Google's "Privacy Policy" Oxymoron

Marketers are rapidly overtaking lawyers as my most despised profession. The marketers take a marvelous tool like the internet and them promptly abuse it. [As an example of non-internet marketing abuses, our local Walmart now has small TV screens in almost every aisle that broadcast nothing but a steady stream of advertisements. And our Exxon gas stations now have a small TV screen between each pair of gas tanks to promote the products sold inside the local store. Gag me with the proverbial spoon!]

Here are some measures I have already taken to try to limit the intrusion of marketers into my internet web browser:

• turn cookies off
  (selectively allow for those sites that have valid security need like on-line banking)
• turn JavaScript off, then selectively allow as necessary
• turn pop-up windows off
• even turn images off to block gif animations (selectively allowing images for things like editorial cartoons, of course!)
• use only secure, encrypted Google (https://encrypted.google.com) to search, not the usual open and unencrypted http://www.google.com/
• recently installed add-on called "Ghostery" on my Firefox browser: a real eye-opener to the vast array of entities tracking us on almost every web site. As a result, I have chosen to block everything listed as 3rd party elements (820 as of this writing!)

I am not happy with what I'm seeing and hearing about Google's changes to their so-called privacy policy that became effective on 1 March 2012. I give them credit for publicizing the changes in advance, but the term "privacy" in this case a gross misnomer. On the contrary, they instead encompass ways to increase the range and scope of sharing user information with an expanding base of commercial vendors. At this rate, "Google privacy policy" is destined to become a classic oxymoron along with my previous favorites: military intelligence, congressional ethics, rap music, and Microsoft Works.

My previous internet service provider (Verizon) assigned dynamic IP addresses, so I would shut down each night and log on the next day to a different IP address. Unfortunately, my current internet service provider (Comcast) assigns static IP addresses. That means that even though I still shut down every night, I log on the next day to the very same external IP address I had the day before. That makes it far too easy for transactions to be identified to me over long periods of time, thus making it easier for vendors to compile my browsing history.

Consequently, I now take special additional measures aimed specifically at Google:

• When I check my Google mail account, I read the mail and then promptly sign out. No searches or other transactions while signed in to gmail.
• Same thing for Google+: whenever I sign in to Google+, I read the postings, make my own posting(s), if any, and then promptly sign out. Again, no searches or other transactions while signed in to Google+.
• Same applies to Google's Blogspot: sign in, post new blog, then immediately sign out. Again, no searches or any other transactions while signed in to Google's Blogspot.
• Ditto for our family web page posted to Google's web site hosting service at sites.google.com. Same principle applies: sign in, make changes or additions to my web page, and promptly sign out. No other searches or other transactions while signed in to Google's web site service.
• Likewise for my individualized Google search profile (iGoogle). In addition to selecting a baseball stadium background, I have selected a variety of widgets to show MLB/NFL/NBA scores, the performance of various stock market indices as well as my own mutual fund holdings, news briefs, weather updates, etc. This is the most insidious because I must sign in to see all of this information and I am sitting right there at the Google search page! Even so, the same principle applies: sign on, view the information, and then sign out.

You can see how pervasive Google has become to my internet life, but one clear pattern should now become clear: execute no Google searches while signed in to any Google account!

As a result, in addition to all the privacy measures I outlined above, I have now for the first time in my life begun experimenting with using manual proxy servers chosen from a list of publicly available (i.e., free) proxies. The primary purpose, of course, is to maintain anonymity by hiding my readily identifiable Comcast static IP address.

A quick summary of results after changing to manual proxies, especially the https proxy: Facebook and Google mail require verification (e.g. a CAPTCHA input screen and/or answering a security question) with each proxy change. By contrast, Twitter, Comcast, and Yahoo mail presented no problems at all.

My initial thought was to simply disable my manual proxies and revert to "Use system [default] proxy settings" whenever I access Facebook or Google mail. However, I quickly rejected that notion because Facebook and Google are the most aggressive profilers out there. As such, they are the prime target for security measures such as these.

I have instead settled for a compromise that while not quite eliminating all problems, does greatly reduce them: use manual proxies for the standard http but not for https. If something is securely encrypted already, then I presumably will remain moderately safe even without https proxies and all of their associated problems.

