Google's toolbar sparks concern
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4287539.stm[^] 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". I can't tell if they are basically doing Smart Tags or adding a one-click "I'm feeling lucky" feature to their toolbar - the article kind of hints at both and then excludes them both. :confused: MSN Smart Tags were added and then promptly removed from IE not because they were considered anti-competitive (for a change) but because they modified the web page when it was displayed adding links and implying affiliation without the publishers permission. To many people having a link in a page on a major site would suggest it is endorsed by the site (that's the whole idea of media brands in the first place, and the reason they rake in such big money). All sorts of fun legal battles were being thought up for illegally using IP and breaking copyright laws, etc. This Google attempt seems the same? Grey area. Seeing as Google is a popular company that can't seem to do any wrong in some people's eyes, let's just step back to when CodeProject first introduced Google AdSense ads in the articles here and groups of authors were kicking up a huge fuss over their articles being used to sell other peoples products. From my point of view as a web users it is a great idea because it saves me typing related keywords into the Google Deskbar or navigating to Google.com, although I've never found the "I'm feeling lucky" feature at all useful, but from a publishers point of view it seems to be abusing my own brand value. As mentioned in the news article, if they want to make it optional so publishers can subscribe to it or tie it in with their AdSense ads then great. Am I reading this wrong? Is this an entirely different feature altogether?
Ðavid Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4287539.stm[^] 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". I can't tell if they are basically doing Smart Tags or adding a one-click "I'm feeling lucky" feature to their toolbar - the article kind of hints at both and then excludes them both. :confused: MSN Smart Tags were added and then promptly removed from IE not because they were considered anti-competitive (for a change) but because they modified the web page when it was displayed adding links and implying affiliation without the publishers permission. To many people having a link in a page on a major site would suggest it is endorsed by the site (that's the whole idea of media brands in the first place, and the reason they rake in such big money). All sorts of fun legal battles were being thought up for illegally using IP and breaking copyright laws, etc. This Google attempt seems the same? Grey area. Seeing as Google is a popular company that can't seem to do any wrong in some people's eyes, let's just step back to when CodeProject first introduced Google AdSense ads in the articles here and groups of authors were kicking up a huge fuss over their articles being used to sell other peoples products. From my point of view as a web users it is a great idea because it saves me typing related keywords into the Google Deskbar or navigating to Google.com, although I've never found the "I'm feeling lucky" feature at all useful, but from a publishers point of view it seems to be abusing my own brand value. As mentioned in the news article, if they want to make it optional so publishers can subscribe to it or tie it in with their AdSense ads then great. Am I reading this wrong? Is this an entirely different feature altogether?
Ðavid Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
I actually wouldn't mind if, and only IF, I could set up what types of links I would get. For instance, I buy most of my software development books from http://www.compman.co.uk/[^] and I wouldn't mind if they linked there when it saw an ISBN. Also if it did link to Amazon.com I'd start to get really irritated because if I did try and buy anything then they'd redirect me to Amazon.co.uk and I'd have to start the process over again.
Do you want to know more? WDevs.com - Open Source Code Hosting, Blogs, FTP, Mail and Forums
-
I actually wouldn't mind if, and only IF, I could set up what types of links I would get. For instance, I buy most of my software development books from http://www.compman.co.uk/[^] and I wouldn't mind if they linked there when it saw an ISBN. Also if it did link to Amazon.com I'd start to get really irritated because if I did try and buy anything then they'd redirect me to Amazon.co.uk and I'd have to start the process over again.
Do you want to know more? WDevs.com - Open Source Code Hosting, Blogs, FTP, Mail and Forums
Colin Angus Mackay wrote: http://www.compman.co.uk Cool link, thanks. :cool: Colin Angus Mackay wrote: try and buy anything then they'd redirect me to Amazon.co.uk and I'd have to start the process over again That is very annoying. I just note down the ASIN and try searching for it on .co.uk if I find something on the .com site. Having said that though I rarely buy from Amazon anymore - they are far from the cheapest and everyone else can deliver within 24 hours if you order before 2pm the day before but Amazon consistently takes three days or more. I use Amazon mainly for product reviews then buy elsewhere. :-O
Ðavid Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Audioscrobbler :: flikrEverybody is entitled to my opinion
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4287539.stm[^] 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". I can't tell if they are basically doing Smart Tags or adding a one-click "I'm feeling lucky" feature to their toolbar - the article kind of hints at both and then excludes them both. :confused: MSN Smart Tags were added and then promptly removed from IE not because they were considered anti-competitive (for a change) but because they modified the web page when it was displayed adding links and implying affiliation without the publishers permission. To many people having a link in a page on a major site would suggest it is endorsed by the site (that's the whole idea of media brands in the first place, and the reason they rake in such big money). All sorts of fun legal battles were being thought up for illegally using IP and breaking copyright laws, etc. This Google attempt seems the same? Grey area. Seeing as Google is a popular company that can't seem to do any wrong in some people's eyes, let's just step back to when CodeProject first introduced Google AdSense ads in the articles here and groups of authors were kicking up a huge fuss over their articles being used to sell other peoples products. From my point of view as a web users it is a great idea because it saves me typing related keywords into the Google Deskbar or navigating to Google.com, although I've never found the "I'm feeling lucky" feature at all useful, but from a publishers point of view it seems to be abusing my own brand value. As mentioned in the news article, if they want to make it optional so publishers can subscribe to it or tie it in with their AdSense ads then great. Am I reading this wrong? Is this an entirely different feature altogether?
