Article thieves BEWARE SideWiki.

115 replies
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
#article #beware #sidewiki #thieves
  • Profile picture of the author 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
    Signature

    Bare Murkage.........

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1217959].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Marty S
      Originally Posted by JayXtreme View Post

      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.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1217972].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author 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 View Post

        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.
        Signature
        "The first chapter sells the book; the last chapter sells the next book." Mickey Spillane
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218051].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author khtm
        Originally Posted by healymedia View Post

        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.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218075].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author 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.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218113].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Marty S
            Originally Posted by healymedia View Post

            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 View Post

            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.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218190].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Marty S
            Originally Posted by healymedia View Post

            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.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218200].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author 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.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218209].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Marty S
                Originally Posted by healymedia View Post

                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.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218232].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Marty S
                  Originally Posted by healymedia View Post

                  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.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218245].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author AmyBrown
                    Originally Posted by Marty S View Post

                    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.
                    Signature
                    "Test fast, fail fast, adjust fast."
                    Tom Peters

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218276].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Marty S
                      Originally Posted by AmyBrown View Post

                      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.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218288].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author 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.
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218311].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author Marty S
                          Originally Posted by jplanigan View Post

                          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.
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218327].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author jplanigan
                            Originally Posted by Marty S View Post

                            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: http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post1218283

                            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
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218362].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author 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
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218374].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author 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.
                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218395].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author Marty S
                                  Originally Posted by healymedia View Post

                                  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.
                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218529].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author 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!
                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218580].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author 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
                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218653].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author 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?
                                    Signature

                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218581].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author Colin Palfrey
                                      Originally Posted by VinnyBock View Post

                                      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?
                                      I copy peoples articles from a number of article directories, and this is not a bad thing to you.

                                      I'm not saying I copied your article personally but whoever it was has done you a favor and if you don't like it don't submit articles, to article directories which allow syndication.

                                      On another point though it is illegal to change the article/resource box so you are quite right there.

                                      This is of course assuming someone didn't just take it off your site which is also not expectable.
                                      Signature

                                      I write articles and eBooks - PM me for details!
                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1220646].message }}
                                      • Profile picture of the author Lian
                                        Did anyone try SideWiki with your email accounts?

                                        It works

                                        Try it and click "publish"

                                        Lian
                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1220663].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author 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
                                  Signature
                                  "We are not here to sell a parcel of boilers and vats, but the potentiality of growing rich beyond the dreams of avarice."

                                  Dr. Samuel Johnson (Presiding at the sale of Thrales brewery, London, 1781)
                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218583].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Marty S
                        Originally Posted by Marty S View Post

                        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.
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218324].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author jplanigan
                    Originally Posted by Marty S View Post

                    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
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218283].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author davezan
              Originally Posted by healymedia View Post

              Google is giving any joe on the internet the power to add content to my site whether I like it or not.
              Unless I misunderstood what I read about SideWiki by far, they aren't putting
              any content directly on one's site. Using your billboard analogy, Google puts
              it outside the property owned by you.

              A thousand pardons if this doesn't explain clearly, but think of it like someone
              put a billboard a few meters away from your house or office. People write just
              about whatever they want about you on that, yet they aren't writing anything
              on your house or office's walls.

              Another difference here is Google's allowing users to do that using their own
              proprietary software, or toolbar in this case. Users see your site, put comment
              via SideWiki, Google Toolbar or Firefox-with-SideWiki users see the comments,
              yet nothing's necessarily added to your site other than what people do see in
              Google's thingies no one's required or forced to use.

              But...we all agree everything's open to abuse anyway. You can bet Google has
              prepared a process to handle that, and it's subject to change as time goes by.

              Of course, there's no stopping anyone from finding some possibly enforceable
              claim against Google. Claiming some form of material harm or what-not.

              Originally Posted by Lian View Post

              Can I start a community to comment against my competitors?
              Sure you can. And your competitors can either ignore it yet still make money,
              other users will totally ignore you, etc.

              Anything can happen.
              Signature

              David

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1219367].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Marty S
                Originally Posted by davezan View Post

                Unless I misunderstood what I read about SideWiki by far, they aren't putting
                any content directly on one's site. Using your billboard analogy, Google puts
                it outside the property owned by you.

                A thousand pardons if this doesn't explain clearly, but think of it like someone
                put a billboard a few meters away from your house or office. People write just
                about whatever they want about you on that, yet they aren't writing anything
                on your house or office's walls.

