange google referring links are. The links look like this:

The url starts with www.gogle.com and continues with

url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CMQB EBYwBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.onlineschoolrecords.co m%2Fcosmetology_schools.php&ei=VVO-T9GzBY2lsALSsMEp&usg=AFQjCNGwvmOmo8ei9CR_OlFD5LUU0 SvYkA

If I copy the url it becomes a link and you would not be able to see the whole url in this post. So, the referrer is legitimate but I can't understand why there is so much encrypted information.

Normally, I see the following type of referring link:
www.google.com — online school records

Does anyone know why I see the encrypted information coming from google?
Thanks, Evan

[webmonkey]

Yep.

Google have been hiding search terms from their referrer data since late last year. Google "google blocking referrer data" and all will be revealed.

Google have given "security" and "privacy" concerns as the reason for this "innovation" but as it does not apply to paid searches (clicking on adsense ads, etc), You may wish to take such statements with a large pinch of salt.

The "q=&esrc=s" bit in the referrer data is the actual search term the user keyed in to find your site where "q" = "query". This is what Google is now increasingly blocking. Quite a few SEO folks are VERY unhappy indeed about this. Again, google this and you may learn some stuff about what Google are up to and what the future for organic (as opposed to paid) search looks like.

"&source=web&cd=8" means that the keyword(s) they searched for ranked No.8 on the first page of SERPS. What the rest of the code is I have no idea. Nor has anyone else AFAIK. Google keep their secrets to themselves.

I confidently predict that ALL Google referrer data will be encrypted/deleted in the near future and access to it will only be given to advertisers who pay Google for the privilege.

Is this "evil"? You may very well think so.... I coudn't possibly comment.

[tosommerfugle]

Actually, the security/privacy argument does have a very real point. While webmasters really want those keywords, visitors searching for sensitive topics, and using the SSL version of Google, have reason to expect that noone except Google can tie those keywords to their IP or behaviour on the landing site. The webmaster might use the info in ways which the user is very uncomfortable with.

Ads are different here. If the user actively clicks on an ad (an action highly unlikely for privacy-concerned users), the reasonable user would expect this step to "leak" some info to the advertiser.

Google is much less concerned about annoying SEO users than real users, and the point about Google going to sell referer info to advertisers is pure bullshit. Of course, pricacy/security measures are on the rise, not just on Google, but remember that the web is not built to serve SEO and webmaster whims.

[webmonkey]

Tom makes some good points but seems to forget that there would be no "real users" without content. Google did not create the web; content providers did. Without content providers, no web.

And if content providers, many of whom provide unique content at their own expense with no commercial motivation whatsoever, are no longer able to determine what brought visitors to their pages, the quality of the content they deliver may well suffer.

I may be rather naive, but for the life of me cannot conceive how

"The webmaster might use (search keywords) in ways which the user is very uncomfortable with.

Perhaps Tom will enlighten us?

I am also surprised that Tom seems concerned about such "use" (misuse?) but apparently seems quite unconcerned as to the uses Google is already putting the data it collects from his searches, targeted advertising being just one obvious example of such "use", or perhaps "misuse" would be a better word.

[tosommerfugle]

Bad SEO efforts has forever broken the implied trust between content producers and consumers. Google is aiming to serve the consumers, in the assumption that producers are helped by being found on equal terms. SEO efforts to "tune" pages to query words may very well make the quality suffer severely. Crap is more than widespread enough already, like "content" generation based on keywords.

An example of "uncomfortable" usage of query keywords is when users prefer to be secretive about info like sexual orientation, diseases, or other matters they consider highly private. They cannot use a search engine without letting those servers know, but in Google you can turn off personalization of ads. While the IP address is not always "Personally Identifiable Information", it can be a very strong clue when combined with other info.

Additionally, some keywords are regarded as highly subversive in certain countries, and SSL searches enable users to search without exposing themselves. Having the keywords in the referer string would break this. I'm strongly in favor of allowing activists a bit of protection..

As for Google - it is a question of trust. I've not seen any major incidents breaking that trust. The usual "whining point" is personalization of ads, but thats an optional feature of Google. In case of solid evidence for misuse - real reason to make me "uncomfortable" - I'd review my stance. That has yet to happen, and as far as I can tell, Google is itself striving to deserve my continued trust.

[epanagio]

Interesting. Of course Google can do whatever they want because they own the software.
Thank you for the input and also taking the time to reply to my question. I do find this forum very professional and informative.

THANKS!