To my friends at Google,
I just installed and tested the new "Look for Map" feature on the Google Toolbar
everyone
has
been
talking about—I'm very concerned. We have a very
deep relationship right now, and I'm really happy to be working with all the smart folks over there. However, I'm
hoping that you'll take this post seriously not just because we are business partners, but because I'm also a huge fan
of your products.
It's clever how after clicking on a button on my Google Toolbar your software changes unlinked address information to
links to your excellent Google Maps page. I would have cut and pasted that information to Google Maps in many cases, so
you just saved me a couple of steps.
However, I don't like the idea of software companies changing our editorial content. You can make all kinds of logical
arguments about the page not be actually changed, but the result to the user is the links were added—that's a big
change. You can say that this is all to help the user, but that doesn't make it right. Heck, you could help me out by
editing the first two Star Wars movies—doesn't mean you should or have the right to.
If you come in and set the standard that changing a publishers webpages is legal then we—your business partners on the
Google Adsense side of the business—are going to be crushed with all kinds of companies creating tool bars that put
hyperlinks all over our pages. They are all going to use the GEFG defense ("good enough for Google"). This is going to
cause us a lot of pain, suffering, and revenue. I know you don't want to do that to us.
Can you imagine world in which software publisher felt free to alter the content on people's webpages?!?! It would be
total chaos. What if my Yahoo page turned Google Adsense links to Overture ones? Would you be cool with that? Is it the
users right to remove the ads on Google and replace them with ads they prefer? Would you stand for that? OK, I think
you get my point now.
So, I've come up with a very simple solution for you to add this functionality without setting a precedent that will
destroy—and that is not the least bit hyperbolic—our businesses:
Instead of changing the content on our pages why not just let the user right mouse click on an address and add
a link that says "Google Maps?"
This would work just as well for users, and you can keep doing amazing work without making us suffer, and without
straying from your mantra: do no evil.
all the best,
Jason
An Open Letter To My Friends at Google: Autolink is not cool, let's nip this in the bud shall we?
Reader Comments
(Page 1)3. As the owner of many high traffic web sites, I am proud to say I will be banning Google users. Before this gets out of hand, all webmaster should implement a one year ban on Google, crush them, and make the G search results crappier then they already are. Hello MSN and Yahoo, goodbye forever G$$GLE.
Posted at 4:38AM on Dec 19th 2005 by PM
5. Just downloaded this toolbar and I have to say: Autolink rocks! I don't understand the concern. You have to press the Autolink button for the address to get the link placed on it.
A top notch feature, if you ask me.
Posted at 4:38AM on Dec 19th 2005 by JE
6. If Microsoft had implemented this technology in the IE toolbar and auto-generated links to MSN and MS affiliates, it would be more clear. This technology doesn't seem so dangerous to most of you reading this blog, because you know exactly what it does and what it means when you click that button, and you can make that choice accordingly.
But we are not "average" internet users. The "average" internet user gives me a blank stare when I so much as use the word "browser." They don't have the first clue what this technology is doing -- directing them to web sites chosen by Google, where Google stands to profit from the advertising. It's couched in the rhetoric of convenience but the net effect is restricting ease of consumer choice by taking advantage of their lack of technical knowledge. Google is abusing its power in this case to drive traffic where it sees fit. Web publishers have no way to opt out, and consumers have no option to say "link me to Powell's instead of Amazon" or "link me to Yahoo maps instead of Google maps." That ain't right.
Posted at 4:38AM on Dec 19th 2005 by barb dybwad
7. I'm probably not as smart as Barb above. I've only used the internet for about 25 years, and written a browser, but I'll call myself average.
She obviouly hasn't used the toolbar or she'd know that she can pick Yahoo! Maps, though she is stuck with Amazon. By the way, you'll that Tim Bray thanked me for pointing that out to him as well.