                Another difference here is Google's allowing users to do that using their own
                proprietary software, or toolbar in this case. Users see your site, put comment
                via SideWiki, Google Toolbar or Firefox-with-SideWiki users see the comments,
                yet nothing's necessarily added to your site other than what people do see in
                Google's thingies no one's required or forced to use.
                Quite right, and thank you for making it more clear than I was able to.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1219382].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author davezan
                  Originally Posted by Marty S View Post

                  Quite right, and thank you for making it more clear than I was able to.
                  Heh, you're welcome. It's understandable how folks can get emotionally upset
                  about things like this, but sometimes it can become clearer if one tries to set
                  aside their feelings and understand the method behind the madness.

                  And from what I read about Gator.com, they're not sued into oblivion. They've
                  been sued, temporarily ordered not to display pop-ups of trademarks, bought
                  out by another party, but still doing business as usual minus the causes of its
                  original legal headaches.
                  Signature

                  David

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1219532].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author bgmacaw
                Originally Posted by davezan View Post

                Unless I misunderstood what I read about SideWiki by far, they aren't putting
                any content directly on one's site. Using your billboard analogy, Google puts
                it outside the property owned by you.
                And this is exactly what got gator.com sued into oblivion.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1219387].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Billy Caldow
                Originally Posted by davezan View Post

                Unless I misunderstood what I read about SideWiki by far, they aren't putting
                any content directly on one's site. Using your billboard analogy, Google puts
                it outside the property owned by you.

                A thousand pardons if this doesn't explain clearly, but think of it like someone
                put a billboard a few meters away from your house or office. People write just
                about whatever they want about you on that, yet they aren't writing anything
                on your house or office's walls.

                Another difference here is Google's allowing users to do that using their own
                proprietary software, or toolbar in this case. Users see your site, put comment
                via SideWiki, Google Toolbar or Firefox-with-SideWiki users see the comments,
                yet nothing's necessarily added to your site other than what people do see in
                Google's thingies no one's required or forced to use.

                But...we all agree everything's open to abuse anyway. You can bet Google has
                prepared a process to handle that, and it's subject to change as time goes by.

                Of course, there's no stopping anyone from finding some possibly enforceable
                claim against Google. Claiming some form of material harm or what-not.



                Sure you can. And your competitors can either ignore it yet still make money,
                other users will totally ignore you, etc.

                Anything can happen.

                This is my first post as a 'Newbie' so please be patient if I get something wrong.

                I have read a lot about the issues with Sidewiki but surely there is a significant legal aspect to this.

                Sidewiki does not enable anyone to add comments to your web site, as you say. What it does is copy / scrape / clone your web site to Google's own servers and then add the Sidewiki to the copy. Surely that is blatant copyright infringement.

                No small business is going to take on Google in the courts. But what if I look at a web page of one of Hewlett-Packard's laptops and add a Sidewiki comment saying that there is an equivalent Dell or Sony model that outperforms HP's product at a significant discount? All this appears on Google's servers, not HP's.

                No doubt HP can block Sidewiki but the point is that eventually some big multinational corporation is going to be reaching for its lawyers if some of its pages are copied to Google's servers with critical but legitimate comments added via Sidewiki.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1274414].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TheRichJerksNet
                  Originally Posted by Billy Caldow View Post

                  Sidewiki does not enable anyone to add comments to your web site, as you say. What it does is copy / scrape / clone your web site to Google's own servers and then add the Sidewiki to the copy. Surely that is blatant copyright infringement.
                  The comments are posted right next to your own website and consumers will see that as comments that you condone. Yes google goes a step ahead and uses their own server also.

                  James
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1274492].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author mojojuju
                  Originally Posted by Billy Caldow View Post


                  Sidewiki does not enable anyone to add comments to your web site, as you say. What it does is copy / scrape / clone your web site to Google's own servers and then add the Sidewiki to the copy. Surely that is blatant copyright infringement.
                  But they're not. They're loading your site in a frame, which has implications of it's own, and which other sites do as well (e.g. Current.com, but that's Al Gore's site btw, and he can do what he wants. I heard he invented the internet)
                  Signature

                  :)

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1274535].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author 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.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218133].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author 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.
    Signature

    Tim Pears

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218055].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Reg McMicking
    Thanks for the info. Important to know
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218115].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author thegamecat
    I will never use this, ever. Unless it's going to make me money.
    Signature

    Flying

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218117].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author 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
    Signature
    "Test fast, fail fast, adjust fast."
    Tom Peters

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218145].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author 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.
    Signature
    "Test fast, fail fast, adjust fast."
    Tom Peters

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218227].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author bgmacaw
      Originally Posted by healymedia View Post

      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.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218603].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author 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.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218618].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author 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
        Signature
        "We are not here to sell a parcel of boilers and vats, but the potentiality of growing rich beyond the dreams of avarice."

