Talk:Search engine privacy

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tommytheprius. Peer reviewers: Breadyornot.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
Peer Review Week 10: I think that the lead section is very informative! I think that it could be helpful to break it into two sections. You could break it at “A few of the most…” It could help with breaking up information since it is about a different topic.

In your Privacy policies first paragraph you say “Privacy minded search engines, such as DuckDuckGo, state in their privacy policies that collect much less, if any, data than search engines such as Google or Yahoo” - did you mean to say that they (asin privacy minded search engines) collect much less data? In your google and yahoo section, you state that “judges certainly do” - who or what are the judges? In your DuckDuckGo section you state “DuckDuckGo, founded in 2008 and therefore a much newer search engine than Google, is known for being privacy focused and not tracking its users” - another way of phrasing that is “DuckDuckGo, founded in 2008 and therefore a much newer search engine than Google, is known for being privacy focused and therefore does not track its users”. I think it flows better. In your Types of data collected section you cite an article in the middle of the sentence, you may want to move that citation to the end as it can be distracting while reading. In your section on user profiling and personalization, you may want to define automated learned. The improving search quality section is shorter than others, if possible you may want to add more information. In your United States section, I think you should hyperlink Katz vs. United States the first time you mention it instead of the section afterwards.

Overall I think your article is looking really good! I think with some minor edits, your page will be set! Your tone is informative and unbiased. Great job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cal.oasis (talk • contribs) 22:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Response to peer review: I did split the lead into two paragraphs at the place Cal.oasis suggested. I hadn't thought about it before, but I do think it's generally better to have smaller chunks of text. As for the sentence in my privacy policies section that Cal.oasis was confused on, I did add a "They" because it seems that I had made a typo originally. In reference to her point about judges, I do not know the specific ones (though I believe some are mentioned in the article cited at the end of the sentence), but the intent of the sentence was to say that in court cases, the fact that people usually don't care about the intricacies of privacy policies, they do matter in court cases. Therefore, I don't think the specific judges are really necessary to mention in this sentence, although I did amend it to say "judges in court cases" which hopefully clarified my original meaning. To her point about rephrasing a sentence about DuckDuckGo, I don't really see how it's an improvement, in fact it seems nearly identical, so I'm going to leave it the original way for the time being. I did put a citation in the middle of a sentence, but I believe that I did so because I felt the information in that article pertained only to the beginning of the sentence. While possibly distracting, I think it's better to do that than possibly overstate what is said in the source by putting that citation at the end of the sentence. I'm glad she brought up the point about "automated learned" because that seems to be another typo. It should've been automated learning, and I added that it is basically the same as machine learning, a term which I then hyperlinked. I agree that the improving search quality section is clearly shorter than the others, so I added a couple sentences about how exactly search quality is improved to beef it up a bit. I did add a hyperlink to the first mention of Katz v. United States, but I also kept the link in the Katz v. United States subsection because I felt like that's where a reader would expect to find it. Tommytheprius (talk) 06:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

User perceptions of privacy
Hi there, I am looking to expand the section on "User perception of privacy" and was hoping any editors/privacy enthusiasts know of any reliable sources on user perceptions of privacy in regards to search engine privacy. Thanks! Breadyornot (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Targeted advertising section changes
I added a clarification into the conflict that was mentioned towards the end of the section (where the clarification needed sign was)

Sincerely, HanMiKC (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Claims vs reality
I slightly amended the section on DuckduckGo to clarify that it claims to be privacy focused. Whether it actually is privacy focused has been questioned (http://techrights.org/2021/03/15/duckduckgo-in-2021/). It's not for a Wikipedia article to adjudicate between conflicting opinions, but at least it should be clear that DuckDuckGo's claim to be privacy focused is just that - a claim - and not necessarily an objective reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longitude2 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)