And Jason, let me get this straight. You are not okay with a user clicking the AutoLink button to link the address, but you are okay with the user right-clicking on the address to link the address? So a button click is not acceptable, but a right mouse click is? Out of curiousity, what's the difference?
Don't get me wrong. I don't think the toolbar is particularly useful, and I use Firefox anyway. I just don't want to see a tool trashed by people who don't know the facts.
Posted at 4:38AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Larry Borsato
8. Jason:
"However, I don’t like the idea of software companies changing our editorial content."
Street addresses, VINs, ISBNs and tracking numbers are not editorial content. They are unique but factual information that cannot be copyrighted.
"Can you imagine world in which software publisher felt free to alter the content on people’s webpages?!?! It would be total chaos."
Two problems with this comment. First, the good old "Slippery Slope" argument is a fallacy. Just because Google introduces a passive feature that requires user intervention to function does not imply that that function will be used for evil things. What evidence do you have about Google's behaviour since it's inception that would lead you to believe that AutoLink would be used for anything other than linking factual information?
Second, you assume that the action of adding a link to a local copy of a web page is considered as altering the content of that web page. How is linking a street address any different from highlighting a street address in a book or magazine? It isn't and you know that. The content of the page is not changed. 123 Main Street remains as 123 Main Street. All that has changed is the look of 123 Main Street - it now has an underline and a different color. Only the look of the page has changed.
As much as you want to believe that the web developer or owner of the content has total control over the content AND presentation of a web peg, the fact is they don't. Each and every modern graphical browser permits a user to modify fonts, colors and how links are presented. The end user can modify their browser settings so that it appears that no web page has any links. Is that altering the content of the page? How about programs or browser options that block ads? Is that altering the content of the page? I find it telling that those opposed to AutoLink seem to have no problem with ad blockers? How about web sites or programs that translate web pages? How do you feel about that in terms of altering content?
barb dybwad:
When I tried out Toolbar3 (have your tried it?), the user could set the default map as Google Maps, Yahoo Maps or Mapquest.
One would assume that if one downloads a toolbar from Google (or Yahoo or MSN or whomever) that more likely than not the toolbar will take me to sites chosen by Google (or Yahoo or MSN or whomever). I don't expect the Google toolbar to take me to MSN sites.
9. Uh, yeah I've used the toolbar. Larry, if you've written a browser, you just do not qualify as the average internet user. End of story!
Having used the toolbar, and having worked extensively in IT with many of the elusive "average users," I know that the actual average internet user doesn't have a clue what "preferences" are all about. They will most likely never discover they can change the maps settings.
Furthermore, being "stuck with" Amazon is a big deal. Moreover, if you can show me the spot in the Toolbar3 documentation where there is the slightest mention of the word "Amazon," then you are a better sleuth than I. At the very least, people should be informed about where they're being autolinked to.
"First, the good old "Slippery Slope" argument is a fallacy. Just because Google introduces a passive feature that requires user intervention to function does not imply that that function will be used for evil things. What evidence do you have about Google's behaviour since it's inception that would lead you to believe that AutoLink would be used for anything other than linking factual information?"
Why on earth would I trust any corporation not to seek to promote its own interests via the services it provides? The "evidence" is that Google is now a huge corporation. They need to make money. Sure, in the past I have generally liked and trusted Google - but the AutoLink generates suspicion. Automagically linking to Amazon *and not telling people in the documentation* is fishy. It's not an odd thing to question the motives of ginormous corporations -- it's actually, um, rather obvious.
"How is linking a street address any different from highlighting a street address in a book or magazine? It isn't and you know that."
Um, well, the difference is that a link actually means quite a lot more than a highlight in a book, which is dead and doesn't do anything. Besides actually holding the functionality of taking the user elsewhere, the link is also the basic foundation of the entire web. Moreover, links also have a very, very important meaning when analyzed via algorithms that rank the popularity of sites (thus determining which sites get returned first in web searches) by search engines such as, oh, let's just say Google for the sake of argument, shall we? I'm *assuming* Google isn't actually using autolinks in their ranking algorithms - but I wouldn't really know, as it's not documented - another area where trust is required.