I now feel slightly more comfortable with that compromise because of another recent discovery I just made: my Google Web History has apparently never been activated. You can check your own status by logging on to any of your Google accounts (gmail, Google+, Blogspot, etc.) and then visiting the https://www.google.com/history/ url. In my case, I see the following hogwash narrative:

---

Web History makes search better

Your Web History includes searches you've done on Google and pages you've clicked in search results. Web History allows you to:

See personalized search predictions as you type.
Get results and recommendations that are tailored to your preferences.
Search the full content of pages you've already seen.

You can view and edit your Web History from any computer by signing in to your Google Account. Learn more.

---

This is followed by two buttons labeled "No thanks" and "Turn Web History on." Guess which one I selected.

If your history has already been activated, you will have to explore how to turn it off if you still can now that the 1 March 2012 deadline has passed. More than likely, you will have to experiment with settings to minimize future tracking of your comings and goings. Good luck with that!

And if all of this sounds slightly paranoid, just remember what Sigmund Freud himself once noted: even paranoids can have real enemies!

Casey at the Bat - Release 2.0

"Casey at the Bat" was always my favorite poem as a youngster, but now I am beginning to wonder why. In trying to memorize the baseball poem as a mental exercise, I've had occasion to read it over several times as an adult, and I can only shake my head in disappointment.

Consider this: Mudville's opponent was leading 4-3 in the ninth inning. After two outs ("...when Cooney died at first, and Barrows did the same"), Casey's team then suddenly placed runners at second base and third base ("There was Jimmy safe at second and Flynn a-hugging third").

With the tying and winning runs already in scoring position, two outs, and first base open, why on earth would the opponent pitch to Casey? Obviously, they would not: they would walk Casey intentionally and take their chances with the next (and presumably weaker) hitter. Of course, that might not make for a very interesting poem.

At the very least, the poem needs to be re-written with Casey as the sixth batter in the inning, not the fifth. The batter immediately ahead of Casey then needs to get hit by a pitch or draw a base on balls to load the bases with two outs. Only then would the opponent have to pitch to Casey in a bases loaded, two-out, all-or-nothing, do-or-die situation.

As it stands, "Casey at the Bat" simply has no credibility with regard to baseball strategy. Alas: another childhood icon shattered.

Any aspiring poets out there able to compose some extra lines? The following is my first attempt at a proposed new stanza to be inserted between verses 4 and 5:

"But wait! There's more!" as the TV ads would say.
There's one more noxious batter coming into play.
But contemplating Casey, the pitcher lost control.
He plunked that batter with a pitch and cringed within his soul.

Move over, Ernest Lawrence Thayer.

Religious Convictions Almost Criminal

The farce that is the Republican primary election seems to revolve around who is the most Christian. What pompous arrogance to presume that Christianity has a monopoly on virtue.

It took us until 1960 to elect a Catholic president and 2008 to elect a non-white. Next major milestone: electing a woman. (Elizabeth Warren, anyone?) But we will not truly stamp ourselves as a country of genuinely equal opportunity for all until we elect a Jew or a Buddhist or an openly-avowed, self-proclaimed Muslim or, even better yet, an atheist/agnostic.

Alas: our presidential candidates must still pass the religious litmus test. In that regard, we are little better than the Middle East religious theocracies we so roundly criticize. Pick your poison.

As Andy Borowitz said about Rick Santorum, "You are running for President. The position of Spanish Inquisitor is no longer available."

Repelling a Tax

I fail to understand how Herman Cain's whine-whine-whine proposal would hold much appeal. It diminishes the most progressive tax (i.e., the graduated income tax) and imposes yet another regressive tax (i.e., a national sales tax).

And for businesses, how many auto manufacturers and car dealers will be thrilled to see what was once a $20,000 automobile suddenly escalate to $21,800? That will certainly impact sales of price-sensitive goods, especially in an already struggling economy.

