But I can’t really see them relinking links that are on the page. I thought the feature was only for plain text on pages, though I still don’t like that it is better than relinking.
Personally, I think it’s alright. It’s the toolbar client’s choice.
I completely agree with chatmasta.
It’s like if somebody decides to use a text reader to read our content. Should I force them to use a web browser that will show my links and my pictures and my design… No! I’m providing content, they are using a client to read it, the Google is part of the client it’s their choice, their usage. the Google bar does not make the content their own, it is enhancing the experience of the user, as a text reader would be “enhancing” the page (or a voice reader or wathever).
Sounds like they are opening themselves up for all sorts of lawsuits. I really don’t see how they think they can get away with this.
I wonder how google would feel if the next Internet Explorer changed all the google search result pages and added helpful little msn search links. Can you imagine the uproar.
Initially I was shocked and apalled, but it sounds like the issue is fuzzier than it seems. From what I can gather the AutoLink feature is not used automatically. From Toolbar FAQ:
The AutoLink feature adds links to the page you’re viewing if it recognizes certain types of information on the page. For example, AutoLink will link a U.S. street address to a map of that address or the tracking number of a package to a status page for your package. AutoLink also recognizes car VIN numbers and book ISBN numbers.
When AutoLink finds information for which it can provide a link, the icon on the ‘AutoLink’ button of your Toolbar will change to reflect the information AutoLink has found. For example, if AutoLink finds a book’s ISBN, the icon will change to a book icon. Click on the ‘AutoLink’ button to create a link on the page, or click on the arrow to the right of the ‘AutoLink’ button and choose a link from the drop-down menu.
So, Google is looking for specific information in a page, and if found notifies the user that they can click AutoLink to replace said information with ‘relevant’ links. Still not very appealing from a webmaster’s perspective, but it less intrusive than automatically translating each page. Now if it becomes automatic there is a real issue.
I don’t see this idea flying if it is of the scale that is being depicted by this thread. There are many big players with a lot of money riding on their online sales, and if Google comes bumbling along stealing all of their revenue there will be a big mess. animatics - your analogy makes it clear that if Google gets away with automatic AutoLink there are serious reporcussions for them, and also the standards that others will follow down the road.
I suppose if Google could get away with something like this in an automatic capacity, I could create a framed “proxy” for every major website out there and just replace all of their links with my own ads. Wow, no more need for content development, just steal everybody else’s!
So would you still have a problem if Google only provided information for the relevant subjects without any links or advertisements for Amazon or any other commercial sites?
For example, would you have a problem with Google maps providing a map to your business as long as there were no ads or other commercial promotions involved?
This is really bad… need to consider a new ad provider I guess, in case they start doing this.
But, how does it work, and why would a browser allow an external script to modify the parant document? Isin’t that kind of… risky? I’m sure decent browsers like firefox won’t support this “feature”. At least I hope not. That could be a huge security flaw if it’s possible to do the way they describe.
Google toolbar
Lol… Swords at the ready, touché Môn ami. The relevancy is that a page that is written for one purpose is being hijacked and redirected for another to make money for Google. The writer of the content did not intend this and his work is being used without his consent to benefit a corporate entity.
How can you stop this? The only way I see is not to allow Google to index your site thus denying access to information that thousands may want to read. If Yahoo and MSN went down this road then you have no option but to allow all to spider your site if you want it to be available
As I see it if Google or for that matter Microsoft (Ala Smart Tags) want to use this to make money then they should as part of Adsesne allow webmasters who want to take advantage of this facility to place a piece of code on each page of there site with there existing Adsesne tracking code so that any revenue deriving from a link inserted by Google or MS exiting from their site to a purchase at another should receive a part of that commission as they do now with Adsesnse .
That of course will not help those who are not using Adsesne and do not wish to have this imposed on them. Maybe Google could just use this on sites that have Adsesne tracking code which sounds like a much more democratic way of of doing business.
Gmail
Anyone with an ounce of brain cells had every right to be worried about Gmail effectively reading your mail before you do. The wider implications of this are that a commercial product designed to insert ads based on the content of an email can be just as easily used by the authorities around the world to monitor email conversations between individuals. This attacks the fundamental write to freedom of speech.
