Take a Deep Breath and Calm Down

163 replies
I am noticing a lot of posts here from people recommending you ban anyone who is using the google toolbar from your site because of the new side wiki feature. I have to say, this is the worst advice I have ever heard.

To me, it is like having a shop and banning everyone whose phone has internet capability as they may go online and read something bad about me or my products.

I love the google toolbar. If I go to a site and it says I am banned because I am using it, I will not uninstall it, I will just assume that the website has something to hide and not give them my business.

Side wiki will get spammed to death. It will take about 30 minutes to make a tool that spams it automatically (just use Imacro with the CSV feature). I seriously doubt that many people will pay attention to what it says, or even bother to look at it.

Google must have thought about this before they released it, so I am sure they have some sort of game plan. I would love to see them remove this feature but I can't see them backing down based on website owners opinions. Googles business model revolves around the end user, and if the end user says he likes it, then it will most likely stay.

All I am saying is take a second to think before you take any actions that will lose you money or you will end up shooting yourself in the foot for no reason.
#breath #clam #deep
  • Profile picture of the author korme
    I Could'nt agree more.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1223385].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
    Banned
    Google is not as concerned about the spam and competitors that will be trashing everyone's sites as they are about the ad revenue that they will be stealing from you as soon as they add their own ads to Sidewicki. Don't think for a moment that they won't. Not only does Sidewicki hijack your comments, traffic, have to potential for competitors to trash your reputation and spammers to spam the hell out of your site without any control by you to stop it, but eventually, even your ad revenue will suffer due to the competition from Sidewicki ads that Google will not have to compensate you for.

    I can't wait for the lawsuits to roll in. Till then, I've bought SSL Certs to protect my most valuable sites from this Google theft.

    Tell Google what you think
    http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...-now-time.html
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1223402].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mojojuju
    Originally Posted by GuerrillaIM View Post


    Side wiki will get spammed to death. It will take about 30 minutes to make a tool that spams it automatically (just use Imacro with the CSV feature).
    Or they can just use the API to search for relevant pages, then automatically spam their comments to the relevant SideWiki pages.

    Originally Posted by GuerrillaIM View Post

    I seriously doubt that many people will pay attention to what it says, or even bother to look at it.
    I agree and don't know why people are making such a fuss over this. I think this whole SideWiki thing will be all but forgotten by this time next year.
    Signature

    :)

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1223423].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Diana Lane
      Originally Posted by mojojuju View Post

      I agree and don't know why people are making such a fuss over this. I think this whole SideWiki thing will be all but forgotten by this time next year.
      That's why people have to make a fuss about it. It won't be going anywhere in a hurry if we just accept it as here to stay. Not making a fuss just labels it as acceptable, and it isn't.
      Signature

      Plot short fiction, long fiction, even outline non-fiction * Edit the question prompts to suit your genre * Easily export text and image files for use with your word processor or Scrivener.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1223520].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author mojojuju
        Originally Posted by Diana Lane View Post

        That's why people have to make a fuss about it. It won't be going anywhere in a hurry if we just accept it as here to stay. Not making a fuss just labels it as acceptable, and it isn't.
        I understand your point, but I don't agree that people complaining about SideWiki is going to be necessary to turn it into another flash in the pan. I believe that the uselessness of SideWiki, along with it's potential for being abused, will make SideWiki self defeating.
        Signature

        :)

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1223724].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bgmacaw
    My take is that it either...

    (a) it won't catch on with most users because it will be an obvious spam haven and malware distribution venue.

    (b) if it does and if Google doesn't monitor it tightly or if they place their own ads on it they will have to pull it due to lawsuits, perhaps a large class action lawsuit.

    So, no worries, it's such a terrible idea that it won't be around very long one way or another.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1223502].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Zeus66
    Just do what your Google Masters tell you to do and shut up. You people are just making it harder for the rest of us with your constant belly aching. If Google tells you to lick their boots clean, do it. Do you really want them to "lose" your site in the SERPs?

    Now stop whining and get back to dancing for the puppetmasters.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1223540].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TheRichJerksNet
      Originally Posted by Zeus66 View Post

      Just do what your Google Masters tell you to do and shut up. You people are just making it harder for the rest of us with your constant belly aching. If Google tells you to lick their boots clean, do it. Do you really want them to "lose" your site in the SERPs?

      Now stop whining and get back to dancing for the puppetmasters.
      Now that was a good Laugh John, thanks ....lol

      @OP - Here are a few facts......

      1. This is a invasion of our rights and our domain space.
      2. This is NOT social media, this is RipOffReport Unleashed.
      3. Many of us will not do business with those that promote this as ethical. So some should think twice before just following the crowd.
      4. Many of us have worked for "years" to build our business, we are not going to sit down and suck our thumbs for some freak of nature to destroy it all in one day.
      5. If someone breaks into my home, you better be ready to have your head handed to you - Because I will protect what is mine and what I worked for no matter the cost.

      James
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1223900].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
      Originally Posted by Zeus66 View Post

      Just do what your Google Masters tell you to do and shut up.
      This isn't new technology by any stretch of the imagination.

      Go look up "Third Voice" somewhere.
      Signature
      "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224596].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author scrofford
      Originally Posted by Zeus66 View Post

      Just do what your Google Masters tell you to do and shut up. You people are just making it harder for the rest of us with your constant belly aching. If Google tells you to lick their boots clean, do it. Do you really want them to "lose" your site in the SERPs?

      Now stop whining and get back to dancing for the puppetmasters.
      HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! I LOVE IT! SO TRUE!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1226988].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Julia Andersson
      Originally Posted by Zeus66 View Post

      Just do what your Google Masters tell you to do and shut up. You people are just making it harder for the rest of us with your constant belly aching. If Google tells you to lick their boots clean, do it. Do you really want them to "lose" your site in the SERPs?

      Now stop whining and get back to dancing for the puppetmasters.
      LOL, I love your sense of humor... that's about right! Google are the Puppet Masters (lets all bow down and worship the masters). Being the traffic kings who generously allow us page one listings or can sink us into obscurity makes them think they have the right to do anything they like.

      And it's just plain WRONG!

      Thankfully, all my sites are wordpress blogs and I've already installed a sidewiki blocker on them! I will not allow my competitors to steal my traffic by posting links to their sites in sidewiki... or worse yet, posting disparaging comments designed to attack my reputation.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1244308].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Neromancer
      Originally Posted by Zeus66 View Post

      Just do what your Google Masters tell you to do and shut up. You people are just making it harder for the rest of us with your constant belly aching. If Google tells you to lick their boots clean, do it. Do you really want them to "lose" your site in the SERPs?

      Now stop whining and get back to dancing for the puppetmasters.
      OMG hehe! OK I'm going back to work lol
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1252044].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author George Wright
    Hi GuerrillaIM,

    I like a lot of what you have to say on different topics. IMHO you are wrong on this one.

    Let's just hope that Google comes to it's senses and drops this sidewiki app.

    Until now, the joke has been Google is going to take over the world. sidewiki makes the joke not funny.

    In addition to all the terrible things that have already been mentioned about it in this thread and others, just wait until the virus creators figure out how to introduce viruses directly through sidewiki. Now, no matter how careful Google Tool Bar users are about the sites they visit, EVERY site including Yours and Mine will be a potential place to pick up a virus.

    Even the most careful surfer can be fooled by a sidewiki note saying "read more articles/posts/whatever by (Your Name Here) and then be taken to a malware site.

    Even I with my non techie self can think of that. Heck, I don't even have to know how to set up a MalWare site I just have to know where they are and then put a link to them on YOUR site.

    Now even the dumbest malcontent who likes to cause havoc and has no ability to do so can get in on the fun if he takes the time to figure out how to use sidewiki.

    Don't think the virus hackers are not working on this as we speak.

    I didn't mean to make this so long, however, let me relate one true story with a point.

    I was riding the train last month. Four thugs got on the train and you could just tell that they were going to "mess" with someone.

    Guess who they decided to mess with. They started harassing an elderly blind man. I won't go into detail but you can imagine what pranks they started playing on this poor old sole who was standing (by his choice) at the front of the car.

    After about a minute it was clear that they were only going to escalate their cruel harassment so some of us on the train decided this was not going to go on. As we stood up, prepared for anything. The train came to a halt at a stop and the punks, seeing that they had some trouble coming, got off the train.

    So what does this have to do with SideWiki?

    Under the cloak of anonymity Thugs and Punks operate even more boldly on the Internet. Even the wimpy scaredy cats among them get emboldened to cause harm.

    They already leave unwanted nasty and cruel comments on our Blogs, on their own sites and on RipOffReport and other havens where they gather.

    Now imagine a well meaning person, and this happens thousands of times a day, putting up a blog or a website to talk about their wedding among their friends. Or think of the grieving children who put up a memorial site for their recently deceased Dad or Mom.

    Now think of the cruel games the thugs and punks of the Internet will play on those people. The hurt they can cause is immeasurable.

    Harming our Internet Marketing Sites is just one thing to be up in arms about. There is so much more harm they WILL cause.

    It's been reported recently that a young girl was driven to suicide by cruel remarks on her myspace site. Now with sidewiki anyone and everyone can be a target/victim not on some remote site where we can choose not to visit but on OUR OWN SITES.

    I have had a "who cares" attitude on just about every other issue that has come up. Warriors, "The government wants to take over the Internet." Me, "Relax don't worry, everything will be OK."

    Warriors, "They want to charge postage on eMails." Me, "Relax, don't worry, It will never happen, everything will be OK."

    Warriors, "STOP SPAM!" Me, "Relax don't worry. It will work itself out and be ok."

    For many reasons, only a few of them stated in this post and the many others by other Warriors, this sidewiki thing has me a bit worried.

    George Wright
    Signature
    "The first chapter sells the book; the last chapter sells the next book." Mickey Spillane
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1223633].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Zeus66
    Honestly, I think this is a truly boneheaded move by Google, but I also think they have smart folks working for them. I suspect they'll work to put safeguards in place when the proverbial sh*t hits the all-too-real fan. Surely they see the total cluster f**k they're about to start, right? They can't possibly be this far removed from reality... or maybe I'm way too naive.

    John
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224101].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author bgmacaw
      Originally Posted by Zeus66 View Post

      They can't possibly be this far removed from reality... or maybe I'm way too naive.
      Have you ever worked for a large public corporation? Stupidity by committee runs wild in that environment. Google is going through the transition from being a smart innovative tech company to a lumbering corporate lummox. In another 5-10 years the lawyers and accountants will be running the show and not the technologists.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224161].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author George Wright
      Originally Posted by Zeus66 View Post

      Honestly, I think this is a truly boneheaded move by Google, but I also think they have smart folks working for them. I suspect they'll work to put safeguards in place when the proverbial sh*t hits the all-too-real fan. Surely they see the total cluster f**k they're about to start, right? They can't possibly be this far removed from reality... or maybe I'm way too naive.

      John
      John,

      I have the same hope as you do. I think you are right. Just in case though I'm glad there are those ones who will let them know.

      The safe guards they have so far involve, posters have to be signed in to their gmail account or other google account so supposedly they can be traced. That doesn't stop them from giving their "honest opinion" which may be lies.

      Also, bad guys can set up new google accounts with new IPs and new phone numbers faster than you can say spam craigs list.

      Anyway I not only hope you are right I think you are. But just in case....

      George Wright
      Signature
      "The first chapter sells the book; the last chapter sells the next book." Mickey Spillane
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224169].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
        Okay, for the dumb tech newbie like myself, explain in English what this
        Sidewiki thing is.

        Are you saying that somebody can see my site on it and hack into it?

        I'm not sure I understand what the main concern is other than it competing
        with paid Adwords ads and taking revenue away from them. That I can
        understand and while I don't use PPC, I can see this being a major concern
        to some people.

        But other than that, what exactly can this thing do?

        And is my site in danger even though I have nothing to do with Sidewiki and
        don't even know what it is?

        A simple English explanation will really help me, and I am sure a lot of other
        people.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224186].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TheRichJerksNet
          Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim View Post

          Okay, for the dumb tech newbie like myself, explain in English what this
          Sidewiki thing is.
          Steven,
          I will make this simple for you ....



          This image is FAKE but point is this and worse could happen to you...

          James
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224212].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
            Originally Posted by TheRichJerksNet View Post

            Steven,
            I will make this simple for you ....



            This image is FAKE but point is this and worse could happen to you...

            James

            Um...point made.

            Wow...I have no words.

            Well, I left them quite a comment that I sure as hell hope they take
            seriously.

            Yeah folks, it's time to make sure you know a really good lawyer who
            won't mind taking on the big G.

            I'm all ready for a fight.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224246].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MSGeek
      Originally Posted by Zeus66 View Post

      ... I also think they have smart folks working for them. I suspect they'll work to put safeguards in place when the proverbial sh*t hits the all-too-real fan. Surely they see the total cluster f**k they're about to start, right? They can't possibly be this far removed from reality... or maybe I'm way too naive.
      John, Have you heard the expression "office politics". That's probably what it is.

      Unless they are trying to kill Internet Explorer (&FireFox -- two closest barriers to Google OS) with sites banning the users and viruses introduced through Google Toolbar (notice, Chrome does not have Google Toolbar or Sidewiki -- at least, I don't see it right now on my screen), it's likely to be just a HiPPO - Highest Paid Person Opinion. Some guy at Google with a lot of influence introduced that idea, and everybody else not paying a sh*it about webmasters, but careful to be on the good side of that influential guy. That's how they really work. All their success was based on very careful picking of those influential guys by the execs, however, lately it began to deteriorate. BTW, Microsoft went through the same cycle ~10-15 years ago.

      By the way, for everybody complaining about it, you own the site, but you don't own the application that shows it - the browser. And that's where they introduced that cr*ap. They managed to make competing browsers their own AdWare. Speaking of "make no evil"
      Signature

      -- How To Make Your Site Pandemic by Creating a Viral Report in Under 1 Hour and Giving It Away for Free
      -- Viral Report SneezeMachine Makes others to Spread Your Viral Report Around
      -- Action is essential, Brain is not optional.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224220].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author George Wright
    Thanks James,

    A picture really is worth a thousand words.