Ðavid Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
David Wulff wrote: because they modified the web page This always bothered me. What is this concept? Does this means that I need to show a page according to what specifications? Where is the limit? Does this means that I can't create a text mode browser, like Lynx? A browser that works on cell phones? A voice browser? Why can't I add elements to something I show on the screen? I see dead pixels Yes, even I am blogging now!
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote: http://www.compman.co.uk Cool link, thanks. :cool: Colin Angus Mackay wrote: try and buy anything then they'd redirect me to Amazon.co.uk and I'd have to start the process over again That is very annoying. I just note down the ASIN and try searching for it on .co.uk if I find something on the .com site. Having said that though I rarely buy from Amazon anymore - they are far from the cheapest and everyone else can deliver within 24 hours if you order before 2pm the day before but Amazon consistently takes three days or more. I use Amazon mainly for product reviews then buy elsewhere. :-O
Ðavid Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Audioscrobbler :: flikrEverybody is entitled to my opinion
"SmartTags" are indeed a cool technology, and indeed have their place in the IT world. But I will say I kind of agree that even if it is the end users option, I will still be a upset if my companies website had SmartTags to my direct competitors website – just because they have ad-words with Google. NOW I know this is not what it does now, but I have a strange feeling that it will somehow find its way to this scenario. But who-knows, I am not Google. My only point is SmartTag like technologies have to be careful, because situations like the one above can get really sticky really quick. ------ I am the sole owner of all comments/statements made by myself, and they do not represent those of my company in any way. Furthermore, it’s a shame it has come to the point where we have to make statements like this. Cheers! ====================== Matthew R. Miller www.computersmarts.net[^]
-
David Wulff wrote: because they modified the web page This always bothered me. What is this concept? Does this means that I need to show a page according to what specifications? Where is the limit? Does this means that I can't create a text mode browser, like Lynx? A browser that works on cell phones? A voice browser? Why can't I add elements to something I show on the screen? I see dead pixels Yes, even I am blogging now!
Daniel Turini wrote: Why can't I add elements to something I show on the screen? You can, but adding content is entirely different to just displaying it in a different form. You can't go changing the actual copy of the page - modifying the copyrighted material without permission.
Ðavid Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Audioscrobbler :: flikrEverybody is entitled to my opinion
-
Daniel Turini wrote: Why can't I add elements to something I show on the screen? You can, but adding content is entirely different to just displaying it in a different form. You can't go changing the actual copy of the page - modifying the copyrighted material without permission.
Ðavid Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Audioscrobbler :: flikrEverybody is entitled to my opinion
David Wulff wrote: You can't go changing the actual copy of the page There's no such a thing as "the page" - it's only HTML. And I'm adding things to the page as well - a scrollbar, my own logo, the back and forward logo, toolbars. Why can I show bookmarks and links (some of them come as default with the browser) and can't I show links in other areas of the browser? If I put those links on the toolbars, is it alright? I see dead pixels Yes, even I am blogging now!
-
David Wulff wrote: You can't go changing the actual copy of the page There's no such a thing as "the page" - it's only HTML. And I'm adding things to the page as well - a scrollbar, my own logo, the back and forward logo, toolbars. Why can I show bookmarks and links (some of them come as default with the browser) and can't I show links in other areas of the browser? If I put those links on the toolbars, is it alright? I see dead pixels Yes, even I am blogging now!
Daniel Turini wrote: There's no such a thing as "the page" - it's only HTML. HTML is a markup language, you can process that and do with it what you like. The written copy (and any graphics, etc) contained in that markup is copyrighted material, potentially containing trademarks and other sensitive material, and there are rules governing what you can and can't do with that just as there are with printed copy.
