Perspective: Clicks by deception? Not quite

Fickleness, thy name is blogosphere.

When Google went public last summer, founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page were hailed for breaking the corporate mold because they famously pledged in a public document to do no evil. Less than a year later, the kudos have given way to disillusion, with critics now likening Google to Microsoft (gasp!) of all companies.

The feature is so arcane it will likely only attract bored reporters and the severely anal retentive.

The opinion-meisters who inhabit the Internet are famous for being capricious, but this still marks a mighty rapid fall from grace for Google--made all the more astounding because the recent brouhaha is over AutoLink, a tiny icon found on the Google search toolbar.

So far, this remains a debate of the deaf. For its part, Google calls AutoLink a user feature, but critics are having none of that. They charge the company with viewing the world through the wrong end of the binoculars, contending Google has violated ethical principles that govern transparency on the Internet. As with most controversies, there's some truth to both arguments.

The AutoLink feature links users to other sites, but it does so without receiving permission from the publisher of the original page. So it is that publishers' ISBN numbers trigger links to Amazon.com, while vehicle ID licenses produce links to Carfax.com. And package tracking numbers automatically link to shippers' Web sites.

If this were a feature offered by some pipsqueak upstart, few people would get lathered up. But since this is Google, one of the most scrutinized companies in the business and the hands-down leader in Internet search, everything it says and does takes on magnified importance.

The politically correct thing to say these days is that Google is guilty of outrageous behavior and deserves a hard spanking.

What's more, Google's only getting hoisted on its own petard. Even before the company went public, Google's spin machine raised false expectations by furiously promoting Brin and Page as poster boys for a new kind of tech company (as for the supposed third member of the management triumvirate, Eric Schmidt was holed up with Dick Cheney at an undisclosed location).

The fact is, this is simply another public company that throws a lot of stuff against the wall and waits to see what sticks. That doesn't mean Google is evil--in fact, it did an admirable job separating out advertising in paid search placement--but the brass is out to maximize shareholder value. And that means monetizing everything including the kitchen sink.

The politically correct thing to say these days is that Google is guilty of outrageous behavior and deserves a hard spanking. Some go further and say it's hypocritical to offer Google a free pass while Microsoft was forced to pull its plans to introduce Smart Tags, a technology where users were being sent, via hyperlinks, to content pre-chosen by Microsoft.

But this isn't a Smart Tags redux. Microsoft wasn't going to give users a choice. The plan was to bundle Smart Tags in with the company's Internet browser. While Microsoft would have decided which links automatically appeared on screen, nothing happens if you don't click on the AutoLink link.

Maybe I'd be more outraged if I didn't believe the company's noble professions of superior morality were just so much malarkey in the first place. And despite the moralizing of the high priests of the blogosphere, Google has not yet been ruled a predatory monopolist. Nobody's forcing users to download the toolbar and use AutoLink.

In fact, the feature is so arcane it will likely only attract bored reporters and the severely anal retentive. You can still search the Web to your heart's content and nothing will get shoved down your throat by default. Who knows? Some people actually may find AutoLink to be beneficial.

Biography
Charles Cooper is CNET News.com's executive editor of commentary.

More Perspectives

Autolink is bad for publishers

Consider the name "Autolink", practically it is the same as Microsoft's thankfully ill-fated "SmartTags". It's use, once switched on, is automatic and controlled by Google; it's like turning on your radio but having NBC tune the station for you. The obvious victim is the publisher -- Barnes and Noble does not want their presentation linke to Amazon.com. But the more subtle victim is the end user, who is now controlled and may quickly think that carfax.com is the only choice good choice for finding cars on the web.

The corruption of artistic works published to the web can be even more damaging and disheartening to the authors. This not a non-issue.

Choice

As the article said, people have a choice as to whether to download & use AutoLink, and once they have it, they always have the choice to turn it off. It's like having a radio that you can tune by yourself or you can let NBC tune, your choice.

Maybe you are right to be concerned about the editing of someone else's pages by Google, but as I see it, anyone who uses AutoLink should *understand* that *Google, not Barnes & Noble, has inserted the link to Amazon*. I don't even know why you say that someone might think "Carfax is the only good choice for finding cars on the web" as the result of this. That's like saying a print advertisement or banner ad for Carfax risks making people think that.