For the record, I think the idea behind the technology is sound - IF it were a separate and highly user-configurable tool. But bundling it in with the Google toolbar and providing almost no options... not good. Too much trust is required, and I really have no incentive to trust some corporation to be ultimately looking out for my best interests.
Posted at 4:38AM on Dec 19th 2005 by barb dybwad
10. I like the feature, but often forget to use it. As far as customers of mine getting sidetracked, I think a small percentage even has toolbar and a smaller percentage would even use theis feature
Posted at 4:38AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Robert Cheney
11. ummm..time to download the toolbar and see what the argument is all about
Posted at 4:38AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Toronto Student
12. With this toolbar, you have to press the AUTOLINK button every time you want to use the Autolink feature on a page. Therefore, you always see the page as it originally was, so you can see how it has changed.
And they even took it a step further: if you hover your mouse over one of the inserted google links, the hand icon has the Google balls on it.
As long as it is clear what they have changed, and is an optional feature, I don't care if they edit a page.
Posted at 4:38AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Jensen
14. As the owner of many high traffic web sites, I am proud to say I will be banning Google users. Before this gets out of hand, all webmaster should implement a one year ban on Google, crush them, and make the G search results crappier then they already are. Hello MSN and Yahoo, goodbye forever G$$GLE.
Posted at 4:38AM on Dec 19th 2005 by PM
16. Just downloaded this toolbar and I have to say: Autolink rocks! I don't understand the concern. You have to press the Autolink button for the address to get the link placed on it.
A top notch feature, if you ask me.
Posted at 4:38AM on Dec 19th 2005 by JE
17. If Microsoft had implemented this technology in the IE toolbar and auto-generated links to MSN and MS affiliates, it would be more clear. This technology doesn't seem so dangerous to most of you reading this blog, because you know exactly what it does and what it means when you click that button, and you can make that choice accordingly.
But we are not "average" internet users. The "average" internet user gives me a blank stare when I so much as use the word "browser." They don't have the first clue what this technology is doing -- directing them to web sites chosen by Google, where Google stands to profit from the advertising. It's couched in the rhetoric of convenience but the net effect is restricting ease of consumer choice by taking advantage of their lack of technical knowledge. Google is abusing its power in this case to drive traffic where it sees fit. Web publishers have no way to opt out, and consumers have no option to say "link me to Powell's instead of Amazon" or "link me to Yahoo maps instead of Google maps." That ain't right.
Posted at 4:38AM on Dec 19th 2005 by barb dybwad
18. I'm probably not as smart as Barb above. I've only used the internet for about 25 years, and written a browser, but I'll call myself average.
She obviouly hasn't used the toolbar or she'd know that she can pick Yahoo! Maps, though she is stuck with Amazon. By the way, you'll that Tim Bray thanked me for pointing that out to him as well.
And Jason, let me get this straight. You are not okay with a user clicking the AutoLink button to link the address, but you are okay with the user right-clicking on the address to link the address? So a button click is not acceptable, but a right mouse click is? Out of curiousity, what's the difference?
Don't get me wrong. I don't think the toolbar is particularly useful, and I use Firefox anyway. I just don't want to see a tool trashed by people who don't know the facts.
Posted at 4:38AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Larry Borsato
19. Jason:
"However, I don’t like the idea of software companies changing our editorial content."
Street addresses, VINs, ISBNs and tracking numbers are not editorial content. They are unique but factual information that cannot be copyrighted.
"Can you imagine world in which software publisher felt free to alter the content on people’s webpages?!?! It would be total chaos."
Two problems with this comment. First, the good old "Slippery Slope" argument is a fallacy. Just because Google introduces a passive feature that requires user intervention to function does not imply that that function will be used for evil things. What evidence do you have about Google's behaviour since it's inception that would lead you to believe that AutoLink would be used for anything other than linking factual information?
