112 replies to this topic

[Renagade Master]

I found this article, thought it might be interesting to you: Google's toolbar sparks concern

RM

[Jill]

The AutoLink feature comes with Google's latest toolbar and provides links in a webpage to Amazon.com if it finds a book's ISBN number on the site.

It also links to Google's map service, if there is an address, or to car firm Carfax, if there is a licence plate.

Google said the feature, available only in the US, "adds useful links".

Sounds very similar to the old MS Smart Tags, or TopText.

If it is...then shame, shame, shame on Google! But maybe we're all misinterpretting it?

[qwerty]

There was a rumor going around that Google had hired the guy who created Smart Tags for MS and that he had built the AutoLink feature for them. That has now been retracted, but that doesn't change my opinion that this is a very bad thing.

[Dragon]

hmm..that is quite a hectic move, but somehow i can understand where they are coming from...

In the end should this not at some stage head to create more relevance for sites? Think of PR & TSPR...

obviously i am not condoning that they just link to those kind of "empire" sites - at some point perhaps it will link to the most relevant site and thus, we have just moved away from link farms, PR and bying inbound links.....

somehow, it has moved towards more industry related theming...

[Randy]

Personally, I have a lot of problems with AutoLink. I started a blog entry about it the other day but even the first draft turned into War & Peace, so I stopped before I blew a gasket or something.

A couple of issues I have...

1. Microsoft already tried this as mentioned above and was stopped dead in their tracks because of monopoly concerns. I don't see how this is any different. It was wrong then and it's just as wrong now.

2. As the owner of several dozen web sites, Google should either give me a way to Opt my sites out of their AutoLink or start paying me everytime someone clicks on a link that appears only because of their software and something I have written on my site. As the webmaster, I have complete control over my domain, and I refuse to relinquish that control to Google, Microsoft or anybody else. I'm the one paying all of the bills for my site. So I have every right to control what anybody else does with it or the traffic that uses it.

For them to attempt to usurp that control by any means is simply not right and has at least the potential to hurt my business. I work very hard to attract those visitors to my sites and go to great expense to get my targeted visitors there. As a for instance, if I'm paying $0.10 or $100 for a click thru or have spent --in time or money-- upwards of $10,000 to obtain high natural rankings for each of my sites, it is definitely detrimental to to my bottom line if Google decides to invade my web site and my content to siphon those potential customers off to somewhere else so that they (Google) can make a buck from my hard work.

I have given Google exactly Zero permission to do anything with My Visitors and My Customers once they've reached my site. If they want to take them somewhere else, without either giving me the option of opting out of their program or agreeing to pay whatever cost I set for those visitors, they're stealing my traffic and my potential income by fooling people into thinking they're clicking on a link that leads to another page in my site.

How easy is that? Google are thieves.

I, as a webmaster of many, many sites, fully expect Google to recompense me --at rates that I alone will set-- for any traffic the move away from my web site with AutoLink. Contrary to their apparent belief, they do not own the Internet or any traffic on it, except for those moments when that traffic is at Google.com, or when they've made a separate agreement with the webmaster of the site via Adsense.

Personally, I think it would be funny if MS funded a suit to stop AutoLink. But that'll never happen. Mainly because if Google gets away with it MS will be able to start up their MS Smart Tags again. And all of the other stuff they had in the hopper when that first foray was halted.

What'll probably end up having to happen is a bunch of webmasters getting together to file a class action suit against Google to stop them from siphoning away their traffic; Traffic that the webmasters may have even paid Google to obtain via Adwords.

Anybody know a good class action attorney?

Edited by Randy, 24 February 2005 - 10:58 AM.

[Renagade Master]

Wow, you should have a in your post somewhere

I agree totaly with what you say, how is this different to spyware which could function in exactly the same way. For example scanning web pages for words like pills and creating a link to a their viagra page.

Also are these links considered affilitation? So if we have an affiliation contract with company A whos TOS states that it's affiliation links can't share the same page as anyone elses then who is liable?

The fact this tool is still beta could mean it's never released. Then maybe Google will retain their "No Evil" hat.

Does the fact that users can switch it off or make ISBN numbers point to a different site, make things better for you Randy?

[qwerty]

This is interesting: Danny Sullivan has posted on the SEW Blog that Barnes and Noble is countering the toolbar by turning all of their ISBN numbers into links. Apparently, the toolbar won't replace links that already exist.

So, if you're interested in the new Haruki Murakami book and you click the ISBN number, you'll find yourself back at the top of the same page.

[Randy]

Does the fact that users can switch it off or make ISBN numbers point to a different site, make things better for you Randy?

Newp, not one iota of difference. It's sitll spyware and malicious. And Google still has no say whatsoever in My business.

