Note how for the same watch, shop.com and overstock.com charge about
twice what target, walmart, and top one charge. The first two
pretend they're cheap, but only on a few things, I think.

At least those are the places in my first line of "Sponsored" links.
I'd be curious if other people have something different.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Casi...utf-8&oe=utf-8

| Note how for the same watch, shop.com and overstock.com charge about
| twice what target, walmart, and top one charge. The first two
| pretend they're cheap, but only on a few things, I think.
|
| At least those are the places in my first line of "Sponsored" links.
| I'd be curious if other people have something different.
|
| https://www.google.com/search?q=Casi...utf-8&oe=utf-8

I took the unique string out of your link:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Casio+Men%27s

The resulting page shows me 2 ad links, from
Sears and Overstock.com. If you allow any of
the numerous ways that Google tracks your
movements online then they know who you are
and the returns are customized for you personally.
That can also apply to prices you see. If you don't
make efforts to maintain privacy then Google results
are of dubious value, as is their news. It's all about
what they think is relevant to you. And the way
they define "relevant" is in terms of what will keep
you browsing, buying stuff and clicking ads. That's
likely to be combined with various parameters
chosen by the advertisers: Maybe I don't see
shop.com because they only want to pay for ads
seen by particular demographics and not any ads
seen by unknown visitors.

An interesting comparison might be to find a
youngish woman who does a lot of online shopping
and see what returns she gets.

On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:29:38 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

| Note how for the same watch, shop.com and overstock.com charge about
| twice what target, walmart, and top one charge. The first two
| pretend they're cheap, but only on a few things, I think.
|
| At least those are the places in my first line of "Sponsored" links.
| I'd be curious if other people have something different.
|
| https://www.google.com/search?q=Casi...utf-8&oe=utf-8

I took the unique string out of your link:

You're right. I didn't even think of that.

Wait. you also took out the watch model number. That's what yielded 5
sponsored ads, little ones side by side with pictures, for the same
model watch. The only thing you should have taken out is
&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 and they both refer to character set, utf-8.
That's for how it's rendered back, isnt' it, not for what results it
shows.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Casio+Men%27s

The resulting page shows me 2 ad links, from
Sears and Overstock.com. If you allow any of
the numerous ways that Google tracks your
movements online then they know who you are

That's true. In this case, I don't think I've ever dealt online with
any of the five companies whose ads show, and I don't think I've ever
looked at any of their webpages except walmart (which is less than a
mile away, and the only place nearby with certain kinds of stuff, as
well as a 24-hour grocery store that otherwise I don't like much.)

OTOH, maybe I do other things that appeal to the 5 of them. Or maybe
I don't and the predominant thing is that they push this model watch.
So model is important.

and the returns are customized for you personally.
That can also apply to prices you see. If you don't
make efforts to maintain privacy then Google results
are of dubious value,

They are what they are. That's why I was interested in comparing
them.

as is their news.

AIUI, that's true, and that's a real problem.

It's all about
what they think is relevant to you. And the way
they define "relevant" is in terms of what will keep
you browsing, buying stuff and clicking ads. That's
likely to be combined with various parameters
chosen by the advertisers: Maybe I don't see
shop.com because they only want to pay for ads
seen by particular demographics and not any ads
seen by unknown visitors.

You have to do it again with the watch model included.

An interesting comparison might be to find a
youngish woman who does a lot of online shopping
and see what returns she gets.

I've forwarded this to, as you call it, "a youngish woman" who buys
shoes online, and sometimes granola and maybe she'll try the search at
the top and let me know. I'll report back.

| Wait. you also took out the watch model number.

Woops. OK. Here's what I got:

Target - 18.75 Kohls - 31.99 Top One - 18.23
Shop.com - 37.95 Overstock.com - 33.49

But only shop.com seemed to be advertising the
model you want. (Based on the link blurbs.) I
couldn't research it further. I have Google ad
services blocked, so I have to fish the real link
out of their proxy link. But when I tried the real
link at Kohls...

http://www.kohls.com/product/prd-674...-watch-men.jsp

.... I got a 403 access denied error. Apparently
these companies have to agree with Google that
they'll have a specific page for their ad campaigns
and will not allow anyone to visit it who hasn't
come through Google's tracking process.

..... And to think, it used to be the Internet out
there.

On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:50:40 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

| Wait. you also took out the watch model number.

Woops. OK. Here's what I got:

Target - 18.75 Kohls - 31.99 Top One - 18.23
Shop.com - 37.95 Overstock.com - 33.49

I looked in more detail and I have
exactly the same as you, including the prices, except instead of
Overstock, I have walmart at 19.24. But when I looked the first time
I had Overstock but not Kohls.