Second, you assume that the action of adding a link to a local copy of a web page is considered as altering the content of that web page. How is linking a street address any different from highlighting a street address in a book or magazine? It isn't and you know that. The content of the page is not changed. 123 Main Street remains as 123 Main Street. All that has changed is the look of 123 Main Street - it now has an underline and a different color. Only the look of the page has changed.
As much as you want to believe that the web developer or owner of the content has total control over the content AND presentation of a web peg, the fact is they don't. Each and every modern graphical browser permits a user to modify fonts, colors and how links are presented. The end user can modify their browser settings so that it appears that no web page has any links. Is that altering the content of the page? How about programs or browser options that block ads? Is that altering the content of the page? I find it telling that those opposed to AutoLink seem to have no problem with ad blockers? How about web sites or programs that translate web pages? How do you feel about that in terms of altering content?
barb dybwad:
When I tried out Toolbar3 (have your tried it?), the user could set the default map as Google Maps, Yahoo Maps or Mapquest.
One would assume that if one downloads a toolbar from Google (or Yahoo or MSN or whomever) that more likely than not the toolbar will take me to sites chosen by Google (or Yahoo or MSN or whomever). I don't expect the Google toolbar to take me to MSN sites.
20. Uh, yeah I've used the toolbar. Larry, if you've written a browser, you just do not qualify as the average internet user. End of story!
Having used the toolbar, and having worked extensively in IT with many of the elusive "average users," I know that the actual average internet user doesn't have a clue what "preferences" are all about. They will most likely never discover they can change the maps settings.
Furthermore, being "stuck with" Amazon is a big deal. Moreover, if you can show me the spot in the Toolbar3 documentation where there is the slightest mention of the word "Amazon," then you are a better sleuth than I. At the very least, people should be informed about where they're being autolinked to.
"First, the good old "Slippery Slope" argument is a fallacy. Just because Google introduces a passive feature that requires user intervention to function does not imply that that function will be used for evil things. What evidence do you have about Google's behaviour since it's inception that would lead you to believe that AutoLink would be used for anything other than linking factual information?"
Why on earth would I trust any corporation not to seek to promote its own interests via the services it provides? The "evidence" is that Google is now a huge corporation. They need to make money. Sure, in the past I have generally liked and trusted Google - but the AutoLink generates suspicion. Automagically linking to Amazon *and not telling people in the documentation* is fishy. It's not an odd thing to question the motives of ginormous corporations -- it's actually, um, rather obvious.
"How is linking a street address any different from highlighting a street address in a book or magazine? It isn't and you know that."
Um, well, the difference is that a link actually means quite a lot more than a highlight in a book, which is dead and doesn't do anything. Besides actually holding the functionality of taking the user elsewhere, the link is also the basic foundation of the entire web. Moreover, links also have a very, very important meaning when analyzed via algorithms that rank the popularity of sites (thus determining which sites get returned first in web searches) by search engines such as, oh, let's just say Google for the sake of argument, shall we? I'm *assuming* Google isn't actually using autolinks in their ranking algorithms - but I wouldn't really know, as it's not documented - another area where trust is required.
For the record, I think the idea behind the technology is sound - IF it were a separate and highly user-configurable tool. But bundling it in with the Google toolbar and providing almost no options... not good. Too much trust is required, and I really have no incentive to trust some corporation to be ultimately looking out for my best interests.
Posted at 4:38AM on Dec 19th 2005 by barb dybwad
1. With this toolbar, you have to press the AUTOLINK button every time you want to use the Autolink feature on a page. Therefore, you always see the page as it originally was, so you can see how it has changed.
And they even took it a step further: if you hover your mouse over one of the inserted google links, the hand icon has the Google balls on it.
As long as it is clear what they have changed, and is an optional feature, I don't care if they edit a page.
Posted at 4:38AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Jensen