I normally applaud efforts to simplify the tax code. My parents lived in Pennsylvania, so when I was stationed overseas in the Navy, I claimed PA as my home state. I don't know how it is now, but back then the tax form was the size of an old IBM punch card. It took 10-15 minutes to complete, and only that long because I kept stopping in amazement. I strongly favor simplification of the federal tax code as well, but Cain's formula is horribly misguided: lopsided in favor of businesses while tilted heavily against ordinary wage-earners.

First and foremost, however, we must stop using tax policies for social engineering. For example, in the early 80's, Congress passed a tax law encouraging construction. Builders cranked out new buildings solely to capitalize on those tax breaks, not because there was any market for those building. Houston and other cities wound up with vast inventories of unoccupied office buildings all because of a misguided tax statute. The law of unintended consequences is one law Congress cannot repeal and too often promotes.

We should strive to create an environment where businesses pursue projects based entirely on their own merits, not skewed by the distorted lenses of tax inducements. I as a homeowner would willingly surrender my home mortgage tax deduction if it led to a simpler, more equitable tax structure with no business loopholes. Instead, every February-April we create a cottage industry of tax preparers. We need to stop this foolishness now.

Death Knell for Firefox

Has anybody else become as frustrated with Mozilla's Firefox web browser as I have?

What once distinguished Firefox from other browsers was the abundance of marvelous and powerful add-ons. Unfortunately, Mozilla's accelerated release schedule combined with its laggard approval system has rendered too many of my favorite add-ons totally inoperative.

With Firefox 3.6.18, I had 42 add-ons (excluding those having to do with Java). With Firefox 5.0, I was down to 29, a loss of 13, or 30%. A few of those lost add-ons were deadwood that I didn't really mind losing, but many others I considered essential. In any case, a 30% attrition rate is simply not sustainable. And without add-ons, Firefox becomes just another browser.

I had not even overcome the hurdles of going from version 3.6.18 to version 4.01 yet when Mozilla already released version 5.0. Not only has Mozilla outstripped its add-on developers ability to keep up, but it has left its users behind as well. Users value stability and continuity, not rapid-fire change just for the sake of change. Mozilla seems to have totally abandoned users in that regard.

Most of Mozilla's inconsequential, cosmetic changes are merely eye candy and/or otherwise irrelevant to the average user. Mozilla seems to have fallen prey to its own technical wizardry: making changes simply because they can, not because those changes add anything meaningful to the user's browsing experience.

I used to swear by Firefox, but now I find myself swearing at it. As a result, after using Firefox exclusively since 2005, my family and I have given up on Firefox entirely. Out of sheer frustration, we have instead switched to another browser. In our opinion, Mozilla has run a formerly great product right into the ground.

Can you say "Netscape?" For the opposite reason (too many changes in Firefox versus not enough changes in Netscape), the end result is likely to be the same: extinction.

As Buck Owens & His Buckaroos once sang, "Adios, farewell, goodbye, good luck, so long."

Google Neglects Its Own

In September 2009, I created my family web page on Google. Now, more than 18 months later, it still does not appear on Google's own search engine even though Google itself hosts the site.

In stark contrast, I posted the same content on my family web page on Comcast a full year later in September 2010, and yet Google's search engine displayed my Comcast site within a few short weeks.

This anomaly compelled me to research ways to create visibility for my Google-hosted web page on Google's own search engine. The following saga will outline the sequence of events that Google led me to take and that you presumably must take as well.

The first necessary step involved logging on to Google Webmaster Tools using a Gmail account. After signing in, execute the following steps:

• In the "Verification home" window, click the button "Add a site..."
• In the next pop-up window, enter the applicable web site url in the field provided (in my case, http://sites.google.com/site/gumby32/)
• In the "Verify ownership" window, click on the second "Alternate methods" tab
• Select the first option of the three: "Add a meta tag to your site's home page." Indeed, Google's own help entry states: "This is the best option if you don't have access to your server." That is certainly true for those of us who are merely clients of Google sites. Meta tags will look something like this, only all on one single line:

    <meta name="google-site-verification"
    content="b0l0X5ZOJiT9kRSABjuXlE-
    w3kkjL8zPTUJyMMOO6x0" />

• Copy the entire meta tag that appears in the window and save it somewhere convenient. You will soon need to paste this meta tag into a particular field in your web page header information.
• Click the "Verify" button to complete the verification process.

