112 replies to this topic

[Jill]

I disagree, Alan. They're not talking about what AutoLink does, they're talking about the principle behind it. (Although I thought AutokLink does create links where none previously existed, like in the ISBN example)

It creates links where none existed previously, but not "automatically." You have the option of telling it to create the links, or not. (By pushing the button that turns it on.)

[Randy]

When you have both 3rd party products installed into your browser, which one wins?

I would bet on Microsoft myself, partly because I'd be willing to bet that theirs would be incorporated right into IE. So not really a third party add-on app.

How much do you think B&N would be willing to pay for such a service? Or eBay? Or what if MS (or Google or whoever) decided to start their own shopping service? Or since Yahoo! already has one...

See, this is the base reason that I say it's a very slippery slope. Once it starts there is no end to it. You can call me crazy but when I look into my crystal ball I can see a time when there are links to shop.yahoo.com or shop.msn.com stealing not only our traffic from our web sites. Not to mention each other. With zero input from --and no recompense to-- the person who actually runs and pays for the site that is being ripped off.

[Alan Perkins]

If the principle behind AutoLink were to take hold, there would be nothing to stop Microsoft from adding a feature to Internet Explorer that would replace the ads on a Google search-results page with ads sold by Microsoft's MSN service.

Much though I dislike AutoLink, that's plain misleading.  AutoLink does not swap one link for another and it does not automatically add any links.

I disagree, Alan. They're not talking about what AutoLink does, they're talking about the principle behind it.

That's what I'm talking about. In principle, AutoLink could not swap all of one advertiser's links for another advertiser - which is what the article author was suggesting - because it does not modify existing links.

When you have both 3rd party products installed into your browser, which one wins?

If they both work like AutoLink, then the button you click first wins.

[Raphael]

Much though I dislike AutoLink, that's plain misleading.  AutoLink does not swap one link for another and it does not automatically add any links.

I disagree, Alan. They're not talking about what AutoLink does, they're talking about the principle behind it.

That's what I'm talking about.  In principle, AutoLink could not swap all of one advertiser's links for another advertiser - which is what the article author was suggesting - because it does not modify existing links.

But the principle behind the concept is the same:

"I'm going to change this website so that the things *I* think should be links a) become links and b) point to where I think they should be pointing to."

Unless you think that the "mission statement" (if you will,) behind AutoLink is purely:

"I'm not going to change any existing links, only introduce new ones"

But for me, the difference is a very, very, very fine line indeed.

You've already let the nose of the camel into the tent by saying you're going to provide links where there were none before. It's the same "camp" of thinking, even though it maybe doesn't go quite as far as actually changing links.

But they both belong in the same conceptual box, and it's a very small step from one to the other. I'm with Randy. A slippery, slippery slope indeed....

[rolf]

As yet this would not affect any of the sites I'm involved in, but as others have said it's the principle.

I'm concerned that later down the line Google (or whoever) thinks 'Hmm, car accessories (for instance) are popular, from now on wherever the phrase 'car accessories' is unlinked there will be a link to eBay' - then everyone who sells car accessories would have to link every instance or leak traffic from their 'about' page, page titles, page headers, copyright notices etc.

It also occurs to me that if I were to link every instance of a particular phrase on my site, it could very easily be mistaken for search engine spamming, no?

[Alan Perkins]

Unless you think that the "mission statement" (if you will,) behind AutoLink is purely:

"I'm not going to change any existing links, only introduce new ones"

AFAICT, based on a few days' use of this toolbar and what Google have said so far, there are two principles:

1) Only introduce new links
2) Only do so in response to a user action

[ttwblb]

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.
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?

I agree with Jill. This is a clear case of Google hijacking web page content. If they really go foward with this I will be outraged. It's taking control of web page content away from the owner/creator as well as breaking web conventions that have existed since the beginning.

[Jill]

If they really go foward with this I will be outraged.

Well, let the outrage begin, because it's live right now as we type.

[ttwblb]

Well, let the outrage begin, because it's live right now as we type.

I just sent Google a very strongly worded email expressing my objections to AutoLink. I used the form found here

If everyone who found AutoLink objectionable would do the same, it could make a difference.

[sweepthelegnate]

If everyone who found AutoLink objectionable would do the same, it could make a difference.

not if it doesn't affect their bottom line...

[Randy]

The only thing that will remotely slow them down as far as I can see is:

1.) Public Scorn.
2.) Getting hit by a lawsuit or 20.

Personally, I wish that Barnes & Noble would send them a bill for the time and expense they had to put into linking all of their ISBNs. It was done solely because of AutoLink potentially sending their clients over to Amazon, so IMO Google should be responsible for those development costs.

B&N only has 10 million or so pages on the barnesandnoble.com site. So a nice simple figure of $1 per page...

Or better yet they can start a Class Action that all webmasters can join in on.

btw, do you all remember when Matt Cutts said that ISBNs should be linked for usability?

If that's really going to be their excuse then Google should have checked out where they were sending that traffic. They should at the very least be held to that Design Standard if Google is going to throw it out there as a reason for everybody who is not included in their little AutoLink party.

Dunno about you, but I can find an awful lot of ISBNs on Amazon.com that are plain text with no link. In fact I couldn't find any ISBNs that were linked on Amazon. Of course I didn't look at all 3.86 million pages that Google reports for Amazon that contain the phrase "ISBN", but I did look at the first 60 or so just for fun.

[qwerty]

Dunno about you, but I can find an awful lot of ISBNs on Amazon.com that are plain text with no link. In fact I couldn't find any ISBNs that were linked on Amazon. Of course I didn't look at all 3.86 million pages that Google reports for Amazon that contain the phrase "ISBN", but I did look at the first 60 or so just for fun.

That may be, but with Google's wonderful little doodad, those pages containing unlinked ISBNs can now become far more usable, most likely by linking to themselves

[leadegroot]

I would be far more impressed if they linked to something like ISBN.nu (not non-profit, as he is apparently making a nice living from it last I heard)
The point being that it offers *choice*)
Nonetheless, I would still think that changing author's pages to the profit of *someone else* without the author's approval is just, well, evil.

[Randy]

Yeah, it's evil Lea. No doubt there. It's also being a very bad 'Netizen.

Legally, I believe it would fall under one of or a combination of Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage, Injury to Business Reputation and Unjust Enrichment.

Or at least that's what my attorney initially tells me would be the three best shots in his first very quick thought about diverting traffic without the webmaster's explicit permission. He's still researching it of course.

[What, ya'll thought I was kidding about the idea that someone should sue them? I'm very, very serious. Even if I end up doing it to protect myself and retire on the settlement.]

[storyspinner]

If everyone who found AutoLink objectionable would do the same, it could make a difference.

I sent one a few weeks back... when the hub bub really started about GTB Autolinks. We're adwords advertisers with Google (and not on the small end of the advertising either) so my director thought it might pull a little weight if our whole division joined in as well.

Problem is right now, Google keeps putting out that line "we're concerned more for the user". Kinda make us "Users" who are ADVERTISERS feel like chopped liver.

I just wish Google would take a look at the fact that us webmasters/seo folks are the users that contribute to their bottom line.