I Say Use The Controversial Google Toolbar

Chris · #1 (**permalink**) 03-11-2005, 12:38 PM

The following was written Mark Fleming.

You can also comment on this post at the Google Tutor & Advisor blog .

The Google Toolbar Beta 3 has been stirring controversy and outright anger by many web site owners and advertisers since it was launched. This newest version of Toolbar introduced a new feature called Autolinks. Essentially, the new Google Toolbar scans each web page for certain information, such as street addresses, the ISBN book numbers, or car VIN numbers. If found, the Toolbar’s AutoLink button changes to read “Look for Map,” or “Show Book Info,” or “Show Auto Info.” Clicking one of these buttons turns these numbers into links that lead to sites programmed into the Toolbar, by default to Google’s own new map feature. In the case of book numbers, the links lead to Amazon.com. For car numbers, the links lead to Carfax, a company that sells reports detailing a car’s history.

What angers web site owners and advertisers about this is that these links can lead users away from their own site or advertisers. For example, Barnesandnoble.com is a Google advertiser, but in order to keep customers from being sent to competitor Amazon.com, they recently they had to add millions of links to every published ISBN number listed on its site.

Years ago, Microsoft was forced to pull a similar feature of theirs called Smart Tags after pundits like Wall Street Journal’s Walt Mossberg created a firestorm of controversy. Well, today Mossberg weighed in on the Toolbar situation, bringing it to the forefront of national attention. He does believes it is a user convenience, but doesn’t like the idea of a browser creating and directing links. He said he’s spoken with Google officials and they are open to making some modifications.

My thought on Toolbar Beta 3 and Autolinks come from a user perspective. I say use it! Downloading and installing Google Toolbar takes literally minutes.It will give you a pop up blocker, spell check, word translator, autofill, highlighter, word find button, Google search field and more.

Look, the Google Toolbar is an optional download. Then, clicking on Autolinks is an optional step. On top of that, you can go into Options and change where the Autolinks point to. At this point, I don’t believe Google is overreaching. If they become more heavy-handed in their “suggestions,” I could have a problem with it.

Now when Google comes out with a much-rumored Gbrowser and it becomes the world standard we’ll have to revisit how they are using their powerful hold of the user.

Note: All of this assumes you are still on the old-school Microsoft Internet Explorer, which is the only browser on which the Google Toolbar works. Come on, get with it and starting using the much better Firefox browser!

You can also comment on this post at the Google Tutor & Advisor blog .

newsblaze · #2 (**permalink**) 03-11-2005, 05:41 PM

There is another name for AutoLinks.
It is Adware.

I like Google, but they shouldn't be messing around with a site's web pages.

Some adware subverts google searches and the "Search Assistant" takes over and gives you their results, pretending to be Google.

Autolink is no different.

My website has information on it for my visitors. I don't want google or anyone else sending them to another site.

This means I have to go find all the ISBNs on my site and either remove them, hide them or link them.

Google has conveniently forgotten its own words.

"Do no evil".

The Google logo already has one horn on the "g". It just needs another to balance it and they should be painted red.

Maybe they are doing it to help destroy IE's lead and prepare for the introduction of their own browser.

What if Microsoft came out with a patch that disabled the google and yahoo and alexa toolbars and installed its own? (aren't they supposed to be the evil empire)

What if the Firefox browser team thinks this is a great idea and instead of taking you to where you want to go, they redirect you to sites they partner with?

You know that if Google does this and there are no complaints, that the copycats will start doing the same and worse - and the gbrowser will do it too.

This is the thin end of the wedge and it has to be stopped before it mutates into something worse.

"Do as much evil as possible".

Alan Gray.
http://newsblaze.com

Maloney · #3 (**permalink**) 03-11-2005, 06:34 PM

I think because it's "Google" people are more open to the idea.

If it was me and my toolbar (imaginary btw) that autolinked a bunch of trigger words all over everyone's webpages, leading visitors to my chosen "features" (affiliate sites, websites, etc.), many of the same proponents would scream blue murder.

Everyone needs to remember that once Google starts this, there's no turning back. That door will never be closed. We'll have autolink toolbars coming out of the woodwork and no control over where those toolbars direct our visitors to.