But only shop.com seemed to be advertising the
model you want. (Based on the link blurbs.) I

A) the pictures were all the same, and it's unusual with a dial and a
digital part in the bottom quarter.
B) nothing in the blurbs contradicted the watch in question, I think.
They just chose different things to excerpt. two or three of them
mentioned the model.

couldn't research it further. I have Google ad
services blocked, so I have to fish the real link
out of their proxy link. But when I tried the real
link at Kohls...

http://www.kohls.com/product/prd-674...-watch-men.jsp

... I got a 403 access denied error. Apparently
these companies have to agree with Google that
they'll have a specific page for their ad campaigns
and will not allow anyone to visit it who hasn't
come through Google's tracking process.

Well it worked for me. I'm probabl logged into google because I
looked at google groups today. FWiW. And I certainly haven't
blocked their ads.

Doesn't blocking their ads just get you ads from someone else?

Look at this page, related to ads I got somewhere else.
http://info.criteo.com/pac/privacy/informations?infonorm=3&partner=22799&campaignid=8 4683&zoneid=120836&bannerid=4506436&displayid=626b e35185&uaCap=0&u=|KY4Ula90j+ghCcdHDQzyjvRQiAFRH/Zv8gHgfoOrsc4=|
Look at the last sentence:

"How can I permanently disable Criteo services?
You can disable Criteo banners on this device for that browser by
clicking here.
You can disable Criteo banners permanently not only on this browser
but also on all the browsers we matched to your technical identifier
by clicking here.

Please note that if you choose this option you will be opted out from
receiving ads displayed by Criteo for this browser and the browsers we
have matched to your technical identifier. For matched browsers your
opt out will be effective as soon as we see you on these browsers
again and if this happens within 6 weeks. You may nonetheless continue
to have cookies on other unmatched browsers and see ads displayed by
Criteo on these browsers.
This does only apply to Criteo services and will not block ads served
by other companies."



.... And to think, it used to be the Internet out
there.

| Doesn't blocking their ads just get you ads from someone else?
|
| Look at this page, related to ads I got somewhere else.
|
http://info.criteo.com/pac/privacy/informations?infonorm=3&partner=22799&campaignid=8 4683&zoneid=120836&bannerid=4506436&displayid=626b e35185&uaCap=0&u=|KY4Ula90j+ghCcdHDQzyjvRQiAFRH/Zv8gHgfoOrsc4=|

It's hard to explain briefly. What you're referencing
seems to be an "opt out". In other words, you let
the advertisers track you and they, as a courtesy,
offer the option not to see their ads. That's similar
to the idea of Do Not Track. The advertisers come
up with such lame attempts to keep people happy while
being spied on and deluged with ads. Do Not Track
is a system whereby you can officially register your
desire not to be tracked by websites. But it's voluntary
and there's really no reason for them to cooperate.
So at worst, the Do Not Track request is actually
another kind of tracking cookie. At best it's useless.
(Anyone who's ever tried to tell a salesman "I'm not
interested" knows that they don't listen to such
things.

So what you're referencing is a bit like a pickpocket
who gives people the option of being pickpocketed
at the supermarket or at the library. And the people
don't know they don't have to tolerate pickpocketing,
so they fill out the pickpocket's official selection form!

Since Apple recently started allowing ad blockers
on iPhone, ad companies have been talking about
"being more responsible" in order not to alienate
people. But that's like the pickpockets guild deciding
to steal 20% less in order to keep the crowds happy.
Or like the opt out option you linked to. It makes
them seem civilized, but it's all still aimed only
at maximizing the success of their spying and ads.
And these days, the spying for ads is beginning to
become its own business. Spying yields personal
data which can them be sold, separate from the
ad business.

If people ever realize how easy it is to block 95%
of spying and ads -- or if people even just start
blocking 3rd-party cookies -- the ad companies will
be in much bigger trouble than Apple is causing. No
one needs an ad blocker because the ads are all
extreme corruptions of traditional Internet protocols
in the first place, making them easy to avoid. That
requires some explanation...

I see ads very rarely. I don't actually block ads at
all. I normally block javascript, which is responsible for
a lot of tracking and also a lot of sneaky corruption
of the webpage, as well as some ad display. I always
block cookies, enabling only session cookies when
necessary. A 3rd-party cookie is by definition an
unnecessary spyware tracker. Cookies were specifically
designed not to be accessible except by the domain
setting them, for the purpose of privacy online. 3rd
party cookies are a brazen workaround to bypass
that tradition.