        Dr. Samuel Johnson (Presiding at the sale of Thrales brewery, London, 1781)
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218622].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author E. Fire
        Originally Posted by bgmacaw View Post

        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.

        I was thinking exactly the same thing as I was reading this thread. I see many similarities to parasiteware. Instead of hijacking my links, my entire website is, in a sense being hijacked.

        As to the "if you have good content, what do you have to fear?" argument - really not an argument but a thinly veiled ad-hominem but I digress - it is precisely because I want to preserve the quality of that content that I do not like the idea that users are allowed to pollute it. I research my content carefully and try to craft it to be as clear and helpful as possible. The fact that a user can now come along and "contribute" additional content - which may be factually incorrect or misleading it is potentially harmful.

        Even worse - think about the implications of anyone with a SideWiki now being able to add "helpful" content that cannot be fact checked and edited, to the CDC website, PuBMed, or other important authority sites where the public goes for critical information.
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1220499].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author 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.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218307].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Emily Meeks
    It's a good idea in theory, but I'm not sure if this one will pan out well.
    Signature

    In all that you do, know your True INTENT...

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218308].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author AmyBrown
    This is the official Google video:

    Signature
    "Test fast, fail fast, adjust fast."
    Tom Peters

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218444].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author 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.
    Signature

    I'm all about that bass.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218637].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Lian
      I think we should start a thread asking fellow warriors for positive SideWiki comments on each others websites.

      Can google prevent this? Won't this be a misuse?

      And yes. Can I start a community to comment against my competitors?

      I am apprehensive about SideWiki.

      Lian
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1219219].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author DavidO
      Marty, you wouldn't be developing a financial interest involving this new "tool", would you?

      Of course that's perfectly legitimate but I can see no other reason why you would defend this horrendous thing Google is trying to foist on us.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1220826].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Marty S
        Originally Posted by DavidO View Post

        Marty, you wouldn't be developing a financial interest involving this new "tool", would you?

        Of course that's perfectly legitimate but I can see no other reason why you would defend this horrendous thing Google is trying to foist on us.
        I would love to develop a financial interest in it, if I can figure it out.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1220833].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author John Atkins
          Originally Posted by Marty S View Post

          I would love to develop a financial interest in it, if I can figure it out.
          Develop a financial interest in this 1 tool?

          1) I highly doubt that you will make good profits by talking about
          sidewiki, spamming your stuff on this tool or whatever...

          2) Judging by all of the complaints and controversy that I'm seeing,
          this tool will probably hit the dirt.

          3) I'm quite sure that someone will rise to oppose this. You see,
          all of us complaining together can be useless (unfortunatley) but
          when another respectable and big corporation gets involved, well
          you know...

          GET REAL and focus your marketing efforts on big niches, niches
          that actually yeild serious profits...

          But, then again it's your call...
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1220859].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Marty S
            Originally Posted by IM Headlines View Post

            Develop a financial interest in this 1 tool?

            1) I highly doubt that you will make good profits by talking about
            sidewiki, spamming your stuff on this tool or whatever...
            You may be right, but how do you know right now?

            Originally Posted by IM Headlines View Post

            2) Judging by all of the complaints and controversy that I'm seeing,
            this tool will probably hit the dirt.
            Hmmmm... You realize Twitter and Facebook both have one coming as well, right?

            Originally Posted by IM Headlines View Post

            3) I'm quite sure that someone will rise to oppose this. You see,
            all of us complaining together can be useless (unfortunatley) but
            when another respectable and big corporation gets involved, well
            you know...
            This much is obvious.

            Originally Posted by IM Headlines View Post

            GET REAL and focus your marketing efforts on big niches, niches
            that actually yeild serious profits...

            But, then again it's your call...
            Thanks, I choose to keep an open mind.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1220873].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Marilynj55
        Originally Posted by DavidO View Post

        Marty, you wouldn't be developing a financial interest involving this new "tool", would you?