I also think *some* of the vocal advocates encourage use of this toolbar for Google because it does open the door wide open for them to either launch or legitimize their own adware toolbars.

What we really need is legislation that protects the work and property of webmasters. We wouldn't even be debating the value of this current adware if we had laws in place.

If anything good is coming from this latest Google scandal, IMO it's that people are opening their eyes to the real danger adware presents to all webmasters.

I don't think there was enough of a 'threat' in many peoples minds, and now that threat is looming large with Google and its large user base.

rivux · #4 (**permalink**) 03-11-2005, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maloney

I think because it's "Google" people are more open to the idea.

If it was me and my toolbar (imaginary btw) that autolinked a bunch of trigger words all over everyone's webpages, leading visitors to my chosen "features" (affiliate sites, websites, etc.), many of the same proponents would scream blue murder.

The google AutoLink feature doesn't do anything AUTOMATICALLY. It is only done when a user moves their mouse up to the toolbar and clicks the button. So go ahead and create toolbar with an option that is user initiated and its fine. Its baffling how many people just don't get it, the user has to activate the feature every single time they want to use it.

steve0 · #5 (**permalink**) 03-11-2005, 07:17 PM

If I operated a store.. I would prefer not to have a personal shopper accompanying every potential customer whispering in their ear recommending products from other competing stores..

One option might be to post a 'no soliciting' sign... and with the Google toolbar I may implement the java script written by the powers over at searchguild.com

http://www.searchguild.com/autoblink/

Complete with amazon affiliate ID substitution.

:)
-steve

steve0 · #6 (**permalink**) 03-11-2005, 07:17 PM

If I operated a store.. I would prefer not to have a personal shopper accompanying every potential customer whispering in their ear recommending products from other competing stores..

One option might be to post a 'no soliciting' sign... and with the Google toolbar I may implement the java script written by the powers over at searchguild.com

http://www.searchguild.com/autoblink/

Complete with amazon affiliate ID substitution.

:)
-steve

concreteweb · #7 (**permalink**) 03-11-2005, 08:05 PM

Holy smokes. Let's show just a little bit of objectivity.

1. The email article has a huge Google ad on it predominantly displayed in the top left corner. There are several other links to Google - just in the email.

2. Mark owns the "Google Tudor & Advisor" blog. Yup, quite impartial there.

3. Mark has probably never run a real business that doesn't depend on google for sustenance. I'll leave it at that.

This pursuit of Google's cute technology is nothing more than the Wal-Mart'ization of the web. Wait another year or so and watch the continuing destruction of the ability for the small business to make it online. My customers are battling click fraud currently. Now they have to worry about Google providing their customers with another tool that distracts, delays, and diverts.

Way to go Google! I'm selling short.

Jayms · #8 (**permalink**) 03-11-2005, 08:10 PM

Quote:

The google AutoLink feature doesn't do anything AUTOMATICALLY. It is only done when a user moves their mouse up to the toolbar and clicks the button. So go ahead and create toolbar with an option that is user initiated and its fine. Its baffling how many people just don't get it, the user has to activate the feature every single time they want to use it.

Yes, but I think the issue that many have is if this is allowed, where is it going to end? Who's to stop Joe Shmoe from having a popup on their site that the user accidentally clicks YES to and it installs a toolbar that negates the Google toolbar and forwards all of the links to yet another competitor? Or better yet a browser that does it (which Google will do I believe). Who would scream bloody murder then? There would be no end in site to what people would do to the browsing experience, and when everyone NEEDS (not wants, but NEEDS as in a necessity) a browser to surf online, it becomes sketchy insofar as monopolizing a market when you are a company this huge with this much reach.

Maloney · #9 (**permalink**) 03-11-2005, 08:15 PM

Quote:

The google AutoLink feature doesn't do anything AUTOMATICALLY. It is only done when a user moves their mouse up to the toolbar and clicks the button. So go ahead and create toolbar with an option that is user initiated and its fine. Its baffling how many people just don't get it, the user has to activate the feature every single time they want to use it.

rivux I do understand how it works. And I do understand user action is involved.

