Article thieves BEWARE SideWiki.

[Marty S]

This might be the best way yet to expose those spammer blogs who steal your articles without credit.

Google has just released SideWiki for the Firefox Google toolbar (oddly it does NOT work with Google Chrome yet) which allows GMAIL registered users to post comments on any webpage for other SideWiki users to read.

There are certainly lots of factors with this feature that remain to be seen as to their usefulness, but for those irritating article thieves, we now have a quick way of exposing and possibly diverting some traffic back to your original resource.

Just post a SideWiki review on their webpage saying "This content has been unlawfully taken from my own site, which I am the author. Please visit the original document for a more accurate version and a video on this very subject at www.myoriginalarticle...."

or something to that effect.

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/help-and-learn-from-others-as-you.html

http://searchengineland.com/google-s...any-site-26420

[JayXtreme]

Wow..

Whilst I can see the good points, I do hope it is moderated in some way.. it is open to abuse right from the start, imho.

Peace

Jay

[Marty S]

Originally Posted by JayXtreme

Wow..

Whilst I can see the good points, I do hope it is moderated in some way.. it is open to abuse right from the start, imho.

True it will be interesting to see how the software controls the spam and IM manipulation. A good thing I noticed already though is that SPAM psoters can be easily identifiable because they have a SideWiki profile that you can see all their recent comments. I do not know the alert process yet, but its surely a good way to get booted from SideWki use.

[George Wright]

And it will be misused by the bad guys. Just look at what has happened to some other "reporting" services. I won't call them by name here but we all know who they are.

I don't think I'll be getting it. I'd probably spend too much time checking. I hope G sees the error of their ways. Just wait until people start using it against then (G). It probably won't matter to them but it will be annoying, I hope.

George Wright

Originally Posted by healymedia

Yikes. Sounds like a pretty terrible idea to me.

It'd be like Google saying 'Hey we're going to put up a huge billboard beside your house and let anyone who wants to write on it".

My website is my property. I own it. Google has absolutely no right to add anything to it. Especially something that could be so potentially detrimental if taken advantage of by spammers or unethical competitors.

[timpears]

I would say that Google is treading on thin ice here. I see a very big hole opened up for massive abuse. Good jub Google has very deep pockets as they might be facing a big lawsuit if a few web site owners get together after they feel like they have been damaged by this.

[khtm]

Originally Posted by healymedia

Yikes. Sounds like a pretty terrible idea to me.

It'd be like Google saying 'Hey we're going to put up a huge billboard beside your house and let anyone who wants to write on it".

My website is my property. I own it. Google has absolutely no right to add anything to it. Especially something that could be so potentially detrimental if taken advantage of by spammers or unethical competitors.

I never thought of it that way before, but you make an excellent point!

It's likely only a matter of time before the SideWiki becomes a cesspool of spammers and bots.

[Marty S]

I suppose it could go either way, but I find it interesting how IMers can be so negative having not even tried the tool yet.

Firstly, to post you must have a gmail account.

Secondly, your collective posts can be viewed by anybody.

Thirdly, if you are a spammer you will be found and eliminated in short order by the community. No differently than this forum.

I too am suspect, but Google has done a little business online, so I will give it some time and analysis before condemning it.

Further,

"My website is my property. I own it. Google has absolutely no right to add anything to it. Especially something that could be so potentially detrimental if taken advantage of by spammers or unethical competitors."

Google doesn't put anything there, unless the user wants it. Since we are all really self publishers, we open ourselves to criticism and accolades like any other form of publishing. It seems to me, in theory at least, that good content then will get mostly good reviews, while poor content (article thieves) will get mostly poor reviews. It could turn out to be a bust, but from using the tool this morning, I can def see a lot of potential for Imers and users. Best to keep an open mind at least.

[Reg McMicking]

Thanks for the info. Important to know

[thegamecat]

I will never use this, ever. Unless it's going to make me money.

[Marty S]

Originally Posted by thegamecat

I will never use this, ever. Unless it's going to make me money.

Wow. YOU have a blog on social media?

[XJ2]

Interesting thoughts:
Google Sidewiki: Danger BuzzMachine

Obviously it is not targetet to me: I have not used G toolbar since 2003. On the other flip side, if SW should ever become mainstream, you are overestimating the abuse by the few and underestimating the stupidity of the many...

I hope it's not about iframing the whole web and letting people chat between an ad and the other on the strategically placed in a prominent position new google's toy.

[AmyBrown]

What?!? No one has started a sidewiki for the WF main page or this thread yet?

I've installed it, not with the intention of making comments, however I feel I need to monitor both my websites and those of my clients. If you don't install it then there could be an invisible conversation on your own site(s). Intriguing, and a great selling point for reputation management services

[Marty S]

Originally Posted by healymedia

So anything the user wants on my website should just be allowed to be placed their by Google?
Sorry, I don't buy it.
This will be abused just like almost any other commenting system gets abused.

