Google Considers Changes To AutoLink

[Chris]

The following article was written by Steve Rubel

Walt Mossberg weighs in on Google Autolink in tomorrow's paper. Basically his stance is consistent with what he wrote in 2001 on Smart Tags. The big news, however, is that Google sounds like it might be listening, yet they are leaving their options open. Here are excerpts...

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.

~~ Snip ~~

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.

I've had long conversations about this with senior Google officials, and they say they are actively considering changing the way the AutoLink feature works so it might not actually alter the Web pages themselves. They note that the feature is a work in progress. But the Google officials also insist their first principle is user convenience.

~~ Snip ~~

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.

This is all consistent with what I have been saying since the feature debuted.

[Peter (IMC)]

I´m happy to see Google is considering changes. They claim that the user is most important, but if the user isn't sure any more what is website and what is google, then it becomes confusing which is exactly what Google would to prevent I think.

These types of advertising, in my opinion, are also a step back in time. It feels like the type of advertising where the user, is forced to pay attention to ads. What Google does is probably of a high level from a technological point of view, but the result is something that already exists for a long time, and that may have the opposite effect.

But I am sure that Google can come up with a way to improve the autolinks. It seems that there is so much revolt against it that it wouldn't make sense anymore to use it anyway. Already their autolink feature can be blocked. Perhaps adding it to adsense is the way to go,.. then webmasters agree with it.

[sandis.viksna]

This had to be stopped. Google was good to us, but what the new feature is doing - is making go our visitors away. It is sort of monoply and we have to join forces and stop that.

[hmoulding]

if the user isn't sure any more what is website and what is google

How is the user not sure? Explain. Give specific examples. A link would be useful. I'll go there with my browser, click on the autolink button, and decide if I'm not sure. Um.

I really don't get it. I mean, nothing happens until I click. If I go away and come back, I have to click again. I really don't get what you're on about. So pass us a link, OK? Demonstrate this devastating bit of web graffiti that Google is perpetrating.

[hmoulding]

Google [...] is making go our visitors away.

Same challenge. Post a link. I'll go there and see what you're talking about.

[hmoulding]

[...]user convenience [must be balanced with] the right of Web publishers to control the content and appearance of their own sites.

I doubt that right exists. It's a nice thought, but every web designer must always keep in mind that rendering is provisional. Users are always free to override styles or use entirely idiosyncratic browsers. We've already mentioned blocking images, ads, and pop-ups.

[CWS]

HELLOOOOOOO!!!!!

Doesn't anybody remember the stir that arose a year or so back when M$ tried to saddle us with their "Smart Tag" technology?

Even the Evil Empire itself gave in to the blood curdling screams from developers everywhere. If Google gets away with this, I think we all have to reconsider our economic support of Google.

What do you think Google would do to me if I started inserting my own content or caltering content on Google pages for all of my ISP customers?

LAWYER UP BOYS! - THIS IS GONNA BE INTERESTING!

[hmoulding]

Doesn't anybody remember the stir that arose a year or so back when M$ tried to saddle us with their "Smart Tag" technology?

Sure do. Why don't you help us out and enumerate the similarities and differences between smart tags and autolinks. It should be interesting to see if you've actually been paying attention.

[HaveItYourWay]

I guess some people just don't want to see what is in front of them.

Google are NOT the 'good guys'. They haven't been so for a long long time.

The filthy ethics of this stunt, align very well with the filthy ethics of previous Google stunts. Just a couple off the top of my head:
- Remember the mantra of their public relations guy over at WMW? Content-content-content and you'll be alright? Yeah, of course you will. Ask the poor sops who followed this and simply got crushed by Florida just before Christmas 2003.
- Then there's page jacking. Does anyone actually believe that they couldn't sort that out quickly if they wanted to? If they were prepared to prioritize it as it SHOULD be? Of course they could: but their priority isn't to sort this out, it's $$$$$ through Adwords and any other scheme they can come up with.

Now we have hijacking your web pages, to increase their bottom line. How does that differ from scumware, or trojans, or similar? Fundamentally it doesn't. It's Google putting its other foot in the gutter to grab yet more cash.


Perhaps the most insidious thing about it is the front of these people. They are so good at playing to the masses, at presenting the hip open glamerous enterprize. It's gloss and it's paper thin - see through it. As someone pointed out above, M$ got shouted down big time for this sort of thing: Google being Google will no doubt try to squirm their way through it.

They have to be stopped.

[hmoulding]

I guess some people just don't want to see what is in front of them.

You're upset. I can see that. Have a beer. Chill.