Great question. The premise here is that search is an integral part of the product experience of using Google Workspace. We don't offer controls that separate each piece of functionality within Workspace products. The reason there _is_ one governing both Workspace and non-Workspace data (the current Web and App Activity setting) is mostly historical in nature, and the fact that there are two existing controls (one for the admin, one for the user) means the vast majority of users don't even have the chance to try the feature out to figure out if it's useful for them. Hence the default on. But as noted in the email we'll be very transparent to users telling them that the setting is on, and it's also why this email went out 60 days prior to the change, as advance notice.

That being said, there's an important note that wasn't communicated in the email since it was sent to (paid offering) admins: consumer (non-paid) users who have Web and App Activity disabled will have their Workspace search history setting _also_ disabled as part of the migration. That's because we recognize a user who has turned Web and App Activity off explicitly likely won't feel the need to benefit from Workspace search history either.

> The premise here is that search is an integral part of the product experience of using Google Workspace. We don't offer controls that separate each piece of functionality within Workspace products. The reason there _is_ one governing both Workspace and non-Workspace data (the current Web and App Activity setting) is mostly historical in nature, and the fact that there are two existing controls (one for the admin, one for the user) means the vast majority of users don't even have the chance to try the feature out to figure out if it's useful for them.

That's a very elaborate way to say "because we don't want to".

I disagree. I think the point is reasonable. I personally find it useful to refer to my past searches/activity, especially in a professional context, and it would be unintuitive to me if such a feature was turned off by default.

People are just asking to have it off if they currently have the related setting off.

They answer it fairly clearly

It is off if the related setting is currently off if you're a non paid user. However if you're a paid user it is currently on.

That just describes WHAT the behavior is more precisely.

That’s not an answer as to WHY the behavior is that way.

What about... <<asking the user>>?

Shocking, right?

> Great question. The premise here is that search is an integral part of the product experience (...)

I remember, as a youngster, a Google advertisement that was in the form of a math quizz. One of the questions was about how many colors are needed to paint the sides of an icosahedron. The next question was: "which colors would you choose? Why?" I was utterly fascinated by the, so far unknown, company that wrote this funny ad that appealed so personally to me!

Twenty years later, the mouth of Google uses wooden language with terms like "product experience". This is not only useless, but also sad and stupid. Damn, Google, what the hell happened to you? Your ass used to be beautiful!

Actually, I always thought that puzzles were a poor recruiting tool. But now that he explained the problem, with all it's complexities and stakes, I kind of see the relevance.

Managing an application for 4B ppl is not something to sneeze at. There's a lot of different user profiles involved, and it's difficult to keep all of them happy.

Your complaint is that Google is focused on such "useless things" as improving search results based on your prior searches and not on cutesy ads...?

happy to hear that you found corporate marketing to be moving. unimpressed by disrespectful and nonconstructive talking over of someone right in front of them.

> unimpressed by disrespectful and nonconstructive talking over of someone right in front of them.

What are you, the etiquette police?

"Talking over" is something that just doesn't apply to one reply on an asynchronous threaded forum.

does it detract from op's point and instead attempt to steer the conversation somewhere else? (which, incidentally, is also derogatory?)

when people behave that way in live conversations, i'm equally unimpressed.

The harm to a live conversation of talking over someone is clear. There is no harm here, only a digression that can be ignored or not as participants wish. The OP had as much time and space to make their case. Again, threaded forums are not live, linear conversations, and have different characteristics for what is healthy and useful. Replies, even contradictory ones, are not interruptions. There is not one conversation going on, but many, and the conversation cannot be steered unilaterally without agreement from others to not engage in the original conversation.

In general, there is nothing wrong with detracting from someone's point (though there can be in specific instances). The point may be ridiculous and need detracting!

There is also nothing wrong with being derogatory when appropriate. Some speech is indeed bad and should be called out -- were you not doing just that? (Though I, of course disagree that the speech you were objecting was in any way bad).

so there's talking over in the sense of literal interruptions and talking over in the sense of belittlement.

google might be a giant corporation these days, but even so, it's pretty ridiculous to belittle their reps in their own threads.

as i said before, i've seen this behavior in person before (with no interruptions used in delivery, no less!) and i've seen it online. in all cases it's impressive, but not in a good way.

> …means the vast majority of users don't even have the chance to try the feature out to figure out if it's useful for them. Hence the default on.

This seems reasonable for new customers, maybe? but for existing customers this is pretty heavy handed.

I get that you want users to experience the benefits of this feature, but I personally would prefer to be informed of the feature and its value, and guided to opt in. I’d prefer to make that choice. Especially considering the potential downsides of accidentally preserving all of one’s search history.

> Great question.

Just because your company has a product named Android, doesn't mean you _need_ to talk like one, you know.