Actually there is a system in place for this. I am NOT saying if it will work or not, but if you haven't tried the toolbar yet... you wouldn't know much about it. Its just guess work along with the rest of your post. No?

I am NOT entirely defending this, but as a webmaster and social media participant, I certainly cannot write it off on DAY 1! That's why I am trying it.

Originally Posted by healymedia

The real question though is that, with all the potential downsides to this, what is the actual upside?

I really don't see much risk for downside. With new online services (especially from Google), my job is to look for the potential UPSIDE. As in "How can this help me and my business?"

I believe this could potentially have an inherent value on the usefulness in rankings of a website. In other words lets say one of my sites has 1,000 SideWiki comments throughout its pages. Let's say your identical site (maybe a different theme and title) has ZERO SideWiki comments.

Is Google search going to ignore this? I really don't know, but I am willing to surmise that this will have an inherent, underlying strength in what Google search deems is valuable, search worthy content.

If I can make any assumptions right now, that would be the closest thing I guess. Even if I am wrong, I choose to think of it like that, rather than going out and burning a pile of rock-and-roll records at this point.

[Marty S]

Originally Posted by healymedia

Why should Google have the right to put an avenue ON Amazon's site, that they own, where people are going to use it to suggest buyers go elsewhere?

I don't care if the person who wrote that comment is interested in that discussion, it doesn't belong on Amazon's site. Yet this is exactly the kind of crap that will inevitably happen all the time.

Google is way overstepping their boundaries on this one. I own my site, I decide what goes on it. Period. If I want to enable my users to chat about whatever they want, I'll enable commenting or put up a forum, but it will be ME who decides that.

Keep in mind people, Google doesn't put anything on your site. The end user does by choosing to install and contribute.

[Marty S]

Well any Joe can go to any website. Any Joe IS a user. But, if that Joe happens to be a spammer, there is a process.

[AmyBrown]

It's not new technology, there has been at least one other toolbar that did the same thing. However with Google behind it the stakes get much higher.

I predict there will be a webmaster opt-out mechanism in place before too long. The existing "solution" is to install code requesting the user uninstall the toolbar.

[Marty S]

Originally Posted by healymedia

This is missing the point by about 100 miles.

I own my website. I paid for it. I built it. I control it. This new technology allows any user with this installed to add content on to MY site, without MY permission, because Google says they can.

Sorry. No thanks. I'm amazed people are defending this.

Like I said, if I want users to be able to chat about whatever they want on my site, I'll give them that option. But it will be me who gives them that option.

Just re-read that quote I posted above. If you read the comment string for that blog post, you'll see many people agreeing with that comment. Even though it's absolutely ridiculous.

Google can not be allowed to take any control away from the website owners. Yes we all benefit from being in Google, but that doesn't mean they have control over the content of our site or who gets to add to it.

This tool is a bad idea. Period. The marginal benefits that may exist are far outweighed by the possible negatives and the fact that Google is stripping a level of control from website owners and giving it to literally anyone who takes the time to sign up for a Gmail account.

Wow. I read this and the first thing I thought of was McCarthyism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Take it eassse guy. I hope I am not really defending anything here except having an open mind. I really do not know anything about it on Day1. Must keep learning and trying though.

[Marty S]

Originally Posted by healymedia

I find it hilarious that you're trying to compare me definding my right to control my own property to McCarthyism. I think that might be literally as far off the mark as possible.

Yes I was trying to inject a little humor. Really though, ease up.

For those of you not so threatened, and who have installed the SideWiki, I started one for this very thread, so you can see how it looks and what it does.

[AmyBrown]

Originally Posted by Marty S

Yes I was trying to inject a little humor. Really though, ease up.

For those of you not so threatened, and who have installed the SideWiki, I started one for this very thread, so you can see how it looks and what it does.

I don't see it and I do see SideWikis on other sites. Interesting.

[jplanigan]

Originally Posted by Marty S

Yes I was trying to inject a little humor. Really though, ease up.

For those of you not so threatened, and who have installed the SideWiki, I started one for this very thread, so you can see how it looks and what it does.

I see no entries in the sidewiki for this post.

I am in the 'not excited about this' camp for the most part. And I have already seen some seriously crappy spam comments in sidewiki.

Count me not impressed.

Patrick

[Marty S]

Originally Posted by AmyBrown

I don't see it and I do see SideWikis on other sites. Interesting.

I know. Its showing in SideWkis profile, but not the browser from where I posted it. Maybe it takes some time, I dunno. Can you post a comment now and I will see if it shows for me?

Amy you might be interested to know that you can also RSS your own SideWiki comments!! Just discovered.