Google is providing a service whereby readers can be referred to companies that are relevant to what they're reading about - that's all. If the readers want this, they should be able to get it. Saying otherwise is like saying that it's wrong to suggest to someone buying a book at Barnes & Noble that "you might also look at Amazon".

This technology does have higher purposes than advertisement; imagine every word on a page potentially linking to a relevant site. But Google is a for-profit company, so it's understandable that their first use of this technology is for profit. If it takes off, though, we might see a similar system - made by Google or otherwise - usable to the reader's liking.

Autolink is bad for publishers

Consider the name "Autolink", practically it is the same as Microsoft's thankfully ill-fated "SmartTags". It's use, once switched on, is automatic and controlled by Google; it's like turning on your radio but having NBC tune the station for you. The obvious victim is the publisher -- Barnes and Noble does not want their presentation linke to Amazon.com. But the more subtle victim is the end user, who is now controlled and may quickly think that carfax.com is the only choice good choice for finding cars on the web.

The corruption of artistic works published to the web can be even more damaging and disheartening to the authors. This not a non-issue.

Choice

As the article said, people have a choice as to whether to download & use AutoLink, and once they have it, they always have the choice to turn it off. It's like having a radio that you can tune by yourself or you can let NBC tune, your choice.

Maybe you are right to be concerned about the editing of someone else's pages by Google, but as I see it, anyone who uses AutoLink should *understand* that *Google, not Barnes & Noble, has inserted the link to Amazon*. I don't even know why you say that someone might think "Carfax is the only good choice for finding cars on the web" as the result of this. That's like saying a print advertisement or banner ad for Carfax risks making people think that.

Google is providing a service whereby readers can be referred to companies that are relevant to what they're reading about - that's all. If the readers want this, they should be able to get it. Saying otherwise is like saying that it's wrong to suggest to someone buying a book at Barnes & Noble that "you might also look at Amazon".

This technology does have higher purposes than advertisement; imagine every word on a page potentially linking to a relevant site. But Google is a for-profit company, so it's understandable that their first use of this technology is for profit. If it takes off, though, we might see a similar system - made by Google or otherwise - usable to the reader's liking.

google is not perfect

why are people so convinced that google is so morally superior? did anyone else read about them terminating their own blogger (who i went to school with)? that seems like old school corporate thinking to me. i love google's products, but i will not say that they are the saviors of the internet corporate culture.

[artie V]

what's love got to do with it?

Okay, so lets say that somehow being morally superior is in any way related to firing a blabber mouth who had it made and blew it. (What, me want to work for google?). How does this jive with common sense? All this mark microsoft whatever character needed to do was sit back and watch his options vest. Instead he blabbed on about a tightly knit corporate culture that didn't appreciate it. All the while reportedly fighting back throughout the ordeal(I enjoyed reading between the lines). Not sure if you'll find much sympathy for this dude on the net. Call up the ACLU or something.

google is not perfect

why are people so convinced that google is so morally superior? did anyone else read about them terminating their own blogger (who i went to school with)? that seems like old school corporate thinking to me. i love google's products, but i will not say that they are the saviors of the internet corporate culture.

[artie V]

what's love got to do with it?

Okay, so lets say that somehow being morally superior is in any way related to firing a blabber mouth who had it made and blew it. (What, me want to work for google?). How does this jive with common sense? All this mark microsoft whatever character needed to do was sit back and watch his options vest. Instead he blabbed on about a tightly knit corporate culture that didn't appreciate it. All the while reportedly fighting back throughout the ordeal(I enjoyed reading between the lines). Not sure if you'll find much sympathy for this dude on the net. Call up the ACLU or something.

Yeah, but it's the principle...

I originally posted this comment for the News.blog article: Old Microsoft ties to new Google feature. I totally agree with people who say "don't like it, don't install it," but at the same time most people aren't even aware that one of these links is generated by the Google toolbar. Maybe if Google can somehow it make more obvious that these links are not part of the original content, my opinion may change, but that's a big maybe.

--Original comment:
If the only purpose for this "smart tag" technology was to offer more information on a topic lightly touched on in an article, then I say leave it up to the owner of the web site to decide to add that feature to their page. We all know Google is just trying to get more advertising revenue from this deceptive practice of adding links to a web page that the author may have never intended to include. And by the way, it doesn't seem right, at least not to me, for Google to alter content they don't own!

