Danny Sullivan's Review of Google Toolbar's AutoLink Options

[cre8pc]

Thanks to the robust and detailed article by Danny Sullivan,

Google Toolbar's AutoLink & The Need For Opt-Out

I'm able to better understand what's going on, and I'm surprised at what Google is doing, especially in light of USA homeland security, personal privacy issues, the entire user centered design industry and their goals on behalf of companies who own web sites and the basic right by web site owners to have some say in the overall customer/visitor experience.

For starters, the auto link only triggers for these 4 things:

* Package Tracking Numbers (those currently supported in Search By Number for regular search results)
* US Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs)
* US Addresses
* Publication ISBN numbers

Therefore, anyone with an address to their house or business is subject to the possibility that someone with Google Toolbar Beta3 turned "on" will automatically be linked to a map to their house - without the permission of the web site owner.

The fact that kids have web sites makes this scary as hell to me.

Next, is the user experience.

Who owns it?

While the toolbar can be turned on or off, this doesn't negate the fact that Google has seen fit to begin a process that makes the user experience a question of ownership. Whatever happened to "Do No Evil?"

So now you can go directly to a book that wasn't linked. Thank you.

I want to know what's going to stop Google from adding more "Triggers"? And, whose to say these triggers won't be bought and meetings aren't already taking place on how to take this autolink procedure to the next level. For example:

Say I have a web site that mentions the words SEO, search engine optimization and search engine marketing in the content of the homepage. What if those words become Trigger Words? What if someone pays Google to autolink those words to THEIR site? Why not? Crazier stuff has happened.

My biggest concern returns to the user experience. The purpose of landing pages, for example, is to direct a visitor who clicks into it from an ad to do several things, like stay on the website and buy something.

What if that landing sends them somewhere else because an autolink trigger word appears on the landing page?

Persuasive design is intended to keep the visitor on the site long enough to do something productive that benefits the web site owner. Are we facing a future where no matter what we do, some hot shot toolbar is going to be redirecting our efforts?

Danny's article:

How about the tool expanding the range of what's auto-linked. That could happen. Google's not saying what may or may not change, because the tool is still in beta -- a traditional style beta that should only last a few months at most.

It's possible, Google said, that if users push the button, it might decide that the toolbar should always automatically show links rather than make this a page-by-page choice users initiate. Or not, depending on feedback.

New features could also be added or removed. The company is interested in link enabling anything that someone might have to cut-and-paste to get existing information from Google. For instance, enter a stock symbol into Google right now, and it links to you stock data. Potentially, stock symbols could be turned into AutoLinks.

Couldn't any word be made into a link? Sure, but that would be too much, Google says.

\"That goes a little too far. We aren't interested in turning an entire page into hyperlinks. That's not particularly helpful to the user,\" Mayer said.

If someone didn't hyperlink something, there's a good possibility they did so because they want their visitor to remain on their site. How dare Google intefere?

And just because Google wouldn't dream of hyperlinking "any words" doesn't mean some other company won't get their hands on the technology and make mincemeat out of our web sites.

It's a hard fought effort for web sites to be found in search engines in the first place. It's another ordeal to design a site so that a visitor stays on it.

I can honestly say that I won't be trying as hard to get sites into Google if the very act of doing so is going to also interfere or negate all efforts to build a user centered web site.

How does this autolink feature work with screen readers? I wonder if that was even tested.

Danny's article:

AutoLink also raises anew the philosophical debate of who ultimately controls content. \"It's my content, hands off!,\" is a common theme that resonates with many publishers. What gives Google the right to start tampering with your page?

Google's response is that the users give them the right. The users want this tool. The users want to control how they view that content.

How many more people will do this - I Banned Googlebot.

Now that's controlling content.

[Brad]

I thought Danny did a very good job with what can be a complex subject for non-webmasters.


One way to counter Autolink is to purposely link addresses to a Google competitor's maps. For instance linking a business address to the Yahoo map so as to counter Google automatically grabbing that for themselves.

A link is a vote after all. :twisted:

[DianeV]

I'm thinking that Google will find the bad public relations from this supposedly user-centric toolbar something to contend with. Word of mouth is a powerful thing.

http://scumware.com/

[Respree]

I think it is a complex issue (talking about linking to maps).

On one hand you have a relatively small webmaster community, some of whom will no doubt be outraged by the toolbar placing links on 'their' pages. I say small, when you compare it to the number of searchers using G. This community is made even smaller for the vast majority of site owners who don't realize what's going on, much less what to do about it (if anything).

On the other hand (playing Devil's Advocate), you have G's primary customer - the searching community. I can't find the latest stats, but two years ago, their daily number of searches was about 250 million. I suspect it's more by now. Let's say half a billion (yes, with a "B").