    George Wright
    Signature
    "The first chapter sells the book; the last chapter sells the next book." Mickey Spillane
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224228].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TheRichJerksNet
    Sometimes visualization is best ... This is why some of us will not sit down and take this with a grain of salt. Gossip can ruin the most respected person or business and all it takes is ONE person and then others will spread the lie on down the road.

    I have been here way too many years and seen far too many honest people destroyed by gossip and now google just gave them the silver platter to do it right in your own backyard.

    We all know what gossip is and how the lie spreads to be more and more each time it is told...

    James
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224252].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dan C. Rinnert
      Another thing to bear in mind is that comments will not necessarily be reflective of your customer base, or even casual users. The only people that can leave or see comments are Google users.

      So, if you have 90 customers from Yahoo, 10 from Google, one of which is disgruntled, and that one person leaves a comment that "This site sucks!" or whatever, what damage do you think that will do to you? How likely are you ever to get another customer from Google? Not every one who has a positive comment will leave one, but you can be sure that many people who have a negative comment will leave one.

      And, what is your option as a webmaster? Oh, yeah, you HAVE to get your own Google account in order to post a message about YOUR site.

      But, the point is that comments will not be reflective. If 99% of people are satisfied with your site or service, but 75% of people who leave a comment are not, how is that of any value?

      The bottom line is that this offers NO value to site owners and only provides Google with a benefit because eventually they will run ads somewhere on what is effectively your site.
      Signature

      Dan's content is irregularly read by handfuls of people. Join the elite few by reading his blog: dcrBlogs.com, following him on Twitter: dcrTweets.com or reading his fiction: dcrWrites.com but NOT by Clicking Here!

      Dan also writes content for hire, but you can't afford him anyway.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224259].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TheRichJerksNet
        Originally Posted by Dan C. Rinnert View Post

        Another thing to bear in mind is that comments will not necessarily be reflective of your customer base, or even casual users. The only people that can leave or see comments are Google users.

        So, if you have 90 customers from Yahoo, 10 from Google, one of which is disgruntled, and that one person leaves a comment that "This site sucks!" or whatever, what damage do you think that will do to you? How likely are you ever to get another customer from Google? Not every one who has a positive comment will leave one, but you can be sure that many people who have a negative comment will leave one.

        And, what is your option as a webmaster? Oh, yeah, you HAVE to get your own Google account in order to post a message about YOUR site.

        But, the point is that comments will not be reflective. If 99% of people are satisfied with your site or service, but 75% of people who leave a comment are not, how is that of any value?

        The bottom line is that this offers NO value to site owners and only provides Google with a benefit because eventually they will run ads somewhere on what is effectively your site.
        Dan,
        The comments can be seen by anyone, any browser, at anytime .. You do not even need a google account at all. You need a google account to "POST" not to read...

        James
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224267].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author DavidJohnny
    Man, a picture is worth a thousand words. Time to invest in SSL's.
    Signature
    Have you discovered the power of review sites? Use this tool to automate building sites with 1-10 reviews on them. Automate your review site building!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224279].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author DonnaLeona
      Originally Posted by DavidJohnny View Post

      Man, a picture is worth a thousand words. Time to invest in SSL's.
      Will someone explain how SSL's work, how to get one set up, how this helps etc..

      Thanks,
      Donna
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224475].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author amki
        Banned
        [DELETED]
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1239759].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
          Banned
          Originally Posted by amki View Post

          I share your ignorance, Donna. Recently, I read something about SSL that I can't remember at this (senior) moment, but I thought it sounded interesting. The article mentioned that Dynadot offers SSL much cheaper than most providers. (My domains are registered with them, which is probably the only reason I remembered anything about it.)

          I just looked at the Dynadot site, and they have RapidSSL for #15.99/year and Alpha SSL for $11.99/year, warranty $10,000 and $2,000, respectively.

          If SSL is the answer, then that seems cheap enough.
          Before you buy certificates (SSL) make sure the ones you're buying work with your hosting plan. I bought a UCC SSL for up to 5 domains for $89. Then got Hostgator to install them at $10 each, only to find out that they don't work on shared hosting. Got a refund for the installs and the certificate, which is good. Namecheap has RapidSSL for $10, but again, contact your host before buying to see if it will work on your hosting plan.

          I decided after that ordeal to go with Catalin's script. I'll also keep abreast of new scripts coming out and keep one step ahead of Google.

          Someone mentioned that this allows people to deface your site ... actually, it's far worse than that in my opinion. IMHO, it is Google who is defacing our sites. Even without some spammer or competitor leaving crap, the real estate that the sidewiki takes up used to be my website and it creates a distraction from my site that I worked hard to get people to visit. They are placing their "Sidewiki" ad all over the Internet without payment to us or our permission to advertise on our traffic. People are likely to leave a comment on Sidewiki instead of our blogs, decreasing the value of our blogs.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1239905].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author GuerrillaIM
    All I am saying is don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

    The main problem people here have is that competitors can leave negative comments on their sites. Then maybe 1% or less of the people who visit your website will see these comments, so they could *possibly* lose a sale.

    To suggest that you should combat this by blocking ALL users of the google toolbar is detrimental in my opinion and sends the message that you have something to hide.

    Google must have anticipated this, I am interested to see how this will play out.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224284].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TheRichJerksNet
      Originally Posted by GuerrillaIM View Post

      The main problem people here have is that competitors can leave negative comments on their sites. Then maybe 1% or less of the people who visit your website will see these comments, so they could *possibly* lose a sale.
      Where do you get this 1% ????????



      Does that look like FF or IE ??????

      It effects every single site and every single visitor to every single site.

      James
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224301].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author George Wright
    Hi again,

    It's draining just coming up with possible misuses for this but what if sidewiki has a rss feed and auto bloggers pick it up and ripoffreport picks it up. I know I'm going the "what if" rout a lot here but it could happen and the realities without the what ifs are bad enough.

    The reason I'm going to block it is because I don't care what all the sidewiki posters have to say about anyone so I don't need to see the posts. And if you don't block it from your site, to use an already overused cliche, "You are not my target market."

    George Wright P.S. I already know how to get my message out to those who might be my target market if they have sidewiki. It has to do with the message they will see in my blocking script. "Turn off your side wiki to get ...... ) This will work with my target market and that's all that counts.

    That is the blocking script until James comes up with his solution, then I'll use that.

    However, hopefully this thing will just fade away. Hopefully.

    I'm done

    George Wright P.S. If you want to read this thread later, better download it to your harddrive. Kudo's to the mods for letting us discuss this even though it borders or maybe even crosses over rule #1. It really is important. Thanks
    Signature
    "The first chapter sells the book; the last chapter sells the next book." Mickey Spillane
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224338].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author GuerrillaIM
    Dude, easy with the "?", you might break the button.

    Take a chill pill. What percentage of your visitors have google toolbar installed? What percentage of them know about side wiki? What percentage of them will actually read it for your site? What percentage of them will see a negative comment and be swayed to not buy the product as opposed to seeing a good comment and being convinced to buy?

    My take is that it will lose you more sales to ban all toolbar users than if you go with the flow and look for other ways to protect your site.

    My point is --> Banning all toolbar users from visiting your site isn't the right reaction <--

    People seem to be reading more into my words. If you disagree then its fine, but this is my opinion on the situation.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224354].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TheRichJerksNet
      Originally Posted by GuerrillaIM View Post

      Dude, easy with the "?", you might break the button.

      Take a chill pill. What percentage of your visitors have google toolbar installed? What percentage of them know about side wiki? What percentage of them will actually read it for your site? What percentage of them will see a negative comment and be swayed to not buy the product as opposed to seeing a good comment and being convinced to buy?

      My take is that it will lose you more sales to ban all toolbar users than if you go with the flow and look for other ways to protect your site.

      My point is --> Banning all toolbar users from visiting your site isn't the right reaction <--

      People seem to be reading more into my words. If you disagree then its fine, but this is my opinion on the situation.
      I do not plan on banning the toolbar - I plan on getting rid of wiki period!!

      James
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224372].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Intrepreneur
        If it takes off... it definitely won't go down well with Webmasters.. just a waiting game for now though.
        Signature

        Owner bestfivereviewed.com

        Started this stuff 2009. Time is what will teach you the skills you need.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224381].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author GuerrillaIM
        Originally Posted by TheRichJerksNet View Post

        I do not plan on banning the toolbar - I plan on getting rid of wiki period!!

        James
        Everything I have been saying is towards the advice I have seen to ban all toolbar users.

        Good luck with getting rid of it, you have my support. However I think Google must have thought this through. If the end user likes the side wiki then it will stay, despite what website owners think. If they have left themself open to lawsuits then great, but a billion dollar company with a dedicated legal team must have thought this through.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224400].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author GuerrillaIM
    If you block sidewiki users, you block everyone with the toolbar, whether they are using it or not (unless some new code has come out I am not aware of). The collateral damage IMO isn't worth it.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224358].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author James Campbell
    I plan on charging 200% the regular price to anyone using the google toolbar. If they want the regular price, or the current promotional price, they will have to get rid of the google toolbar. Of course I will provide a complete explanation of the evils of GT and sidewiki to those users.

    James
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224413].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author GuerrillaIM
      Originally Posted by James Campbell View Post

      I plan on charging 200% the regular price to anyone using the google toolbar. If they want the regular price, or the current promotional price, they will have to get rid of the google toolbar. Of course I will provide a complete explanation of the evils of GT and sidewiki to those users.

      James
      You should sell this as a WSO. You could call it "How to get a bad reputation and alienate your customers"
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224422].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Rhett
    As others have probably already said, I can see a script on the horizon that simply does not allow the wiki to either cache the data on your site, or load, or both.

    Something like "SideWiki could not load as this time".

    From there, we wouldn't have to ban anyone using the Google Toolbar, unless it be for matters of principle.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224421].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author GuerrillaIM
      Originally Posted by Rhett View Post

      As others have probably already said, I can see a script on the horizon that simply does not allow the wiki to either cache the data on your site, or load, or both.

      Something like "SideWiki could not load as this time".

      From there, we wouldn't have to ban anyone using the Google Toolbar, unless it be for matters of principle.
      If google have any sense they will allow some sort of system to opt out, or provide limited control over it.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224432].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Rhett
        Originally Posted by GuerrillaIM View Post

        If google have any sense they will allow some sort of system to opt out, or provide limited control over it.
        Agreed. But I seriously doubt an option to opt out for those of us who are webmasters without a class action suit.

        Additionally, do we have any concrete numbers on how many users have the Google Toolbar installed?
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224454].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author GuerrillaIM
          Originally Posted by Rhett View Post

          Agreed. But I seriously doubt an option to opt out for those of us who are webmasters without a class action suit.

          Additionally, do we have any concrete numbers on how many users have the Google Toolbar installed?
          I have seen some figures thrown about websites but there is no consistency. I have seen anywhere from 3%-20% reported.

          I couldn't find any figures from a reliable source. The majority of people I know do not even know they have a toolbar installed. Most people are not technically savy.

          If your target market is webmasters who are keen on SEO then you could have 80% of them with it.

          If your target market is people who like to fly kites then you may have 5% who have it but don't even realise it or use it.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224474].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author George Wright
            Originally Posted by GuerrillaIM View Post

            If your target market is people who like to fly kites then you may have 5% who have it but don't even realise it or use it.
            GuerrillaIM, Thank you. You just gave me the new motto for my site.

            If you use SideWiki, Go Fly A Kite.

            Thanks Much,

            George Wright
            Signature
            "The first chapter sells the book; the last chapter sells the next book." Mickey Spillane
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224484].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author mojojuju
          Originally Posted by Rhett View Post

          Agreed. But I seriously doubt an option to opt out for those of us who are webmasters without a class action suit.

          Additionally, do we have any concrete numbers on how many users have the Google Toolbar installed?
          Not that I'm worried at all about this - I think this is another "The Sky Is Falling" type concern - but I queried a database I use to log Adwords clicks to see what percentage of those people had the google toolbar installed.

          And what I found was that out of over 250k distinct visitors, only 0.50% had the google toolbar installed. This is general traffic, not a techie audience, for a non IM product, so I suppose the figure would be different for internet marketing products.

          But still, out of that half a percent of those who have the google toolbar installed (or whatever portion of anyone else's traffic) , how many are going to be regular users of this SideWiki thing? Not many I'd assume.

          I think the consensus is that this SideWiki thing is obtrusive, taking up too much space. Add to that, the potential uselessness of comments from random strangers, which may be spammy or stupid. I just don't see this SideWiki as being any kind of a threat.
          Signature

          :)

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224579].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Rhett
            Originally Posted by mojojuju View Post

            And what I found was that out of over 250k distinct visitors, only 0.50% had the google toolbar installed. This is general traffic, not a techie audience, for a non IM product, so I suppose the figure would be different for internet marketing products.

            But still, out of that half a percent of those who have the google toolbar installed (or whatever portion of anyone else's traffic) , how many are going to be regular users of this SideWiki thing? Not many I'd assume.
            I think this initial information should be quite consoling---at least it is to me.

            While I don't retract my earlier statements (I still believe in the destructive potential that the wiki would have if it caught on), it seems like, at this stage, the general populace would largely be unaffected by the Sidewiki.

            Unless Google starts a focused marketing push.
            Signature
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224588].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
        I'm usually in the "this too shall pass" camp, but this one is an exception. I've left my comments for Google over this latest experiment.

        I still think this will pass, but the potential damage in the interim is substantial enough to worry me.

        We've covered spammers, hackers, malware, evil competitors, and so on.

        What I haven't seen mentioned is the ignorance/naivete' of many web surfers. How many will see SideWiki there on the left, where they've been conditioned to expect a navigation menu, and believe that what they see there is a part of the web page? That it's there with the page author's consent?

        How many innocents will think it's another form of AdSense?

        Worst of all, how many will think that the crap posted to this thing is actually sanctioned by Google, endorsed by Google and screened/approved by Google?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224480].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Rhett
          Originally Posted by GuerillaIM

          I couldn't find any figures from a reliable source. The majority of people I know do not even know they have a toolbar installed. Most people are not technically savy.
          Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

          What I haven't seen mentioned is the ignorance/naivete' of many web surfers. How many will see SideWiki there on the left, where they've been conditioned to expect a navigation menu, and believe that what they see there is a part of the web page? That it's there with the page author's consent?