Once your site has been verified, you may exit Webmaster Tools and then sign in to your Google web site. After you log on, follow these steps:

• Click "More actions | Manage site"
• From the menu at the left, click "Site setting - General"
• In the window to the right, paste your saved entry from Google Webmasters above into the field "Google Webmaster Tools verification"
• Click the "Save changes" button at the bottom to save your work

As added insurance, I availed myself of a service Google offers to add your URL to Google. Entering the top-level url of your web site into the designated field and then submitting it supposedly adds your site to Google's index each time Google's web crawler scans the web.

By going through all of these contortions, I thought I had covered all of my bases. Boy, was I mistaken: I had no idea of what still lay ahead.

I had completed my web site verification process and submitted my url to Google on 9 April 2011. I had read that Google's web crawler operates early each month, so I was prepared to wait a few weeks for my site to appear in a Google search sometime in early May.

I waited patiently until 1 May, when I began to check almost daily. To my increasing chagrin, my site still failed to appear in any Google search over the next two full weeks. In frustration, I re-submitted my url to Google once again on 14 May, but another full week passed with no results.

In the course of researching these requirements, I was dimly aware of an additional process whereby users could also submit a site map of their web page to Google. Finally, out of sheer desperation, I undertook the following steps:

• Create a plain text file with all of the links you want Google to crawl. Log on to your web site, navigate your way to the sitemap location, and click the "List" button. Then:
• highlight all links in the list
• right-click the selected links
• in the resulting menu, select "Copy Selected Links"
• paste all links to a file "sitemap.txt"
• Upload the newly-created file "sitemap.txt" anywhere onto your web site. "Web Site Overview" is always appropriate, but it really doesn't matter because the file is only a temporary device that you can eventually delete.
• Log on to Google Webmaster Tools once again
• In the Home window, click the site at issue (in my case, "sites.google.com/site/gumby32/")
• In the window at left, click on "Site Configuration"
• In the expanded menu, click "Sitemaps"
• Back in the window at the right, click the button "Submit a Sitemap"
• Copy the relevant portion of the link from the plain text file that you uploaded earlier and then paste that portion into the blank field. In my case, the correct entry was "home/sitemap.txt?attredirects=0&d=1" even though the complete link of the attached file was "https://sites.google.com/site/gumby32/home/sitemap.txt?attredirects=0&d=1"
• Click the "Submit Sitemap" button
• Once the URLs are accepted and acknowledged, you may delete the "sites.txt" file that you uploaded (and which will appear as an attachment) because it is no longer needed. You probably don't want an unsightly text file with no ostensible purpose littering your web site.

This technique appeared to work because the status column in the sitemap listing showed a green check mark instead of the red "X" displayed in my first two failed attempts. I was further encouraged because the field above the sitemap listing displayed the correct count of 33 submitted URLs along with the entry "Index count pending."

I was now at the end of my rope. I knew of no other measures to take. I had submitted 33 specific URLs that were all accepted and acknowledged. If that failed to work, then I was fully prepared to give up.

I completed this process on 24 May and initially expected to wait until the monthly web crawl in early June. However, after all this time and effort, I was beginning to feel anxious. I could not wait any longer, so I launched my inquiry on 26 May.

Eureka!

• My first Google search ("gumby32 site:sites.google.com") suddenly yielded all 33 of my web site links where it previously displayed only the message "Your search ... did not match any documents."
• A search for "gumby32 greiner" only showed seven items, but numbers six and seven were my résumé and main web page, respectively.
• A search for my full name "Robert Brian Greiner" produced 633,000 results, but my main web page was listed fourth on the first page!

Not every search came up roses, however. My search for gumby32 alone produced 3,700 results, but after wading through the first six pages, I found no mention of my site. Even so, I have at least some reason to believe that my web site is now on the radar scope. Clearly, adding the site map links was the turning point.

While I am pleased to finally have my web page finally listed in Google searches, I am not at all happy about the obstacles I had to overcome. I am both perplexed and somewhat dismayed that Google erects so many barriers in the path of its own customers while requiring no special action by the customers of its competitors (in my case, Comcast) to be included in a Google search.

