Google toolbar move raises online ire

(continued from previous page)

implemented. She said the group didn't consider comparisons with Microsoft's pulled Smart Tags feature. But she said that AutoLink was designed to ensure people remain in control.

"This is a user-elected feature. Upon clicking the link, we make these modifications the way you'd like us to modify the page," Mayer said. "Google has great respect for copyright owners. They're the lifeblood of search."

I see it as an issue of 'Who owns the content being displayed?'

--Terence Ross, attorney, Gibson Dunn

In function, Google's AutoLink is similar to Microsoft's Smart Tags, but in design, it differs. Years ago, Microsoft created the tags to automatically link documents or content on a machine to a network, and retrieve data. The feature still works in Office: if you write a person's name in a Word document you can click an icon to call up the person's address or e-mail, for example.

But in 2001, with the release of Office XP, Microsoft added the feature to a beta version of Internet Explorer 6. The Internet community was up in arms because Microsoft proposed to link text on pages by default to MSN sites. As a result, Microsoft quashed the feature for IE.

Smart Tags were like "a guide, and the guide always tells you what you're looking at, or to turn right instead of left," Purcell said. "The suspicion was more to do with who the guide was than the function of being guided."

Still, trademark attorneys and security experts say that AutoLink could face problems, because Google modifies the underlying HTML of a Web page to deliver the added links.

"I see it as an issue of 'Who owns the content being displayed?' Google does not own the content, and when it uses the content of others to make money, it often will be violating the intellectual property laws," said Terence Ross, at attorney at Gibson Dunn.

For now, Google does not use AutoLink to add hyperlinks to advertisers. And Mayer said Amazon.com did not pay to be its default e-tailer for books; it simply decided that Amazon had the largest selection. In the full release, scheduled for April, Google may give people the option to choose which sites to link to for ISBN numbers, she said.

Despite criticism, some Web developers said they see beneficial uses for tools such as AutoLink and Smart Tags, given sufficient flexibility and user control.

"I thought then, and still think now, that Smart Tags were a great idea, especially if they were implemented as an option," wrote Anil Dash, an executive at Six Apart, on his blog.

"Being able to use simple text parsing (and hopefully eventually some sort of Bayesian or semantic processing) to annotate a page with additional links and information is exactly what I want my user agents of choice (namely, Firefox and Internet Explorer) to be able to do," he noted. "Once your HTML page gets to my machine, it's mine to rip, mix and burn."

[TV James]

Stupid argument

This is crybabies attempting to stiffle innovative new ideas, talking about lawsuits to get themselves publicity.

In a sense, what they're doing is no different from what they accuse Google of. Profiting -- or helping others -- to profit from a third-party's work.

It's a user-initiated function. You don't have to download the toolbar, you don't have to click the button.

Stop all the crybaby ballyhoo and get a real job doing something productive.

It is a bit more than just crying

http://belikedilbert.blogspot.com/

Stupid?

Microsoft tried this feature and was ROUNDLY criticized for it, but Google goes and implements what is pretty much the same feature and the critics are a bunch of crybabies?

You people are just a bunch of hypocrites who love anything that's not Microsoft.

Oh, and your definition of "innovative" is interesting

Don't you mean "copying"? Microsoft had this feature four years ago. Oh yes, quite innovative of Google.

[ca5ter]

Who the hell is Steve Rubel?

This is a perfect example of blogging gone mad. CNET, if you
want to be a credible news source, don't quote blogs. Get a
quote from an industry leader (no disrespect Steve). At least put
his title and company name in the story, for bloody sake.

As for my point of view, if you don't like Google's technology,
than use someone else. This is now where close to the same lock
Microsoft has on operating systems. You have hundreds of
choices, none of which cost money and are only a click away.
Why not give MSN, Dogpile, Yahoo, or any number of other
options a try.

PS. CNET maybe next time you can quote me in your article.

[steverubel]

Yeah, who the hell is that Steve Rubel?

Steve Rubel is nobody. Just one blogger voice out of 8 million who decided to speak up on this topic and was the first to do so, that's all. That's why CNET quoted me. I am no more expert than anyone else, like Nathan says.

Yahoo....Google....5yrs? Search Portal N....repeat...repeat....

It's the millions of people that give this company (Google) all this power to do this.

Sure, you don't have to install their software onto your IE but the people who are...are not the people reading this site.

They have about as much choice as they do when they hum the latest catch phrases from Geico commercials etc.

This is a sneaky tactic used by a powerful company taking advantage of newbies.

American capitalism at it's best.

Bashing capitalism?

I wouldn't knock capitalism - the foundation of U.S. industry.

Sure, some businesses cross the line of ethics; but as a whole, it's one of the best marketplaces on the planet.