          How many innocents will think it's another form of AdSense?

          Worst of all, how many will think that the crap posted to this thing is actually sanctioned by Google, endorsed by Google and screened/approved by Google?
          I think these are two critical points that must be considered. The vast majority of my customers are in this bracket of technological understanding. It could literally kill a couple of my income streams.
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224491].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Brian Cook
          On the lighter side...

          I mainly came to this thread because the title
          intrigued me, "... Clam Down"

          Brian
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224507].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
            I have spent the last couple of hours (and God only knows why) reading
            these threads, going to the SERPs and really studying this whole concept
            and its functionality because until today, I didn't even know this thing
            existed.

            This is not directed to anyone in particular, but anybody who cannot see
            the potential destruction that this app can cause (and that is putting it
            mildly) is seriously delusional.

            This may very well be the most damaging app that has hit the Internet
            for every person who owns a web site, not only for business but for ANY
            purpose at all.

            John Doe has a web site that has photos of his children on it. Perfectly
            innocuous. Harmless as can be.

            Until somebody posts a Sidewiki that this person is a child molester,
            complete with fabricated facts and links to photoshopped pictures.

            The damage that this app can do is unimaginable to almost all people
            except for those who have the sense to see it and those who have the
            knowhow to exploit it.

            I only hope and pray that all of you who don't think this is a big deal or
            actually support it, don't become a fatality of its effects.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224543].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author GuerrillaIM
              Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim View Post

              anybody who cannot see
              the potential destruction that this app can cause (and that is putting it
              mildly) is seriously delusional.
              I'm not saying it cannot be used detrimentally. Of course, I saw this immediately. I just felt the need to start this thread after I saw people saying that you should block all toolbar users. I think this is a bad course of action to take.

              I am toying with an idea to start a service to monitor and rectify side wiki spam. I am *fairly* technical so this new feature, while annoying, doesn't really phase me. Some people seem to be getting really bent out of shape about it so there is obvioulsy a market for it.

              My other idea was to release the software to rectify it for free, but then this could be used to do improper things also. Alas, I give it about a month before there is a free and widely available tool to spam side wiki. Google will make some changes to the current system, I am sure of it, I am just not so sure what those changes will be.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224633].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author davezan
                Originally Posted by TheRichJerksNet View Post

                @OP - Here are a few facts......

                5. If someone breaks into my home, you better be ready to have your head handed to you
                I'm probably dense and/or being too technical, James, but...how exactly is the
                big G "breaking" into your home or office with this? They've made a script that
                does what's caused people to complain here about, but is it breaking into your
                server and injecting stuff you don't want?

                Using the billboard analogy another member posted in another thread, Google
                put one in its backyard that's outside or across your property and lets people
                write whatever they want about you. Yet....are they infringing your property
                rights?

                At least, that's what I understand SideWiki to do. Yet are people required or
                forced to utilize it, and will people see those comments if they don't use it via
                Google Toolbar, Firefox's SideWiki plugin, etc.?

                This isn't a personal attack. But when you posted your opinion as a so-called
                fact, then someone asked:

                Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim View Post

                Are you saying that somebody can see my site on it and hack into it?
                When it's not necessarily, factually true, well...I'm sure you get the idea.

                If anything, I understand that people feel Google is infringing their rights with
                what they've recently done. History's replete with examples of people feeling
                this or that when it's not necessarily and/or factually true, some of which had
                caused unnecessary harm in some way. (like the lynch mobs of years past...)

                Then again, maybe I'm wrong too. I am just posting an opinion, after all, but I
                personally don't want people believing something to be true if it's not backed
                up by some kind of fact.

                Speaking of fact, is a fact constituted by something that people can agree on
                or what? I thought it's something that's logically proven or similar?

                Then again, our ancestors used to believe the Earth is flat. And it took quite a
                long time for people to finally toss that belief aside, despite someone who had
                finally proven it's actually round. (or spherical if one wants to get technical...)

                Of course, there are times when one shouldn't wait for someone to post some
                kind of undisputable fact to prove something. Just goes to show things are not
                always black and white.

                And it's fine to disagree. We all agree to do that here.

                One thing I do agree on, though, is the potential here for abuse. And I am fine
                with the idea of letting Google know what possible harm this can cause, yet in
                a way that'll probably...probably...make some form of logical, factual sense.

                But...as Paul Myers (or someone else?) posted, what we feel is right. I guess I
                can't really argue against that.

                (Anyway, that's just my minor pet peeve. Heh.)
                Signature

                David

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1225416].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Dan C. Rinnert
                  Originally Posted by davezan View Post

                  Using the billboard analogy another member posted in another thread, Google
                  put one in its backyard that's outside or across your property and lets people
                  write whatever they want about you. Yet....are they infringing your property
                  rights?
                  If my neighbor did that, do you expect that I would continue to pay their kid to mow my lawn?
                  Signature

                  Dan's content is irregularly read by handfuls of people. Join the elite few by reading his blog: dcrBlogs.com, following him on Twitter: dcrTweets.com or reading his fiction: dcrWrites.com but NOT by Clicking Here!

                  Dan also writes content for hire, but you can't afford him anyway.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1225438].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TheRichJerksNet
                  Originally Posted by davezan View Post

                  I'm probably dense and/or being too technical, James, but...how exactly is the
                  big G "breaking" into your home or office with this? They've made a script that
                  does what's caused people to complain here about, but is it breaking into your
                  server and injecting stuff you don't want?
                  Dave,
                  My website / home is my bread and butter and google is in essence breaking into my home because they are taking a copy of my site with comments posted that I have no control over and posting that on their server. Let's forget about someone visiting your actual site, google has a copy of it on their server.

                  Now it is a FACT that if you break into my home I will hand your head to you on a silver platter. I am very protective of what is mine.

                  James
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1226227].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Eric Lorence
                The reason to block this nonsense is simple...

                If SW spammers are blocked and cant see your site, then they will leave NO comments.

                These comments which are now INDEXED, will not apply to your pages.

                It's a no-brainer...

                And for those who would compare this "feature" to Digg or other social networks - your forgetting one minor detail.

                Digg and other social networks SEND traffic ... SideWiki STEALS traffic.

                How? by drawing attention away from YOUR content on to their own window.

                Don't buy into this crap from those who would use words like "inevitable" and "certainty". that's BS.

                There was a time when when the "experts" thought it was "inevitable" Yahoo would "rule" the internet.

                Times change.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1241388].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author MSGeek
                For reference, SideWiki is not using iframe. Tht's just a side bar, feature of IE/Windows Explorer accessible through IE extensions.Second, the tool advertised here may be easily turned off by putting site into the restricted zone.I thought, most people may want to know that.
                Signature

                -- How To Make Your Site Pandemic by Creating a Viral Report in Under 1 Hour and Giving It Away for Free
                -- Viral Report SneezeMachine Makes others to Spread Your Viral Report Around
                -- Action is essential, Brain is not optional.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1242241].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author designfuschion
                  Originally Posted by MSGeek View Post

                  For reference, SideWiki is not using iframe. Tht's just a side bar, feature of IE/Windows Explorer accessible through IE extensions.Second, the tool advertised here may be easily turned off by putting site into the restricted zone.I thought, most people may want to know that.
                  I'd have to disagree with that.
                  I use firefox,and following the directions in another thread that pointed to where the iframe ref is..i went to the wikipedia page that has sidewiki in it,without toolbar..in firefox.
                  Sure enough in the code the tag <iframe> blah blah </iframe> was used.

                  Could you explain please what the restricted zone means?

                  Thanks
                  Signature

                  Wordpress Install service. PM me for rates and packages or what you need and we can work something out.


                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1242269].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
              Guerrilla,
              To suggest that you should combat this by blocking ALL users of the google toolbar is detrimental in my opinion
              Whether that opinion is valid for someone else depends on their purposes in doing it, along with the probability of their being subjected to the kind of abuse this opens.

              There are two main purposes I can see in blocking these users. The first is to prevent the abusive behavior. The value of that is obvious to anyone who's a likely target.

              The second is to send a message to Google regarding the (possibly unforeseen) consequences of their new toy. This has much greater long-term value.

              A simple solution would be for Google to create a mechanism that allows the site owner to specify somehow whether or not they want to allow these comments. (A meta tag would work nicely.) The question then becomes an argument over which is the default choice.

              Those interested in not being hassled would prefer that it default to "No comments allowed." That would, however, pretty much guarantee that the tool was dead in the water. Most people are not going to make the effort to add notes to their sites to let people comment.

              As it sits now, they've created a mechanism to allow people to spam other folks' sites. The technical fact that the abuse is hosted on Google's servers means nothing from the perspective of how the random visitor will view what's posted.

              That is where the social networking analogies falls apart. Yes, people can go to Twitter or Facebook or wherever and say what they like about you. The fact that it's on a different site creates a distance that ensures that the people reading it don't assume it's something over which you have any kind of control.

              If you don't think people will be confused about that, you have a very short memory. When Allen posted here using the [ YOU ] tag, people became near-violently hostile about the results, despite being told in very clear terms, "Everyone sees their own username there. You are the only one who sees that comment with your name in that space."

              Doesn't get clearer than that, yet people still made all sorts of threats.

              For an easier example, look at the smart people in all the threads on this subject who don't get the distinction, even after it's been repeatedly explained.

              The typical visitor is going to assume that you are approving, or at least not making efforts to remove, whatever comments are placed in that space. That means YOU could be sued if someone posts something libelous about another person. The suit wouldn't go far, but it's still an expensive pastime.

              From a technical and legal perspective, there's nothing wrong with what they're doing. From a practical perspective, Google has just created a way for people to spam your site, whether you like it or not. Adding an "opt-out" mechanism makes it only slightly less evil.

              If they want to live up to their slogan ("Don't ve evil"), they need to make it opt-in. That would be a simple thing to do.
              and sends the message that you have something to hide.
              Only to people who refuse to "get" that this is spam, and potentially abusive in ways that could have serious consequences.

              And yes, I do mean "refuse." It's been explained more than enough that someone with your intelligence should grasp it easily. The most likely answer is that you're dismissing it as a valid concern.


              Paul
              Signature
              .
              Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224675].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Ken Strong
            Originally Posted by Brian Cook View Post

            On the lighter side...

            I mainly came to this thread because the title
            intrigued me, "... Clam Down"

            Brian
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1225012].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author George Wright
      Originally Posted by Rhett View Post

      As others have probably already said, I can see a script on the horizon that simply does not allow the wiki to either cache the data on your site, or load, or both.

      Something like "SideWiki could not load as this time".

      From there, we wouldn't have to ban anyone using the Google Toolbar, unless it be for matters of principle.
      Thank goodness James and others are working on that as we speak.

      George Wright P.S. I hope he sells it using Google checkout and advertises it with adwords via adsense.
      Signature
      "The first chapter sells the book; the last chapter sells the next book." Mickey Spillane
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224465].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TheRichJerksNet
        Originally Posted by George Wright View Post

        Thank goodness James and others are working on that as we speak.

        George Wright P.S. I hope he sells it using Google checkout and advertises it with adwords via adsense.
        Originally Posted by Rhett
        As others have probably already said, I can see a script on the horizon that simply does not allow the wiki to either cache the data on your site, or load, or both.

        Something like "SideWiki could not load as this time".

        From there, we wouldn't have to ban anyone using the Google Toolbar, unless it be for matters of principle.
        Well here is the problem... Google's developers are a little smarter than we give them credit for. Google does in fact have full control and I have been through their coding, I have tested and tested and I hate to say it the only things that will block sidewiki is the following...

        *1. SSL - Have a secured cert installed on your hosting. (cost can range from $20 - $500 Per Site) depending upon who you buy it from.

        *2. Force Users with JS turned on, to turn it off.. Not a very good idea, especially for dynamic websites.

        *3. Block the entire google toolbar. (100% free, but may cost you traffic)

        I know when I m licked and sorry to say it but it will take someone a great deal smarter than me - but in my opinion nothing can be coded to block it.

        The bad news is you can code a SpamWiki tool in less than an hour with no problem at all..

        I think the only thing that is going to put this down is someone forcing google into court. Again I am not going to post the links but google is in essence taking your website html and changing it. This is why Non-Google browsers such as Netscape, Safari, and etc can view comments.

        With the creation of a SpamWiki tool anybody will be able to post comments as long as they have a gmail account, no toolbar needed.

        James
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224660].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author George Wright
          Thanks James,

          You tried.

          Now we will have to see what happens next. Hey I don't like old age either and there isn't anything I can do about it. I'll just role with the blows and hope for the best and.... add your own cliche here....

          George Stick a fork in me I'm done Wright

          Originally Posted by TheRichJerksNet View Post

          Well here is the problem... Google's developers are a little smarter than we give them credit for. Google does in fact have full control and I have been through their coding, I have tested and tested and I hate to say it the only things that will block sidewiki is the following...

          *1. SSL - Have a secured cert installed on your hosting. (cost can range from $20 - $500 Per Site) depending upon who you buy it from.

          *2. Force Users with JS turned on, to turn it off.. Not a very good idea, especially for dynamic websites.

          *3. Block the entire google toolbar. (100% free, but may cost you traffic)

          I know when I m licked and sorry to say it but it will take someone a great deal smarter than me - but in my opinion nothing can be coded to block it.

          The bad news is you can code a SpamWiki tool in less than an hour with no problem at all..

          I think the only thing that is going to put this down is someone forcing google into court. Again I am not going to post the links but google is in essence taking your website html and changing it. This is why Non-Google browsers such as Netscape, Safari, and etc can view comments.

          With the creation of a SpamWiki tool anybody will be able to post comments as long as they have a gmail account, no toolbar needed.

          James
          Signature
          "The first chapter sells the book; the last chapter sells the next book." Mickey Spillane
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224674].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Rhett
          Originally Posted by TheRichJerksNet View Post

          Well here is the problem... Google's developers are a little smarter than we give them credit for. Google does in fact have full control and I have been through their coding, I have tested and tested and I hate to say it the only things that will block sidewiki is the following...

          *1. SSL - Have a secured cert installed on your hosting. (cost can range from $20 - $500 Per Site) depending upon who you buy it from.

          *2. Force Users with JS turned on, to turn it off.. Not a very good idea, especially for dynamic websites.