        Of course that's perfectly legitimate but I can see no other reason why you would defend this horrendous thing Google is trying to foist on us.
        I can't figure out why this defense of such an obviously potentially-dangerous-to-IMers tool either, unless Marty is a Google mole or something. What gives? It's beyond me. I don't think I can read any more of this. The failure to get the implications of Sidewiki boggle the mind.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1274771].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author 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
    Signature
    Tired of Article Marketing, Backlink Spamming and Other Crusty Old Traffic Methods?

    Click Here.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218859].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kirk Ward
      Originally Posted by LB View Post

      ...
      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
      .
      Signature
      "We are not here to sell a parcel of boilers and vats, but the potentiality of growing rich beyond the dreams of avarice."

      Dr. Samuel Johnson (Presiding at the sale of Thrales brewery, London, 1781)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218874].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author 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.
    Signature
    "Test fast, fail fast, adjust fast."
    Tom Peters

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218895].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author 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.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218923].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author cesarsan
    Have you ever been to YouTube? Have you ever seen the high quality, intelligent, humane comments people post there?

    Imagine "YouTube quality" comments all over your site... Google owns YouTube and they can't keep the crap out on one of their own sites. Will they bother to try to clean yours?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218952].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author AmyBrown
    You can add a Webmaster SideWiki that stays in the top position if your site is linked to Google Webmaster Tools. I've gone through a few sites and added full-page Sidewikis to discourage the type of spam being discussed. It's per page so will be time intensive/prohibitive for large sites.

    Sidewiki : Create a webmaster Sidewiki entry - Toolbar Help
    Signature
    "Test fast, fail fast, adjust fast."
    Tom Peters

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218982].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Marty S
      It's quite interesting to see the emotional responses to this subject. This may be a tough sell for Google.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1219016].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kirk Ward
        Originally Posted by Marty S View Post

        It's quite interesting to see the emotional responses to this subject. This may be a tough sell for Google.
        You ain't just a whisslin' Dixie, Marty.

        What this is, is a large entity capitalizing on the efforts of others and stomping those little suckers flat. They might get away with it, they might not.

        Reminds me of Bob Sarnoff, who was so egotistical he couldn't stand it if anyone didn't call him General, and what he did to the kid who invented a method for TV to actually work. (Look up "The Last Lone Inventor.".)

        I don't like it.

        I think it is co-opting the effort a Webmaster is putting into the development of their site for the benefit of someone who did not contribute the effort to build the product. It has a tremendous potential for abuse, and I just don't see any checks and balances other than the hue and cry of the masses.

        So yes, I have gotten emotional on this. I think that is the only tool we have.

        That and a lawsuit if Google missteps.

        K
        .
        Signature
        "We are not here to sell a parcel of boilers and vats, but the potentiality of growing rich beyond the dreams of avarice."

        Dr. Samuel Johnson (Presiding at the sale of Thrales brewery, London, 1781)
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1219119].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      How long will it be before sales pages have sidewikis saying "buy it from my site instead and I'll give you a rebate"?

      How long before you run a site as an Amazon affiliate and have sidewiki statements saying "you can get this cheaper at .....".

      How long before google starts running ads on sidewiki? Wouldn't that be the logical way to get people to install it - the chance they might be paid a few cents?

      Who is likely to install sidewiki? New people online - kids playing around - marketers who think they can use it to advertise - people with a lot of time to chat or with agendas.

      I can see this added to social sites - you use those sites for free and you take what you get. Stating that a gmail account is used for security is a thin bit of reasoning to me.

      If I build a site, write the content, do the graphics and PAY to host it - I don't do that so people can chat with each other about it. I hope google has more in mind for security than "log into gmail" or they might be tested legally on this.

      Will hosting companies be able to offer "sidewiki proof" hosting? Lots of potential - and pitfalls - with this thing.

      Several of my sites are getting significant traffic from Bing now - could it be google feels a need to "stay ahead"? Sounds like the only way to avoid it is to use google's web tools - meaning all roads lead to google?

      kay
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

      I'm going to work on being less condescending
      (Condescending means to talk down to people)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1219048].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Fernando Veloso
    This is going to be WAR.

    Careful. Associating giving power to the consumers with what Google is doing is a dangerous step.
    Google is not giving power to consumers - they could care less with this piece of crap.