A whole new world

With all the news out there, anyone who gets a computer but does not know how to NOT install a toolbar when prompted, is sleeping.

Google's toolbar does not implant itself without permission. I don't have to click the banner ads on a Yahoo, About, or Angelfire page, so I don't have to click them anyplace else either.

It's tough out there in the ether, but people really need to learn to take responsibility for what they do willingly. Having large corporations or governments constantly trying to "separate the children" is quite tiring.

Great post!

I immediately thought of the guy who sued Kentucky Fried Chicken for making him fat.

Or the article at the following URL:
http://www.justlaugh.com/online/vol3issue14/deckers_badforyou.php

C'mon folks.

Sound a dirge for Google?

This is the face of the alien invader, showing its face through our old buddy's fading features, like the image of an alien bursting through a human shell in a sci-fi film.

We turn in screaming horror, knowing we can never trust our own eyes on this friend's face, again.....

Oh Steve McQueen, where are you, now?

This article is complete FUD

Steve McQueen jumped his motorcycle over the prison fence and was never seen again.

While Google's new toolbar features may need some slight tweaking, it does _not_ modify a web page, it only modifies how a web page is displayed, and at the user's request. That is a subtle but huge distinction.

Managing how a web page is displayed is a user's right. Browser controls and proxy filters provide display modification already, and are an essential part of Internet security. I recommend the excellent and free Proxomitron to every web surfer - I don't see the obnoxious ads.

As I web site owner I offer my web page to the web surfer, and he takes from it what he wants. He or she is not obligated to read the ads, view the pictures, read the text, etc.

The user has the right to control, and law must err on this side for the public good.

Google is only providing the user new functionality, should they decide to install it and turn it on. It requires conscious action and does not sneak up on one like an ad system.

FUD: 0
Google: 1


Eric of
Songzilla MP3 blog: http://songzilla.blogspot.com

[Ubber geek]

fading features

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

[russ960]

My Content!

Currently Google says there is no commercial use of this technology but I'm sure it's their intent and justifiable so given their stock price. The tool can be enabled or disabled by the user but the issue at hand in my minds eye is the content does not belong to the user nor Google. The content is the creative work of the person or organization that created the web site. I find it personally problematic that Google can place content for competitors into my content with out my permission or knowledge. Effectively this can provide the user the idea that they are shopping with the same web site. I don't think many user fully understand the features and functions of toolbars and this adds to the confusion. I'm all for innovation but I do not want to see this innovation stomping on my creative works. Anil Dash indicated that text parsing and Bayesian techniques could give users additional links on information contained in content is a good thing. I totally agree with this however it should not be masked or disguised as part of the original content. Instead it should be offered in a pop-up pane or a separate pane in the window.

On a personal note I have never been fond of these toolbars and find them extremely annoying. First, they take up valuable screen real estate and second they take up system resources. If you want to be able to conveniently search a variety of search sites directly from your browser without visiting the sites check out Fire fox, it even has pop-up blocking.

http://russ.johnsonville.net

[djkouza]

RE: My Content!

I agree/disagree. I feel that if you are at a book review site, then if they add an easy link to amazon, barns and noble, etc.. then so be it, but If I'm on half.com and they link me out to amazon or a competitor, then that is where I feel they should be held accountable for the lost sale. I feel this feature will be more useful for the average user who has yet to pick a favorite retailer, or is too lazy to price shop. Go ahead link me to Amazon, then I'll look the book up a Barns and Noble and a few others before spending my cash!

I agree

I'm a web publisher as well, and do not want anyone touching my content, regardless of the intentions.

If google was truly interested in not being 'evil', then at the very least it could offer to disable this feature on sites with certain headers, or better, only enable it on sites that have a certain header.

[Jim Harmon]

Sounds vaguely familiar...

Check out...

http://www.doxdesk.com/parasite/TopText.html

[Ubber geek]

I agree

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

[scott.cropper-2045595817941659]

The Facts

Everyone seems to be up in arms about the new Google Toolbar but I don't think most have even picked it up before putting it down.

Here are the facts :

1. The toolbar has to be installed first before it can do any autolinking.
2. Autolinking is off by default so it has to be turned on after installing the toolbar.
3. The toolbar does not change existing links, only text that is not currently linked.
4. The toolbar has the option of choosing which map service you would like to use; Google Maps, MapQuest or Yahoo! Maps.
5. VIN numbers, although rarely found as plain text, link to CarFax's website and show the vehicle details.
6. Tracking numbers go to the corresponding companies package info page. These are also rarely found as plain text except in emails.
7. ISBN numbers take you to Amazon's website and show the book details. This will make a plain text ISBN a link to Amazon even on Barnes and Noble's website.
8. Its a beta release.

