One reporting improvement is that AdSense publishers can now view “all time” stats, meaning they can view all earnings, impressions, and clicks ever accrued over the life of the account. This is a feature that existed in the previous AdSense interface, and it’s now been brought back.

Google has also made reporting information easier to access. Within the My Ads tab, each specific line item will have a “View report” link — users just need to click through to see performance data for that particular ad unit or channel.

The exporting of reports now is customized based on the publisher’s language preference, with numbers now being shown in the manner that’s customary in that language. A dollar amount written as $1,000.00 in the US or UK would be written as $1.000,00 in most of Europe and South America. Previously only the US or UK version was available for downloading.

AdSense publishers also got another treat from Google this week, in the form of research that shows that “smart pricing” really is better for publishers, as well as advertisers. Though “smart pricing” typically discounts advertisers’ bids for the Google Content Network — because content sites usually perform worse, in terms of conversions, than ads on search results pages — the research contends that it’s really better for publishers in the end. Because advertisers are getting greater value overall, they’re more likely to bid higher overall, creating revenue for Google and the publisher.

“The main implication of this analysis is good news for networks and publishers alike — under reasonable conditions Smart Pricing, and its non-Google analogs, can significantly grow the pie,” wrote Guy Calvert, a product specialist and decision support analyst within AdSense Online Sales and Operations.

Philip J. Cenedella of the NAHTVA

Google says it’s spending “millions of dollars” to police AdWords ads to ensure they’re not contributing to human trafficking, but the head of a victim’s rights group seems to believe that’s not enough.

Asked what he thinks Google should do, Philip J. Cenedella of the National Association of Human Trafficking Victim Advocates (NAHTVA) says they should, “stop ALL of these ads until they can guarantee 0.0% of the providers of the services are NOT trafficking victims, exploited women, men, girls and boys.”

Based on NAHTVA’s efforts, two lawmakers yesterday wrote a letter to CEO Larry Page questioning the company’s efforts to police possible human trafficking ads itself.

Google maintains it’s doing the best that it can, putting millions of dollars of resources toward solving the problem of bad ads. “We…work closely with law enforcement and other government authorities,” the company said in a statement. “But it’s a constant battle against these bad actors so we are always looking at ways to improve our systems and practices — including by working with leading anti-trafficking organizations.”

The challenge is the sheer number of ads that Google deals with on a regular basis and, even though the company does both manual and algorithmic reviews, bad ads seem to slip through all the time.

With pharmaceutical and other healthcare ads, Google requires that companies go through a certification process before they can advertise. In the U.S., the company also has the Verified Internet Pharmacy Practice Sites database (part of the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy) to call upon for verification. Other countries have similar organizations that help Google distinguish between legit and rogue pharmacies.

Could such a model be used for online dating sites? In the UK, there appears to be an Association of British Introduction Agencies, and perhaps similar organizations in other countries could help Google vet advertisers.

But David Evans, who has long consulted for and covered the online dating industry at OnlineDatingPost.com, says verifying and vetting these sites just isn’t practical. “Of course [Google] should stop [running ads placed by human traffickers], and I’m sure they will when the pressure is bad enough, but bad actors are like quicksilver — they will break up, adapt strategy and come back together in some other formulation.”

Google should take heart, though, that it’s not the only company under the scrutiny of the anti-human trafficking activists. Says Cenedella, “In 2009, I led the protest against the UAE Embassy in DC. 2010 was Craigslist. 2011 was Backpage (still in process). 2012 is Google. Facebook, Twitter, Bing and others are in our sights.”

The new Ad Review center will show ads of all targeting types that have previously appeared, and allow publishers to review and block future display of them. If ads are targeted by placement, publishers can review them in advance, before they appear on the site. Ads can be blocked one-by-one, rather than by groups.

Google will take the information about ads that are blocked and use it to predict ads that might offend, highlighting them for the publisher. The Ad Review center will also use impression and likely-impression data, putting ads that have been shown most often, or have the potential to be shown most often, front and center. Publishers will also see ads magnified or full-size, so they can better see details on the ad creative.

Blocking ads will also be easier. One must only click on an ad to block it, and can drag over multiple ads to block them all at once.

The new capabilities will be rolling out to previous users of the Ad Review tab in the next few days. Those who’ve never used the tool can visit the “Allow & block ads” tab, and will eventually be rolled out the features.