Of course the only way to avoid this with Gmail is not to use it. However how do you avoid governments intercepting your private conversations?
Kili
Come the revolution your first up against the wall
:aparty:
This may have already been answered but does anyone know if they have to activate it for each web page? Or does it stay on once they activate it?
I have a problem with them doing anything to my pages. If i wanted my users to have a map I would give them a map. It is not google’s place to add anything to anyone’s sites.
Wrong, in order to plant their links into the body of the webpage they are modifying the code. See: http://news.com.com/Google+landgrab+raises+online+ire/2100-1032_3-5582792.html
Myself and other have. One of the most read and commented on threads in Opera’s official forums was started by me on this subject. I know that some webmasters block Opera users from accessing their sites outright. I used to prevent Opera users from accessing my site unless they were in full screen mode or I knew for certain that ads weren’t being displayed (window height was a dead giveaway). Now I prevent Opera from displaying ads based on my content by inserting a question mark at the end of my URL’s if Opera is accessing my pages. Because of the JavaScript function “window.opera” I know if it is Opera accessing my site whether or not the UA string is being spoofed.
SmartTags were a bad idea and so is Google’s AutoLink. As with Opera’s Google “rads” they show a blatant disregard for intellectual property rights. What I find troubling is that intellectual property rights are becoming the exclusive domain of the biggest bullies and deep pocketed corporations. Some companies hide their usurping of intellectual propetry rights behind guises of “consumer choice and user control,” but in reality it is about expanding their own profits.
Small content developers who stand to be hurt the worst by the erosion of their intellectual property rights via things like Opera’s Google rads, AutoLink and TextTop have the least ability to defend themselves against large companies who show blatant disregard for those rights. If I were to use the legal system to simply fight one of these intrusions of my rights, it would cost me all of the revenue I have ever generated from my sites. Big companies know this and this is why they try to get away with these types of tactics to expand their profits. Have you ever noticed that Gator/Claira never allows a lawsuit over their tactics get to court when it involves a company with deep pockets? They would rather settle out of court with a narrowly defined and undisclosed settlements that affects only a small number of sites rather than the courts to have the opportunity to rule that their activities are a violation of intellectual property law.
I’m no Google apologist, merely a frequent user. In the interest of debunking a lot of Urban Legendry that seems to appear here though, those who rail against the Google toolbar (which, of course, no one uses unless they explicitly download) ought to read Google’s own explanation regarding the data they collect:
[CENTER]Realizing that some users prefer even this non-personal information not be transmitted, AutoLink, SpellCheck, and WordTranslator will only send information to Google if users choose to use them (this means clicking on the AutoLink or SpellCheck buttons on the Toolbar, or enabling the WordTranslator in the Toolbar Options menu). Also, users who download the Google Toolbar choose whether they want PageRank enabled or disabled before installation is completed. All of these features can also be disabled from the Toolbar Options menu (emphasis mine). Finally, of course, it is not necessary to download the Toolbar to search Google from www.google.com [/CENTER]
I think compared with many on-line services, Google lives up to both the letter and spirit of privacy choice. The only way maintain total privacy is not to go online. (and using the Google toolbar or even visiting www.google.com is a concious, voluntary activity. Visit www.clusty.com for an example of a potentially better interface)
As an amatuer in optimization and a person who uses a web site solely to generate leads for a business. I find the Google mapping feature a tremendous asset. My business address is located on my site becuase I want customers to now I am a real-world persona and to be able to find me … and to FedEx my checks to me when they pay their invoices smile. So if a customer uses the Google tool bar, my snail mail address is highlighted for them and in one click they get to see me on the map. When I search for qualified prospects to mailout flyers, or make calls on, I click one button and find their postal address and their actual location to plan a drive to. If they didn’t want me to know their address, one would expect they wouldn’t put it on their site either. The downside to this is???
If I didn’t want to be found, why would I have my physical address online?
davestar
I have not downloaded the toolbar, and I am only saying these after reading all the posts around here.