> That being said, there's an important note that wasn't communicated in the email since it was sent to (paid offering) admins: consumer (non-paid) users who have Web and App Activity disabled will have their Workspace search history setting _also_ disabled as part of the migration. That's because we recognize a user who has turned Web and App Activity off explicitly likely won't feel the need to benefit from Workspace search history either

This is actually (at a first read) GOOD news for individuals' privacy, and you bury it like this? I know there many be a bonus or two on the line here, but what the hell, you almost didn't get the message across. Please communicate like humans, at least as long as you still have humans as an audience.

> it's also why this email went out 60 days prior to the change

Do users have the ability to disable the setting when they receive the first e-mail, or do they have to wait until the setting is enabled then go back and disable it?

Are the users being notified, or just the admins? (The e-mail in the pastebin sounds like it went only to admins).

Will users be reminded when the setting changed, or is that left to the admin/do they have to remember that and disable it once the change happened?

- The ability of Google Workspace organizations to turn off “Web & App Activity” for all users will be removed.

Why is this? The company should have control over how employees use the company assets.

Because the number of companies that disable this company wide is large enough that google believes that by muddying the waters like this employees will give them the loophole they need to get back at that data.

The proper way to do this is:

Admin level:

- default to off

- options

  - enable

  - disable 

  - allow the user to set this

    - default to off

    - default to on

Admins are tech savvy so they could protect their users' privacy with 1 toggle.

Obviously bad for business when 90% of your revenue is from ads.

> means the vast majority of users don't even have the chance to try the feature out to figure out if it's useful for them.

Then make a case for them to turn it on, don’t use a dark pattern.

I don't wanna ruin the conversation here but:

> Great question

This is exactly how politicians (or whoever is doing something nasty) will start the answer on sensitive question. Shady business.

Punishing someone for saying 'great question' is getting into 'have you stopped beating your wife' territory. Not ok on HN.

Would you mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html? Note these guidelines:

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

"Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine."

Some background on why this is particularly important in this sort of thread:

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

I agree, the tone of the answer is very 'pretending to be user firendly while doing what is good for us', I cannot trust it. Not to mention the marketing logic of 'forcing users to try out new features', like if it was a positive thing not negative. Quite user hostile tone it is in my view.

Google has pioneered "forcing users to try out new features" ever since they invented forced software updates. That's not new.

> This is exactly how politicians (or whoever is doing something nasty) will start the answer on sensitive question.

That’s also true of most people who aren’t doing something nasty.

Maybe, but still

  P(doing something nasty | "Great question") > P(doing something nasty)

Not always but definitely here. I'm sure they know exactly what they are doing... it's like Microsoft changing the default search engine to Bing with their updates.

I agree. It's very jarring to me, coming across as insincere and faux-friendly. The sort of thing Mark Zuckerberg says in every product PR vid.

Another content here says that they'd say "great question" genuinely, which I don't doubt. And that's the problem, fakers have hijacked such phrases and mannerisms.

I also suspect it's a mannerism that's more common in some nations than others. In the US, conversations often seem overly polite to me e.g. the infamous "have a nice day", particularly in corporate settings. There's nothing exactly _wrong_ with that, it just comes across to me as insincere sometimes. I'd rather have an honest conversation, which can of course still be polite, while avoiding apparent insincerity. Cultural differences are subtle and profound! :)

Hmm.... thinking aloud... I don't speak Japanese, but if I could, I wonder if I'd find their famously uber-polite business-speak mannerisms jarring too?

It's also how someone might respond to any question if unexpected, or if they are trying to get through a meeting with the public that they have to do as part of their job but it is the part of the job they are less than comfortable with - put on an energetic happy-go-lucky public persona and plow through that with some Great Questions! and Wow, I'm glad you asked that! End up seeming a bit manic but at least they get through it.

It's also how people will answer bad or a bit silly questions, and then try to turn it into a great question by rooting around in it and pulling something great out so as not to hurt people's feelings. Because of the whole there are no stupid questions thing. (just listing other reasons why people answer with Great Question, not insinuating anything here)

It is also how someone might be expected to reply to a Great Question.

That's pretty standard phrasing for "you've hit on something i've also thought a lot about". I say it all the time, usually with pleasure, because it means the opportunity to share something I find interesting or feel confident in an answer on.

You are drawing the product manager for this website feature(!) up to be some sort of corrupt politician or big tech conspiracy mastermind. Really absurd.

There’s built in asymmetry here in that we talk to him as mostly anonymous individuals but he needs to respond as a company representative, so I think it’s understandable it would come across like that.

Attack a person argument, not the way they speak. The person is saying a lot of "shady shit" and focusing on great question is a great way of making sure there are no answers.

I assume you mean that as an attack. Personal attacks will get you banned here.

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.