G have never been as cavalier as our favorite large scale directory to come right out and say "we're not here to please webmasters, we work towards bringing the best experience to our customers (searchers)." They don't say it in public, but no doubt that's what they think.

I think it's fair to say that all these privacy issues were probably internally discussed before the autolink feature was put into place, but at the end of the day, I think it was a 'no contest' decision.

Hundreds of millions of searches a day versus a comparatively small handful of P.O.'d webmasters.

Will they back down? What would you do in their place? Time will tell.

[swainzy]

I hate saying it but Google's bottom line, like all business', is money. Google didn't care about the small business person when they make their changes and it really affected me and hundreds of thousands of small business owners last year.
Google was the "level playing field". Perhaps I was naive to hope it would stay like that.
With this new feature, to a novice like me, it appears that Google is unilaterally making decisions for people's sites.
IMHO Google doesn't care about "do no evil". It's more like: make a lot of money and hopefully no one notices the evil it might cause others.

Wish I could be more positive. (Set me straight if need be)
Donna

[cre8pc]

Google has a software policy, which is nice to see. What's not so nice is how it fits only one side of the story.

The policy has several points to it about the integrity of their software.

Here is one part of it:

SNOOPING

If an application collects or transmits your personal information such as your address, you should know.

I hate to make such a ruckus about unlinked addresses being a Google autolink trigger to a map, but I find this dangerous and frightening. Many people work from home, which is why they refuse to put their business address on a web site. If they have a family, they want to protect them.

When I was a single mom freelancing in SEO, I received hate mail and death threats whenever I wrote articles about SEO spam. This was in the late 1990's, before a lot of people were wise to search engine submission ripoffs. Because of the death threats and hate letters threatening law suits, I swore to never publish where I lived.

Disabled people, by the millions, have web sites and online businesses, but prefer to not provide a map to their home for safety reasons.

How about personal sites that are family oriented, but may have their address on it somewhere for relatives to use to send holiday and birthday cards? What is protecting their right to publish, and protecting their privacy?

I don't understand how the smart minds at Google are putting money before life or safety? It doesn't fit with their "do no evil" premise. We've tried so hard to convince Internet users that making purchases online is safe, so why are Google and other companies handing out maps to houses without the owner's permission?

Now we have to find a piece of code to put with an addresses to prevent it from being an autolink trigger. It's one thing to offer to put directions up to a business, and another to not have a choice about it.

[peter_d]

They're talking like it's a service for users, and some gadget-happy pundits are viewing this way. They think that it is all about display.

The problem is this is about altering *editorial*. That might benefit some users, but it will hurt publishers. If publishers cannot make money then they will stop publishing, ultimately leaving the user with less choice.

I doubt Google would be happy with a rival overwriting their serps with green squiggles, so why should other publishers put up with it?

[Ruud]

Everything can be turned around. The first scripts to counter the auto-linking are already out there. My suggestion: build on them. Google links are highly trusted: use it to your own benefit. Put in ISBN numbers when you reference books - and have your script turn the new links into Amazon links with *your* affliate ID

[fisicx]

I think that all the harrumphing about the new 'autolink' will not affect the masses. As Respree said, most of them do not care. And as to google changing your site, they already do this. Use the toolbar to search and google will help by highlighting the search words on your page.

And as to the snooping bit: you agreed to allow google to snoop when you signed the toolbar EULA. This was discussed at length in another topic (which I can't find at the moment).

If you feel so strongly about the issue then you can get a script to block the autolink from accessing your site: http://www.threadwatch.org/node/1562.

Note: I do not like this feature but I can't really see Google stopping its use because there is a lot of discussion in various forums. Google is in the money making business. If this make them money then they do not really care about the handful of site that will be affected.

[cre8pc]

Had an interesting talk with someone today about this and he said the whole reason for the Internet in the first place was about information sharing, not ecommerce. He also said that when Google went IPO it had to find new ways to make money.

If I step back and look at it from another angle, I can see how there would be advocates for the right to control one's experience using the Internet, and that right over-ruling the right of any web site designer/owner.

Like Fisicx says, we're signing away our rights, whether fully aware of it or not.

I just don't think I'll give up the right to retain some control over my websites without a fight . Makes me wonder why we bother to be creative and try new things in design, if the end user has all these ways of rendering pages so they don't look or act like we wanted or intended it to.

Think of it this way. You want to enter a store in the mall, but there's a crowd of people standing in front of the storefront trying to pull you to their store, or listen to their sales pitch, or shoving their discounted jeans in your hands. The chances of you even getting inside the store to look around on your own become difficult with all the interference.