          *3. Block the entire google toolbar. (100% free, but may cost you traffic)

          I know when I m licked and sorry to say it but it will take someone a great deal smarter than me - but in my opinion nothing can be coded to block it.

          The bad news is you can code a SpamWiki tool in less than an hour with no problem at all..

          I think the only thing that is going to put this down is someone forcing google into court. Again I am not going to post the links but google is in essence taking your website html and changing it. This is why Non-Google browsers such as Netscape, Safari, and etc can view comments.

          With the creation of a SpamWiki tool anybody will be able to post comments as long as they have a gmail account, no toolbar needed.

          James
          Well, that's not exactly what I was looking for in terms of a response in regards to the potential of scripts.

          Anyways, how likely is it that the average user will see the comments in a "non-google browser"? Currently, I've been poking around Safari, just attempting to see if I can view any comments what so ever, without the toolbar.

          Point is, I can't. So...would the average user stumble across the necessary steps to enable Sidewiki in their browser?
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224677].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TheRichJerksNet
            Originally Posted by Rhett View Post

            Well, that's not exactly what I was looking for in terms of a response in regards to the potential of scripts.

            Anyways, how likely is it that the average user will see the comments in a "non-google browser"? Currently, I've been poking around Safari, just attempting to see if I can view any comments what so ever, without the toolbar.

            Point is, I can't. So...would the average user stumble across the necessary steps to enable Sidewiki in their browser?
            Very likely, the links can be emailed, posted on twitter and facebook...

            So even having a browser that does not have the google toolbar still does not save your site or your possible sales or your possible rep, and etc... All spammers need to do is post the comment and then send it to friends, post it on twitter and post it on facebook...

            Talk about viral - Google planned this very well but they made a huge mistake without an opt-out function for site owners..

            James
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224731].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Rhett
              Originally Posted by TheRichJerksNet View Post

              Very likely, the links can be emailed, posted on twitter and facebook...

              So even having a browser that does not have the google toolbar still does not save your site or your possible sales or your possible rep, and etc... All spammers need to do is post the comment and then send it to friends, post it on twitter and post it on facebook...
              Are you saying that though the spammy comment may not be VIEWABLE by the masses, the comment regarding your site could be spread through social networking venues?

              Originally Posted by TheRichJerksNet View Post

              Talk about viral - Google planned this very well but they made a huge mistake without an opt-out function for site owners..
              James
              So is the problem viral then, when browsers don't have the support for Sitewiki? If so, how is that any different from now? What I mean is, what is to prevent Affiliate A from spreading discord through Twitter, Facebook, Myspace, etc. regarding Affiliate B's site currently?

              I'm just a little confused.
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224743].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author TheRichJerksNet
                Originally Posted by Rhett View Post

                Are you saying that though the spammy comment may not be VIEWABLE by the masses, the comment regarding your site could be spread through social networking venues?



                So is the problem viral then, when browsers don't have the support for Sitewiki? If so, how is that any different from now? What I mean is, what is to prevent Affiliate A from spreading discord through Twitter, Facebook, Myspace, etc. regarding Affiliate B's site currently?

                I'm just a little confused.
                See my post above and then also read Paul's post ...

                When people see your site (with googles url) and the comments then they will still think they are looking at your site.. The url in the browser will not matter much to many, because they are seeing your site.

                To affirm this even further google has a close button on non-google browsers and when they close the button, they are directed to your site but it does not look like a redirect..

                James
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224762].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Ken
          Originally Posted by TheRichJerksNet View Post

          Well here is the problem... Google's developers are a little smarter than we give them credit for. Google does in fact have full control and I have been through their coding, I have tested and tested and I hate to say it the only things that will block sidewiki is the following...

          *1. SSL - Have a secured cert installed on your hosting. (cost can range from $20 - $500 Per Site) depending upon who you buy it from.

          *2. Force Users with JS turned on, to turn it off.. Not a very good idea, especially for dynamic websites.

          *3. Block the entire google toolbar. (100% free, but may cost you traffic)

          I know when I m licked and sorry to say it but it will take someone a great deal smarter than me - but in my opinion nothing can be coded to block it.
          Let me start by saying "I am not a programmer." I have no idea what is possible.

          Does it make any sense to think other than blocking?

          Perhaps diverting/redirecting, instead of standing directly in front and blocking perhaps a detour? Changing appearance/camouflaging, making it appear to be something it is not?
          Throwing a little sand in the gears, if you will?

          Ken
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224974].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TheRichJerksNet
            Originally Posted by Ken View Post

            Let me start by saying "I am not a programmer." I have no idea what is possible.

            Does it make any sense to think other than blocking?

            Perhaps diverting/redirecting, instead of standing directly in front and blocking perhaps a detour? Changing appearance/camouflaging, making it appear to be something it is not?
            Throwing a little sand in the gears, if you will?

            Ken
            That is the thing Ken .. You can't because everything is controlled on google's own server, not yours... Trust me I have ran through every possible way and even sat down with my staff and we all brainstormed this thing.

            James
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224980].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author vagabondette
              Originally Posted by TheRichJerksNet View Post

              That is the thing Ken .. You can't because everything is controlled on google's own server, not yours... Trust me I have ran through every possible way and even sat down with my staff and we all brainstormed this thing.

              James
              So there's no way to know of someone on your site has accessed sidewiki by clicking on that little tab thingy?

              Or, what about having some sort of script that if someone hovers their mouse where that slide out thingy would be a hover message shows where you can put a disclaimer? That at least might let you remind people that you have no control or responsibility for the content in sidewiki and include a suggestion to remove it...
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1225000].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author TheRichJerksNet
                Originally Posted by vagabondette View Post

                So there's no way to know of someone on your site has accessed sidewiki by clicking on that little tab thingy?

                Or, what about having some sort of script that if someone hovers their mouse where that slide out thingy would be a hover message shows where you can put a disclaimer? That at least might let you remind people that you have no control or responsibility for the content in sidewiki and include a suggestion to remove it...
                This is the issue thoug, you can make that spamwiki button close... That is not a problem but you can not force keep it closed. There are 4 buttons.

                1. Top side, the tab
                2. Top side, message icon
                3. Bottom, pencil icon
                4. On the Toolbar itself

                You can not control that button on that toolbar.

                You very well can add messages to your site but then you are really just cluttering up your site and some may wonder why do you have to have that message there, what are you actually hiding. I hate to use those words but let's look at things from a consumer side.

                James
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1225054].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author vagabondette
                  Originally Posted by TheRichJerksNet View Post

                  This is the issue thoug, you can make that spamwiki button close... That is not a problem but you can not force keep it closed. There are 4 buttons.

                  1. Top side, the tab
                  2. Top side, message icon
                  3. Bottom, pencil icon
                  4. On the Toolbar itself

                  You can not control that button on that toolbar.

                  You very well can add messages to your site but then you are really just cluttering up your site and some may wonder why do you have to have that message there, what are you actually hiding. I hate to use those words but let's look at things from a consumer side.

                  James
                  I didn't mean a message that is there all the time but one that pops up when they move their mouse to the part of the screen where those buttons are. But since they stay static and your website moves with scrolling I guess that's really not an option.

                  Meh, looks like we're screwed until some big guy sues G because of this. I think it would be a waste of money to do the SSL since they say they're going to change that anyway.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1225154].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author George Wright
                    Originally Posted by vagabondette View Post

                    I didn't mean a message that is there all the time but one that pops up when they move their mouse to the part of the screen where those buttons are. But since they stay static and your website moves with scrolling I guess that's really not an option.

                    Meh, looks like we're screwed until some big guy sues G because of this. I think it would be a waste of money to do the SSL since they say they're going to change that anyway.
                    Sorry, The big guys won't sue google. The big guys will pay google to opt out. How much? A million a year? Two million, It doesn't matter they will just pass the cost on to us and oh yea, make money off of our sites with the adwords they get for paying to opt out.

                    George Wright
                    Signature
                    "The first chapter sells the book; the last chapter sells the next book." Mickey Spillane
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1225192].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
                      For Rhett (and anyone else who doubts the viral potential of nasty comments)...

                      1. How many jokes/pictures/political rants/ etc. do you get with multiple levels of forwarding?

                      When spreading a message is as easy as a few mouse clicks, people will make those finger twitches, either to feel important at passing along a warning or for the malicious pleasure of spreading gossip.

                      2. How simple is it to simply re-tweet something for the same reasons? Or bookmark a page to multiple social sites? Or both?

                      When it comes to actions that give the average surfer pleasure in one form or another, laziness goes out the window.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1225235].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Rhett
                        Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

                        For Rhett (and anyone else who doubts the viral potential of nasty comments)...

                        1. How many jokes/pictures/political rants/ etc. do you get with multiple levels of forwarding?

                        When spreading a message is as easy as a few mouse clicks, people will make those finger twitches, either to feel important at passing along a warning or for the malicious pleasure of spreading gossip.

                        2. How simple is it to simply re-tweet something for the same reasons? Or bookmark a page to multiple social sites? Or both?

                        When it comes to actions that give the average surfer pleasure in one form or another, laziness goes out the window.
                        To be clear, I never doubted the power of viral marketing. I even specifically said that. To answer your questions:

                        1. Next to none. This could be a result of my general age group, however, or the type of individuals I choose to associate with. So, it may not be indicative to the normal user's experience. I acknowledge that possibility.

                        2. Very simple. My point earlier was simply stating that such malicious attempts to discredit a business are already in existence, and the necessary tools (Twitter, etc.) are there. Simply using a cached page bashing your site as the landing page versus a blogger post doesn't seem that different.

                        Thus far, one Warrior has already established with their preliminary numbers that a large portion (just from one site) of their users (which they classified as 'average' users) did not have Google Toolbar- 99.5% to be specific.

                        Irregardless, James and I had a private conversation which discussed showed how detrimental some individuals can be on the net with the tools available. There is some scary stuff out there.
                        Signature
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1225278].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
          James,
          I know when I m licked and sorry to say it but it will take someone a great deal smarter than me - but in my opinion nothing can be coded to block it.
          PM me tomorrow. We need to talk.

          I've just lost it with this issue. Someone stepped over the line.


          Paul
          Signature
          .
          Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1225754].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TheRichJerksNet
            Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

            James,PM me tomorrow. We need to talk.

            I've just lost it with this issue. Someone stepped over the line.


            Paul
            Sent you a PM Paul ...

            @Viva_vix .. There is nothing wrong with the toolbar, it's sidewiki that is the problem. Please read this entire thread and you will understand.

            Now as far as the toolbar I will say this I have a Intel-Mac running MacOS 10.6 Snow Leopard with 1.5GB of memory. The 2 days I had it installed it forced restarted my computer 4 times.

            James
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1226210].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author James Campbell
    Not all customers, just have to take a stand on certain things. For any customers that do not respect my right to make a living and right to defend myself against spam, false accusations, etc.... then I probably do not want them as a customer.

    Of course positive comments are great, but I am sure that positive comments won't be what people leave much of the time.

    Also, if you have a blog that has 1000's of posts, from years and years of posting, guess what? You have to try to monitor all of that. When an old post is doing well in the SERPs then what are you supposed to do? Keep monitoring everything? I don't think so.

    Good products give you a good reputation. Protecting yourself from the crap storm of lies and spam does not.

    James
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224434].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author GuerrillaIM
      Originally Posted by James Campbell View Post

      For any customers that do not respect my right to make a living and right to defend myself against spam, false accusations, etc.... then I probably do not want them as a customer.
      I'm loosing the thread of your arguement. How does this relate to charging anyone with the google toolbar 200%?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224448].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author James Campbell
    It has already started.

    Google Sidewiki: Brands under attack | Blog | Econsultancy

    Got the link from another thread here at the wf.

    James
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224469].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author GuerrillaIM
    Hi Paul,

    Blocking all toolbar users is only good for making a point. Personally I am more interested in profit. I design my website to accessibility standards so that dissabled people can still read them. I pick colours that contrast well even for people who are colour blind. I test my sites in multiple browsers and operating systems to make sure it can be viewed easily by all. I have researched the easiest font types and sizes to read and use them. Why would I then block a large portion of my viewers just because they choose to use the google toolbar?

    Doesn't make sense to me. If people want to make a stand and think google will give a damn then go for it, personally I want as many people as possible to see my offers. I will look to other methods to prevent my sites being spammed with negative comments.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224706].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
      GuerrillaIM,

      That's a perfectly reasonable decision for you to make for your own sites. My point is simply that you should be careful about tossing around your standards as applying to everyone else. Especially when loaded with the false conclusion that blocking it means you have something to hide.

      That last part is a logically unsound conclusion.

      If you don't think that sending a message to Google about being destructive is useful, that's also your right to conclude. Others may well feel differently, and be right for their own situations.


      Paul
      Signature
      .
      Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224735].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author GuerrillaIM
        Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

        GuerrillaIM,

        That's a perfectly reasonable decision for you to make for your own sites. My point is simply that you should be careful about tossing around your standards as applying to everyone else. Especially when loaded with the false conclusion that blocking it means you have something to hide.
        I wasn't making a conclusion, merely pointing out how it could be perceived.

        Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

        If you don't think that sending a message to Google about being destructive is useful, that's also your right to conclude.
        I'm not sure I understand what your saying here but I will have a go at a reply. I have said that blocking all toolbar users is not a good idea, and I stand by this. If you do so to "send a message" then good for you. Personally I don't think it will get you very far and I believe it could lose you sales.

        I have said my bit. I think blocking all toolbar users is a knee jerk reaction. If you are happy to possibly lose a few sales to send a message to Big-G then go for it. I think very carefully about what message my website/marketing/business actions send to my customers, and I don't think this will be beneficial to me.

        Why not completely boycott google to show your protest? Cancel your adsense and adwords accounts, block all traffic from the google search engine and make your robots.txt stop googlebot from seeing your site. That would surely send a strong message?

        I personally believe that a few web masters blocking toolbar users wont make any difference. The end user will see spammed results and complain, and that will be the catalyst that makes google tweak the system.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224809].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TheRichJerksNet
    For those that are wanting to block the toolbar, let me say this so you have a full understanding before you may hurt your business even more.

    Just because you have google toolbar blocked does not mean comments can not be posted on your site. Yep, that's right.. As explained above it would only take 1 hour to create a SpamWiki app, then the user never even needs to visit your site and can spam it... Now you may think ok then people can not see the comments..