Ðavid Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Audioscrobbler :: flikrEverybody is entitled to my opinion
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4287539.stm[^] 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". I can't tell if they are basically doing Smart Tags or adding a one-click "I'm feeling lucky" feature to their toolbar - the article kind of hints at both and then excludes them both. :confused: MSN Smart Tags were added and then promptly removed from IE not because they were considered anti-competitive (for a change) but because they modified the web page when it was displayed adding links and implying affiliation without the publishers permission. To many people having a link in a page on a major site would suggest it is endorsed by the site (that's the whole idea of media brands in the first place, and the reason they rake in such big money). All sorts of fun legal battles were being thought up for illegally using IP and breaking copyright laws, etc. This Google attempt seems the same? Grey area. Seeing as Google is a popular company that can't seem to do any wrong in some people's eyes, let's just step back to when CodeProject first introduced Google AdSense ads in the articles here and groups of authors were kicking up a huge fuss over their articles being used to sell other peoples products. From my point of view as a web users it is a great idea because it saves me typing related keywords into the Google Deskbar or navigating to Google.com, although I've never found the "I'm feeling lucky" feature at all useful, but from a publishers point of view it seems to be abusing my own brand value. As mentioned in the news article, if they want to make it optional so publishers can subscribe to it or tie it in with their AdSense ads then great. Am I reading this wrong? Is this an entirely different feature altogether?
Ðavid Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
IMHO, this is a tempest in a tea kettle. My big beef with SmartTags in IE was that they were initially supposed to be on by default, and worse yet, it was an all-or-nothing option. Google seems to be avoiding both of these: you need to hit a button to trigger the modification of a page, and that button is right there on the toolbar where it's handy should you want it. This may be similarly useful to the Linkification extension i use in FireFox - i see a page with a non-clickable URL, hit the "Linkify" option on my context menu, and (boom!) a nice clickable link. With the Google toolbar, i could also get instant links to maps from addresses, or the UPS tracking page from a tracking number in an email. Best of all, if i have no desire for this feature, i can hide the button. Heck, i don't even have to install the toolbar if i don't want it! :) [Edit: and i truly hope that Google doesn't make this an ad-sense tie-in, or add gobs of features to allow page designers to modify this behavior. A few simple rules (don't auto-link this, etc.) are fine, but let's keep it a simple tool rather than yet another platform to write to. This is one of the big problems i've had with some of Microsoft's nicer tech - instead of advertising and demonstrating what it does best, they'll add in gobs of sketchy features and hooks, then advertise that Yes! it does This + It Makes Tasty Waffles While You Sleep!*. Sometimes i like to know what to actually expect from my tools without resorting to trial and error. *.Net has to be the biggest example of this... how sad is it, when your marketing dept. has no clue what your product is actually useful for, and compensates by saying it is useful for everything? :~ ]
Shog9
I'm not the Jack of Diamonds... I'm not the six of spades. I don't know what you thought; I'm not your astronaut...
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4287539.stm[^] 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". I can't tell if they are basically doing Smart Tags or adding a one-click "I'm feeling lucky" feature to their toolbar - the article kind of hints at both and then excludes them both. :confused: MSN Smart Tags were added and then promptly removed from IE not because they were considered anti-competitive (for a change) but because they modified the web page when it was displayed adding links and implying affiliation without the publishers permission. To many people having a link in a page on a major site would suggest it is endorsed by the site (that's the whole idea of media brands in the first place, and the reason they rake in such big money). All sorts of fun legal battles were being thought up for illegally using IP and breaking copyright laws, etc. This Google attempt seems the same? Grey area. Seeing as Google is a popular company that can't seem to do any wrong in some people's eyes, let's just step back to when CodeProject first introduced Google AdSense ads in the articles here and groups of authors were kicking up a huge fuss over their articles being used to sell other peoples products. From my point of view as a web users it is a great idea because it saves me typing related keywords into the Google Deskbar or navigating to Google.com, although I've never found the "I'm feeling lucky" feature at all useful, but from a publishers point of view it seems to be abusing my own brand value. As mentioned in the news article, if they want to make it optional so publishers can subscribe to it or tie it in with their AdSense ads then great. Am I reading this wrong? Is this an entirely different feature altogether?
Ðavid Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
-
I actually wouldn't mind if, and only IF, I could set up what types of links I would get. For instance, I buy most of my software development books from http://www.compman.co.uk/[^] and I wouldn't mind if they linked there when it saw an ISBN. Also if it did link to Amazon.com I'd start to get really irritated because if I did try and buy anything then they'd redirect me to Amazon.co.uk and I'd have to start the process over again.
