Google Considers Changes To AutoLink

[hmoulding]

Why do you suppose a Google who acted in the way you are supposing would still be a Google worth worrying about?

Because they've emerged into a dominant market position, and they are now abusing it with little regard for the consequences.

Well, so you're saying that Google is bent on a self destructive course of action. Why should you worry about autolink? They'll apparently take care of themselves.

[hmoulding]

Now the news talks about cook books like its purpose was to decieve stock holders deliberately when it was really a long term growth tool.

Have you let Ken Lay's defense team know about your theory, or are these already the latest neo-con talking points to excuse corporate malfeasance? It's complete bunk, you know.

[hmoulding]

I certainly have no doubt that a hefty amount of ego is involved now.

Besides speculating and casting aspersions, can you address any pertinent points in this discussion? What's it mean to be a WPW Expert, anyway?

[CWS]

The point that I think is being lost on hmoulding is that Google is using the work of others as a source to generate revenue here. They are going to use these links as an advert. revenue stream.

Let's use TV as an analogy...
I develop the technology to place a "bug" in the lower left corner of a TV show being broadcast by the local FOX affiliate in my market. This technology does this without the knowledge or approval of the FOX affiliate. And I use that technology to attract advertisers. I then sell advertising to "Dave's Hardware Store" and place his logo in the lower left corner of that broadcast.

Now, i would assume that the local FOX affiliate would be mad, as they obviously have a right to be. They own the rights to sell advertising (or not) on that broadast. NOT ME!

What I would be doing is akin to hijacking billboards, spray painting my logo on another businesses building, etc.

The point is, the owner of a website, and only the owner of a website has the right to create links, sell advertising, or otherwise generate revenue from the display of that site, sign, TV show, or other.

Developers being on a high horse here, and feeling "hurt" because someone is messing with their design or code is irrelevant. It is however, extremely relevant to discuss the subject of who has the right to derive income from intelectual property. And my answer would be this: Unless Google owns that content, code, trademark, copyright or domain. then they do not have the right to derive income, directly or inderectly, form the use of such.

--
Chad

PS: Just to head off your argument, hmoulding. The search results they provide are different. Those have a usefullness, and are only a pathway to the full content. It is not being altered in it's display.

[hmoulding]

The point that I think is being lost on hmoulding is that Google is using the work of others as a source to generate revenue here.

Well, no, it's not lost on me. Or, to be precise, the possibility certainly exists. It's not clear that, say, a Google autolink to Amazon means that Amazon will pay Google for that link at this time. I think that's being inferred, while Google isn't actually doing that at this time. (The adlinks are different from the toolbar generated links, for one thing.) If you have actual information to the contrary, do let me know. However, that's not at issue.

What seems to be lost on you is that it's not Google that makes the change, but the site's visitor. Without that click on the autolink button, Google's link doesn't exist. It's as if the visitor did a cut and paste of, say, the ISBN of a book into the Google search form and clicked on "I feel lucky."

Ask yourself why a visitor to a site selling a book would click on the autolink button? Whose problem is that?

[freehits]

wow chatterbox.

Take the next three possible scenerios.

Scenerio #1: Autolink 2.0 - gets rid of the button and autmatically ads floating banners over other sites of relevence?

Scenerio #2: MSN makes there own version that places a link on any google domain pages that says "get more information aboyt >YOUR-SERACH< on MSN", and links to msn search.

Scenerio #3: Yahoo makes a version of this that adds links to all keywords that link back to Yahoo.com for movie3 titles, names, hot keywords, ISBN numbers, and makes them activate on mouseover to pick up accidently redirects.


Which of these "possible" next steps in this direction do you feel are acceptable?

Where is the line drawn? or perhaps in your arguments, WHO is a line drawn for?

Most arguements dont completely bash the idea, but see the idea as a step toward true abuse of others content.

When you are the block bully, everything seems to be opt-out. This is how you pass your ideas on people who dont realize it is going on. This is why the "educated consumer of searches" hopes to keep this path toward more serious violations of content from coming to light.

[GunMuse]

We submitted to the Google Business Dev team yesterday our solution to this problem.

The Toolbar would only Hyperlink up sites that have an Adwords or some type of affiliate account. I.E. If Google gets paid so does the webmaster who generated the content. This prevents Google from setting a standard or debating in court with other giants as to how exactly you can Wal-Mart the web. (Cut out the middle man make him think its a favor)

See you have to look at this from a WIDE perspective. First they said Content Content Content. They crawled it found it for free and maintained a high degree of quality. That got them "marketshare" Now they want to take years of content and the willingness to let Google crawl a site and Sell it to "other advertisers" Which is fine. Reality in our model is 1-5% of the consumers buy what your selling. Why not make money off the 90-95% who leave to look elsewhere as well. That was our philosophy with our software and it works.

Have you let Ken Lay's defense team know about your theory, or are these already the latest neo-con talking points to excuse corporate malfeasance?

Now I know a liberal education doesn't buy much in the way of actual information these days. Don't confuse outright fraud with Laws designed to protect your 401k.

I wanted to take my company public 2 years ago. We would of made an extra 3 million a year by doing so. Sound good right? No it also means that If find I need to Break even or even lose money for some period of time to pursue an idea or marketing strategy I no longer have that option. The way its "legally done" is I borrow 5 million to offset the loses for the expected time then push that back into the company to keep stock holders from crashing the stock.

Ever wonder why a multimillion dollar a year company borrows money? Its to protect the ceo from jail not because they can't afford it.

[hmoulding]

Hoptoo goes for the slippery slope again.

Which of these "possible" next steps in this direction do you feel are acceptable?

None of them. You'd also find that in the event Google or any of the others took these steps people would stop patronizing their services.

[hmoulding]

I know a liberal education doesn't buy much in the way of actual information these days. [...]
We would of made an extra 3 million a year by doing so.

A liberal education at least keeps me from writing "would of" instead of "would have."

In any event, I'm no lawyer, and don't intend to discuss the finer points of corporate laws and SEC regulations here. What you wrote was

Now the news talks about cook books like its purpose was to decieve stock holders deliberately when it was really a long term growth tool.

If you weren't referring to Ken Lay et al., what the heck were you talking about?

[HaveItYourWay]

The point that I think is being lost on hmoulding is that Google is using the work of others as a source to generate revenue here. They are going to use these links as an advert. revenue stream.

This is the core of the issue. They want to subvert our sites, basically changing the visible navigation, to exploit them for profit, usually at the expense of the our profit.

It gets worse: they will have projected models like every other serious player. They'll KNOW that most regular users won't understand the true picture, what they are signing on for, what they are really seeing and the implications of it. They have seen the opportunity to slip this subtefuge in there without general observation. The opportunity to con the public, and rob the webmaster.


And the LAW GunMuse doesn't tell you HOW to make money. That's the choice of Google. Choosing this filthy route should tell you everything you need to know about them