    Well, sorry but that is wrong... I hate to say it but all the SpamWiki app needs to do is auto post to twitter and facebook (which it could do with another hour or so of coding). These links that will show on twitter and facebook will actually link to "google" with a cached page of your site and the comments showing on the side.

    As I said google planned this very well, there is no doubt about that at all..

    James
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224750].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author George Wright
      James,

      Even with a SSL?

      George Wright

      Originally Posted by TheRichJerksNet View Post

      For those that are wanting to block the toolbar, let me say this so you have a full understanding before you may hurt your business even more.

      Just because you have google toolbar blocked does not mean comments can not be posted on your site. Yep, that's right.. As explained above it would only take 1 hour to create a SpamWiki app, then the user never even needs to visit your site and can spam it... Now you may think ok then people can not see the comments..

      Well, sorry but that is wrong... I hate to say it but all the SpamWiki app needs to do is auto post to twitter and facebook (which it could do with another hour or so of coding). These links that will show on twitter and facebook will actually link to "google" with a cached page of your site and the comments showing on the side.

      As I said google planned this very well, there is no doubt about that at all..

      James
      Signature
      "The first chapter sells the book; the last chapter sells the next book." Mickey Spillane
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224756].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Rhett
      Originally Posted by TheRichJerksNet View Post

      Well, sorry but that is wrong... I hate to say it but all the SpamWiki app needs to do is auto post to twitter and facebook (which it could do with another hour or so of coding). These links that will show on twitter and facebook will actually link to "google" with a cached page of your site and the comments showing on the side.

      As I said google planned this very well, there is no doubt about that at all..

      James
      Ok, now I understand what you were saying. But I have more questions!

      1) The viral spread of a negative opinion on your reputation is greatly limited by the numbers of followers/friends, correct?

      2) In the event that "friends tell friends," isn't it logical to assume that there is eventual diminishing returns on the spread of the spammy comment? Meaning, without the constant work of spamming your website, the initial attempt and/or damage will fade away?

      3) Has anyone else besides that previous Warrior who posted (sorry I'm horrible with names ) checked their analytics to confirm what percentage of their viewers on each site actually have Google Toolbar? That poster noticed only .5%
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224770].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TheRichJerksNet
        Originally Posted by Rhett View Post

        Ok, now I understand what you were saying. But I have more questions!

        1) The viral spread of a negative opinion on your reputation is greatly limited by the numbers of followers/friends, correct?

        2) In the event that "friends tell friends," isn't it logical to assume that there is eventual diminishing returns on the spread of the spammy comment? Meaning, without the constant work of spamming your website, the initial attempt and/or damage will fade away?

        3) Has anyone else besides that previous Warrior who posted (sorry I'm horrible with names ) checked their analytics to confirm what percentage of their viewers on each site actually have Google Toolbar? That poster noticed only .5%
        Viral can be very very powerful as many marketers know... Especially when those comments are posted right next to your site, does not matter if it is your url or googles url.. They are still next to your site and that alone will make many comments believable as paul pointed out above.

        Now I really do not want to fully answer you on this viral because if I did I would give some people many great ideas on how to actually ruin someones rep and even their life, so I will leave my answer at this ... sorry ...

        James
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224790].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Rhett
          Originally Posted by TheRichJerksNet View Post

          Viral can be very very powerful as many marketers know... Especially when those comments are posted right next to your site, does not matter if it is your url or googles url.. They are still next to your site and that alone will make many comments believable as paul pointed out above.
          But that's assuming the individual browsing the comments was reached through viral means such as Facebook and Twitter. While I do acknowledge the power of viral marketing, it seems that the reach of negative comments through Sitewiki is limited in scope by venues such as Twitter and Facebook. While in my earlier post I accounted for a ripple effect, I basically don't see how nearly all "average users" will care enough to track down all this negative information, and spread it to the point of the negative campaign being self-sustaining.

          These would be the steps:

          1) User has to follow/be a friend to one of your competitors.

          2) User has to have enough motivation/reason/curiosity to click on the url/shortened url.

          3) User has to read the negative comments, and believe them.

          4) User has to spread their immature opinion regarding your site (note: they are limited by the 140 character limitation on Twitter, though for Facebook, Myspace, Email, etc. there is not that limitation).

          5) Sequential users must follow suit to perpetuate the cycle.

          Again, it seems like a lot of effort on the average user's part. That, or the spammer would have to dedicate a campaign focused JUST on destroying the competition.

          Originally Posted by TheRichJerksNet View Post

          Now I really do not want to fully answer you on this viral because if I did I would give some people many great ideas on how to actually ruin someones rep and even their life, so I will leave my answer at this ... sorry ...

          James
          I respect that. Fair enough.
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224812].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TheMagicShow
    Google is gonna have their ass handed to them... for creating such a stupid tool. This is a haven for spammers and idiots to rip apart sites and drive down their traffic and literally destroy many businesses.

    Is this tool most popular among IMers and search engine optimization pros? If so, then it can hurt many of our businesses.

    How does one go on about and block people that use this tool?
    Signature

    " You can either give a man a fish and feed him for a day OR teach him how to catch a fish and it will feed him for a lifetime"

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224779].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TheMagicShow
    Also, just imagine how this tool can rip a big one in clickbank's profits = Imers profits. Google needs to re-think this one and do away with such a stupid tool.
    Signature

    " You can either give a man a fish and feed him for a day OR teach him how to catch a fish and it will feed him for a lifetime"

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224792].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author George Wright
    James or Anyone,

    I went to the google comments page to find out about SSL and found this.

    "Sidewiki currently does not support comments over internal or SSL (https) encrypted pages.
    The button may also appear gray if other Sidewiki users can not access the target page."

    What is an Internal page?

    George Wright
    Signature
    "The first chapter sells the book; the last chapter sells the next book." Mickey Spillane
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224826].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Killer Joe
      Originally Posted by George Wright View Post

      James or Anyone,

      I went to the google comments page to find out about SSL and found this.

      "Sidewiki currently does not support comments over internal or SSL (https) encrypted pages.
      The button may also appear gray if other Sidewiki users can not access the target page."

      What is an Internal page?

      George Wright
      George,

      Internal pages are all those pages past the index (home) page.


      KJ
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224832].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TheRichJerksNet
    Rhett,
    I sent you a PM to explain because as I said I do not want to post and give ideas to "evil" people ...

    James
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224833].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Rhett
      Originally Posted by TheRichJerksNet View Post

      Rhett,
      I sent you a PM to explain because as I said I do not want to post and give ideas to "evil" people ...

      James
      Point taken. Thanks.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224838].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TheRichJerksNet
    Goerge,
    It can post to an internal page and that even includes a "members area" page, now a non-member would only see the login screen (but still see comments) but members can see all comments ...

    By the way: I have uninstalled this evil tool and sent my feedback to google and threatened them pretty much with laywers....

    James
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224839].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ripsnorta2
      Originally Posted by TheRichJerksNet View Post

      ...

      By the way: I have uninstalled this evil tool and sent my feedback to google and threatened them pretty much with laywers....

      James
      Do you think that will get anywhere?

      Not being cynical, just curious.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1250656].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author WareTime
    When things of this magnitude get the community buzzing I always think the thing that gets everyone all wild is a diversion to keep us from noticing something else going into effect as well.

    This is a wild roundhouse right. Watch for the quick jab out of nowhere.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224851].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TheRichJerksNet
      Originally Posted by WareTime View Post

      When things of this magnitude get the community buzzing I always think the thing that gets everyone all wild is a diversion to keep us from noticing something else going into effect as well.

      This is a wild roundhouse right. Watch for the quick jab out of nowhere.
      Yeah I have a feeling that google protectng their spamwiki so well only means something bigger and much more worse is coming ...

      You must question why did they take so much effort into protecting wiki from being blocked but yet took no interest at all in blocking bad comments...

      James
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224868].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author WritingMadwoman
        Originally Posted by TheRichJerksNet View Post

        Yeah I have a feeling that google protectng their spamwiki so well only means something bigger and much more worse is coming ...

        You must question why did they take so much effort into protecting wiki from being blocked but yet took no interest at all in blocking bad comments...

        James
        Bye-bye PageRank, hello WikiRank? Let the comments decide whose site should be ranked first in the search engines? I know I shouldn't joke about it, but can you imagine?

        Wendy
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1225003].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Dan C. Rinnert
        Originally Posted by TheRichJerksNet View Post

        Yeah I have a feeling that google protectng their spamwiki so well only means something bigger and much more worse is coming ...

        You must question why did they take so much effort into protecting wiki from being blocked but yet took no interest at all in blocking bad comments...
        I'm wondering if this could be Google's jump the shark moment.
        Signature

        Dan's content is irregularly read by handfuls of people. Join the elite few by reading his blog: dcrBlogs.com, following him on Twitter: dcrTweets.com or reading his fiction: dcrWrites.com but NOT by Clicking Here!

        Dan also writes content for hire, but you can't afford him anyway.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1225015].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Zeus66
    As if we don't all have enough to worry about. This just keeps getting better and better, as in more horrific. Apparently, we're all Pinky and Google is the Brain. They're gonna drag us along in their plans to take over the world - with our permission or without it.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1225035].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TheRichJerksNet
      Originally Posted by Zeus66 View Post

      As if we don't all have enough to worry about. This just keeps getting better and better, as in more horrific. Apparently, we're all Pinky and Google is the Brain. They're gonna drag us along in their plans to take over the world - with our permission or without it.
      John,
      That's about right .. It is pretty sick that (excuse me I normally am not like this) they screwed us and did not even bother to give us a kiss..

      Nothing like being screwed and not loved....

      James
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1225062].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Killer Joe
        Originally Posted by TheRichJerksNet View Post

        Nothing like being screwed and not loved....
        I can get over that for a hundred bucks.

        This Google thing, however...:p

        KJ
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1225073].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
          GuerrillaIM,
          I think blocking all toolbar users is a knee jerk reaction.
          Yes, you do. Clearly. You believe that, and thus you dismiss the idea that someone else could choose that action rationally, based on different perspectives or priorities, which are equally valid.

          I could use the same flawed logic type you used earlier, and suggest that anyone who didn't block them was leaving them unblocked due to fear. The difference is that I could supply evidence for that conclusion which, while not conclusive, is substantially more compelling. Your own statements.

          The argument: You're afraid to stand up for what's right because it might hurt your pocketbook, and to hell with the impact on others.

          The first flaw in that logic is that fear isn't required to place your profits above the impact of the tool on the rest of the net. The argument also assumes that you believe the negative impact to have real and serious potential. Neither assumption is proven, thus the argument fails.

          It is, nonetheless, far more compelling than your suggestion about blockers having something to hide.


          Paul
          Signature
          .
          Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1225185].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author GuerrillaIM
            Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

            GuerrillaIM,Yes, you do. Clearly. You believe that, and thus you dismiss the idea that someone else could choose that action rationally, based on different perspectives or priorities, which are equally valid.

            I could use the same flawed logic type you used earlier, and suggest that anyone who didn't block them was leaving them unblocked due to fear. The difference is that I could supply evidence for that conclusion which, while not conclusive, is substantially more compelling. Your own statements.

            The argument: You're afraid to stand up for what's right because it might hurt your pocketbook, and to hell with the impact on others.

            The first flaw in that logic is that fear isn't required to place your profits above the impact of the tool on the rest of the net. The argument also assumes that you believe the negative impact to have real and serious potential. Neither assumption is proven, thus the argument fails.

            It is, nonetheless, far more compelling than your suggestion about blockers having something to hide.


            Paul

            I feel that no matter what I say it will be twisted to mean something else. I'm starting to feel that people here have a bad opinion of me.

            When Google introduced the google slap, advertisers who were spending £100k/mo boycotted google. Did Google give a damn? No, they just care about the end user.

            End users will become annoyed at the spammed results, and this is what Google will listen to. If you want to help the system to change send google a message as a consumer and do your best to make do in the mean time. Get Imacro and make a script to add positive comments to your own pages and make a little script to scape all your side wiki comments so you can easily see if anyone leave you a bad comment. Or turn away legitamate customers, your choice.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1226354].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TheRichJerksNet
              Originally Posted by GuerrillaIM View Post

              Get Imacro and make a script to add positive comments to your own pages and make a little script to scape all your side wiki comments so you can easily see if anyone leave you a bad comment.
              I am in no way attacking you, so please do not misunderstand my post...

              You see this is the problem with marketing today, people create fake testimonials, fake payment screenshots, and the list goes on and on.. Posting positive comments to your own site is no better than fake testimonials and I do not think giving someone that advice to do that is right.

              On your 2nd point, I can see what you are saying but why should we have to spend more time now monitoring comments on our own sites that we have no control over ??? Big deal you monitor the comments, who is going to remove them ?? Oh I know.. You must spend the time to report them now and just "hope" google finds it in their heart to be kind enough to remove it ... Bottom line is, it is google's decision to remove it or not. So you just spent several hours a day on comments on your site that will remain there because you have no control over them.

              James
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1226401].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
                Originally Posted by TheRichJerksNet View Post

                I am in no way attacking you, so please do not misunderstand my post...

                You see this is the problem with marketing today, people create fake testimonials, fake payment screenshots, and the list goes on and on.. Posting positive comments to your own site is no better than fake testimonials and I do not think giving someone that advice to do that is right.

                On your 2nd point, I can see what you are saying but why should we have to spend more time now monitoring comments on our own sites that we have no control over ??? Big deal you monitor the comments, who is going to remove them ?? Oh I know.. You must spend the time to report them now and just "hope" google finds it in their heart to be kind enough to remove it ... Bottom line is, it is google's decision to remove it or not. So you just spent several hours a day on comments on your site that will remain there because you have no control over them.

                James

                James, I know we've had our differences of opinion on things but as far
                as your views on Sidewiki, you are dead right. This is the most evil thing
                that has ever been unleashed on us. I have been victimized beyond
                anything you can even imagine and if I have any business left after I am
                done with Google, they are going to wish to God they were never born.

                I'm not going down without a fight.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1226417].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TheRichJerksNet
                  Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim View Post

                  James, I know we've had our differences of opinion on things but as far
                  as your views on Sidewiki, you are dead right. This is the most evil thing
                  that has ever been unleashed on us. I have been victimized beyond
                  anything you can even imagine and if I have any business left after I am
                  done with Google, they are going to wish to God they were never born.