[Gail Sober]

Looks like you can block it but at the expense of blocking all google toolbar users.

How do webmasters opt out of sidewiki? - Webmaster Central Help

Not sure if you'd want to go to that extreme or not but there is that option.

[Emily Meeks]

It's a good idea in theory, but I'm not sure if this one will pan out well.

[jplanigan]

I added an entry to the sidewiki, but I still don't see any others. Confused...

Patrick

EDIT: I take that back, I don't see my entry upon refreshing the page either. I even refreshed without the post number anchor at the end.

[Marty S]

Originally Posted by Marty S

Amy you might be interested to know that you can also RSS your own SideWiki comments!! Just discovered.

Wow you can embed a video as well!

I also read some interesting stuff about how the comments are ranked, its NOT by most recent.

[Marty S]

Originally Posted by jplanigan

I added an entry to the sidewiki, but I still don't see any others. Confused...

Patrick

EDIT: I take that back, I don't see my entry upon refreshing the page either. I even refreshed without the post number anchor at the end.

Can you check your own profile and see if the comment is there? Mine is showing in my profile, but not here. There may be some kind of delay, trying to research it now.

[jplanigan]

Originally Posted by Marty S

Can you check your own profile and see if the comment is there? Mine is showing in my profile, but not here. There may be some kind of delay, trying to research it now.

Just checked my profile and it is there along with the URL. Still nothing showing up here on the page though.

Doh. I looked at the URL it had registered for the comment on my profile and it is: Article thieves BEWARE SideWiki.

Notice the post anchor at the end. If I go to that URL I see my comment in the SW.

Seems like a bad idea for them to not strip anchors/querystrings. Bleh.

Patrick

[jplanigan]

That just gave me an idea. I haven't tested this with query strings, but we know that anchors screw things up, so if you don't want SW comments to be used on your site, maybe you could code something up (WP Plugin for this would be great) that would append random meaningless query strings to you URLS. Of course Big G would just put out an update and make it ineffective.

Patrick

[Marty S]

"Don’t be reactive to negative content –embrace social content now. Give users the ability to leave social feedback directly on your corporate webpages, or aggregate existing social content."

from

Google’s SideWiki Shifts Power To Consumers –Away From Corporate Websites Web Strategy by Jeremiah Owyang | Social Media, Web Marketing


Translation - Don't be so quick to discard new innovations.

[AmyBrown]

This is the official Google video:

YouTube - Introducing Google Sidewiki

[Marty S]

Originally Posted by healymedia

It all comes down to ownership of property. As webmasters, we are the owners of our web properties, and no one but us has the right to mess with or alter our websites.

Your content stays exactly the same. Google is empowering users to choose HOW THEY want to see it.

[Marty S]

Since we are on "Why's",

Why do you need to worry so much about what other's think of your content? If your content is good, or at least controversial, then you will be rewarded with search and social media traffic without lifting a finger!

[VinnyBock]

Just this morning I was going through my tracking stats and one of my links was clicked from I site I never heard of, I checked it out and there was my original article, with by: Admin under it.
The only reason I let it go, is because it still has my affiliate hyper links in it?

[Kirk Ward]

If a user installs a toolbar on their browser, then the toolbar can in effect, take control of the browser and direct the user wherever they want, or show whatever they want.

Google is opening up the gates to hell with this thing.

I haven't seen anyone mention the possiblity of Google starting to show their ads in the sidewiki, and cancelling the ads on my site ... eliminating my income, cutting me out of the loop.

I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere that this has the potential for Google to exercize even more control over what sites are shown. No need to throw me in the sandbox, or the crapper, or whatever, just use the toolbar to redirect me to a site that the google thinks the folks who made their comments find more "relevant." (Think paid for here.)

I'm not excited. I'm looking more and more at the idea of focusing on MSN as my traffic source.

Kirk

[bgmacaw]

Originally Posted by healymedia

I certainly hope there will be an opt-out.

Sorry, I posted the Onion "Google Opt Out" video yesterday.

My prediction is that this will go away soon because this treads closely to being adware like Gator.com's banner replacement malware (circa 2001-2003) that large corporations like the New York Times and Dow Jones & Company filed suit against. Google stockholders should see this as a serious legal liability and urge management to pull it ASAP.

[Marty S]

All I can say is I am not threatened by it at all, and since Facebook and Twitter are planning similar services as we speak, you can be assured this is here stay.

[Kirk Ward]

One additional thought that does give hope ...

Google MAY face a liability problem if the fail to monitor and control what is said, just as an ISP can be held liable if they ignore notices that what the websites they are hosting are doing things defamatory and illegal. There was a big multi-million case of this same sort recently where a hosting company was given notice by a big time (Polo or Laurens) handbag company about one of the websites they hosted selling knockoffs. The ISP lost because they ignored the notice.