What we're facing here is interference and we're being told we have to live with it because this is what the people want. Makes me think of the saying, "Be careful what you wish for."

[Brad]

Google does not want to actually put in the hard labor or creativity of building a website. They just want to waltz in and put links on it without doing any of the work. They also are not paying our hosting fees.

I think Google needs to understand that while they owe us no obligation for listing our sites in their index, they too have no right to access to our intellectual property and our web space. Or as my dad always said: "When you are under my roof, you will abide by my rules." I don't see how that should be any different in the virtual world than it is in the real world.

If Google wants to write their own web pages with their own labor they are welcome to do so and place links where they want to.

[bwelford]

Spot on, Brad. :claphands:

[DianeV]

I've been posting about this for a while now. In addition to what may have to be decided in court(s), I think the Autolink feature violates the symbiotic relationship between website owners and search engines by overplaying it in Google's favor.

Recent history shows that companies have backed off from what might be perceived as predatory tactics due to public protest. I don't think the "harumphing" needs to affect the masses; it needs to affect Google.

[Eddie]

I managed to find an email that works toolbar-support@google.com

I wrote and this is the reply:

We appreciate your feedback regarding the AutoLink feature of the Google Toolbar 3.0 beta. AutoLink is a user-initiated feature of the Google Toolbar. AutoLink links are generated only when a Toolbar user clicks on the AutoLink button on his or her Toolbar. Links aren't automatically generated on a page, and a Toolbar user must click on the generated links in order to go to a linked page. AutoLink does not modify links that already exist on a page. Finally, Toolbar users choose whether they want to enable or disable this feature and when to use it.

Because Toolbar users choose whether they want to enable or disable features and when to use them, we do not provide a way for webmasters to disable features such as AutoLink and the Popup Blocker on their visitors'
Toolbars.

We appreciate your taking the time to share your feedback about the AutoLink feature, and we'll keep it in mind as we work to improve our service.

Regards,
The Google Team

[cre8pc]

Yes, it looks like their replays on are on autopilot.

See the Threadwatch thread.

I put up a small DEMO about how the autolink feature works for addresses.

[bearmugs]

Hi Gang

I was going to ask "what the hell are you guys talking about, but I decided to look into it first. Now it all makes sense. It's a windoze thing.
Obviously, the Toolbar is an option, etc, etc.
If you decide to add all these toys to your browser, you're asking for trouble. And also, the "average user" won't even know that the toolbar exists for download.
Like the conversation with the typical user goes...
"What are you using as a search engine"
answer: DAH! Internet Explorer. I just click on the search button"
They don't know a search engine from a browser from an operating system That's why viruses spread so quickly, as do Urban Legends.
OH MY GOD. IF I LABEL MY PROGRAM AS HOT, MY COMPUTER WILL CATCH ON FIRE.
There are people using computers who aren't even qualified to use a telephone. Google is doing what the majority of web users are doing. Exploiting the medium. Isn't that what SEO means?
We just have to ensure that it does not come already installed on any browser. And if MS gets some Google stock, you can bet it will come with MSIE.

Cheers
John

[whitemark]

Think of it this way. You want to enter a store in the mall, but there's a crowd of people standing in front of the storefront trying to pull you to their store, or listen to their sales pitch, or shoving their discounted jeans in your hands. The chances of you even getting inside the store to look around on your own become difficult with all the interference.

Ha. Guess you've never been to India, right? That is exactly what happens in some of the busiest markets in India! Shops are lined across in the streets, and the moment you go near them during the busy hours, all the sales person will immediately try to catch your attention yelling and shoving the others to get you into their shop. A determined few will also follow you around giving continuous non-stop sales pitch until he either convinces you or gives up ...

A bit of an over-reaction, this whole thing ...

I think the webmasters here are forgetting that they cannot control the 'user experience' of a visitor ... influence, yes, control no.

The internet is an exciting and strange medium ... once you get the hang of it, your user experience is not just through a single source but a sum of many - a website, a pop-up being blocked on it, Gmail telling me I have a mail, Yahoo trying to catch my attention that my friend is online and maybe Google telling me that it can assist me by autolinking a few things I might be interested in looking up if I so desire ...

The moment YOU try to control MY user experience either by launching your site full screen or finding a work around my pop-up blocker or blocking the autolinks, you are in effect irritating me - souring my user experience.

So let's get this straight - this is not about the user, its about you - the webmaster. But the moment a webmaster starts thinking that way, he/she is actually no longer worried about their site visitors.

User experience is not about finding ways to 'trap' your visitor to your site. It's about satisfying them.