                  I'm not going down without a fight.
                  Hi Steven,
                  Well you know I respect you dude and I do not wish this evil tool on anyone. I fully support whatever it is you need to do to protect yourself and personally I would find it rather refreshing for someone to put google in their place.

                  Wish you all the best dude..

                  James
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1226845].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author George Wright
                  Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim View Post

                  James, I know we've had our differences of opinion on things but as far
                  as your views on Sidewiki, you are dead right. This is the most evil thing
                  that has ever been unleashed on us. I have been victimized beyond
                  anything you can even imagine and if I have any business left after I am
                  done with Google, they are going to wish to God they were never born.


                  I'm not going down without a fight.
                  Steven, I saw the post you are referring to. Following the link every Warrior was attacked. Marty and I and some others reported it and it's gone. I took a screen shot of it if you didn't. Let me know. Also you might want to download "you know what" for proof also. I didn't DL that.

                  George Wright
                  Signature
                  "The first chapter sells the book; the last chapter sells the next book." Mickey Spillane
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1226932].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
                    Originally Posted by George Wright View Post

                    Steven, I saw the post you are referring to. Following the link every Warrior was attacked. Marty and I and some others reported it and it's gone. I took a screen shot of it if you didn't. Let me know. Also you might want to download "you know what" for proof also. I didn't DL that.

                    George Wright
                    Thanks George, I've done everything I could up to this point in time including
                    writing Google quite a scathing letter.

                    I wouldn't be surprised if they ended up deindexing every site I own.

                    Just as well...my search engine traffic sucks anyway.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1226954].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author GuerrillaIM
                Originally Posted by TheRichJerksNet View Post

                I am in no way attacking you, so please do not misunderstand my post...

                You see this is the problem with marketing today, people create fake testimonials, fake payment screenshots, and the list goes on and on.. Posting positive comments to your own site is no better than fake testimonials and I do not think giving someone that advice to do that is right.

                On your 2nd point, I can see what you are saying but why should we have to spend more time now monitoring comments on our own sites that we have no control over ??? Big deal you monitor the comments, who is going to remove them ?? Oh I know.. You must spend the time to report them now and just "hope" google finds it in their heart to be kind enough to remove it ... Bottom line is, it is google's decision to remove it or not. So you just spent several hours a day on comments on your site that will remain there because you have no control over them.

                James
                We shouldn't have to, but I don't think stamping our feet will get us very far, based on google's previous history.

                Anything we are doing now is just a temporary band aid. Google will innevitably tweak/change/remove the system. My solution isn't ideal, I understand that, but I am looking for alternatives to blocking all toolbar users as this goes very much against my grain, as my policy has always been to get my offers to reach as many people as possible.

                Someone has claimed to be able to block the wiki through code so I am playing around with a few things to try and work out my own way to do this. I imagine this code will be in the public domain within the next few days. But, like i say, this is a temporary fix, I am sure google will be releasing lots of tweaks and updates to the system. I imagine they will also give an option to opt out of it, if they don't I will be very surprised. Possibly they will give us meta code to define this.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1226766].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
                  Originally Posted by GuerrillaIM View Post

                  We shouldn't have to, but I don't think stamping our feet will get us very far, based on google's previous history.
                  There's a seed of truth in this statement.

                  When did Google start trying to clean up the actual SERPs? When users complained.

                  When did they start trying to clean up Adwords/Adsense? When users complained.

                  Perhaps the best strategy when voicing our opinions to Google is to frame our case in terms of the user experience, along with reminding them of the messes they had to clean up when they allowed too much uncontrolled manipulation of results.

                  There are certainly parallels in Google's own record that show this is a VERY BAD IDEA in terms of the user experience.

                  We're worried about Google taking some of our virtual real estate and allowing the vandals to squat on it. What happens for Google when they are connected to allowing unfettered promotion of pornographic, hate-related, or worse sites across the net?

                  ========================

                  @Rhett - Maybe you don't get the chain mail, but there are still a lot of people who seem to think Bill Gates will send them to Disneyland if they forward an email. And a lot of people who think they are doing someone a favor by forwarding dire warnings about urban legends.

                  Right now, they're confined to my inbox or my page on Twitter or Facebook. With SideWiki in its present form, it's on any given website with no control by the site owner or the viewer (aside from turning off the display after they've been offended by someone).
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1226816].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Rhett
    A semi serious suggestion:

    Option A:
    Warriors conglomerate, form an organization, and slowly, over the course of a year, buy a majority of the shares of Google, thus ensuring we have control over Google's Board of Trustees/Directors.

    Option B:
    Warriors join and form a new search engine, but use their fantastic marketing skills both online and off to "sell" the new SE to the public masses.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1225046].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author designfuschion
      Originally Posted by Rhett View Post

      A semi serious suggestion:

      Option A:
      Warriors conglomerate, form an organization, and slowly, over the course of a year, buy a majority of the shares of Google, thus ensuring we have control over Google's Board of Trustees/Directors.

      Option B:
      Warriors join and form a new search engine, but use their fantastic marketing skills both online and off to "sell" the new SE to the public masses.
      I like the idea.
      Why not combine both for a better effect?
      A warriors organisation -start off building a new SE. Would have to have a catchy name that can replace the word "search engine",just as G has done. As it gets larger..other means of dominating google can be applied ...
      Signature

      Wordpress Install service. PM me for rates and packages or what you need and we can work something out.


      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1225575].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ripsnorta2
      Originally Posted by Rhett View Post

      A semi serious suggestion:

      Option A:
      Warriors conglomerate, form an organization, and slowly, over the course of a year, buy a majority of the shares of Google, thus ensuring we have control over Google's Board of Trustees/Directors.

      Option B:
      Warriors join and form a new search engine, but use their fantastic marketing skills both online and off to "sell" the new SE to the public masses.
      Option C:
      Everyone decide to start using and promoting Bing. Promote it out the wazoo using those marketing skills. Optimize for Bing (as well as Google.)

      Not only will that help make Bing's data more comprehensive, it will be good to have a serious competitor to Google to help keep them in line.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1250663].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ripsnorta2
        Just a question for the smarter minds than mine.

        If site owners are attempting to put up code to block sidewiki, and Google later on circumvents that code, isn't that a DMCA violation, which then becomes a criminal offence?

        I'm not sure, but it seems that circumventers get into strife all the time. What insulates Google here?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1250687].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JamesMSpacey
    Yeah, it's a bit early to get excited about this for whatever reason.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1225499].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author drmani
    Originally Posted by Paul M View Post

    I see the abuse has already started.

    Quote from the Warrior Forum sidewiki:

    -Paul
    Where's the OWNER'S note on the Sidewiki?

    Allen?

    Until something's done about it, why not deflect some of the impact by
    posting an OWNER'S note? It's featured, stays 'sticky' on the top, and
    can easily deflect other opinions that show up below it.

    That's what I've done with my sites/blogs.

    Page Owner / Site Owner Comments

    Not so thrilled with the idea that people might leave comments on your site? I suspect many will be uneasy about this, especially if competitors begin link dropping.

    Unfortunately, there's no way you can block the comments from being displayed. You can, however, claim the first comment for yourself. If you've verified ownership of a site through Google Webmaster Central, then you'll see a special notice whenever you comment on one of your own pages:
    Ref: Danny Sullivan's review at
    Google Sidewiki Allows Anyone To Comment About Any Site

    All success
    Dr.Mani
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1225850].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
      Mani,
      Where's the OWNER'S note on the Sidewiki?
      Yeah. Where's the second set of locks, to keep out the bad guys?

      Oh yeah. It won't. It just sounds good, and maybe makes people wonder what the hell you're being defensive about.

      Owner's note my skinny middle-aged ass. Google has unleashed a pure spam system on us, and you think we should play by their rules?

      Grow up, Doc. Or go back to "kindergarten."


      Paul
      Signature
      .
      Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1225875].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
        Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

        Google has unleashed a pure spam system on us, and you think we should play by their rules?
        It's not Google's rules. It's the internet's rules.

        Does the user have the right to join another community? Yes.

        A community where people post comments about websites? Yes.

        Can he have it open in another window while he visits your site? Yes.

        Can he run software on his computer that synchronises that window to the website he is viewing in his browser? Yes.

        Do you have any right whatsoever to say he can't do those things?

        No. You don't.

        And before you start typing out your rebuttal, think a little about what your rebuttal means. Are you telling people what software they can install? What communities they can join? What speech they can make? The SideWiki isn't on your site. It's on the user's computer, loading data from someone else's server. You don't have any rights over those things.
        Signature
        "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1225970].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
          Let me make this really simple. I have agreed with everything you said in that post, except the concept of "the Internet's rules," which doesn't translate to any language with logical referents. Inanimate objects don't have intent.

          Other than that, I agree with you on 100% of your comments. Yet I came to a different conclusion. And I stated why.

          Are you able to see both sides?


          Paul
          Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

          It's not Google's rules. It's the internet's rules.

          Does the user have the right to join another community? Yes.

          A community where people post comments about websites? Yes.

          Can he have it open in another window while he visits your site? Yes.

          Can he run software on his computer that synchronises that window to the website he is viewing in his browser? Yes.

          Do you have any right whatsoever to say he can't do those things?

          No. You don't.

          And before you start typing out your rebuttal, think a little about what your rebuttal means. Are you telling people what software they can install? What communities they can join? What speech they can make? The SideWiki isn't on your site. It's on the user's computer, loading data from someone else's server. You don't have any rights over those things.
          Signature
          .
          Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1226016].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
            Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

            Are you able to see both sides?
            Yes. On the one hand, this appears to be a tub of bathwater. On the other, there may be a baby in it. I object on principle to throwing out the bathwater unless and until we have established whether there is a baby in it, and - if so - removed and preserved that baby.

            Arguing that it is in any case not your baby, and you do not give a damn, is not a particularly rational argument.
            Signature
            "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1226193].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
              Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

              Yes. On the one hand, this appears to be a tub of bathwater. On the other, there may be a baby in it. I object on principle to throwing out the bathwater unless and until we have established whether there is a baby in it, and - if so - removed and preserved that baby.

              Arguing that it is in any case not your baby, and you do not give a damn, is not a particularly rational argument.
              I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, or how it applies to anything that anyone has said in this discussion.


              Paul
              Signature
              .
              Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1226834].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
          Banned
          Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

          Do you have any right whatsoever to say he can't do those things?

          No. You don't.

          And before you start typing out your rebuttal, think a little about what your rebuttal means. Are you telling people what software they can install? What communities they can join? What speech they can make? The SideWiki isn't on your site. It's on the user's computer, loading data from someone else's server. You don't have any rights over those things.
          Yep ... I certainly do. I am beta testing a little script that works marvelously well.

          http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...rs-wanted.html

          It's installed, comments have been left, but they cannot be seen by anyone. So I am exercising my right not to display Google Sidewiki comments alongside my sites.

          See how easy that was?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1226606].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Ken
        If anyone is thinking of a lawsuit but is worried about funding here is a thought.

        Contact one or more of the other giants of the industry. They may not want to be in the forefront of the battle but might be willing to finance the battle or supply lawyers to aid the effort.

        Ken
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1225984].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
          CDarklock,

          Go back and read what I wrote. You clearly haven't been paying attention. Your objections have exactly nothing to do with anything I've said on this subject.

          The rule is simple: Read first. Then post.


          Paul
          Signature
          .
          Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1225991].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Smokey_Joe
    I can see absolutely nothing wrong with people speaking their minds about any business, online or offline alike. As a community effort, sidewiki could be a great idea. If it hadn't been for spam, which is a big fat if.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1226009].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author George Wright
      Originally Posted by Smokey_Joe View Post

      I can see absolutely nothing wrong with people speaking their minds about any business, online or offline alike. As a community effort, sidewiki could be a great idea. If it hadn't been for spam, which is a big fat if.
      There is no IF. I've been to several sites since I installed spamwiki and in each case I've seen spam, and in most cases I've seen vicious attacks against the site owners.

      One site I know for sure doesn't have the sidewiki blocker that a warrior came up with and The vicious comments were gone so either others are coming up with solutions or the reporting function is working.

      If it's the reporting function, it must be automated because if google were having live people take care of the reports they'd be working 24/7 and be overwhelmed.

      I can feel it in the air, sidewiki is doomed. And good for that.

      George Wright
      Signature
      "The first chapter sells the book; the last chapter sells the next book." Mickey Spillane
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1226899].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author James Campbell
        Here is another angle that someone brought up on the google thread that is discussing this, it is very interesting and brings to light all sorts of privacy issues:

        Let me add another angle to this discussion. I work as an educator and health care specialist, working with fragile people. My website is discrete, providing a brief description of the services I provide and enabling people to contact me. Anyone who is now angry or upset with me can post what they like on my website, true or untrue. Worse still private details can be posted which may put me at risk and potentially put at risk those vulnerable clients of mine whose fragile sense of trust could so easily be compromised. All this can be done without breaching the content rules.

        "There is no wisdom in this. It is dangerous, ill-concieved and foolish. Google's decision represents an outrageous abuse of power. The best solution would be to get rid of it all together, failing that it has to be an OPT-IN tool. And if you don't make these changes, all I can say is let the law suits roll (hopefully by the truckload)."
        - cyberchick
        Let us know what you think about Sidewiki! - Toolbar Help

        James
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1226970].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Julia Andersson
      Originally Posted by Smokey_Joe View Post

      I can see absolutely nothing wrong with people speaking their minds about any business, online or offline alike. As a community effort, sidewiki could be a great idea. If it hadn't been for spam, which is a big fat if.
      Hopefully I'm not getting muddled here... but I don't think the spam issues is so much an if as a when... Human nature being what it is I seriously doubt it will take long for disgruntled customers (whether justified or not) and competitors to start bad mouthing a site and posting links to their own sites simply to attack the reputation of the site they're posting about.

      Heck, it's already happening. Take a look at this blog post 'brands under attack'. Some HUGE companies have already got malcontents posting their gripes (whether justified or not) in the sidewiki.