[artie V]

Erroneous

Incorrect. Users have to click on the autolink button to create the links. Plus, when you hover over the autolink you have these little sergey balls show up by the cursor. I think they could do a better job on making the link look a bit more unique, but while there are many dummies out there, it's pretty obvious that a users' generating autolinks on a page as an intended choice.

Yeah, but it's the principle...

I originally posted this comment for the News.blog article: Old Microsoft ties to new Google feature. I totally agree with people who say "don't like it, don't install it," but at the same time most people aren't even aware that one of these links is generated by the Google toolbar. Maybe if Google can somehow it make more obvious that these links are not part of the original content, my opinion may change, but that's a big maybe.

--Original comment:
If the only purpose for this "smart tag" technology was to offer more information on a topic lightly touched on in an article, then I say leave it up to the owner of the web site to decide to add that feature to their page. We all know Google is just trying to get more advertising revenue from this deceptive practice of adding links to a web page that the author may have never intended to include. And by the way, it doesn't seem right, at least not to me, for Google to alter content they don't own!

[artie V]

Erroneous

Incorrect. Users have to click on the autolink button to create the links. Plus, when you hover over the autolink you have these little sergey balls show up by the cursor. I think they could do a better job on making the link look a bit more unique, but while there are many dummies out there, it's pretty obvious that a users' generating autolinks on a page as an intended choice.

Who Cares?

Look:

I like Google. It's a great company.
I like Google. It's a pretty darn good search engine.
I like Google. It's a decent email server.
I like Google. It's a mapping program.

I like the Google Toolbar(GTB). It does a decent job of what it does.

Content people need to realize that their information is filtered on a regular basis. I don't use the GTB anymore, because it doesn't provide me any functionality that Mozilla Firefox doesn't do better.
--> Oh wait, you mean that Firefox will block my pop-ups (most of the time).
--> Oh wait, you mean that I can have Firefox fill out my forms (yep, if you want).
--> Oh wait, you mean I can do a quick search without ever going to Google's home page (yep)

all of the information that is out there on the web is filtered through the eyes of the browser that the readers are using. If they're using a text only browser...hmmm, they probably can't see all those pretty pictures that you wasted their bandwidth with.

CSS, HTML, XML, RSS...pick your acronym they all have to be interpreted by an intermediate piece of software for the information to be consumer readable.

So...autolink...smart tags...Who cares? If people want it, they will use it. If they don't, they won't.

The content providers will not suffer one wit.

If you're really worried that people might think you endorse Amazon if you're B&N, then perhaps you should tell google not to look at your information. Let Google get your customers to the front door and use you're own proprietary display mechanism, I don't think the fine folks at Google have figured out how to pull out the content from FLASH yet.

Much Ado About Nothing! (hmmm, I didn't even have to google it)

[Ubber geek]

Much Ado About Nothing

http://www.analogstereo.com/citroen_xsara_owners_manual.htm

Who Cares?

Look:

I like Google. It's a great company.
I like Google. It's a pretty darn good search engine.
I like Google. It's a decent email server.
I like Google. It's a mapping program.

I like the Google Toolbar(GTB). It does a decent job of what it does.

Content people need to realize that their information is filtered on a regular basis. I don't use the GTB anymore, because it doesn't provide me any functionality that Mozilla Firefox doesn't do better.
--> Oh wait, you mean that Firefox will block my pop-ups (most of the time).
--> Oh wait, you mean that I can have Firefox fill out my forms (yep, if you want).
--> Oh wait, you mean I can do a quick search without ever going to Google's home page (yep)

all of the information that is out there on the web is filtered through the eyes of the browser that the readers are using. If they're using a text only browser...hmmm, they probably can't see all those pretty pictures that you wasted their bandwidth with.

CSS, HTML, XML, RSS...pick your acronym they all have to be interpreted by an intermediate piece of software for the information to be consumer readable.

So...autolink...smart tags...Who cares? If people want it, they will use it. If they don't, they won't.

The content providers will not suffer one wit.