Except for # 7 there is nothing wrong with what the Google Toolbar does. It has to be chosen by the user, turned on and does give options and behaves nicely. Google should give the option to choose which service you want it to use for the VIN and ISBN detailed information. Other than that I don't know what all the fuss is about.

I agree

Besides the points you made, people pay Google bucket-loads of money to boost their page rankings via the Google search engine. If a person downloads and installs the Google - or Yahoo's - or Whoever's - toolbar, they should realize they are subject to the toolbar's performance algorithms. I believe the Terms of Agreement even state as much.

I'm amazed that this is even an issue. If this is considered a valid argument, where do we stop? Where will it end? No advertising? No hyperlinks? No cookies? No bundled software packages?
No preloaded operating systems?

[Neo Con]

"We promise not to do anything evil"???

I don't trust any company whose philosophy is predicated on the assumption that corporations are inherently evil. All they think they have to do is offer up a holier-than thou (or is that leftier-than-thou?) attitude, and that gives them a license to do anything, no matter how unethical or anti-competitive. Thhppptptpt to Google!

Caveat Emptor

What ever happened to Let the Buyer Beware or Let the Freebe Beware. There is too much paranoia about all this stuff. If you want to use the product, use it, if not, then don't. We should know the pros and cons and make our own decisions. You cannot legislate morality. Those guys from Google are making millions and as always is the case many people are jealous. If they come up with a better mousetrap, more power to them. As long as it is not illegal, they should continue innovating. They are providing search technology that one day will permit us to search every book and quote in every journal and library. The value to education is enormous. They have to make money some way to motivate them. I would prefer surf engines and software to bombs and toxins and war. So much worry about these Internet things and not enough worry about death and war and spirituality. As a child of the 60s and 70s I have read much and listed to many musical poets and see that the little has changed. We still are driven by materialism and greed and directed by the scientist/priests (Moody Blues-Question of Balance). I am glad some young Americans at Google are proving that the Average person in American still can become a millionaire without being a decendent of Standard Oil or Halburton, or RCA. Thank God for American innovation and technological advances and the Indians and Chinese that help make them happen (LOL).

Peace and Prosperity to All

i can't wait until spyware starts using this...

to change links on trusted web pages.

[aabcdefghij987654321]

Ever heard of Gator (now called Clarius)

This isn't anything new and it's a little disturbing that Google is trying to legitimize something that's been held as invasive and unwanted.

Some more thought required by Google.

This is yet another attempt to herd browsers to certain sites and "partners" chosen by Google. The only thing I see this leading to is trouble for the search engine. Effectively re-writing the web for those who installed their software and redirecting them to their own choice of providers is dictatorship at its most mediocre.

A few words of advice to Google: If you want to keep this 'feature', give back what you have taken away - choice. Surely the software could be tweaked to have a preferences dialogue box that allows the user to choose their preferred online book or music retailer. How about a drop-down menu so that it is possible to choose whether the links go to Amazon or somewhere else? Categorize the links and give people the option to turn off highlighting on certain categories too (for instance I might not want every flower related word taking me to Interflora).

Oh..

localize it too please.

[mousky]

Some more thought on your part

Some more thought or research on your part would be useful. Instead of blindly going along with with rants from CNET or Steve Rubel or anyone for that matter, you could have visited the google website and read about Google Toolbar 3. It explicity states that AutoLink and other feature can be disabled. The same thing is restated on the Privacy Policy page for Toolbar 3. But you didn't do that. You just went along with whatever blogger or fluff journalist wrote.

[dougjake]

Google = Microsoft?

We appear to be witnessing a werewolf in mid-change. Google seems to be travelling the same route as Microsoft. Not to long ago they were innovation darlings. More and more they are perceived as trying to monopolize the web? Is this accurate? Probably not, but perception is 9/10th's of reality. Interesting, don't you think?

[mousky]

You are not interesting

I don't perceive Google as trying to monopolize the web. They are a company that is constantly working on improving their core products and coming out with new products, some innovative, others not. They have a whole page dedicated to current and beta products/service. Their pages, including privacy policies, are written plain english.

No one is forcing a user to use Google as their search engine. No one is forcing a user to download the Google Toolbar. No one is forcing people to sign up for Gmail. Google is not forcing anything. Don't like the toolbar, uninstall it and install a competing product.

[JuggerNaut]

Microsoft is monopolizing the Web!

Have no fear of Google, it's Microsoft you need to worry about. With IE not being W3C compliant and websites only catering to IE specs extends the Windows monopoly to the Web. If Google maintains platform-independence, meaning they don't cater to any particular operating system, but keep everyone on the same level of support and satisfaction, I'd rather have Google monopolize the Web than Microsoft, who would undermind platform independence and create a Windows-only Web experience (yuck)!