Is it just me, or is there something wrong with this picture?

Windows 7: Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde?

Windows 7 has again revealed its Dr.-Jekyll-and-Mr.-Hyde syndrome: namely, the fortuitous discovery of a useful feature leading to yet another intractable problem.

First, let's tackle the useful feature that is almost artfully concealed from users. Quite by accident, I found that there is more information available to users from the Control Panel than would appear at first blush. To see what I mean, try the following steps:

• Click on the "Start" orb
• Click "Control Panel" menu item
• Do not click on any of the icons that appear in the window below. Instead, click directly on the the right arrow immediately following the words "Control Panel" in the field near the top of the page
  
• In the resulting menu, select the first menu entry: "All Control Panel Items"

The resulting window unveils a treasure trove of features. Many are directly available in the original Control Panel window, but some are not.

Of particular interest to me is the link "Performance Information and Tools." Clicking this link will open a window showing a Windows Experience Index for each of five categories. Below the main area is a link entitled "What do these numbers mean?" Read up on the index if you like, but that is not what is important.

Of greater value is an unobtrusive link to the right that reads "View and print detailed performance and system information." Clicking on that link displays expanded information about your computer system, including (but not limited to) processor speed, total memory, storage capacity of all attached hard drives, graphics memory and processing speed, and network adapters.

My teen-age son needs this information when he goes shopping for computer games to determine if his machine has the capacity for the particular computer game he intends to buy. Why Microsoft buries this system information so deeply is an irritating mystery.

But that is not the worst of it. We are now ready to address the intractable problem I mentioned at the start of this diatribe. At the top and bottom of the expanded system information window is a button that reads "Print this page." As you would expect, clicking on either of these links will open another window that lists all available printers. If you happen to be mobile with a laptop that is not connected to any printer, that window is not very helpful. You can, of course, select the option "Print to file," in which case your results will be saved to a .prn file that is illegible to anything other than printer software and is therefore equally useless.

In researching how to handle this .prn file, I stumbled across one nifty solution that involves an entirely different approach. This method entails downloading and installing two free software programs:

• CutePDF Writer and...
• Ghostscript, an interpreter for the PostScript language and for PDF.

CutePDF Writer installs itself as a pseudo printer in the Windows control panel's "Printers and Faxes" window (XP) or "Devices and Printers" window (Win7). Simply go through the drill of printing a file, making sure to choose the "CutePDF Writer" printer icon in the "Print" window. After you click the "Print" button, a "Save as" window will then appear with .pdf as the only file type permitted. Drill down to the desired folder, assign a meaningful file name, and click the "Save" button. Mission accomplished.

In this manner, CutePDF Writer and its silent partner Ghostwriter allow any application with a print button or print menu to save a file in .pdf format. Both programs are very easy to install and even easier to use, and they seem to work perfectly together.

Using these two marvelous programs, I was able to save the information from my computer's detailed performance and system information discussed above. Whereas I had been totally thwarted by Microsoft's lame "Print this page" button, I now have the data in a single .pdf file as a permanent electronic reference that is eminently readable and easily transferable to another computer for eventual printing. Sweet!

Maybe I should I instead say "Suite!"

Web Site Traffic Monitors

Have you ever wondered about those counters that appear at the bottom of some web sites that display the number of visitors to the site? The subject has lingered in the back of my mind for several years, but I never pursued the matter until recently.

In the course of doing so, I found at least two separate and distinct ways to monitor traffic volume on web sites:

• Visible odometer display
• Invisible behind-the scenes statistics:
  Google Analytics

Let's take a look at each of these in turn:

Visible odometer display

I was initially discouraged: almost all sites offering free counters required users to register with a userid and password and/or provide an e-mail address, which I view as an invitation for their spam to rain down upon me. I finally stumbled upon a reasonable site that met my requirements called HitWebCounter.