If you're really worried that people might think you endorse Amazon if you're B&N, then perhaps you should tell google not to look at your information. Let Google get your customers to the front door and use you're own proprietary display mechanism, I don't think the fine folks at Google have figured out how to pull out the content from FLASH yet.

Much Ado About Nothing! (hmmm, I didn't even have to google it)

[Ubber geek]

Much Ado About Nothing

http://www.analogstereo.com/citroen_xsara_owners_manual.htm

[Bill Dautrive]

It wouldn't be a bad idea if..

..they allowed web sites to opt out also. Put a small line in the header and then google couldn't insert anything.

Without permission from both ends, this is an unethical money grab, nothing more.

[Bill Dautrive]

It wouldn't be a bad idea if..

..they allowed web sites to opt out also. Put a small line in the header and then google couldn't insert anything.

Without permission from both ends, this is an unethical money grab, nothing more.

[artie V]

Armchair critics need to try the darned thing first

Webmasters should understand that autolink doesn't automatically change the site, by adding links, etc. I have the toolbar installed right now, and I always see the content the way the webmaster designed it. The user makes a conscious choice to click the button to generate the links. How hard is that to understand? This is a cool feature, and as a user will not give it up.

The fact that most naysayers ignore this fact seems to attest that either A) They haven't tried out the toolbar in the first place, or B) are conveniently ignoring that fact for an agenda. Even this story (which is possibly one of the more balanced articles out there right now) buries this fact towards the bottom. At any rate, I appreciate everyone raising a ruckus about the feature, 'cause I wouldn't have downloaded it and realize it's usefulness otherwise. Can you say spell checker??

[artie V]

Armchair critics need to try the darned thing first

Webmasters should understand that autolink doesn't automatically change the site, by adding links, etc. I have the toolbar installed right now, and I always see the content the way the webmaster designed it. The user makes a conscious choice to click the button to generate the links. How hard is that to understand? This is a cool feature, and as a user will not give it up.

The fact that most naysayers ignore this fact seems to attest that either A) They haven't tried out the toolbar in the first place, or B) are conveniently ignoring that fact for an agenda. Even this story (which is possibly one of the more balanced articles out there right now) buries this fact towards the bottom. At any rate, I appreciate everyone raising a ruckus about the feature, 'cause I wouldn't have downloaded it and realize it's usefulness otherwise. Can you say spell checker??

Why is no one mentioning copyright?

When someone takes your work and duplicates substantial portions of it without your permission, that's copyright infringement. For Google to redraw a web page and add links, even if requested to by the viewer, seems to me to be a clear violation of the author's copyright. Google will be intermixing it's own content with the original author's and changing the format of display. And for a profit. That makes it much easier to sue for damages, since there will actually be a way to calculate some. I'm thinking there will be lawyers somewhere that will want to test this out on a class action basis, even in the federal courts.

[Ubber geek]

redraw a web

http://www.analogstereo.com/peugeot_807_owners_manual.htm

Why is no one mentioning copyright?

When someone takes your work and duplicates substantial portions of it without your permission, that's copyright infringement. For Google to redraw a web page and add links, even if requested to by the viewer, seems to me to be a clear violation of the author's copyright. Google will be intermixing it's own content with the original author's and changing the format of display. And for a profit. That makes it much easier to sue for damages, since there will actually be a way to calculate some. I'm thinking there will be lawyers somewhere that will want to test this out on a class action basis, even in the federal courts.

[Ubber geek]

redraw a web

http://www.analogstereo.com/peugeot_807_owners_manual.htm

[scottm1]

There's no copyright issue with Autolinks

Google is not redistributing others' content. The Toolbar is an end-user installed tool that allows the user the choice to see more relevant information associated with the page that was sent to them. Once a page is sent to your desktop you can do with it as you please, as long as you don't redistribute it. For example, if I hand you a newspaper, you have the right to mix it with another paper if you want. The end user has the right to use tools to control their desktop.

[scottm1]

There's no copyright issue with Autolinks

Google is not redistributing others' content. The Toolbar is an end-user installed tool that allows the user the choice to see more relevant information associated with the page that was sent to them. Once a page is sent to your desktop you can do with it as you please, as long as you don't redistribute it. For example, if I hand you a newspaper, you have the right to mix it with another paper if you want. The end user has the right to use tools to control their desktop.