What I find *baffling* is the webmasters THAT DO understand how this works and are waving pom poms in the air. But we see things differently, we disagree and that's life.

If anyone's against this Google move and you haven't signed the petition yet, here it is:

http://www.petitiononline.com/autolink/petition.html

Quote:

We, the people who care about the future of the Web, ask Google to provide publishers with an opt-out to their new Toolbar Autolink feature. We feel that publishers should have the ultimate control of any links that are placed in their content. If Google fails to step up to the plate it will set a poor precedent that others will follow and perhaps with less ethics.

Also things have been/are being developed for webmasters to keep their pages safe from the toolbar madness, the links are here on the forum somewhere. If Google still forges ahead with this, we can take care of that lil problem.

rivux · #10 (**permalink**) 03-11-2005, 08:16 PM

Seems like everyones arguement in this thread isn't about the actual toolbar but what it might lead to. Which is the proverbial slippery slope, and for the educated people in the crowd, they know that the slippery slope doesn't actually exist.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html

So basing arguements on something that is logically invalid, isn't exactly the way to prove a point.

Jayms · #11 (**permalink**) 03-11-2005, 08:18 PM

I haven't heard anyone mention anything about a slippery slope but you.

rivux · #12 (**permalink**) 03-11-2005, 08:21 PM

Actually its been mentioned in several posts talking about Autolink. As well when you make an arguement that by letting Event A happen its only natural that Events B, C, D and E will happen which will result in Event Z then you are referring to the slippery slope.

To quote you Jayms

Quote:

Yes, but I think the issue that many have is if this is allowed, where is it going to end? Who's to stop Joe Shmoe from having a popup on their site that the user accidentally clicks YES to and it installs a toolbar that negates the Google toolbar and forwards all of the links to yet another competitor? Or better yet a browser that does it (which Google will do I believe). Who would scream bloody murder then? There would be no end in site to what people would do to the browsing experience, and when everyone NEEDS (not wants, but NEEDS as in a necessity) a browser to surf online, it becomes sketchy insofar as monopolizing a market when you are a company this huge with this much reach.

That is the exact definition of a slippery slope argument.

Jayms · #13 (**permalink**) 03-11-2005, 08:27 PM

If you want to call it a slippery slope, then more power to you. But checks and balances have had to be created throughout history - hedge your bets, protect yourself from yourself, take heed, yada yada yada. Christ, even no limit holdem has a slippery slope called Big Slick. It's a phrase that if it had no merit would not be used today. Oh, and by the way, I wouldn't learn my lifes lessons from a site called http://www.fallacyfiles.org, or are you believer of urban legends too? Oh, and lastly, I believe that this "slippery slope" had a hand in Microsoft losing.

Maloney · #14 (**permalink**) 03-11-2005, 08:37 PM

Oops forgot to say that the petition currently has:

378 Total Signatures

And you can watch a video about this here:

http://www.betterbadnews.com/

Quote:

In this 12 minute Video Blogmash the Better Bad News panel re-mixes commentary and analysis of a pending threat to online free speech drawn from several sources

concreteweb · #15 (**permalink**) 03-11-2005, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivux

Seems like everyones argument in this thread isn't about the actual toolbar but what it might lead to. Which is the proverbial slippery slope, and for the educated people in the crowd, they know that the slippery slope doesn't actually exist.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html

So basing arguements on something that is logically invalid, isn't exactly the way to prove a point.

For educated people in the crowd? You're kidding, right? There's no slippery slope as proclaimed by who? You?

Your claim is ridiculous. It's obvious your definition of educated people don't understand marketing, business, and the power of consumer habits.

rivux · #16 (**permalink**) 03-11-2005, 08:39 PM

If you don't like that site then how about

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...ery-slope.html
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallac...ippery%20slope
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

I just picked the first one I saw that had a decent explanation. Blame google for listing them first :)

My issue with this arguement is that Events A, B and C are almost always events that the user wasn't aware of, and is some form of trickery. Googles AutoLink (which Ive said before should have been called something different like QuickLink) goes out of its way to let you know what its doing. Nothing is sneaky, nothing is done behind anyones back, which is more then what can be said for everyone examples of what this will lead to.