On Thursday, January 5th, U.S. District Judge Edward Davila turned down the class action suit brought against Google. He said he would not allow the suit because “it was more appropriate for companies who had bought the ads to show any alleged harm on an individual basis,” according to paidContent.

Here is the 25-page court document with the ruling:

Google Parked Domain Class Action

We covered the suit back when it was first filed in July 2008.

Related Stories:

• Updated: Google Settles DOJ Pharmacy Ad Investigation With $500 Million
• Australian Watchdog Loses Case Against Google Over Deceptive Ads
• Google Working With U.S. Treasury Department To Shut Down AdWords Mortgage Scams
• Google Instant Costs Google $65,000 In France
• RIAA Scolds Google, Wants Search Algorithm Changed To Fight Online Piracy
• Google Braces For Early 2012 (400-Page) EU Antitrust Report
• US Senators Call For FTC Investigation Into Google’s Search Results
• Google Sued By buySAFE Over Trusted Stores Program
• EU Signaling It May Tolerate Google’s “Dominance” Of Search
• Google Wins Potentially Significant Antitrust Victory In Ohio

Image credit to ShutterStock for lawsuit graphic.

Publishers have certainly had plenty of warning. Google began testing the interface as far back as November 2009. It was released to all publishers in November 2010, and Google warned in September that the old version would soon be sunset.

Still, some in the Webmaster World forums complained about the change, while others said they’ve grown accustomed to, and even like, the new version. Over the last two years of testing, Google has continually made tweaks to the interface in response to user feedback. Here’s the latest official guide to the new interface.

The third-party networks in AdSense are enabled via Google’s DoubleClick Ad Exchange, and the system aims to let publishers to serve the highest value impression with each pageload, therefore earning the highest amount possible. Publishers can block by network via the AdSense interface. Networks participating include Rocket Fuel, Dotomi, Quantcast, Turn, AdRoll.com and [x+1].

Google cautioned that comparing networks may be difficult because some networks may be targeting particularly high-value inventory — making their CPMs higher, but their overall volume likely lower.

The new report can be found in the Performance report tab. Click “Ad networks” in the side navigation. The data available today will only go back as far as September 27, 2011.

Google’s a big company that goes after revenue in a variety of ways some critics feel put users second. However, I’m struggling to think of other examples where Google has acted in such a crass, it’s all-about-the-revenue manner as it has this week. The best comparison I can think of is when Google decided to allow Chinese censorship. Yes, this is in the same league.

It’s in that league because Google is a company that prides itself by doing right by the user. Yet in this case, it seems perfectly happy to sell out privacy, if you’re an advertiser. That’s assuming you believe that Caller ID-like information that’s being blocked (except for advertisers) is a privacy issue.

Google doesn’t, as best I can tell. Instead, the blocking is a pesky side effect to a real privacy enhancement Google made, a side effect Google doesn’t seem to want to cure for anyone but advertisers.

If it had taken a more thoughtful approach, ironically, Google could have pushed many sites across the web to become more secure themselves. It missed that opportunity.

I’ll cover all of this below, in detail. It’s a long article. If you prefer a short summary, skip to the last two sections, “Why Not Get Everyone To Be Secure” and “Moving Forward.”

Default Encrypted Search Begins

Let’s talk particulars. On Tuesday, Google announced that by default, it would encrypt the search sessions of anyone signed in to Google.com. This means that when someone searches, no one can see the results that Google is sending back to them.

That’s good. Just as you might want your Gmail account encrypted, so that no one can see what you’re emailing, so you also may want the search results that Google is communicated back to you to be kept private.

That’s especially so because those search results are getting more personalized and potentially could be hacked. The EFF, in its post about Google’s change, pointed to two papers (here and here) about this.

Encryption Can Break Caller ID

There’s a side effect to encryption that involves what are called “referrers.” When someone clicks on a link from one web site that leads to another, most browsers pass along referrer data, which is sort of like a Caller ID for the internet. The destination web site can see where the person came from.

When someone comes from an encrypted site, this referrer information isn’t passed on unless they are going to another encrypted site. That means when Google moved to encrypted search, it was blocking this Caller ID on its end for virtually all the sites that it lists, since most of them don’t run encrypted or “secure” servers themselves.

This is a crucial point. Encryption — providing a secure web site — doesn’t block referrers if someone goes from one secure web site to another. Consider it like this:

• Unsecure >>> passes referrer to >>> Unsecure
• Secure >>> passes referrer to >>> Secure
• Secure /// does NOT pass referrer to /// Unsecure

Google’s Referrer Problem

If everyone on the web ran secure servers, aside from the web being a more secure place in the way that Google itself wants it to be, the referrer hypocrisy that Google committed this week wouldn’t be an issue.

The vast majority of sites don’t run secure servers, of course. That posed a problem for Google. Referrers from search engines are unique. Since as long as we’ve had search engines — over 15 years — those links people click on from search engine results have contained the search terms people have used.

For publishers, this has made search marketing incredibly powerful. They are able to tell exactly what terms were used when someone found their web site, at a search engine like Yahoo, Bing or Google

Moving to secure searching meant that Google was suddenly, dramatically, no longer going to send this information to publishers, because as I’ve covered, virtually none of those publishers were running secure servers. As a result, Google almost certain realized there was going to be backlash.

Putting A Price On Privacy

Google could have endured the backlash, saying that if publishers still wanted this data, they could move to secure servers. Instead, it deliberately chose to override how referrers are passed, so that they would continue to be provided to just its advertisers.

Backlash, Google would endure, but it seems apparently not from those who made Google nearly $10 billion last quarter alone.

To solve this, Google changed from the standard way that referrers are supposed to be passed to its own unique system, which works like this:

• Secure /// does NOT pass referrer to /// Unsecure unless…
• Secure >>> passes referrer if ADVERTISER to >>> Unsecure

Let me be very clear. Google has designed things so that Caller ID still works for its advertisers, but not anyone else, even though the standard for secure services isn’t supposed to allow this. It broke the standard, deliberately, to prevent advertiser backlash.

The PR Plan For Publisher Backlash: It’s A Tiny Loss!

Google still knew there would be backlash from another group of publishers, those who have received this Caller ID referrer data from Google’s “free” or “organic” or “editorial” or “SEO” listings. What was the solution for that problem?

Here, Google seems to have a three-fold approach. First, suggest that only a tiny amount of data is being withheld. Some scoffed at Google’s estimate that I reported, that this would impact less than 10% of query data. But so far that seems to be holding true.

For example, here was our second most popular keyword sending us traffic from Google yesterday, according to Google Analytics:

“Not Provided” is what Google reports in cases when it now blocks referrers — or technically, it still provides referrers but is specifically stripping search terms out of them.

Our number two keyword! And yet, we received nearly 15,000 keyword-related visits from Google yesterday. These terms that were withheld amounted to only 2.6% of them.

On my personal blog, this is in about the 2% range. SEOmoz reported around 2%, as well.

These low figures will makes it easier for Google to gloss over publisher concerns, especially when they’re almost all being voiced by those in the SEO industry. The industry has a bad name, so if it’s against something, that can almost seem like a ringing endorsement for good.

Ars Technica had some comments like this, in response to its story on the Google change:

I’m playing the saddest song in the world on the smallest violin in the world. Poor, poor, SEO leaches

I AM completely unsympathetic. The sooner these SEO leeches, parasites, spammers and scammers die die die the better off the web will be.

Don’t make this mistake. This is not just an SEO issue. This is a user privacy issue. SEOs are simply the harbingers spotting Google’s hypocrisy around privacy.

The Data’s Still Around!

The second bit of PR messaging was to reassure that plenty of search data can be found in another way through the Google Webmaster Central service.

This is true. Google does provide search query data through this service, and it’s warmly welcomed by many site owners.

However, Google also provides search query data to its advertisers through the AdWords system. That’s the publisher equivalent to Google Webmaster Central.

Since advertisers can get data through AdWords, just as publishers can use Google Webmaster Central, why does Google still need to deliberately override how referrers would normally be blocked just for advertisers?

Google argued in its blog post that advertisers needed referrer data “to measure the effectiveness of their campaigns and to improve the ads and offers they present to you.” Outside of conversion tracking to the keyword level and retargeting, that doesn’t hold up, to me. I’ll get back to these.

Google Said Referrer Data Was Better

By the way, Google is on record as saying the data in Google Webmaster Central for publishers is not as good as referrer data.

This comes from an online exchange between Matt Cutts, the head of Google’s web spam team and who acts as a liaison on many publisher issues, and Gabriel Weinberg, the founder of tiny Duck Duck Go search engine who was challenging Google over providing referrer information.

Weinberg wrote:

So now that we know what is going on, why allow this personal information to leak? As far as I can tell, the only reason is so Webmasters can do better at Google SEO. And that reason can be wholly mitigated through the use of Google’s Webmaster Tools.

Cutts responded (and I’ll bold the key part):

Google’s webmaster tools only provide a sampling of the data. We used to provide info for only 100 queries. Now we provide it for more queries, but it’s still a sample.

Please don’t make the argument that the data in our webmaster console is equivalent to the data that websites can currently find in their server logs, because that’s not the case.

In January of this year, data from Google Webmaster Central was deemed inferior to referrer data. In October, it’s repositioned as an acceptable alternative to blocking referrers.

Referrers Are Private!

Google’s third and most important method of countering backlash is to make out that referrer data is somehow so private that it can no longer be provided to publishers. If you read closely, however, you understand that Google never actually takes this position. Rather, it’s implied.

Google’s blog post on the change made no mention — none — that this move was done because referrers had private information that might leak out. It was only about protecting the search results themselves:

As search becomes an increasingly customized experience, we recognize the growing importance of protecting the personalized search results we deliver.

Remember those studies I mentioned? Those were all about search results, not about referrers.

Referrers only get mentioned in Google’s post as a heads-up to publishers that they’ll be lost, and not because they’re also private and need to be protected but rather — well, Google doesn’t explain why. The implication is that they just have to go.

As I’ve read stories in the broader press, I’ve seen the assumption that Google is blocking referrers because it considers them to be private. Heck, I came away from my initial interview with Google when the news broke thinking the same thing.

It’s no wonder. Because Google has deliberately broken security to pass referrers to advertisers but not publishers, it had to lump that qualification into the overall security story. It made referrer blocking seem like it was done to protect privacy, rather than the troublesome side effect it really was.

But You Didn’t Say They Were Private Before

To emphasize how not-private Google has viewed referrer data, consider two issues.

The first was in 2009, when Google made a change to its search results that broke referrers from being passed. Publishers were upset, and Google restored referrers.

Cutts — who keep in mind is one of the people Google had talk about this week’s encryption change –  tweeted “yay” about the restoration. Clearly, he didn’t see any privacy issues being lost by it then. He was happy Google went out of its way to bring referrers back.

Think 2009 is too far back? OK, at the beginning of this year, Duck Duck Go — aside from buying a billboard to attack Google on privacy grounds – launched an illustrated guide to alleged Google privacy issues, including concerns over referrrer data.

In reaction to that, Cutts pushed back on referrers being a problem:

Referrers are a part of the way the web has worked since before Google existed. They’re a browser-level feature more than something related to specific websites.

When he was further challenged on the issue by Duck Duck Go’s founder Weinberg, Cutts specifically did not include referrers in a list of things that seemed to be private:

That was the same day we announced SSL search, which prevents referrers to http sites….

The fact is that Google has a good history of supporting privacy, from fighting overly broad subpoenas from the DOJ to SSL Search to creating a browser plugin to opt out of personalized advertising.

On a personal note here, I like Matt Cutts. I’m not trying to single him out unfairly by citing this stuff. He’s just a Googler extremely close to the issue, knowledgable about it and even when speaking in a semi-official manner, it reflects back on what’s true with Google.

Personally, I get the impression he might not agree with the referrer blocking for publishers but is going to put the best spin he can on a decision that his company made. Just my gut feel, and no special knowledge here. I could be wrong. Maybe I can get him to share more later.

Google Change Benefits Google

I think it’s fair to say that Google has not agreed with the view that referrers are private, nor has it clearly said referrers were blocked to protect privacy.

So why do it? One reason is that it makes Google more competitive. If someone lands on your web site, and you know the search term they used, you can then target them in various ways across the web with ads you believe reflect that search interest. All you need is the initial term.

This is called “retargeting,” and Google’s a leading provider of retargeted ads. When you cut the referrers out, except for your own advertisers, Google makes it harder for its competitors to offer retargeting services. Search marketers already understand this. Wait until Google’s anti-trust enemies clue in. They’ll be swooping in on this one (and we’ll have more to say on it in the future).

Another benefit is that it prevents anyone but Google’s own advertisers from doing keyword-level conversion tracking. With search referrers, you can determine what someone who searched for a particular term later did on your site. What further pages did they go to? Did they purchase a product or service? Without the search terms, you can’t do this degree of analysis.

That is, of course, unless you buy an ad. Conversion tracking at the keyword level turns into another sales feature for Google.

Didn’t Think Or Don’t Care?

I think the biggest reason Google hasn’t fixed the broken referrer problem is either that it just didn’t care about publishers or didn’t really think through the issues more.

Either is bad. The latter has some weight. Consider the last time that Google broke referrers, Cutts explained that the impact just hadn’t been considered:

[Cutts] says the team didn’t think about the referrer aspect. So they stopped. They’ve paused it until they can find out how to keep the referrers.

Surely someone had to have thought about the impact this time? Someone decided that it was a good idea to keep passing referrer information to advertisers. Someone decided that for whatever reason — and it wasn’t privacy — that publishers couldn’t keep getting this information. But what that reason is remains unclear.

Why Not Get Everyone To Be Secure?

What I do know is that Google missed a huge opportunity to make the entire web much more secure. Google could have declared that it was shifting its default search for everyone  – not just logged-in users — to be secure. Privacy advocates would have loved this even more than the current change which, using Google’s own figures, protect less than 10% of Google.com searchers.

Google could have also said that if anyone wanted to continue receiving referrer data, they needed to shift to running secure servers themselves. Remember, referrers pass from secure server to secure server.

Millions of sites quickly adopted Google +1 buttons in the hopes they might get more traffic from Google. Those same millions would have shifted — and quickly — over to secure servers in order to continue receiving referrer data.

Better protection across the web for everyone, while maintaining the unwritten contract between search engines and the publishers that support them to provide referrer data. That would have been a good solution. Instead, we got Google providing protection for a sliver of those searching, withholding data from the majority of sites that support it and solving problems only for its advertisers.

Moving Forward

I’m expecting to talk further to Google about these issues, which I raised with the company right after writing my initial story. I’m still waiting for them to find anyone appropriate higher up in the company to respond. Fingers-crossed. The best I could get so far was this statement:

We’ve tried to strike a balance here — improving privacy for signed in users while also continuing to provide substantial query data to webmasters.

To conclude, I think the move to secure searching is great. I’d like to see more of it.

As for referrers, there are some who do believe that they are private. Chris Soghoian is a leading advocate about this, and I’d recommend anyone who wants to understand more to read the blog post he wrote about an FTC complaint he filed over the issue. Read the complaint, too. Also see Duck Duck Go’s DontTrack.us site.

In terms of Google blocking referrers, it already blocks tons of stuff it considers private from its search suggestions. Conceivably, it could use the same technology to filter search referrers, to help publishers and protect users.

But aside from that, if Google thinks this needs to be done for privacy reasons, then it needs to block referrers for everyone and not still allow them to work for advertisers. That move is one of the most disturbing, hypocritical things I’ve ever seen Google do. It also needs to take the further step and stop its own Chrome browser from passing them.

If blocking referrers isn’t a privacy issue, then Google needs provider referrer data to all publishers, not just those who advertise.

Related Background

• Google To Begin Encrypting Searches & Outbound Clicks By Default With SSL Search
• Reactions From SEOs Come Loud, Fast & Often Angry To Google’s Switch To Encrypted Search
• Google AJAX Search Results = Death To Search Term Tracking?
• DuckDuckGo Challenges Google On Privacy With DontTrack.us
• The Highs & Lows Of Search Retargeting: Version 3.0 Is Here Already
• How Google Instant’s Autocomplete Suggestions Work

And Yet More Background

• It’s Not About Cookies: Privacy Debate Happening At Wrong Level
• Do Not Track: FTC Proposes Sweeping New Framework For Consumer Privacy Protection
• Google Anonymizing Search Records To Protect Privacy
• Anonymizing Google’s Server Log Data — How’s It Going?
• Microsoft To Anonymize Log Data; Calls For Industry Standards Along With Ask.com
• Google Launches Encrypted Web Search
• Google Analytics Webmaster Tools SEO Reports Now Available
• Google Analytics To Add Search Query Data From Webmaster Tools
• Google Webmaster Tools and Google Analytics: The Beginning Of A Useful Integration?
• Google Webmaster Tools Search Queries Report Now Less Accurate
• Google Webmaster Tools Expands Top Search Reports & (Now) Charts
• Google Lets Users Opt Out Of Analytics Tracking, But Doesn’t Expect Many Will
• The Death Of Web Analytics? An Ode To The Threatened Referrer

Visitors to Google Display Network sites will begin seeing +1s and annotations on display ads for the first time today, according to Google. The initiative, announced nearly a month ago, is aimed at adding social cues — recommendations — to display advertising.

The addition of social cues at least partly takes its cues from Facebook ads, which can be targeted to “friends of fans.” If a friend +1s an ad, or the landing page URL associated with an ad, the ad will get a boost in the auction, giving it a higher chance of displaying on the page. It’s thought the ads with +1s and annotations will be more successful in getting users’ attention than those without. Though Google hasn’t released specifics, the company says search ads with +1s associated with them have a significantly higher click-through rate.

Advertisers or publishers who don’t wish to participate in this program may opt out in AdWords or AdSense, respectively.

So, Google is urging AdSense publishers to take the time now to familiarize themselves with the new interface, though they’ll still be able to toggle back and forth for the next few weeks.

Image provided by Google

The new AdSense view includes multi-dimension reporting, reporting by country and platform, and the addition of search functionality in the Ad Review center. Users can also edit and schedule reports.

Google originally released the new AdSense interface in November of last year, after beta-testing it for a year. Since then, it has been tweaking features in response to user feedback.

As with the +1s that accompany text ads, people who see ads on the display network will be able to see whether someone Google knows to be connected to them has +1ed the landing page associated with the ad. The total number of +1s could also be displayed. The +1s could have been done on the marketers’ Web site, in organic search results, or in the ad environment — they’re all aggregated by landing page URL. To determine connections, Google looks at things like people’s Gmail contacts, who they’ve added to Google+ Circles, and who they follow in Google Reader. To +1 something, a user must be logged into their Google account.

+1s Affecting The Auction

If a person +1s a site or ad, display ads in the network associated with that URL will have a better chance of being displayed when their friend visits any page in the network — so long as all the advertiser’s targeting conditions are met. In a blog post, Google refers to it as an “extra boost.” So, in addition to bid price and quality score, robust +1 activity will be rewarded.

“When an ad is personally annotated, there’s a positive impact on click-through rate,” Christian Oestlien, Lead Product Manager for Social Advertising, told me. “You get this great win of users becoming advocates for your product…you can take advantage of social and you don’t need to come up with new metrics. All of this is baked into all of your existing ad campaigns.”

Comments like Oestlein’s make it clear that Google is aiming for Facebook with this social targeting, imitating, and trying to go beyond, “friend of a friend” on the social networking giant.

And, although the auction boost applies only to the GDN for now, higher click-through activity generated by +1-ed ads will raise the account’s overall status with Google, perhaps influencing search ad auctions, as well. Eventually, +1s could more directly impact search ads.

“It’s something we’re watching. Obviously, the quality score is an important dynamic to search ads,” said Jim Prosser, a Google spokesperson. “Any changes done to that is done in a careful and deliberate way — display is a different world and a different beast, and we use different methodologies.”

Hopes To Increase Participation By Users

Google hopes that adding +1s will also encourage users to engage more with advertising on the web in general, given that nearly every web user encounters the GDN likely every day, if not multiple times a day.

“We think that’s an incredible win for the end user and will motivate people to proactively participate in advertising,” says Oestlien. “Their friends start to see more of those quality creatives and people become more engaged with ads on the internet.”

It will also likely motivate more advertisers to incorporate +1 buttons on their own Web sites, hoping to garner some of the +1 boost to their display ads.

The new display ad +1 buttons will be available for image, animated GIF, Flash, Display Ad Builder ads and certain mobile inventory. Advertisers may also include the +1 button on DoubleClick Rich Media ads, whether they are running on the GDN or elsewhere. Advertisers may also opt out of having +1s with their ads altogether, and, as of today, they can opt out of +1 at the campaign level. Additionally, end-users and publishers can also opt-out of seeing +1s or displaying them on their sites.

The changes won’t appear immediately. To give advertisers and publishers time to opt-out if they’d like to, Google is rolling the changes out in a couple of weeks.