Do you want to know more? WDevs.com - Open Source Code Hosting, Blogs, FTP, Mail and Forums
Not only would I want control on the where I get linked to, but also on the what I get linked to. Just cause I'm browsing a page that lists an ISBN doesn't arbitrarily mean I'll want to purchase the book. Myabe if it's a software book, but if it's a recipe book or a "How to grow new flowers", I don't think so. I also think the producer of the page I'm viewing should be in agreement with having the page displayed with modified links. Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] Gently arching his fishing rod back he moves the tip forward in a gentle arch releasing the line.... kersplunk [Doug Goulden] Nice sig! [Tim Deveaux on Matt Newman's sig with a quote from me]
-
IMHO, this is a tempest in a tea kettle. My big beef with SmartTags in IE was that they were initially supposed to be on by default, and worse yet, it was an all-or-nothing option. Google seems to be avoiding both of these: you need to hit a button to trigger the modification of a page, and that button is right there on the toolbar where it's handy should you want it. This may be similarly useful to the Linkification extension i use in FireFox - i see a page with a non-clickable URL, hit the "Linkify" option on my context menu, and (boom!) a nice clickable link. With the Google toolbar, i could also get instant links to maps from addresses, or the UPS tracking page from a tracking number in an email. Best of all, if i have no desire for this feature, i can hide the button. Heck, i don't even have to install the toolbar if i don't want it! :) [Edit: and i truly hope that Google doesn't make this an ad-sense tie-in, or add gobs of features to allow page designers to modify this behavior. A few simple rules (don't auto-link this, etc.) are fine, but let's keep it a simple tool rather than yet another platform to write to. This is one of the big problems i've had with some of Microsoft's nicer tech - instead of advertising and demonstrating what it does best, they'll add in gobs of sketchy features and hooks, then advertise that Yes! it does This + It Makes Tasty Waffles While You Sleep!*. Sometimes i like to know what to actually expect from my tools without resorting to trial and error. *.Net has to be the biggest example of this... how sad is it, when your marketing dept. has no clue what your product is actually useful for, and compensates by saying it is useful for everything? :~ ]
Shog9
I'm not the Jack of Diamonds... I'm not the six of spades. I don't know what you thought; I'm not your astronaut...
What's so bad about making tasty waffles while you sleep? :cool:
Pandoras Gift #44: Hope. The one that keeps you on suffering.
boost your code || Fold With Us! || sighist | doxygen -
What's so bad about making tasty waffles while you sleep? :cool:
Pandoras Gift #44: Hope. The one that keeps you on suffering.
boost your code || Fold With Us! || sighist | doxygen'cause they're cold by the time i get up! Any quality webbrowser would cook them up while i was in the shower, and have them waiting by my coffee by the time i stepped out. ;)
Shog9
I'm not the Jack of Diamonds... I'm not the six of spades. I don't know what you thought; I'm not your astronaut...
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4287539.stm[^] 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". I can't tell if they are basically doing Smart Tags or adding a one-click "I'm feeling lucky" feature to their toolbar - the article kind of hints at both and then excludes them both. :confused: MSN Smart Tags were added and then promptly removed from IE not because they were considered anti-competitive (for a change) but because they modified the web page when it was displayed adding links and implying affiliation without the publishers permission. To many people having a link in a page on a major site would suggest it is endorsed by the site (that's the whole idea of media brands in the first place, and the reason they rake in such big money). All sorts of fun legal battles were being thought up for illegally using IP and breaking copyright laws, etc. This Google attempt seems the same? Grey area. Seeing as Google is a popular company that can't seem to do any wrong in some people's eyes, let's just step back to when CodeProject first introduced Google AdSense ads in the articles here and groups of authors were kicking up a huge fuss over their articles being used to sell other peoples products. From my point of view as a web users it is a great idea because it saves me typing related keywords into the Google Deskbar or navigating to Google.com, although I've never found the "I'm feeling lucky" feature at all useful, but from a publishers point of view it seems to be abusing my own brand value. As mentioned in the news article, if they want to make it optional so publishers can subscribe to it or tie it in with their AdSense ads then great. Am I reading this wrong? Is this an entirely different feature altogether?
Ðavid Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
I have a problem with these tags as well as anything that modifies in any way the content of a site. By using agreed upon standards, a developer / content provider should have an assumption that their content will be rendered in a specific way and not have their content modified. This goes for things such as the new Google bar or the tons of ad blocking software where the content of the site is being modified, added to or blocked. I am not saying that these types of programs should be banned, but there should be a responsibilty on the tool maker to insure that when a person is using any form of modified browser or browsing device, that a user agent string specifies the modification. Having this notice would allow web site content providers to block all access to those that choose to use specific tools. That is how I see the problem. Publishers should have a right to protect their content and only provide it to those using tools they approve. At this time there is no such information and publishers have no method to determine if these tools are in place. This is not fair to the publishers! If you run a site that depends on advertising for its revenue, you should have the right to block access to those that have the advertisments blocked. Likewise, you should be able to block those that use tools which modify your content adding links to other sites or providing their own advertisements on your content. Rocky <>< Photo Diet?[^]