The problem is not if they show a map to let people know how to get to you. The problem arises when Google, based on that information in your page, might show maps to your competitors because they are “relevant” to your content. And they are, they sell the same thing!
All the hard work you have done to get that user to buy from you might be wasted because of a toolbar.
They will do it with info that look like will not affect the general business of the web, such as tracking package info, or ISBN numbers, information that most of the sites do not include. And if it was only that, maybe, I am not sure, it is not that bad.
Be aware that the case of the ISBN numbers might be dangerous: surely one of the links to that book will lead to Amazon.com and not with your affiliate link (if you are an affiliate)!
That is the question: Will it also give links to your competitors? You do not want to give the user options to leave. You want him to stay and return time after time. The toolbar will encourage him to go and visit other places.
But it could be worse. What if Google developes a ad program to complement the toolbar (like AdWords for toolbars)? The links in the drop down menu will be there because someone paid to be in that drop down menu and drive the traffic away from you! Again, you lost your sale.
While I agree in increasing the customer experience, I work very hard for every pennie I earn, and in my case is not much, I am just a newbie and my earnings are much lower than my expenses. But if all this is true, then I should pack and go. People like me does not stand a chance. We are starting the learning curve, we accept that we will lose money at the beggining because one day we will know enough to make it work and then our traffic is driven away from us. I am not very sure if it should be allowed.
This is only the beggining… we will see what Google wants to do in the future. I never liked toolbars, anyway.
I insist, that this is a personal opinion and that I have not real knowledge but for the posts I read, and it does not look good.
I just downloaded the T3 Beta and the Autolink seems pretty much useless at mine & other sites at present. I’m still apprehensive about it, though… There should be a way to turn it off. Let alone the possibility of Google syphoning traffic from me–I don’t want them to change how my page LOOKS.
Perhaps we could find an unlikely ally in this situation. Y’think Microsoft would like Google altering the content that MSIE delivers to its users? MS might not really care, but for the sake of dragging on of their big threats through the mud, they might actually side with webmasters on this issue.
We probably ain’t seen nothing yet, though. Thanks to the new anti-class action lawsuit legislation, we’re going to have even fewer avenues of protecting our rights as consumers, producers, and small/online business owners (among other things). sigh I’m all for tort reform, but I could find plenty more frilolous lawsuits than most class-actions.
Word
If they do this, it would make a good class action lawsuit. By modifying my content and encouraging users to go away from my pages, I am losing revenue and they are profiting by my copyrighted work (my web site).
Yes it would. The problem is finding a good enough legal team and sponsor with the resources to carry through with the class action lawsuit. The other thing is, in order to truly put an end to these types of activities (e.g. AutoLinks, TextTop, Gator, etc.) the lawsuit would have to be carried through to final legal verdict and not settled out of court. The whole reason now case law has been created with these types of activities previously is that when a plaintiff with deep enough pockets file suit, the defendant ops to settle out of court, which prevents a court of law from ruling against them and creating a legal precedent
For those upset by this, I’d recommend going to Google’s contact page for the Google Toolbar (http://www.google.com/intl/en/contact/tool.html) and send a polite email expressing your concern over the AutoLink feature and your desire for it to be elminated or for them to give Webdevelopers a simple method for preventing the feature from functioning on our websites (just as we can prevent Google SERPs from displaying cached versions of our page).
I don’t think it’s a bad idea. Firefox has a lot of extensions that allow you to remove ads, images and whole blocks of site layout, which is actually bad for webmasters. Ultimately, it’s the surfer’s choice. I actually think it’s useful.
One major problem with Google’s now Autolink feature is that it could quite likely be used as a foot-in-the-door technique. “Oh, it’s just for maps/etc, it’s okay.” Then later they slowly add more and more features to it, until eventually we’ve got full-blown TopText style behavior. Not necessarily going to happen that way of course, but it certainly could …
They’ve already got that: first keyword highlighting (changing the content on the page) then popups (removing content from the page) and now AutoLinks (adding content to the page).
The foot-in-the-door was when they added the auto-update feature.
Douglas