    Google is just creating a war zone for webmasters.
    Signature
    People make good money selling to the rich. But the rich got rich selling to the masses.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1219017].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Joseph Park
    Wow, it's going to be a lot of work to track all the sites (in case it's many)
    and comment on each one of them to divert traffic back to yours.

    Every time Google comes up with something, it seems we're on the frontline
    to be notified from this forum. I love it.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1219069].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author LB
    We already have warriors using it to spam:

    http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...e-toolbar.html

    From that thread:

    He He,

    I've just been adding SideWiki's to the web sites with the top SERPS for my keywords stating something like "This site is O.K. but lacks info., for more information about <keyword> why not check out <www.mysite.com>".

    I've also added SideWikis to the actual Google results for my keyword but not sure if they will show. They aren't at the moment.

    I've then even made a few fake Google accounts and gone back to those SideWikis and clicked the 'YES this was useful' vote. Other people have already clicked the 'Yes' vote as well so people are looking!!
    Signature
    Tired of Article Marketing, Backlink Spamming and Other Crusty Old Traffic Methods?

    Click Here.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1219151].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author wordwizard
      Whoa! This is truly scary!

      Hopefully, Google will come to its senses.

      How in the world can they be allowed to add these things to websites they don't own??? (without being invited in).

      Or did I miss something?
      Signature

      FREE Report: 5 Ways To Grow Your Affiliate Income

      Let Me Help You Sell: Sales Letters, Email Series, Pre-Sell Reports... PM me & we'll talk!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1219215].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Sean Ski
    If your site is genuinely good and people like it and say good things about it then whats a couple of nay-sayers gonna do? Provide good content and people will enjoy your site, the good sites always rise to the top, even if there are negative people trying to bring them down.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1219677].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author J smith
      The abuse this thing will get is going to be legendary. How awesome is this? instead of people commenting on some review site or forum or whatever they can comment right on the site, that people going to that site will see (right away?)

      Now you can put up a link on a number 1 ranked site for keywords that are nearly impossible to attain (weight loss, make money online etc etc) makea masked negative comment (e. this site is ok, but .. like the xampel above) and slap on your link! Then pay someone on elance to create a few hundread accounts and have them vote for your "comment" to make it the top one (if that's how it works)

      Actually, just pay someone a few bucks to "comment" on every top 10 site for all the keywords related to your site on top of the "voting" to make those comments show up first. Then pay the same people to put up favorable comments on your sites.

      Lol, rather amusing actually, only hope is that this goes away or not enough people use it to matter. otherwise google has just reduced SERPs meaning while simultaneously replacing backlink building with sidewiki's "negative comments" building.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1219744].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Martin Luxton
        This is cool and maybe Google can also arrange for commenters on your website to stand outside the Houses of Parliament in London and say what they think.

        Oops, just remembered. Scrap the Houses of Parliament bit. It's illegal. But I'm sure there will be no legal problems with people superimposing obscene graffiti over my websites.

        I'm sure people are already working on a new tool

        Blast your competition out of the water with the SideWiki Reputation Smasher!

        With our 500 million gmail addresses and dynamic IP software, you can destroy a web rival in seconds . . .


        Just sayin'


        Martin


        P.S. This is not an emotional response. Just one scenario that could result from SideWiki.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1219864].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author John Atkins
    I was just reading about this, it's TERRIBLE!

    Especially when you own salespages that their only purpose
    is to sell.

    People will be distracted.
    Haters can ruin your reputation very easily.


    WE ALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO ACCEPT OR DECLINE CONVERSATIONS
    ON OUR WEBSITES.

    AND NOW THANKS TO GOOGLE, WE CAN'T....


    The ones that are defending this have absolutely
    no idea of the consequences that this little "piece
    of crap" will lead to.

    I have a feeling that this will not last very long though.
    Google will probably get sued by a lot of other huge
    corporations soon enough...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1220301].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TheRichJerksNet
    Sidewiki currently does not support comments over internal or SSL (https) encrypted pages.

    Ha Ha - Take that google .... I bet that bites them in the &^%$$#% Yep at least one of my sites is full SSL...

    James
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1220378].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Marty S
      Originally Posted by TheRichJerksNet View Post

      Sidewiki currently does not support comments over internal or SSL (https) encrypted pages.

      Ha Ha - Take that google .... I bet that bites them in the &^%$$#% Yep at least one of my sites is full SSL...

