search engines? - Page 2

 

  [ ... ]

Then configure your browser to clear cookies on exit and zeroclick
the adsense site. Don't use their toolbar (and watch out for Java updates
that default to installing it).

"Zeroclick" was a simple technique to block a site with entries in the
hosts file like this:

    127.0.0.1    adsense.google-analytics.com
    127.0.0.1    www.upsellit.com
    127.0.0.1    partner.googleadservices.com

127.0.0.1 is a special IP address also referred to as the "loopback" address,
which is entirely local to your computer; these entries basically tell your
browser to look for the referenced site on your local system, which of course
fails.

I have about 250 such entries in my hosts file; cuts down on a lot of banner
ads and other junk.

On a Windows XP system, the hosts file is in:

  c:\windows\system32\drivers\etc

and should have one entry for 127.0.0.1 with the name localhost.localdomain
which should be kept. There was a site long ago which maintained a list of
entries, but it doesn't seem to exist any more, and the term "zeroclick"
seems to have been coopted for entirely different purposes.


Gary

--
Gary Heston  gheston@hiwaay.net   http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/

Did you hear about the new saint, San Adreas? He's the patron saint of
blame, it's all his fault.

 


gheston@hiwaay.net (Gary Heston) wrote:


    Oh, I do all of that and more, except for the hosts file which is
ineffectual in Win2k as far as I can determine, but that is another
issue. I believe that most sensible users do so. The self-delulsions of
"privacy" and "security" aren't the point. Google uses cumulative search
and web histories to distort search returns and those data are kept on
Google's proprietary resources. There exists a non-sticky, after the
fact, web history opt-out for casual (i.e. those not "registered" or
"signed in") users but no such for search histories. How cool is that? I
don't care whether google profiles my sorry ass except when it "tailors"
(distorts) search results. If they have nothing better to do with their
resources, well good on them. My concern is the distortion of results
before they're presented to me. I must not be the only one; hence, the
existence of search proxy services, such as scroogle and Ixquick. Of
course, there is no rationale for believing _their_ "security" and
"privacy" hyperbole. LOL The point, IMO, to third-party gateways is
that, ostensibly, each search is a new search with no past history;
googleclutter filtering is a bonus.
--
the Balvenieman
"You know what they say: Once you kill a cow,
You gotta make a burger" --Lady Gaga

 

Balvenieman wrote:

Google has ads?  I suppose firefox has fixed that for so long I forgot
they have ads?

I heard it elsewhere and found the best use for Google.  If you spell as
bad as I do, often the spell check can't figure out what I'm trying to
spell.  Solution: cut and paste the misspelled word onto google and
search.  It's the best spelling fixer I've ever used!

Tony

 



Firefox has no control over the google sidebar adwords links or general
clutter on google results pages. Firefox 2 has no internal adblocker and
Firefox 3 is too failure-prone, at least in win2k and winxp for me to
want to deal with. Firefox seems to be suffering from death by
committee; that's what happens when no one with a proprietary interest
in "in charge".


    I do that, too. When in doubt I use define: and the misspelling is
corrected.