This site offers fifty odometer designs from which to choose, but none of them were very appealing visually. However, the service is free, requires no registration or e-mail address, and is very easy to use. Simply choose one of the odometers and fill in fields with the following information:

• web page name (i.e., your site's URL)
• starting count (typically zero)
• number of digits for the odometer to display (select a number from 1 to 9 from a pull-down menu complete with leading zeros)
• counter type: select "Page Views" or "Unique Visitors"

[Note: there is also a pull-down menu labeled "Select Category" that does not seem to contribute much because the only selection available is "Any Category."]

After you make all of your selections, click on the button labeled "GET YOUR COUNTER CODE." A window will then appear with the applicable HTML code snippet. Simply copy the code and paste it into your web site code in the appropriate place where you wish the odometer to appear.

Keep in mind that with this method, all counts are maintained on the vendor's servers. If those servers malfunction, at best your web site might display an ugly rectangle where the counter should be and at worst might slow down and/or lock up altogether.

On the plus side, this method works whether your site is hosted by Google sites or a more conventional vendor like Comcast or Verizon. On my family web page hosted by Comcast, I placed a counter not only on the parent home page but also on all of the sub-pages: my favorite free software, my children's favorite game sites, my resume, and a page featuring my high school teachers. That way, I can determine which specific page(s) out of the entire web site is/are attracting the most visitors—if any!

Furthermore, the counting process will begin immediately after you post the new code to your site. The visible counter will change as soon as you or any other person visit the site or simply click the refresh button. This instant feedback is in stark contrast to Google Analytics discussed in the following section.

Invisible behind-the scenes statistics:
Google Analytics

Google Analytics also accumulates web site usage data albeit in a somewhat different manner. I does keep its statistics on its own set of servers much like HitWebCounter discussed above and many similar sites. However, it does not place an odometer or any other visible device onto your web page. It does offer a more comprehensive set of statistics, including not only the raw number of visitors but also the percentage of new visitors, number of page views, and average time spent on site per visitor.

In the absence of a visible counter, you must instead access web site usage data by logging on to Google Analytics at http://www.google.com/analytics/. If you do not have a Google account, you must first create one. However, if you already use Gmail, individualized Google search (iGoogle), Google's web site hosting, or any of the other Google services, then you already have an account that will provide you with access to Google Analytics.

Assuming that you have already established a Google account, go to the site http://www.google.com/analytics/
and click on the link "Access Analytics." In the next window, enter your Google e-mail address and password in the usual way.

To create a profile for your own specific web site,

• Click the link labeled "+ Add new profile"
• In the resulting window,
  
  1. insert your web site's URL (without the "http://") in the first field
  2. select your country in the second field ("United States" will already be the default entry
  3. select your time zone from the pull-down menu in the third field
• Click the "Finish" button to save your work

Next, a "Tracking Code" page will appear. If your web page is hosted by Google's own sites.google.com, then the Web Property ID number appearing in the upper half of the page is relevant to you. The number will be of the format "UA-XXXXXXXX-S" where the X's are digits from 0 to 9 and "S" is a sequence number. Copy the entire assigned ID number into your computer's clipboard memory (Windows terminology) and then perform the following steps:

• Log on to your Google web site
• Click "More actions | Manage site"
• In the menu to the left, click "Site settings - General"
• In the window to the right, locate "Statistics"
• Check the box "Enable Google Analytics for this site"
• Now paste the account id into the field "Paste your Analytics Web Property ID here:"
• Click the "Save Changes" button at the bottom of the page

On the other hand, if your web page contains your own more traditional HTML code and is hosted by an ISP like Comcast or Verizon, then the bottom half of the "Tracking Code" page contains the information relevant to you. There are two fields, the second of which provides the code that users must copy-and-paste onto every HTML page they wish to track. The code should appear in the header section immediately before the closing </head> tag. Either edit the files on site or, if you edit them off-line, upload the edited files to your host ISP site.

When you return to the "Overview" page, your URL(s) will appear by default under the "Name" column. This is redundant because the URL also appears in the profile heading.

Fortunately, there is a way to assign a more descriptive profile name. In the far right column of each profile data row, you will see a link labeled "Edit." When you click this link, another window will appear that displays four sections, each of which has its own "Edit" button in the upper right corner.

The first section will be labeled "Main Website Profile Information." Click that section's "Edit" link to access the page entitled "Edit Profile Information." The first field is labeled "Profile Name." Type any meaningful name (e.g., "Family Web Page," Children's Favorite Game Sites," "Gateway to Heaven," etc.) Click the "Save Changes" button at the very bottom of the page.

Presto chango! Now when you return to the "Overview" section, your meaningful new description will appear in the "Name" column instead of the URL.

Be advised that Google's on-line instructions warns users that it might take as long as 24 hours before any data begins to appear in the Data Analytics reports. Well, it all depends. I created my profiles on a Monday and visited my sites at least once every day. I was dismayed that by Friday, all of my counts still showed a big, fat zero.

But then I am an idiot. By default, my children and I have JavaScript disabled as a security measure. We selectively activate JavaScript only on sites that we trust and only when we need it for the site to behave properly. Because my web pages heretofor have not needed JavaScript to function, JavaScript remained disabled in our browser when visiting our family web site. Well, guess what? The code that Google Analytics requires users to copy-and-paste into their web site's HTML code happens to be, of all things, JavaScript code.

With this in mind, it stands to reason that the statistics will not register with JavaScript disabled! When I finally came to this forehead-slapping realization, I again accessed my sites, only this time with JavaScript enabled. Sure enough, within just moments, the status in Google Analytics changed from "Waiting for Data" to "Receiving Data." And most importantly, meaningful non-zero statistics began to appear within the stipulated 24 hours. Life is good!

Comparison: Odometer Display vs. Google Analytics

Here is a quick summary of the differences between odometer measuring devices like HitWebCounter and behind-the-scenes statistical gathering devices like Google Analytics:

• HitWebCounter provides a visible device in the form of an odometer/counter. Google Analytics has no device that is visible on the user's web page; users must instead log on to Google Analytics to view statistics
• HitWebCounter provides instant gratification by displaying counts almost immediately after installation. By contrast, Google Analytics involves a waiting period of up to 24 hours to view initial data.
• HitWebCounter records all visitors to a site, even those with JavaScript disabled. As I learned from bitter first-hand experience, Google Analytics does not record visitors unless their JavaScript is fully enabled.
• And now for the big trade-off: HitWebCounter odometers record only aggregate counts of one statistic, usually a simple visitor count. Google Analytics, on the other hand, provides a far more comprehensive set of statistics including but not limited to the total number of visitors, the number of unique visitors, the number of page views, and average time viewers spend on each site. Furthermore, Google Analytics data can be displayed in graphical format by day, month, or year.

It falls upon each individual webmaster to select the method that best suits his or her needs.

Finally, the steps I have described above are really not as difficult to implement as my ramblings might lead you to believe. Most of the processes involved will become abundantly clear when you actually visit the respective sites. Rest assured: if a simpleton like me can get these techniques to work, then none of you savvy readers out there will have any problems.

Taxing My Patience

Republicans habitually moan and groan, then weep and wail about getting big (federal) government off our backs because small state and local governments can do things better. Apparently not in Virginia.

This year, Virginia has abandoned the previous single on-line tax filing system called iFile that worked splendidly. In its stead, Virginia has now adopted a hodgepodge of not one, not two, but six different systems, and all six have totally different eligibility requirements.

For example, users who have already filed their federal tax returns are prohibited from using three of the six options. And for the three that they are allowed to use, they have to enter their federal data all over again. Even worse, people between the ages of 58 and 65 with incomes over $58,000 do not qualify for any of the six options!

The Virginia Department of Taxation's web site has the audacity to exhort users: "Find out more about this exciting new program...." What hogwash! I called the Virginia Department of Taxation to find out the rationale behind this change. The representative could only spout the standard line that the legislature passed the bill and the governor signed it, adding only that it was an attempt to emulate the federal on-line filing system.

Unfortunately, Virginia seems to have overlooked one major element: the federal system includes a program called Free File Fillable Forms which allows everyone to file electronically with no restrictions on age, income, or anything else. Where is Virginia's equivalent? Missing in action. Oops!

I have been filing electronically for several years now, but no more. This year, I am no longer eligible for any of the free programs, and I refuse to pay a fee just for the "privilege" of filing electronically. Instead, I am now driven to revert to paper where the only "fee" is a 44-cent postage stamp. I guess that this is supposed to be someone's distorted idea of progress, but in reality it represents a huge step backwards.

Virginia's legislature has created a patchwork crazy-quilt "system" that lacks the redeeming feature of an all-inclusive option akin to the federal Free File Fillable Forms. It also excludes a substantial portion of the population and thus has the perverse effect of discouraging electronic filing for those people.

In short, Virginia has managed to incorporate the worst elements of the federal program while excluding the single best feature. So tell me again, Republicans, exactly how state governments are so much better?

[Postscript: I e-mailed the essential contents of this article to both my state senator and my representative to the House of Delegates asking them to please address the flaws in the system. Both legislators and their respective staffs declined even to reply. Apparently in the eyes of Republicans, if you are not a fat-cat businessman laden with cash contributions, you do not merit a response.

At the very least, this scenario provides just another example that belies the Republican shibboleth that small government is responsive government.]

[Post Postscript: Will wonders never cease! I just checked the Virginia Department of Taxation web site to download tax forms for 2011. In the instruction manual, on the first page after the title page, the third paragraph reads as follows:

Free File Fillable Virginia Forms (New e-File option) - Online versions of the Virginia resident return and schedules that allow you to enter tax information just as you would if you were completing a paper form and then submit the return electronically through e-File.

Eureka! This year, it appears that Virginia will provide free file fillable forms just like the federal government has offered for years. It took Virginia at least a year longer than it should have, but better late than never, I guess.] [Added 8 January 2012]

Google's Mental Block

Google just added a welcome new feature to its search engine that allows users to block unwanted sites from appearing on the search engine results page (SERP).

Allow me to cite one example. My pet peeve is a site called Experts Exchange. Whenever I do a Google search for a technical problem of any kind involving Microsoft Windows, that site is invariably among the listed choices offering a solution.

Unfortunately, in order to see the answer to that particular problem, you must first sign up for a free 30-day trial. To do so, you must provide not only an e-mail address but a credit card number that is required to "validate" your free trial. Riiight. Not to worry, though: they are quick to add that "You will never be charged during your free trial and you can cancel at any time." Whew; I am so relieved.

Sorry, folks; that is never going to happen. I do not want to encounter that nonsense ever again; with Google's new feature, now I don't have to.

Google's own web site describes how to block specific sites from search results. The steps to actually block a site seem to work just fine as long as you have a Google profile and are logged on to it.

My heartburn comes from Google's instruction that says "Whenever your search results would have included pages from that [blocked] domain, you'll see a message at the top or bottom of the page reminding you that the domain was blocked." I have yet to see any such message or notification.

Even more problematical is Google's statement that users can "[a]dd or remove blocked sites using the Blocked Sites page which is accessible via your Search Settings page when you're signed in." Hard as I looked, I could not find any reference to the Blocked Sites page anywhere in my Search Settings.

The only way I could find to navigate my way to the Blocked Pages site was to conduct a dummy search, visit any site shown in the results, and click on the link to block that site. That link then transformed into a link entitled Managed Blocked Sites. Clicking that link in turn finally threw me into the Manage Blocked Sites page. There I could freely add new sites to block and mark previously blocked sites to unblock, including the most recent blocked site that served only as a vehicle to access the settings.

However, that process struck me as a truly awkward and artificial contrivance. Why should users have to arbitrarily block any random site just to access the settings? As I am writing this masterpiece, today marks only the first or second day after Google's release of this new feature. Hopefully over the next few days, Google will smoothe out these rough edges.

Until then, I have discovered a very simple workaround: while in the Manage Blocked Sites page for the first time, simply bookmark that page as you would bookmark any other web site. For most people, the applicable url should be http://www.google.com/reviews/t or, if you are like me and use only encrypted Google searches, https://encrypted.google.com/reviews/t.

Bingo! Now we're cooking with gas. With that one bookmark, I now have total flexibility. Any time I want, I can simply click my new bookmark and then easily block any site or sites that might offend my delicate sensibilities.

As the old Alka-Seltzer commercial once said, "Try it; you'll like it."