      James
      What do you have to hide though? If a SideWiki user comes to your site to find that you have blocked ALL comments about your content, will this not raise concerns?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1220575].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TheRichJerksNet
        Originally Posted by Marty S View Post

        What do you have to hide though? If a SideWiki user comes to your site to find that you have blocked ALL comments about your content, will this not raise concerns?
        I have nothing to hide... I do not want scammers, warez users, frauders, affiliate spammers, competition, and etc posting their crap on my site..

        You still do not understand eventhough it has been explained to you many times.. I guess if you was to lose your business over this then you would understand.

        James
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1220585].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author R Hagel
          Originally Posted by TheRichJerksNet View Post

          You still do not understand eventhough it has been explained to you many times.. I guess if you was to lose your business over this then you would understand.
          I think he probably understands. But to agree with or even consider the potential downsides won't help him drive traffic to his sig file and video.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1220756].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TheRichJerksNet
            Originally Posted by R Hagel View Post

            I think he probably understands. But to agree with or even consider the potential downsides won't help him drive traffic to his sig file and video.
            Yeah this is true ....

            TO ALL NEWBIES: Pay close attention because what Marty is doing is what you SHOULD NOT do when thinking about marketing.

            James
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1220768].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kirk Ward
            Originally Posted by R Hagel View Post

            I think he probably understands. But to agree with or even consider the potential downsides won't help him drive traffic to his sig file and video.
            Figured that early on.

            Which is why he keeps the "for" argument going. Maybe someone will count the number of individuals "for" and compare it to the number "against" and see how they compare. I'm too lazy to do that, but would love to know.

            But, whether he is using this as a way to drive traffic to his pitch or no, it is somethng we need to be aware of and know how to handle. I like the SSL idea.

            K
            .
            Signature
            "We are not here to sell a parcel of boilers and vats, but the potentiality of growing rich beyond the dreams of avarice."

            Dr. Samuel Johnson (Presiding at the sale of Thrales brewery, London, 1781)
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1220804].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author R Hagel
              One more thing...

              Marty, you may want to have a lawyer review what you're doing with the Sidewiki name now and how you plan to use it in the future (domains, products, videos, etc).

              Here, from Google's terms of service that you agreed to when you downloaded the toolbar:

              9.2 Unless you have agreed otherwise in writing with Google, nothing in the Terms gives you a right to use any of Google's trade names, trade marks, service marks, logos, domain names, and other distinctive brand features.

              And according to TESS (Trademark electronic search system), Google submitted an application for trademarking Google Sidewiki on Sept 21st.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1220824].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Marty S
                Originally Posted by R Hagel View Post

                Marty, you may want to have a lawyer review what you're doing with the Sidewiki name now and how you plan to use it in the future (domains, products, videos, etc).

                Here, from Google's terms of service that you agreed to when you downloaded the toolbar:

                And according to TESS (Trademark electronic search system), Google submitted an application for trademarking Google Sidewiki on Sept 21st.
                Did you really have to look up to see if the name was registered? They may have an issue some day, so they can drop my (Google) blogger page if they feel they must.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1220841].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author R Hagel
                  Originally Posted by Marty S View Post

                  Did you really have to look up to see if the name was registered?
                  Nope, of course not. I did so as a means of grabbing their application date (out of curiosity about when they applied).

                  Since you don't really seem to care about any of this, I'm just bringing this issue up so that beginning marketers don't get the impression that you can just use someone else's trademark in any way they please. Check with a lawyer before dabbling in this sort of stuff.

                  Some companies don't notice or chase after these infringements. Some (like eBay) have lawyers standing by to send cease and desist notices. And some don't even bother with C&Ds -- they sue.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1220870].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Marty S
                    Originally Posted by R Hagel View Post

                    Nope, of course not. I did so as a means of grabbing their application date (out of curiosity about when they applied).

                    Since you don't really seem to care about any of this, I'm just bringing this issue up so that beginning marketers don't get the impression that you can just use someone else's trademark in any way they please. Check with a lawyer before dabbling in this sort of stuff.