The only logical thing it will lead to is other companies making toolbars or features in toolbars that when initiated by a user will add links to content that already doesn't have a link.

rivux · #17 (**permalink**) 03-11-2005, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by concreteweb

For educated people in the crowd? You're kidding, right? There's no slippery slope as proclaimed by who? You?

Your claim is ridiculous. It's obvious your definition of educated people don't understand marketing, business, and the power of consumer habits.

So much blathering so little logic and concrete facts. Nice post though, glad you could add to the conversation.

Jayms · #18 (**permalink**) 03-11-2005, 08:50 PM

Thank you for posting your links because the first line reads:

Quote:

A slippery slope argument is not always a fallacy.

And then goes on to say:

Quote:

A slippery slope fallacy is an argument that says adopting one policy or taking one action will lead to a series of other policies or actions also being taken, without showing a causal connection between the advocated policy and the consequent policies.

We are not saying WILL LEAD but MAY LEAD.

And finally,

Quote:

There are a variety of ways to turn a slippery slope fallacy into a valid (or at least plausible) argument. All you need to do is provide some reason why the adoption of one policy will lead to the adoption of another.

We've posted the reasons. Prove them otherwise and I may give you some merit, but for now, you've said nothing but quoted what you've found on, ironically enough...GOOGLE.

P.S. By the way, I don't see any problems with the google beta toolbar as it is now, I'm just in a Friday argumentative mood...

Maloney · #19 (**permalink**) 03-11-2005, 08:56 PM

Google Toolbar Inserts Links in Others' Sites, And That's a Bad Idea

By WALTER S. MOSSBERG

http://ptech.wsj.com/ptech.html

Looks like Walter S. Mossberg needs to be educated on the fallacy of slippery slopes too!

Quote:

The Google feature is more benign than Microsoft's for several reasons. Still, the way it is being implemented is a bad idea. If it takes hold, it would start the Web down a slippery slope where no owner of a Web site could ever be sure that readers had a chance to view its pages in the way they were composed.

I really agreed with his last paragraph here:

Quote:

I take a back seat to nobody in favoring user convenience, but, as with most things in life, every principle must be balanced against others. In this case, that balancing principle is the right of Web publishers to control the content and appearance of their own sites. Users wouldn't benefit if the Web became a sea of uncertainty, where anybody could alter every Web page.

Question is: Who's going to go educate Walter S. Mossberg? You'll find him on Wall Street.

rivux · #20 (**permalink**) 03-11-2005, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayms

Quote:

There are a variety of ways to turn a slippery slope fallacy into a valid (or at least plausible) argument. All you need to do is provide some reason why the adoption of one policy will lead to the adoption of another.

We've posted the reasons. Prove them otherwise and I may give you some merit, but for now, you've said nothing but quoted what you've found on, ironically enough...GOOGLE.

Actually you haven't posted any reasons, and neither has anyone else. Atleast none in this thread or any Ive read on wpw. You have stated what Events B, C and D would be, but you have never given an explanation on how they would come about.

So far the arguements have been that by allowing Google to include a function that is user initiated and adds links. It will lead to features in toolbars that are not user initiated and will add links. But no one has given an explanation on why the former leads to the latter. I can't think of a single logical explanation on how one leads to the other especially since we already have forms of the latter which we call adware. People don't tolerate it now, so how are we to believe it will be tolerated if google or any other company does it?

For the guy who said "It's obvious your definition of educated people don't understand marketing, business, and the power of consumer habits", your comment makes so little sense that I feel kind of bad for being as harsh on you as I was. I apologize for what I said, I should have been condescending in a much nicer way.

rivux · #21 (**permalink**) 03-11-2005, 09:05 PM

Just wanted to give a heads up that Im heading out for the weekend but will be sure to reply when I get back. Don't want anyone to think Im ducking a post by not replying right away.

Everyone have a good weekend.

Jayms · #22 (**permalink**) 03-11-2005, 09:07 PM

Quote:

You have stated what Events B, C and D would be, but you have never given an explanation on how they would come about.

You're right, I said would at one point, and I meant could, I wasn't thinking. But I hardly stated a case that it would DEFINITELY BE. Otherwise I would have taken a stance myself. Since you are so keen on semantics, I opened my conversion with, "Yes, but I think the issue that many have is if this is allowed, where is it going to end?", and I hardly took a stance.