[Salvalus]

Cease and Desist Order Issued

The first Cease and Desist Orders have already been issued. Copy and resubmit.

http://www.okario.com/assets/google_cd.pdf

[Bill Dautrive]

Not a court order

That is just a letter from a business to Google. Hardly a cease and desist order.

[Ubber geek]

Cease and Desist

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

[qazwiz]

Give consumer OPTIONS

It should be consumer configurable

give me the opportunity to say what sites I want autolinks for

I'd probably allow googlemap but if it didn't do what I want then I should be able to specify mapquest or yahooMaps instead of just turning it on or off

Same reasoning for other link sites

and cudos if they allow me to configure any site access I choose when my configurable conditions come up.. like if a book is mentioned I'd like it to link to my book club or library website to see if in stock or going to be sceduled for a talk ETC. without Google needing to know the place(s) I've got links to.

So much for dreaming...


At least give more options than toggle on/off

[mousky]

Uninformed Bloggers To Blame

This is sounding like the hoopla over Gmail. A few people, usually uninformed bloggers out to get their 15 minutes of fame, rant and rave about some feature in some Google product that is utterly nasty, totally hidden and some sort of threat to personal privacy. Other "concerned" bloggers and the media catch on and everything ends up blown out of proportion.

Off by default?

The article clearly states that you have to *click* on the Autolink button to activate it. I don't believe it's on by default.

So whats the problem? Don't want Autolink? Do not turn it on!

Give up control

if you think about RSS, semantic web, and most of the direction of innovation in web technologies, you are seeing more and more places where "control" over content is being "taken" away from the content owner. Not IP rights, or anything like that, but the presentation and navigation layers. This is just another example of that.

For example Trillian has a feature in its IM client that underlines items that are listed in Wikipedia. A silly feature but I've found it useful once. ;)

My point is that there are many features like this, such as "MapIt" which is a Firefox plug in that lets you select an address and then it will take you to mapquest right away.

I don't see evil here at all. I see options for users that better improve their abilities to get the information that they want/need. Why is doing so something bad for the content owners. In fact, the total brand experience might be positive.
1. I went to X site to find what I was looking for
2. And low and behold, I found it.

Users are going to put 1 & 2 together and not really care that they didn't actually find it on the first owner's site.

- dave

[mousky]

Catching up

It's not necessarily taking control away from the content provider. The content is still provided. What is happening is that the user is gaining control on his end - the user is just catching up.

[iqula]

Comment to Google

I think Google rethink this stratigy it's a bit intrusive and might do the Google brand that we all love so much some harm. See http://www.cosmopod.com for a better aproach to advertise so close to the desktop.

[mousky]

Disagree

AutoLink will create links for adresses, tracking numbers, VIN numbers and ISBN numbers. It is not adding ads per se. Users who don't want to use AutoLink can disable it. I see no harm from AutoLink on Google. What is harmful is the amount of misinformation, inferences, suggestions, and so on posted by "ranting" users. Most people here have no idea what AutoLink is about.

[Ubber geek]

Google brand

http://www.analogstereo.com/vauxhall_vx220_owners_manual.htm

[mousky]

Have you tried Toolbar3?

I downloaded Toolbar3 and confirm that the hoopla and ranting about AutoLink is just that. For those that want the truth, I suggest that you try out Toolbar3 and see for yourself what in will and will not do.

My observations:

1. AutoLink is disabled by default.

2. Enabling AutoLink does NOT automatically create links. The user has to click on AutoLink button to create links. When a user visits a site, the page is displayed as intended (unless they have selected to override fonts, colors, or style sheets).

3. Clicking on AutoLink will not necessarily change the content or code of a web page. In fact, when items are highlighted, the original code is not changed - confirmed by using the "view source" option in IE.

4. Currently, the user can choose from three map web sites (Google, MapQuest and Yahoo).

5. To the media: stop listening or interviewing bloggers without first verifying their rants. By not verifying their rants/fears/points-of-view you perform a disservice to the media sector.

New Google Bar is Spyware

This new Google tool bar could ruin Google. That would be a shame. While I think their intnetion to help the user is pure, what they are doing is deciding for that user, which company is best to service their need. Changing the content of a web page that user has chosen as a destination is dangerous enough, but then linking them to a competitor's site that sells the same product in a misleading way is an awful choice for Google to make. This screams conflict of interest, and is why a tear can be shed for missing the non-public Google. See what $$ does to what was the best we had. The decision to deploy this manipulative and unethical spy bar will be one of regret.