Script and iframes have enabled various tricks to get
around the traditional cookie protocols, so that companies
like Google/Doubleclick can set cookies at nearly every
site you visit, because they trick your browser into visiting
their domain.

When Criteo says you "may continue to have cookies"
they're talking to the general public who have no idea
about such things. Browser makers (even Mozilla who make
Firefox) cooperate with advertisers by allowing *all*
cookies by default and hiding the settings. But there's
absolutely no reason to ever enable anything but session
cookies. (And persistent 1st-party cookies only if you
want a site to remember your login.) The original purpose
of cookies is to carry information between webpages on
a website, for things like shopping. Serverside code has
replaced most of that usage. Cookies today are nearly all
used as spyware trackers.

Besides blocking script and cookies (including the less
well known Flash cookies and "supercookies"), I also use
a HOSTS file. That's by far the best and easiest form of
ad blocker.
HOSTS doesn't even work at the level of blocking ads.
It just allows you to stop the companies that are tricking
you into visiting their domain involuntarily to view ads,
run script and be fitted with tracking collars.

Most ads are no longer actually on the website you visit.
That strategy was considered not to be lucrative enough,
so companies like Google came up with the idea of
targetted ads: Spy on people, figure out who they are
and what they're doing, then show them personalized ads.
The advertisers bid to show their ads only to, say, suburban
men between 24 and 45 who golf. They're willing to pay
far more per impression that way.

A few giant ad servers, like Google/Doubleclick, serve the
ads while also tracking you, on nearly all commercial
websites and many non-commercial sites. Even smalltime
bloggers with no ads often use Google Analytics to find
out about who visits their site, simply because they
don't realize that they already have that information in
their own server logs! By putting a snippet of Google Analytics
code on their pages they can access an activity report
for their site, and Google gets to track all visitors.

Such code will typically run javascript to make you
visit Google for tracking. If you disable script the same
code will typically cause you to load a 1x1 pixel "web bug"
tracker from their site. Either way, the idea is to get you
to contact google-analytics.com so they can record your
IP address and set a cookie. (The web bug allows them to
set a 3rd-party cookie. If they put that 1x1 image in an
invisible iframe then, presto, you've technically loaded a
"webpage" at Google Analytics and they can set a 1st-party
cookie! That's what Facebook Like buttons are -- spyware
web bugs inside invisible iframes, setting 1st-party cookies
everywhere you go. Even if you've never "consciously"
visited Facebook, they may be selling your personal dossier.)

Those tricks allow them to closely follow you around the
Internet. Google and Facebook are just two companies doing
that. The average person is trailing a dozen or more "spooks",
hiding in the background and watching as they travel online.

I have all the HOSTS file details here, for anyone who's
interested. It's very easy to set up once you know a
few details:

http://www.jsware.net/jsware/privacytips.php5#hosts

The basic deal is that when you visit anyplace online
your software must visit a Domain Name server (DNS)
to translate somewhere.com into the real address, the
IP address. DNS is like a phone book. You don't actually
go to somewhere.com. You go to something like
123.234.56.78
The HOSTS file is like your home phone number listing.
It dates back to the old days. Browsers look in HOSTS
before going to a DNS server. 127.0.0.1 always means
"here". Your machine. So if you add ads.criteo.com to
your HOSTS file by adding this line...
127.0.0.1 ads.criteo.com
.... then you'll never visit that domain. You can't. Whenever
your browser sees that link it will try and fail to load the
ad from your own computer, because you've told it that
the IP address of ads.criteo.com is "here".

By adding a few domains I block my browser from
ever visiting Doubleclick, Google-analytics, Facebook,
statcounter, valueclick, scorecardresearch, etc. If
a website has an honest ad, an ad that's actually on the
page I'm visiting, I'll see it. But nearly all ads are spyware
ads coming from places I never chose to visit, so I
don't see them.

In Pale Moon I also block 3rd-party images, but that's
not really necessary. The corporate spyware/ad business
has become so concentrated into a few big companies
that virtually all such ads can be blocked with a fairly
small HOSTS file.

I also take it a step further. I use a program called
Acrylic DNS proxy, which accepts wildcards. It works
like so:

HOSTS:

127.0.0.1 ads.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ads1.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 www.doubleclick.net

Acrylic HOSTS:

127.0.0.1 *.doubleclick.net

The Acrylic software makes managing HOSTS URLs
easier. But the regular HOSTS file, present on all
computers, works quite well.

Sorry to go on so long, but this is actually a relatively
brief explanation of what has become a very complex,
highly sophisticated and ubiquitous online scam.