      No, it isn't a case of 'IF' people abuse the tool... rather, it's a case of how many ways they can abuse it.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1244777].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Midas3 Consulting
    On the plus side, the average Joe, wouldn't have a clue what a Google Toolbar was if it smacked them in the face with a Page Rank rating..

    I suspect the vast majority of the damage is going to be done in our area where folks are more savvy and have toolbars galore.

    Really does seem like a daft addition from Google, the potential for abuse is endless, wait until some of the big boys, Amazon etc start moaning to Google that their site is getting deluged with people constantly trying to redirect their traffic .

    Really doesn't seem very well thought out, I'm not sure what the benefit is to the end user, it's clearly going to be full of any crap anybody fancies saying that day.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1226833].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Matt Bard
    I would like to know if there is a redirect that would allow me to not only block SideWiki but be able to show a message to the person that was attempting to see my page.

    Think I will start a page that states

    "Sorry you were unable to visit my site and receive a valuable free gift but due to unethical behavior by some toolbar creators your browser has been banned from my site until you remove the Google toolbar".

    Matt
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1226850].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TheRichJerksNet
      Originally Posted by Matt M View Post

      I would like to know if there is a redirect that would allow me to not only block SideWiki but be able to show a message to the person that was attempting to see my page.

      Think I will start a page that states

      "Sorry you were unable to visit my site and receive a valuable free gift but do to unethical behavior by some toolbar creators your browser has been banned from my site until you remove the Google toolbar".

      Matt
      Matt,
      Simple little htaccess would do that but you would need to block the toolbar to do it ...

      There is already code posted on how to do it but like I said before just blocking the toolbar may not be in your best interest...

      James
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1226859].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author kevinpotts
    What a great point... Need to be carefull in drawing people away with advices of things that need a littl ebit of consideartion... it can cost a lot!

    Kevin
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1226946].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
    GuerrillaIM,
    I feel that no matter what I say it will be twisted to mean something else. I'm starting to feel that people here have a bad opinion of me.
    I certainly don't. You'll notice I said that the argument was flawed.

    I've found that most disagreements like this boil down to differences in assumptions. If you can get the assumptions stated clearly, the disagreements often either go away easily, or they're seen to be irreconcilable. Neither case requires there to be a bad guy in the mix.


    Paul
    Signature
    .
    Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1228413].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author GuerrillaIM
      Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

      GuerrillaIM,I certainly don't. You'll notice I said that the argument was flawed.

      I've found that most disagreements like this boil down to differences in assumptions. If you can get the assumptions stated clearly, the disagreements often either go away easily, or they're seen to be irreconcilable. Neither case requires there to be a bad guy in the mix.


      Paul
      Hi Paul,

      Perhaps I wasn't communicating myself as well as I could have. I wasn't trying to say that if you do block users you have something to hide, only that it could be perceived as that to some people, rightly or wrongly.

      Someone summed it up well for me when they described this as an "abuse of power" by google. It is wrong on many levels but I think if this does actually go to court it could set a dangerous precident. I think there is a bigger picture here that people haven't looked at yet.

      We have put together some javascript to block the sidewiki. Unfortunately I'm not sure how search engine friendly it is yet, so we recommending people to be careful using it on sites that get traffic from natural listings.

      Link is: Stop Google Side Wiki Spam | Free Tool
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1228478].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author tomw
    Good or bad. Right or wrong. Sidewiki is here and it's here for good unless Google has a change of heart which is either very unlikely or *may* happen some time in the "future."

    The "future" could be light years away (to us) in this dynamic, ever evolving business that we're in.

    We could choose to bitch and moan, have a meeting (or a heart attack, Steven), form a committee, write some stern letters and blog posts, take a vote on whether or not to approve the direct action of forming a larger more effective committee with the wide-ranging mandate to write some sterner letters and blog posts...ad infinitum.

    Or we could simply employ two of my favourite words;

    adapt and overcome

    I know which option I'd take.

    Every month it seems the sky is falling for one reason or another, especially in this business, which strikes me as strange because we and countless others are raking it in. Sidewiki isn't going to make a blind bit of difference to that.

    We learnt about Sidewiki last year during a visit to Google's Mayakovskogo engineering facility in St Petersburg. It struck me that they were planning to use some browser real estate for social media purposes. Ok, they are taking a lot of it, but this is all they are really doing. You have to admit it is a stroke of genius - for them.

    How the Sidewiki and it's deeper algorithms (plus other developments!) will be used in future for the SERPS is of far more interest...



    Tom
    Signature
    STOP THE TRAFFIK: PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE BOUGHT AND SOLD
    Help Us Rescue, Rehabilitate And Reunite Victims With Their Families

    STOP THE TRAFFIK is a growing global movement of individuals, communities and organisations fighting to PREVENT the sale of people,
    PROTECT the trafficked and PROSECUTE the traffickers.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1239869].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by tomw View Post

      Good or bad. Right or wrong. Sidewiki is here and it's here for good ................adapt and overcome
      Yawn. You'd think that every time Google rolls out a product or service its lasted. Why bother complaining? Why bother voting in elections - just adapt and overcome.

      If you hadn't noticed all the complaining has led to some stuff. We now have two or three codes to stop the side wikis, many people are looking into alternatives like Bing and we're having discussions about SSL and various other strategies.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1239953].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author tomw
    Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

    Yawn. You'd think that every time Google rolls out a product or service its lasted. Why bother complaining? Why bother voting in elections - just adapt and overcome.

    If you hadn't noticed all the complaining has led to some stuff. We now have two or three codes to stop the side wikis, many people are looking into alternatives like Bing and we're having discussions about SSL and various other strategies.
    Nice piece of selective editing, Mike. However, you missed the rest of the sentence,

    "...unless Google has a change of heart which is either very unlikely or *may* happen some time in the "future."

    Maybe your yawning clouded your ability to comprehend my sentence(s).

    Like I said: "adapt and overcome" and you're right it's great to see so many Warriors taking up the mantle and actually *DOING SOMETHING* rather than whining. I'd expect nothing less

    Like I said: the Sidewiki won't effect our businesses because we (and those you laud) are actually *DOING SOMETHING* about it.

    Welcome to the forum. Stick around you might learn something...other than not to read and subsequently overreact whilst yawning.



    Tom
    Signature
    STOP THE TRAFFIK: PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE BOUGHT AND SOLD
    Help Us Rescue, Rehabilitate And Reunite Victims With Their Families

    STOP THE TRAFFIK is a growing global movement of individuals, communities and organisations fighting to PREVENT the sale of people,
    PROTECT the trafficked and PROSECUTE the traffickers.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1240010].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      I'm no newbie to IM Tom so the not too subtle connotation doesn't stick.
      Had there not been "whining" then programmers would not have jumped on this and come up with a solution quite as quickly. No? Theres a WSO here because the market was calling for it. Your lack of "whining" didn't make it happen..

      Look up at the top of the page and read "Warrior Forum"....Internet marketing Forum". This is an important subject to alot of people. Who are you to claim a forum shouldn't be what a forum is or dictate how people should express their frustration.

      Oh well - theres one in every crowd. Instead of not adding to the "whining" they just replace the whining with their own whine about whining.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1240763].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author tomw
        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        I'm no newbie to IM Tom so the not too subtle connotation doesn't stick.
        Had there not been "whining" then programmers would not have jumped on this and come up with a solution quite as quickly. No? Theres a WSO here because the market was calling for it. Your lack of "whining" didn't make it happen..

        Look up at the top of the page and read "Warrior Forum"....Internet marketing Forum". This is an important subject to alot of people. Who are you to claim a forum shouldn't be what a forum is or dictate how people should express their frustration.

        Oh well - theres one in every crowd. Instead of not adding to the "whining" they just replace the whining with their own whine about whining.
        The point is that those focusing their energy on "expressing their frustration," tend to rarely achieve anything. Those that focus such energy of finding a solution tend to prosper.

        Fortunately, Warriors tend to be in the latter category.

        My "lack of 'whining,'" or rather, decision to take action, made a huge difference to our clients because, having known about SideWiki for a long time, I gave a couple of my development teams the task of creating a proprietary solution.

        Apologies for any "connotation" but I was merely addressing your post in a similar tone.

        I genuinely was expressing welcome to the forum.

        Tom

        P.S. Thanks, Steve!
        Signature
        STOP THE TRAFFIK: PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE BOUGHT AND SOLD
        Help Us Rescue, Rehabilitate And Reunite Victims With Their Families

        STOP THE TRAFFIK is a growing global movement of individuals, communities and organisations fighting to PREVENT the sale of people,
        PROTECT the trafficked and PROSECUTE the traffickers.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1245976].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
      Originally Posted by tomw View Post

      Nice piece of selective editing, Mike. However, you missed the rest of the sentence,

      "...unless Google has a change of heart which is either very unlikely or *may* happen some time in the "future."

      Maybe your yawning clouded your ability to comprehend my sentence(s).

      Like I said: "adapt and overcome" and you're right it's great to see so many Warriors taking up the mantle and actually *DOING SOMETHING* rather than whining. I'd expect nothing less

      Like I said: the Sidewiki won't effect our businesses because we (and those you laud) are actually *DOING SOMETHING* about it.

      Welcome to the forum. Stick around you might learn something...other than not to read and subsequently overreact whilst yawning.



      Tom

      Tom, nice to see you back...you were missed.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1240969].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author zapseo
    well, I have been too busy to get involved in the sidewiki debacle.
    Sorry to hear about those suffering.

    And, on a complete non-sequitor, I'm writing to say that I'm glad the thread is no longer encouraging me to "clam down". Dang. LOL.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1241972].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
    Banned
    Just got an email from Catalin for an update on his script. He has developed it into a Wordpress plugin also with a lot of new features added to it.

    No matter what Google does or does not do about providing an opt-out, it's pretty clear to me that developers will be countering it which will provide us an opt out whether Google likes it or not.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1242872].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TheRichJerksNet
    designfuschion On your site with sidewiki it uses the browser add-on on google's url it puts your ite in a iframe and changes your html ...

    As for restricted zones that does not turn off sidewiki for your visitors... Restricted zones is in your config for the browser, it is used security.

    James
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1242908].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Catalin Ionescu
    Almost identical tool, almost identical implementation...

    Ended up in court, Gator lost and was forced to stop using it. I'm more and more surprised Google had the balls to do something THAT similar and hope they'd get away with it. I wonder if their lawyers were on crack when they gave the go ahead...

    Judge: See ya later, Gator - CNET News
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1245883].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Catalin Ionescu View Post

      Almost identical tool, almost identical implementation...

      Ended up in court, Gator lost and was forced to stop using it. I'm more and more surprised Google had the balls to do something THAT similar and hope they'd get away with it. I wonder if their lawyers were on crack when they gave the go ahead...

      Judge: See ya later, Gator - CNET News
      Good article and I feel that Google wouldn't win a legal battle over this. There was a sentence in that article which describe Sidewiki and Gator both very well:

      ... is essentially, a parasite on the Web that free rides on the hard work and the investments website owners.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1245954].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TheRichJerksNet
        Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

        Good article and I feel that Google wouldn't win a legal battle over this. There was a sentence in that article which describe Sidewiki and Gator both very well:

        ... is essentially, a parasite on the Web that free rides on the hard work and the investments website owners.
        Exactly why SideWiki is fixing to be fully blocked and no comments seen period!

        I do not understand those that claim google is not violating anything because they are in fact doing just that.

        James
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1246584].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author divx22
    Could someone explain exactly what the issue is with GT anyways , thiis isuue is new to me
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1246003].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author designfuschion
    It would be sad(on society as a whole) if google got busted for 'circumventing',on a by product all becuase of how they went about the initial product.

    Which then brings up another question..are the creators of wikiblockers 'circumventing'(even though us webmasters.IM'ers are trying to defend our rights in first place?

    Google has paved the way to a regulated net.
    What insulates Google here?
    I'd hazard a guess-money.
    Signature

    Wordpress Install service. PM me for rates and packages or what you need and we can work something out.


    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1251231].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Steven Carl Kelly
    A Couple of Important Points:

    Hopefully these points will warrant your careful consideration on the Sidewiki issue...

    1. Sidewiki on your own site is only the beginning of the issue. Sidewiki entries are now showing up in regular organic search results on Google, which means that Sidewiki entries will be potentially competing with your own site in Google results. For an example, try this search on Google:

    sidewiki buzzmachine danger

    and check the results. If they look like mine, you'll see this:



    2. More importantly, if you could click that link from Google in the image above, you'd go to this page:

    Google Sidewiki entry about Google Sidewiki: Danger BuzzMachine

    As you can see, Buzzmachine's content is being presented under a Google URL. If you are publishing content, would you be happy with this arrangement?

    3. Sidewiki applies to individual pages, not only sites. That means if you have thousands of pages you could potentially have thousands of individual Sidewikis on your pages. Multiply that by dozens of sites, and you can imagine the difficulty you would have in keeping up with what people are saying about your sites.

    4. Making Sidewiki difficult to use is currently relatively simple. Since it uses the page's URL for reference in the Sidewiki database, you don't need any fancy blockers and you don't need to deny access to toolbar users, you simply have to make every single URL on your site completely unique. That's not difficult at all to do, and a simple search will show you how it is done. For example, if you have a site with a page called index.html there would be a Sidewiki for it. But if you append other text to the end of the URL, such as

    index.html?refid=qw425mgi1n

    then there would be a completely DIFFERENT Sidewiki for it. Therefore, if EVERY page is completely unique, comments posted to:

    index.html?refid=qw425mgi1n

    would never show up on

    index.html

    nor would they show up on

    index.html?refid=qbjhb01nmn34

    as an example.

    Anyhow, I hope this helps illustrate the larger nature of the issue and also provides a simple work-around that may work for some of you and doesn't include banning toolbar users.
    Signature
    Read this SURPRISING REPORT Before You Buy ANY WSO! Click Here
    FREE REPORT: Split Test Your Landing Pages the Easy Way
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1251536].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author James Campbell
      Originally Posted by Steven Carl Kelly View Post

      A Couple of Important Points:

      Hopefully these points will warrant your careful consideration on the Sidewiki issue...