                    Some companies don't notice or chase after these infringements. Some (like eBay) have lawyers standing by to send cease and desist notices. And some don't even bother with C&Ds -- they sue.
                    Yes your trade-mark info is true, but have you noticed how many products with the name "Twitter" are out there.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1220880].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author R Hagel
                      Originally Posted by Marty S View Post

                      Yes your trade-mark info is true, but have you noticed how many products with the name "Twitter" are out there.
                      Yes indeed. But if those folks are infringing on Twitter's TM, it doesn't make it ok for anyone else to do so. And those companies who don't pursue it today may decide to pursue it tomorrow -- aggressively.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1221033].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author CMartin
                        Although I think SideWiki has good potential, the truth is that currently there's a lot of potential for abuse by spammers and competitors. If Google does not provide an opt-out, this will turn very fast from SideWiki to SpamQuickly.

                        Another example of abuse is:
                        If SideWiki allows to add comments to *any* page, it will not be fun to watch AdWords advertisers (or from any other PPC engine) starting to get on their landing pages a lot of "great" comments - advertisers paying for each click and then have on their landing page the SideWiki feature with full of competitors comments/ads

                        Carlos
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1222386].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                          An increasing number of blogs and SEO experts are bashing this new addition. Two days ago there was little mention of it - today is a different story. And there will be some here who point out the "benefits" in every thread - but if it's also in your signature I'll discount it no matter who you are.

                          According to good old Matt Cutts, sidewhonker will be useful "for all those crappy make money sites" - no attempt to hide the "google as big brother" agenda, is there? What a great place to post "I bought this ebook and I didn't make any money"....

                          As I don't have any crappy make money sites, why do I care? Because I have other sites that I've worked long and hard on and I don't care to have some wannabe marketer or lazy competitor bashing my site and sending my visitors to his site instead. And it will happen - is happening.

                          I liked Michael Grey's comment:

                          * I need to go lay down between whuffie, sidewiki, and squidoo brand pages - internet stupidity is overwhelming today

                          kay
                          Signature
                          Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

                          I'm going to work on being less condescending
                          (Condescending means to talk down to people)
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1223598].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author WritingMadwoman
                            Another big concern I haven't seen anyone mention yet is inappropriate content. My websites are considered "family friendly". People of all ages can safely view them. Imagine the horrors when youngsters or even sensitive adult visitors encounter spam comments and links related to penis enlargement, illegal drugs, hate messages and who knows what else. Granted, those comments are not "ON" my website, but they are absolutely connected to it. Not good any way you look at it!

                            Wendy
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1223669].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author mojojuju
                              Originally Posted by WritingMadwoman View Post

                              Imagine the horrors when youngsters or even sensitive adult visitors encounter spam comments and links related to penis enlargement, illegal drugs, hate messages and who knows what else.
                              Do you think a significant percentage of your young or sensitive adult visitors will actually be looking at sidewiki comments?
                              Signature

                              :)

                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1231798].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author WritingMadwoman
                                Originally Posted by mojojuju View Post

                                Do you think a significant percentage of your young or sensitive adult visitors will actually be looking at sidewiki comments?
                                I have no way of telling whether they will or not, but regardless I don't want that stuff connected with my site(s) no matter who reads it or doesn't.

                                Wendy
                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1231907].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Frank Donovan
        Originally Posted by Marty S View Post

        What do you have to hide though? If a SideWiki user comes to your site to find that you have blocked ALL comments about your content, will this not raise concerns?
        Hmm. I see what you mean.

        I've just noticed my next-door neighbor's front door is locked. My immediate assumption was that he must be a drug dealer. :rolleyes:



        Frank
        Signature
        TOP TIP: To browse the forum like a Pro, select "View Classic" from the drop-down menu under your user name.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1220602].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author edmltw
    Now instead of writing SEO articles to the directories, you can submit them directly to the sidewiki bar. LoL. Another avenue of increasing your site's SEO without compromising on your site's overall look. Instead of asking your ghostwriter to add more content to your side, you could ask him/her to add it to the sidewiki under your name too. =) Establish yourself as a real expert in real life.

    If its here to stay, embrace it. If it doesn't, leave it. If you cannot change the world to fit yourself, then change yourself to fit the world.

    Regards,
    Edmund
    Signature

    Need A Easy, Drag and Drop Website Creation Platform?
    Click Here To Find Out More

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1220506].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Those people in the new google office in The Dalles must be doing even more blow than I had heard was around there.

    I don't care if something is ON my website or just shows up with it....I have a family site, too and we took some real long strides to keep it spam and porn free. Now if Google is going to let people post porn links and other adult material in a way that makes it appear that it is on MY site..........I want them to eat it on their own sites and their own dime as well.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1229050].message }}

Trending Topics