Imagine what would happen if Google ignored some notices from webmasters who found the comments defamatory and libelous and Google ignored or did not monitor the usage.

Sounds very labor intensive to me. Not something that can easily be monitored with an algorithm.

I'm still bothered, but this is another aspect. It could turn into a profit center if you have tacky competitors who don't think things through. LOL

Kirk

[jasonmorgan]

I predict... this addon goes nowhere and is dead in a year.

People have to install it first and then remember to use it. How many common surfers add firefox addons in the first place and is this something they really want?

Oh yeah, if it does take off... wonder twins power, activate, spam on! It'll be abused to death. It'll be like a pr7 blog with unmoderated comments on crack.

[Ken]

I spend many hours building a site with a particular focus. My aim is to direct the visitor toward a specific action. Every piece of real-estate on the site has been plotted and built just for this purpose. I carefully avoid any possible distractions in order to achieve the action required to make my site profitable. Now Google wants to make it a PUBLIC PLAYGROUND?

You don't want to hear the language around here just now.

Ken

[Marty S]

Originally Posted by Ken

I spend many hours building a site with a particular focus.

Then you have the MOST to gain with SideWiki, compared to your competition.

[Ken]

Originally Posted by Marty S

Then you have the MOST to gain with SideWiki, compared to your competition.

What part of "carefully avoid any possible distractions" don't you understand?

[Marty S]

Originally Posted by Ken

What part of "carefully avoid any possible distractions" don't you understand?

I understand fine sir, but perhaps you may need to change your strategy, based on changing market conditions.

[bgmacaw]

Originally Posted by Marty S

I understand fine sir, but perhaps you may need to change your strategy, based on changing market conditions.

OK, new strategy...

1. Google can be held legally liable under US law.
2. Google already has numerous legal problems under US and EU law and should be willing to settle.
3. Sue Google for $100 Million.
4. Settle out of court for $20 Million, lawyer gets $15M
5. Retire on $5 Million.

Sounds like a plan...

Of course, those blood sucking lawyers would make it a class action suit, still get the $15M while the defendants get $26.43 each.

[Kirk Ward]

Originally Posted by bgmacaw

...
Of course, those blood sucking lawyers would make it a class action suit, still get the $15M while the defendants get $26.43 each.

I'm fine with that.

.

[LB]

So when a competitor posts to a sidewiki on my site and pretends to be a customer and says that I scammed them and people should by from [competitor] instead...who's responsible? Google? Or do I have to sue the person posting...what happens when it's a freelancer in India who was paid by the competitor to post? I've already dealt with this previously and there's no good solution at all.

Already you can go to any freelance site and pay to have people post favorable things about you online for pennies. This type of thing will make it rampant.

Google framing and monetizing content is the same type of thing other toolbar companies got sued for. See: Judge: See ya later, Gator - CNET News

[Kirk Ward]

Originally Posted by LB

...
Google framing and monetizing content is the same type of thing other toolbar companies got sued for. See: Judge: See ya later, Gator - CNET News

That was a preliminary ruling in 2002. What ever became of it? What was the final decision.

If upheld, that should scare the pant's off Google.

edit ... what happens when the use of the SideWiki starts to impair the usability and functionality of the website?

K
.

[bgmacaw]

Originally Posted by Kirk Ward

That was a preliminary ruling in 2002. What ever became of it? What was the final decision.

If upheld, that should scare the pant's off Google.

K
.

Settled out of court in 2003 when Gator realized they had a no win situation on their hands. How Not To Wrestle A Gator - Forbes.com

[AmyBrown]

As I remember, Diigo has been doing the same thing for a year or more.

The key may lie in monetization. That seemed to be the primary focus of the case related to Gator.

[Kirk Ward]

Originally Posted by bgmacaw

Settled out of court in 2003 when Gator realized they had a no win situation on their hands. How Not To Wrestle A Gator - Forbes.com

Key point in that article ... "No case law was established in this case." Because they settled. Because the case was not heard.

No precedent. Not applicable. Damn.

K
.

[n00b]

I am completely shocked about this and very upset.

I've spent years on some of my sites and have the number one spot in Google. Now some noob can come on my site and post their link to steal traffic away? How am I supposed to be ok with this under any circumstances?

If I want commentary on my site I'll provide the most appropriate means.

If people want to find out if my site is a scam there is a plethora of great review sites out there for this very purpose.

I see absolutely no upside and a very large downside.

Would Google be ok if we made a bunch of signs saying whatever we wanted and planted them at the Googleplex? I mean it's not painted on the actual building it's just on top of the property, so it should be fine, right? Maybe the folks at Microsoft should make some nice big Bing ads and go place them at the Googleplex. After all it enhances the conversation, otherwise people passing by might not know there's another search option. I mean, it shouldn't be about what Google wants, it should be about what's best for the community.