      1. Sidewiki on your own site is only the beginning of the issue. Sidewiki entries are now showing up in regular organic search results on Google, which means that Sidewiki entries will be potentially competing with your own site in Google results. For an example, try this search on Google:

      sidewiki buzzmachine danger

      and check the results. If they look like mine, you'll see this:



      2. More importantly, if you could click that link from Google in the image above, you'd go to this page:

      Google Sidewiki entry about Google Sidewiki: Danger BuzzMachine

      As you can see, Buzzmachine's content is being presented under a Google URL. If you are publishing content, would you be happy with this arrangement?

      3. Sidewiki applies to individual pages, not only sites. That means if you have thousands of pages you could potentially have thousands of individual Sidewikis on your pages. Multiply that by dozens of sites, and you can imagine the difficulty you would have in keeping up with what people are saying about your sites.

      4. Making Sidewiki difficult to use is currently relatively simple. Since it uses the page's URL for reference in the Sidewiki database, you don't need any fancy blockers and you don't need to deny access to toolbar users, you simply have to make every single URL on your site completely unique. That's not difficult at all to do, and a simple search will show you how it is done. For example, if you have a site with a page called index.html there would be a Sidewiki for it. But if you append other text to the end of the URL, such as

      index.html?refid=qw425mgi1n

      then there would be a completely DIFFERENT Sidewiki for it. Therefore, if EVERY page is completely unique, comments posted to:

      index.html?refid=qw425mgi1n

      would never show up on

      index.html

      nor would they show up on

      index.html?refid=qbjhb01nmn34

      as an example.

      Anyhow, I hope this helps illustrate the larger nature of the issue and also provides a simple work-around that may work for some of you and doesn't include banning toolbar users.
      My guess is that if G is hosting this on their servers they are in direct violation of the copyright laws in many countries in which they do business.

      James
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1251748].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TheRichJerksNet
        Originally Posted by James Campbell View Post

        My guess is that if G is hosting this on their servers they are in direct violation of the copyright laws in many countries in which they do business.

        James
        James,
        This is the thing that is really in question, during playing with this thing I tried every possible way to block. I came up with the js and hash solution from the very first day but decided it was not a good method so I trashed it and continued to work.

        What I came up with is this..

        If joe post a bad comment and take that url and tries to share it, others will not see his comment (this is why I decided against the js solution because you can still see the comments). Now if joe gets the google url and tries to share it then those using the toolbar still will not be able to see the comments. But if someone not using the toolbar gets the google url then they can see it so I was interested to know myself what google was doing.

        I posted a comments on my site using my own sidewiki blocker. I then emailed that link to myself and then deleted the comment. When I go to the google url now it gives nothing but a 404 not found. It does not even show your site.

        So this is suggesting that google is using a cached copy possibly of your site using the google url. This is why you can not block comments on a google url unless users are using the toolbar and my sidewiki blocker.

        James
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1251790].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author gpower2
          We need to embrace it and move on. The "issues" will work themselves out over time.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1251914].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
            Banned
            Originally Posted by gpower2 View Post

            We need to embrace it and move on. The "issues" will work themselves out over time.
            You can embrace it and move on. Most of us are a great deal less passive than that when someone is infringing on our property, and thank goodness for that. Otherwise all the Googles of the world would feel perfectly comfortable taking a free ride on our hard work.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1252339].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TheRichJerksNet
    I have already created a solution that blocks comments even using google's url but it only blocks google's url with comments for toolbar users. There is nothing you can do about a Non-Google browser because the fact is google is hosting the freaking thing.

    I have also created a solution that stops those comments from being seen even when the bad poster shared the url. This is the only solution on the market that will fully block.

    As far as making something simple to block sidewiki, I will disagree... It took me a week to create an advanced system to protect sites and no it is not some simple js with hash numbers.

    James
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1251588].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Lyn Woodring
    I admit I'm a newbie but I don't understand but I don't understand how anyone can not see this as theft by google.
    I understand VRE are sold and bought each day. That fact alone makes it property. The fact that it can be bought and sold makes it private. Seems to me all the rights of ownership are inherent in a website.
    Also can someone explain to me how this sidewiki is any different than phising, you know fake emails that direct you to a different site. I mean most banking instutions and sites like Amazon take a dim view of scams, enough that they have a fraud division. It seems to me this does the same thing, sends you to a fake webpage of your site. Is this not the same?
    Also I would think if you had either built your site or had it built with a design in mind, origional content and along with domain name then it seems to me that is a clear case of copywright infringment. The author does have the right to his own stuff.
    It seems to me that google is in violation of law in at least three areas, plus potential libel suits. I mean they are hosting these fake sites...right? That besides what I see as copywright and private property rights violations to say nothing about phising and spam. I can think of several scenarios where you maynot want a site widely available.
    But I may not be seeing this correctly. So if I'm wrong on any of these points will somebody please enlighten me.
    Thank You
    -Lyn
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1252657].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Lyn Woodring
    I also wonder if this is a benign app I assume google allows it on their sites. Correct? I was thinking if indeed google wants free exchange then they'd be part of the exchange by subjecting their site to the same potential abuse.
    That is I could go to google.com and comment on this or anything in particular using sidwicki. If you can't do this, that would seem to be admission of guilt.
    Or am I reading more into it.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1252950].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author DogScout
      Originally Posted by Lyn Woodring View Post

      I also wonder if this is a benign app I assume google allows it on their sites. Correct? I was thinking if indeed google wants free exchange then they'd be part of the exchange by subjecting their site to the same potential abuse.
      That is I could go to google.com and comment on this or anything in particular using sidwicki. If you can't do this, that would seem to be admission of guilt.
      Or am I reading more into it.
      It is on their site. The comments are all positive from users. I have no idea how many of those are fake.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1305284].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author RichardWing
    For those that will embrace sidewiki and move on...

    WordPress › WP oySidewiki WordPress Plugins

    For those that will not embrace it...

    Sidewiki Blocker Wordpress Plugin

    This is my contribution to both sides since I read the entire thread and didnt see one person provide a actual downloadable working solution.

    You will notice The Blocker in the second link was posted 20 days ago.

    I found out about this sidebar wiki thing an hour ago when enabling and upgrading my toolbar.

    I should have just did my google seach first rather than search the forum for talk about this or a solution to block sidewiki. It would have taken me less than 5 min to get what I was looking for.

    Richard Wing
    Signature

    Recent Release | FB Chat & Menu Widget Generator http://supersellertools.com/wpfbchatwidget/

    http://www.SuperSellerSupport.com | My Facebook Profile http://facebook.com/azrichardwing

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1305176].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author DogScout
    I have already seen two forums, one for cancer support and one for chronic pain support with derogatory spam comments in the sidewiki.

    These sites are not even business sites. The only ads they have on them is a few Adsense ads that do not probably even pay the hosting and thugs and spammers have already targeted them with comments that make the fake ones RJ put in his fake picture pale in comparison.

    Who uses these forums? People with cancer and people in pain. Once again the rats pick on the weak. Chances are the people running those forums don't even know they have been targeted. & it makes me wonder how many people with cancer or in pain that have the sidewiki decide not to go to those places that as far as I could tell are only attempting to help others.

    If you think this thing isn't a danger, to you as a savvy internet person, the punks may avoid you and you may be OK, however, many innocent & naive will suffer.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1305277].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author St Croix
    How many normal surfers use google toolbar anyway? I'd be far more worried about Elvis coming back and haunting our sites with FTC jailhouse rock mp3's
    Signature

    Back in the game!

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1305312].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TheRichJerksNet
      Originally Posted by St Croix View Post

      How many normal surfers use google toolbar anyway? I'd be far more worried about Elvis coming back and haunting our sites with FTC jailhouse rock mp3's
      More than you realize... Way more than you realize...

      Especially since there are some idiots running around trying to push others to use SideWiki as a "marketing" tool ...

      James
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1305393].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author RichardWing
        You guys know that this isn't the only solution of commenting on websites where the webmaster can't control what is being said or discussed.

        People can open two browser windows up side by side and when they surf to one site they can do a search in the other and pull up anything that is being said about that site through a search engine, facebook, twitter, youtube etc. and join in a discussion.

        This isn't anything new.

        The only thing NEW is that Google is the next in a long list of businesses who have created a plugin/addon for browsers that will be more convenient for those that surf like that who want to get more relative data and comments from others sharing the same interest and visiting the same site. (see my list at the end)

        Because of any of the addons available now a person doesn't have to open up two browser windows and manually type in a search request on a site they are visiting.

        Their service is no different than you or I creating a forum or blog and the title of the post is a page location and people comment in that post about that specific page.

        Then anyone can search for a page url in the forum and up pops comments specific to that page.

        If we ran a forum like that, would we be responsible, manage the forum and make sure that people are not abusing it or spamming it?

        Yes we would. Just like Warrior Forum has moderators.

        Do they (WF) police and remove everything that is negative here?

        No. Does it piss off the person that it's negative about?

        Yes. But as long as its constructive it is allowed. As long as people follow the rules it is allowed.

        Do you guys boycott this forum because there is a "CHANCE" that something bad could be said here about you, anyone, anything or anysite?

        I don't think so.

        If something was said here specifically about us or our product/service/site that was off base we report to the moderators to have them clean it up and take care of the trouble makers.

        Why? Because it's their site not ours.

        And when it comes down to it we don't have the final say as to whether something is removed or moderated.

        It's not our site.

        Nor is Google/Sidewiki our site/service.

        Alan before he started this forum knew the amount of work that would be involved in moderating a forum. I'm sure he had been around the block long enough to know that. Alan offered the forum as a service because he saw a need to be filled. Did he consider the fact that bad stuff could happen in his forum? I'm sure he did.

        This forum is no different than a sidewiki service. Its a means to display public comments that only the owner of the server has control over. Its just not used automatically to co-browse when you visit sites.

        Google has been around the block too and they have a service they want to offer.

        Google seems to have the same type of features available for its participants as any common forum would have. i.e. comment posting, rating system, search etc...

        They have the resources and the technology to automate their system and make it smart. From what I have read it seems that it works really well.

        Every article I have read where they pasted about negative comments that were made on a site. when I went to check them out. they were not in place. Must be their system at work.

        If something negative was said about you or your site in a forum what would you do? You would most likely comment and defend yourself.

        There is nothing preventing you from doing that through the Google service.

        Why hasn't anyone of the thousands of us warrior forum patrons banned together and demanded from Alan to give each of us moderator status?

        Because we know very well that it's an outrageous request.

        The long and short of it is so many people are getting all riled up over what negative COULD happen because the service is now available. Fact is there are many services / solutions like that now and long before Google released theirs a few weeks ago.

        The same could be said about everything that was ever intended to be for good.

        Lets all boycott tv's and newspapers that we have no control over. You know, the outlets that don't really give us news and sway us into thinking the worlds gonna end tomorrow.

        When you advertise in tv and newspapers do you get exclusives? Usually not. you share the same page with competitors in the section of the paper that pertains to your line of work.

        On tv you can be back to back with a competitor ad.

        Google like it or not is competing for desktop real-estate and attention and they have come out with a way to have their brand available 100% of the time when we browse.

        Focus on the positives that can come from the service being offered.

        This is supposed to be a place to share solutions and overcome tough problems in the area of marketing.

        This type of service is not going away.

        I forgot about this service.

        It's been out for awhile. Prior to Sept of 07 Well before last month when Google launched their service. Date is referenced on the earliest comment for the addon at the addon download page.

        Would you know that of the 42 comments There was maybe one or two that raised concerns. Others were offering ways they plan to use the new feature or talking about bug issues.

        Press Reframe It

        Not sure why no one has complained here, brought them up or any of the ones I found with a quick search of the addons area of firefox's site.

        The Firefox addon indicate there has been 168,075 downloads of that addon.

        https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/5677

        Description:

        Comment anywhere on the web without the permission of a site. Reframe It lets you comment next to the text or images of any website. With it you can highlight comment and share you thoughts in context. Say what you want where you want. reframeit.com


        A simple Firefox Addon Search for the keyword of "Comment" returned quite a few services that are offering very similar features to Google. All that is needed is to download their addon.

        https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/fir...omment&cat=all



        There is MetaComments

        https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/13337

        Easily read comments for any web page, and post comments using your Google Account.



        There is Saiter.ru - Comment the Internet!

        https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/9363

        Shows comments for a specific page using saiter.ru service and opens discussion board on-the-fly.



        There is Kutano

        https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/10884

        Kutano reveals tweets and comments about each webpage. Kutano is the #1 tool for discovering and connecting with others on Twitter. Directly beside each webpage, read and respond to tweets and discussions about that page. See tweets in context.



        Similar Sites

        https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/10548

        Instant access to the best sites related to the one you are browsing! Vote if sites are similar or not and personalize your results. Get related articles while reading one and read web comments of sites you are browsing.



        Kratia Toolbar

        https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/2122

        Kratia is the first democratic search engine in which the order of the results is democratically elected by the users. With the Kratia toolbar you can vote and post comments about the website you are visiting, and also view the votes and comments...

        Anyway All of these I found looking at the first 6 pages out of 27 from the search I showed you above.

        Apparently Its going to be a great deal of work to convince all these companies to give us control over comments made about our pages.

        We have our work cut out for us managing all these comments.

        But for those that don't know.

        It's really simple to create a Google Alert.

        Google Alerts

        Google Alerts are email updates of the latest relevant Google results (web, news, etc.) based on your choice of query or topic.

        Some handy uses of Google Alerts include:
        • monitoring a developing news story
        • keeping current on a competitor or industry
        • getting the latest on a celebrity or event
        • keeping tabs on your favorite sports teams
        Which means you can do like I have done. I created alerts for my sites in different variations (with and without the www) and alerts where my name is mentioned.

        This is pretty cool and easy for you to stay on top of things.

        Enjoy.
        Richard Wing
        Signature

        Recent Release | FB Chat & Menu Widget Generator http://supersellertools.com/wpfbchatwidget/

        http://www.SuperSellerSupport.com | My Facebook Profile http://facebook.com/azrichardwing

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1310064].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author RichardWing
    2 Months since Sidewiki launch and they have compiled a list of great uses of sidewiki from users. Also a new API has been released...

    Official Google Blog

    Enjoy.

    Richard Wing
    Signature

    Recent Release | FB Chat & Menu Widget Generator http://supersellertools.com/wpfbchatwidget/

    http://www.SuperSellerSupport.com | My Facebook Profile http://facebook.com/azrichardwing

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1380308].message }}

Trending Topics