A point on the new question...

Google doesn't deliver nearly all of the traffic to my sites. Heck, they don't even deliver 30% of my overall traffic since I rank well across all of the engines and do a lot of advertising that I pay good money for. I sure as hell don't want to be paying for traffic that is then being redirected elsewhere!

If Google wants to send my fully qualified traffic off to one of their "partners" who are paying them good money for the privlege, they pay me for the traffic I'm sending. At my rates, since they don't have any clue what my cost of acquisition is.

Otherwise they can kiss my lilly white ass and we'll meet in court. (Was that close enough to the Rant for you? )

It's an easy choice for Google. They can give me a way to opt out of their program. Or pay me for every click that uses AutoLink to leave my site.

Or optionally they can give me a way to detect their Google Toolbar when AutoLink is activated. Then I can set up some cloaking for anybody using the GTB w/ AutoLink that will link totally innocuous words off to pron sites that include 4 million popups.

<See why I didn't write the blog post now? I'd have not gotten anything done this entire week if I'd actually started.>

[loki]

what happened to "do no wrong" ?

[Randy]

I believe the phrase is "Do no evil" but...

It apparently flew out the window when IPO walked in the door.

[Tom Philo]

The Microsoft SmartTag feature had to be coded into pages in the Office Products in order for the tags to be live. The owner coded what words that would be auto-triggered to link from a selection of possibilities when you hovered over that word as well as "default" tags like stock symbols and addresses.

In the current Office 2003 they are still there in regards to finding addresses, recognizing place names, stock symbols, etc -- look for the light colored undermarked dots under words and the dropdown selection symbol.

The problem with IE was that the owner of a site could not completely control where people went when those keywords were dynamically linked by the browser. The source for all MS created tags went globally back to:
html
xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
xmlns:myns="http://internet.com/...aces/smarttags"

and unless he created his own list to override the Default MS list links would be created and going to sites not desired or - gasp - business sites and online stores could have customers stolen away by dynamic links on a page to their competitors who paid MS to link to them when those words where shown on a web page.

Thus, control over a site's link to other sites could be very mis-leading.

This became more of a problem with trademarks where a trademarked term / symbol could end up being linked to a competitor's site.

All this occured in early 2001 through summer by which MS pulled the stuff from IE but left it in Office XP since there you have to manually enable and define the tags.

[leadegroot]

I had been musing to myself that if Google only allowed it to work for sites/pages which included a particular tag in the header, then it would be opt-in and acceptable - presumably the tag would also tell them where to send a cut of the action.
But stating that you want to dictate the price too sort of throws a spanner in that engine of thought, because I can't imagine it working like that!

[Randy]

FTR, I agree Lea.

I just view it as an extension of Adwords/Adsense, which it is.

With Adwords, Google charges me what they want to (as long as I agree to pay that fee) for traffic I get from Adwords ads that display on their site and their Partner sites.

I think I should have the same right to set the prices for the traffic on my site. After all, I know much better than them what that traffic costs me to obtain.

Would it ever work that way? No, they'd never go for allowing the webmaster to set the price because it would definitely be a headache for them to manage and would most definitely cut into their profits. However I think the argument that what's good for the goose is good for the gander would hold up very well in court.

Could they use an Adsense business model for AutoLink? Yes. With Adsense, when they deliver the ads to your site they set the price you're going to be paid for each click thru based mostly upon what they're being paid. As a webmaster, if you don't like that price for whatever reason you simple disable, or opt out of, Adsense on your site.

Frankly, I simply think it's a bad idea all the way around unless there is either an Opt In as you laid it out or Opt Out. I've not heard a peep about either of those being part of the equation. At this point they seem to want to force it down everybody's throat, whether the webmasters like it or not.

[Alan Perkins]

I hate the very idea of this with a passion. What is Google thinking of? This is simply unethical.

However, the article says...

Google said none of the companies which received AutoLinks had paid for the service.

In that sense, it's more like Froogle than Adsense. If Google paid a percentage of its revenue for this service to every Webmaster, the actual income would be zero in every case (so far). This makes it different (so far) to spyware and scumware. If they do make it Adsense based, they are in for a whole lot of trouble IMO.

[Randy]

They need to charge for those clicks then Alan.

Because just like Barnes & Noble and countless others, I am most definitely not going to be giving them My traffic for free. Google doesn't own a stake in any of my sites so therefore have no right to divert any of my traffic to anybody else without my prior written permission.

If there is no Opt-In/Opt-Out they'll pay for traffic they siphon off from my sites one way, or they'll pay for it another. The choice is up to them if they would rather do that up front or if they want to defend their actions in thousands and thousands of little civil suits all around the world.