Secondly, this fear about Autolink helping some serial killer find you ... If you don't want anyone to find you than don't leave your address lying around on the web. Do you think that if the Autolink feature wasn't there, a determined person won't find you if he knows your address?

Finally, all of you worried about autolinking are making the most fundamental mistake that you as webmasters shouldn't - instead of implementing some means of finding out whether your online business will suffer, you are jumping to conclusions that don't have any factual basis. More dangerously, you are gonna act on them??

Did you know that the world's largest and most successful online business doesn't rely on plain 'intellectual reasoning'? Yes, amazon.com has learned to not rely on 'logical thinking' but to test and prove everything. And so they designed a system that can measure everything. If someone wants a prime section of the main page layout, they immediately run thousands of impression of the links or image and test it out. If it performs and makes more money it gets the spot, else its out. Earlier, every category VP would push hard to get these prime spot and it created great problems. Now its all about measurements.

In fact, while many continually tell them that their site is too complicated, every time they have downgraded their site by removing a feature or tried to make it simple through redesigns, tests have found that the site performed poorly!

You have an idea or concern - great, lets measure it.

It helps to remember that all our senses tell us the earth is flat but ...

[whitemark]

I forgot to add that one thing about Autolink does merit some digging - more trigger words. But since links are triggered only when a user pushes a button, I am not really sure about that too ...

Also, for those of you who do want to BLOCK autolink, here's my suggestion - tell your user that you have blocked it and give them an option to enable it.

[quote] Google Autolink has been temporarily disabled to prevent any distractions. Please click here

Always give your user a choice; they might not like it, but they sure will appreciate you for it ...

[cre8pc]

Secondly, this fear about Autolink helping some serial killer find you ... If you don't want anyone to find you than don't leave your address lying around on the web.

There is no privacy control regarding withholding one's address from the Internet unless they have a P.O. box. Since phone companies supply the addresses, whoever has a phone is subject to having their address put into places like the Whitepages.

Meaning, the addresses are on the web, regardless of whether or not all people want them to be.

As for the user experience not being controlled, I agree. I have all kinds of browser preferences set that turn off most of the stuff webmasters put on their web sites. I still wouldn't deny them the right to want to generate conversions the way they would prefer to. Its much easier to track things when you know what and where you put the triggers. Harder to track when an autolink is taking people somewhere off-site in a manner you didn't design or plan for.

Using the Whitepages web site as an example, they already offer a link to a map for the addresses they display, but it's a separate link to their map. This means the Google autolink function, if turned on, will hyperlink the addresses on a Whitepages page (which are not linked as per their design), and Google can send the visitor to a different map.

Great choices for the end-user, but a bit unfair for the Whitepages site and likely a real trip trying to track and analyze what a visitor is doing. Can tracking software see what happened to a link they didn't put on the site?

I think it's healthy to ask questions. If more people would have had the courage to do so, the earth would have deemed round ages earlier than it was.

And no, I've never been to India. I do understand, from listening to my clients, that they do not wish to build web sites that frustrate their visitors. I suppose if one wants to deal with distractions, one can go to the store or marketplace filled with people creening for your attention.

I was under the impression Internet ecommerce offered an alternative to that experience.

[Arnvid]

Google is too big / important - it's all money - webmasters / users of no interest
We all heard that, so should we confirm the almighty truth here as well?

It was said something along that line when freeware who earned some dollars on simple advertising banners, were given the option of earning real money on banners who gave far more information back to the advertising company than the users was aware of. Soon this kind of adware coding was on lots of "freeware" - and when someone cried out, most said - bad but we can’t do anything to prevent it. Look how many adware or spyware programs there is out there today? And still if some spyware are around these days, now most know about ad-aware, spyboot - and even Microsoft AntiSpyware is around.

In Norway the only company who collect milk from all farmers (and produce milk, cheese and other milk products) started to fight a small company who produced another cheese. All said, the small company have no chance to this giant. Then suddenly some journalists found out that the big company had made a deal with one of the three largest supermarket chains - that this supermarket chain would receive millions if they said no to any cheese from the small producer. When it came out that a giant took away the ability to choose - the consumers answered. How? Within one week the big producer had lost 1 / 4th of their sale on cheese and milk. Their top manager and others in the top management had to go - as the consumers had said no, the same way people said no to adware / spyware.

I don’t know if AutoLink will do that to Google (most likely not), but I do know there is a limit - and when / if Google cross that invisible line - then some Google users will start to look for alternatives. When / if this happens, lots of media who today praise Google would be happy to make some new kind of headings on Google - and as we know, "minus-news" always sell better than "plus-news", Google being no exception here - in the end...