Jayms · #23 (**permalink**) 03-11-2005, 09:08 PM

By rivux, have a good one, I guess I'll stop posting too...

concreteweb · #24 (**permalink**) 03-11-2005, 09:34 PM

[quote="rivux"][quote="Jayms"]

Quote:

For the guy who said "It's obvious your definition of educated people don't understand marketing, business, and the power of consumer habits", your comment makes so little sense that I feel kind of bad for being as harsh on you as I was. I apologize for what I said, I should have been condescending in a much nicer way.

No problem about being condescending. I make my living running Internet and Telecom businesses. My track record regarding Internet trends and consumer habits have been right on the money since 1992.

Cause and effect in the business world has never been about debating semantics or demanding proof about a particular trend. Oops. There I go again. Talking in a macro kind of way - obviously not making any sense to you. I guess that's why you are an employee and not the boss.

machete · #25 (**permalink**) 03-12-2005, 02:08 AM

I find it rather embarrassing when I see an adult and alleged professional approach an audience with such a naive sales pitch, because this is what this post is all about. That the author is on Google’s payroll …well, you bet.

What Google is doing has nothing to do with consumer habits or interests. It’s plain and simply a sneaky, yes sneaky, way to redirect traffic from other people’s sites to their own advertisers and/or services. Has anyone here stopped to think about the tremendous revenues for Google if this autolink adware becomes widespread and is finally accepted?

jstarkweather · #26 (**permalink**) 03-14-2005, 12:24 PM

As usual a writer contributing to WPW has little or no idea how sites really work. I am not sure whether Mark just picked this up from another WPW article on the AutoLinks functionality but to say...

Quote:

For example, Barnesandnoble.com is a Google advertiser, but in order to keep customers from being sent to competitor Amazon.com, they recently they had to add millions of links to every published ISBN number listed on its site.

...is rather silly. A developer spent literally 15 minutes fixing this issue. The pages are DYNAMIC. That means you change one master file and they ALL are changed. Doh!

Jim

urknighterrent · #27 (**permalink**) 03-14-2005, 01:09 PM

Yup. That's why I spend long hours writing copy. So someone can come along and sell ad space in my copy on my site.

rivux · #28 (**permalink**) 03-16-2005, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by concreteweb

No problem about being condescending. I make my living running Internet and Telecom businesses. My track record regarding Internet trends and consumer habits have been right on the money since 1992.

Cause and effect in the business world has never been about debating semantics or demanding proof about a particular trend. Oops. There I go again. Talking in a macro kind of way - obviously not making any sense to you. I guess that's why you are an employee and not the boss.

Oh aren't you just a witty guy. Are you a Republican? You argue like one, even including a bunch of nonsense and incorrect statements hoping to persuade people by just talking a lot. Just wondering.

rivux · #29 (**permalink**) 03-16-2005, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayms

By rivux, have a good one, I guess I'll stop posting too...

If you find your way back to this thread I wouldn't mind continuing with the discussion. Though we may have to start over cuz Im not even sure what side we were arguing on :)

newsblaze · #30 (**permalink**) 04-17-2005, 02:59 AM

I'm not sure where this thread is going but it seems to be off-track.

What might happen in the future is interesting, but the thread started in the present.

The fact is that this toolbar is messing around with my pages and I don't want anyone to do that. Thats why the adware companies got shut down. Thats why Microsoft was stopped from doing the same thing.

How can I stop such a toolbar messing with my pages?
Easy you say, just link every word or phrase on every page - and make my site a complete mess. Thats not a solution but it may be the only way to stop it happening. (Until they decide to provide "improved links" that replace mine)

A browser should render pages as close as possible to the way they are defined by their creator.
People can decide to turn off images, popups and styles, but don't mess around with my pages by adding links.

I generate content for my visitors and I have links to other interesting things on my site and on partner sites. Toolbars and browsers shouldn't subvert my content and send my visitors elsewhere.

Let my visitors tell me I didn't satisfy their needs, so I can work harder to satisfy them. Don't use my text to take them somewhere else.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode