“For a good time, call…”

Honestly, I've seen more intelligent graffiti in men's rooms than some of what I've read on Sidewiki comments to this point.

Nice summary, Ms Fortin. And admirably shorter than my own.

Paul

@”Artemus Maximus” – Your Geo-locating iPhone app is actually more like Google Maps. When you look up a restaurant on Google Maps, there are sometimes photos, reviews, etc.

But these are not posted on the front of the restaurant. Big difference.

If people want to gather together in a forum or on another site to disparage somebody or something, then that's their prerogative. And I think that's fine.

But the fact that Sidewiki APPEARS to be part of the site… and doesn't include the site owner in the discussion… is a problem.

You say: “But that metaphor sucks too, because you're not really marking up the site. There's no 'vandalism' going on the actual property. Hyperbole, completely.”

You are correct. TECHNICALLY, you're not marking up the site or adding or deleting from the HTML on the page. But… it still APPEARS as if the comments are part of the site.

So to be more technically correct in our analogy, let's say Google isn't giving you the tools to graffiti a site owner's site. They're just putting a sign on the front of the site… and letting you graffiti that instead!

It would be like posting a permanent sign in front of a storefront for the express purpose of graffiti.

Would you then say, “Hey, they're not putting graffiti on the storefront, you idiot… they're just putting graffiti on this sign! Why would you complain about that?? It's complete hyperbole to say the storefront is being vandalized.”

Uh, no. It is not complete hyperbole.

Lastly, if you want an example of how Sidewiki can be abused, check out:
http://www.saltydroid.info/sidewiki-saltydroid-…

This is why in my last comment, I wrote:

“I've already personally witnessed some abuses of other people's sites. Whether the abuse was 'justified' or not doesn't matter… people shouldn't be able to 'snipe' web site owners like that.”

Ryan

P.S. Sylvie/Michel – Feel free to edit my comment if you'd rather not have the link included.

@Sylvie writes: Some have argued that “fewer than 3% of Google users have the toolbar, so we're worrying over nothing”.

I agree it is short term thinking.

Once you say yes to a small request, it is much harder to say no to the next, larger request.

Give an inch, they'll take a mile.

Ryan

Sorry I missed this. I also missed that troll's libelous campaign, because it appears his comments are not available for viewing (can you still see them?). If not — did you just prove my point of the sidewiki system working as it should? Possibly, he got some of them posted to sites, so to be generous, I'll grant your points being a wash. I can't imagine his posts being on the front page – and as you know, when you are logged into the same account, your comments appear first in the sidebar, so perhaps he overinflated his ability to post these horrible things about people?

Secondly, I'm sensing a really disingenuous campaign by naysayers to abuse the service, take a quick screenshot (since the naughty stuff doesn't stay up for long) and then say “See! Sidewiki enables this!” I can't call out the dum dums, but you people in specific should know better. I can abuse *anything* as a reason that it shouldn't be available. To an earlier point, I can prove this point with my car, programming expertise, email, or internet in general. Should be handicap those freedoms/skills/services to the point of mediocrity, just to be safe?

We will just have to differ that people will consistently think Sidewiki is part of the site. It's a clear distinction to me, and it's only webmasters or site owners (people who *do* know the difference) complaining about this. I have yet to see a lay user implying they misunderstood this concept. There will be some, but is that really Google's fault? When you can mark up the page like you can with DotSpots – effectively marking up the actual content *inline* on the page, this is a much more aggressive model that webmasters could justifiably have cause to be concerned. But leave me – as the user the right to make my own decisions about what tools in my browser are useful to me. Once you publish the content, I'm allowed to do what I want with the content in my browser – as long as it doesn't violate any laws. This is clearly fair.

Until Google starts advertising in the sidebar or doing other gray area things, you just need to give the G the benefit of the doubt. I don't see this as some tinfoil power play. They have apparently wanted to do this for a while: http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2009-09-16-n61.html

I hope to see more tools available to federate comments. The sidewiki API already allows you to pull sidewiki comments into your site, and more and more tools are soon to follow, including your beloved Disqus. For every vague example of bad comments, I can come up with specific examples of good comments as well. Your criticisms are self serving and one sided.

I'm not going to reply to every point, because I think you made your case, though I still don't agree with it and many of your points are incorrect. But I am going to point one major flaw. You said, “You didn't bother to rebut my point about sidewiki *not* being part of the site.” Well, we did. In fact, we said that the point is NOT that it's not part of the site. It's that it is PERCEIVED as such. (The Facebook example my wife made in her update is one scenario of many.) This opens up liability issues.

As far as saying we object because “we have something to hide,” of course we do. Not for nefarious reasons, as you seem to imply. But to protect our businesses, our customers, and our integrity. I suggest you check out my post here:

http://www.michelfortin.com/thoughts-transparency/

It just dawned on me, as I was re-reading your message. You said…

“And what part about the trash bin section of comments do people not understand? Every single one of you conveniently omit the fact that you had to page through a few pages worth of clearly labeled “low quality” comments before you had to find a good example for your purposes.”

Untrue, as is clearly evidenced by the screenshot above. Please review it again, and consider how it could possibly be considered fair to this science fiction writer, that disgusting and obviously vile and inappropriate comments be left ANYWHERE in Sidewiki? Yes, they get labeled as “low quality”, but so what? They are still there, for anyone with Sidewiki to view. They are there, in DIRECT association with this man's website, and they do NOT get removed, even though they are in clear violation of Google's own Terms of Service.

From the Sidewiki Program Policies:
http://www.google.com/support/toolbar/bin/answe…

“Don't pretend to be someone else. We don't allow impersonation of others or other behavior that is misleading or intended to be misleading.”

Apparently, they aren't really serious about this, as evidenced above.

“Speak your mind without being hateful or threatening to others”

Oops, again, they aren't doing anything about this, except to nudge these types of comments into a “low quality” bin, still visible if people want to see it.

“Don't post or link to sexually explicit material”

Ummm, well this is just getting to be embarrassing. Maybe their moderators are just overwhelmed and haven't seen this stuff yet? No, they took the time to nudge this type of thing into a different “bin” but not delete it. So, I guess this is ok with them too.

Your argument that these things get pushed off into a “trash bin” is false, and myopic.

The fact that there is even ONE example is bad enough, and is plenty to prove my point. I have, in fact, many examples, but because I respect my site's visitors, I will not post them here.

After all, our sites comply with legal regulations and remains family friendly. I intend to keep it that way, and will not allow Sidewiki, or any other “useful tool” to potentially cause us problems.

Let me respond to your comment, point by point…

You said:

“The concept of opt-out is dumb. Sites that have something to hide lose more because users will suspect why a site has opted out.”

Opting out is dumb? So you have a right to a choice while I don't? Huh? First off, opting out of having Sidewiki appear seamless with my site is not the same as opting out of the service entirely. My contention is that it is perceived as part of my site. That's the problem.

And for you to say “users will suspect why a site is opting out” is different than from me suspecting some users will use Sidewiki for bad intent?

So what you're saying is, users are allowed to question businesses, but businesses aren't allowed to question users?

You said:

“If you don't want Sidewiki to be available for a page, don't make that page publicly accessible to all users.”

The flaw in that argument is like saying, “If you don't like potentially abusive protests *inside* your establishment, then move it somewhere else.” That just sounds wrong, if you ask me.

Continuing your logic, it's like saying my business, its traffic, and more important, its ability to conduct business openly is now owned by, controlled by, and must succumb to the whim of, Google? And Google has now a veto on where I should publicly erect and conduct my business?

Can you not see the failed logic in that argument?

Of course, you're right in principle. Because if I want to make my business public, I am taking a risk that it might be the target, both of well-intended users as well as ill-intended abusers. But ultimately, that's my choice, as it should be.

Not Google's.

You said:

“Also, apparently, flagging abuse really works, because any so called examples I've seen screenshots of, no longer seem to exist. Your 'they're slow to respond' argument is a flat out lie. No? Prove it.”

Well, I find it interesting that the comments were apparently there for a while, until we blogged about it — or, even more strangely, until you, Artemus, responded.

Fascinating.

But that is just one example of many. My wife countered this argument in another one of your comments, so I'll refer back to her reply.

Being slow to respond is subjective. 10 minutes can be considered slow. For example, on a very busy site, where traffic and sales are made every single minute, a few minutes are still enough to cost that business money. Lots of it. Or even damage that business' future.

Regardless of what you interpret as slow or fast.

The only way around this is moderation by the site owner. Or opting out of the service. Or, at the very least, make the comments not seamless with the site, perhaps as links or taking users off my site, like Digg and others do.

Then there's the issue that it only takes a few seconds for a bad comment to appear for someone to copy and paste, or take a screenshot of, or for the comment to appear somewhere else. (Our screenshot above is a case in point.)

I don't care if people say that abusive comments are handled efficiently. Allowing them in the first place is the issue. Once you post something to the web, there's a permanent record of it somewhere. In fact, Google even indexes Sidewiki entries:

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Agoogle.co…

You said (about the web design argument):

“When I click the sidewiki button, I want to see what other users have to say about this page, I don't care about your fixed margins. Poor argument.”

Wrong argument. It's not a site designer issue. I don't care about that. (Well, I do in a way. But that's because my sites are my “babies.” And it's also why I work hard to design my site, use scripts to prevent/block some of these third-party tools, as well as make my site usable, hack-proof, user-friendly, and safe.)

But what I'm talking about is the obfuscation of my site, not so much that it makes it appear not as intended, but in a way that makes third-party content, like Sidewiki, appear seamless and as part of my site.

THAT is my contention, one you still seem to bring up over and over again as a non-issue, when we've proven that it is very much an issue.

You said:

“Orderforms – Not if it's SSL. What order forms from reputable businesses don't use SSL again? You're speculating. I can do the same for *anything* useful.”

Before you accuse me of speculating, please don't cast the first stone.

I have read that Google doesn't have Sidewiki on secure pages, but an order form BEFORE the order is processed may not be secure (yet).

The fact that you argue that “no reputable business doesn't use SSL” is speculating and making a universal statement — one which you seem to be arguing against when you feel I am making one.

What about shopping carts before people checkout? What about PayPal and third-party ecommerce sites like Google Checkout that process orders that are not part of the initial site? Are you saying that these websites, which don't use SSL but use, say, Google Checkout, are not reputable?

You said:

“Also, according to your logic, Email is the worst perpetrator of fraud the world has seen this decade. Should we eliminate it?”

Email is not the perpetrator. Spammers and scammers are. However, even though your argument makes sense, email came first before the Internet we know of today. Plus, with email, there are spam engines, scam-fighters, anti-virus programs, phishing filters, ad nauseum.

But it's still my choice to filter out the spam *I* receive. And it's still my choice to opt-in to email I want to receive, and opt-out of those I don't. And it's also still my choice to publish my email address for people to contact me on my site, versus a contact form or helpdesk.

Why is Sidewiki any different? Why is it that opting out is dumb in this case, but not with email?

I know what you might say. You might say: “But opting out takes away users' choice.” Well, go tell that to Gmail who filters my spam for me, or what THEY think is spam, often without my knowledge or having my say in how they do it.

You said:

“But to be honest, I would *LOVE* knowing about a cheaper price on a competing product. This argument bolstens the Sidewiki argument from a consumer's perspective. Another poor vector of attack on your behalf.”

Not my argument. It's not about competitors making competing offers while on my site, or people mentioning better offers. It's about competitors and scammers who have ill-intent making alternate offers (or abusive comments) in strategic locations AFTER a person made a decision to buy my product.

Agreed, knowing better offers out there before I make a decision is fine. That's competition. It's healthy. But when it's a deliberate attempt to cripple my business, steal my traffic, and divert my sales while DEEP into my site — or appearing seamless with it — is another issue altogether.

(Hence, the analogy of “handing out menus while sitting down in my restaurant while patrons are about to order” still stands, versus “handing out offers outside my establishment, on the sidewalk, BEFORE patrons make the decision to go in the store, sit down, order, and eat from my restaurant.”)

In fact, you said:

“How is google handing out flyers to patrons in your business, yet not really in the business? Conceptually, Google is never physically *in* or *on* the property. It's the *users* tool, activated when the user wants.”

Conceptually, not perceptually.

I made that point earlier. And again, I come back to the argument that, to the unsuspecting user who may not know the difference, the tool is NOT activated when the user wants and Sidewiki still appears to be a part of my site.

You're making the erroneous assumption that everyone will know the difference, know how and when to activate Sidewiki when THEY want, or use the tool as a good consumer would.

Ill-intending competitors, abusers, and scammers not only know this, they will rely on it to carry out their deeds.

Let's say the user knows the difference. They may still perceive that comments appearing in Sidewiki while on my site are endorsed, or allowed to remain, by the site owner.

If you say, “But you can flag these as abusive and have them removed.” Again, we're back to the argument that now I am forced to monitor every single page, on every single website I own, every single day. If I fail or miss just one of these comments, I am still potentially held liable.

How can that be right???

You said:

“You never differentiated HOW this is different than all the tools you listed. How this is different from my greasemonkey script that shows me Reddit/Digg/Friendfeed/Twitter/Disqus comments related to the page i'm on (coincidentally *in* a sidebar, nach…)?”

1. Google owns 90% of the world's eyeballs. I'm sure you know this since your IP is from Mountainview and your ISP seems to be Google. These other sites don't have that luxury. Many of them NEED a third-party tool or script to do exactly what you're saying.

2. Greasemonkey is user-installed and user-activated. It's a third party script, not part of any one of those sites you mentioned. Google's Sidewiki, on the hand, is part of their toolbar. It's not a separate program, toolbar, or script on its own. Plus, based on my recollection, it's automatic. In other words, when I downloaded my Google toolbar, Sidewiki was turned on by default. I have to uncheck it to disable it.

Also, Greasemonkey is a script that pulls information from other sites. Sidewiki is part of, well, Sidewiki. You can tell the difference with Greasemonkey because you asked for it to pull third-party information. It's NOT some entity that collects, houses, monitors, and displays comments in and of itself. It's just a script. But Sidewiki, on the other hand, does all of those. And more.

3. Other tools proper are either moderated (like Disqus), blockable, or clearly distinct from the sites they're used on (such as the URL address bar showing “Digg,” etc).

And believe me, there's a lot of contention behind these other tools, too. When Digg introduced it's toolbar, there was an uproar because they place the site in an iFrame, stealing traffic and “Google juice.”

But this issue is slightly different as their URL shortener appeared to be from Digg, not the site. And the Diggbar links to related stories or comments about the site on Digg.com proper — not on the site itself, therefore making the seamlessness appear, well, less seamless.

You have to click on “comments” in your Digg toolbar to go to Digg to see the comments about the site.

I'm cool with that. There's a difference between telling people there are comments about a site and its content, and people are invited to click on a link to view comments about a site, outside of it — rather than to actually appear integrated with the site and showing the comments right there, while on the site, for all to see.

http://mashable.com/2009/04/02/diggbar-shorten-…

As I'm sure you know, Digg, confronted with the “hijacking” accusations and a litany of criticism, have backpeddled and removed this feature.

Personally, I have no problems with third-party comments and actually like such a service. But Google Sidewiki is NOT like Digg or services like it. It appears, and works, seamlessly with the site.

It creates confusion in the marketplace. (Isn't that what trademark and copyright laws exist for? To avoid confusion? But I digress.)

Bottom line, Artemus, not everyone is as tech-savvy as you think you are.

You said:

“The iphone analogy is EXACTLY correct. A virtual layer of information is provided on demand to the user.”

And…

“Either way, it's a choice the person looking at your store has. You're effectively coming up to me on the sidewalk saying If I have the iPhone in my pocket I can't go look at this information.”

Ah, perfectly said. Thank you, Artemus.

Indeed, walking on the sidewalk is different than being in the store. Again, that's based on the idea that someone has to pull out their iPhone and, as you stated, it's “outside the store” or “on the sidewalk,” not in the store, sitting down, about to order because they have made the decision, at that point, to buy from the store.

Sure, you can say my iPhone can ping me when I'm inside a store. But it's not part of iPhone proper, and it's an app I must download, install, and set according to what and how I want to use it. Similar to Greasemonkey.

But Sidewiki is part of their toolbar. That would be like saying such an app is native to iPhone. If it was, don't be surprised if stores started asking people to leave their cell phones at the front door before shopping inside of it.

It's no different than, say, theaters and concerts disallowing cameras or recording devices while IN the concert hall or movie theater. Some even confiscate such devices before entering their establishments.

Sure, I would love to pull out my iPhone and see what theaters have the best deals and the types of movies (movie listings and movie reviews, for example) that might interest me…

… BEFORE I make the decision to enter the theater, and particularly before I'm waiting in line at the box office, about to purchase my tickets AFTER I made my choice on which theater, movie, and showtime I want, and before I'm just about to hand over my money.

You said:

“I'm not saying to change your site because of Sidewiki, but if a third party tool (which isn't really that pervasive) impacts the viability of your site; it's a design, business, or marketing strategy problem. Not Sidewiki's.”

That argument is flawed in so many ways.

How many new scripts appear every day? Especially scripts with ill-intent from the outset, or scripts with the potential for misuse or abuse? How can we foresee all of these and plan accordingly?

If I didn't plan for these, saying it's a design, business, or marketing strategy problem is arguable.

But, if I choose to react, opt-out from (or block) them, or voice my concerns about them, then saying it's *my* problem is not only arguable… it's misguided.

Again, you're deflecting the focus and blame away from Sidewiki. It's like saying: “But sir, we're giving out guns in front of your establishment and have a right to do so. If people decide to rob you with them, that's a strategic error on your part. You should have chosen another location to conduct your business. Oh, and installing a burglar alarm and bullet-proof windows (i.e., opting out) is just plain dumb. Clearly, you have something to hide.”

You said:

“Example: This site is fairly easy to engage with users, so I have little need to use a Sidewiki comment, plus the fact that the majority of visitors probably will never see a comment left there.”

True and false.

True, it's fairly easy to engage. But THAT is still our choice. Not Google's. And certainly not abusers' and scammers', either. Why is it OK for Google to give users a choice, including scammers and abusers, but you seem to be against businesses not having one?

I don't get it. Sorry.

Our site may be “easy to engage.” But we are able to moderate comments. Comments don't appear instantaneously, either. Even if we use Disqus' platform, which you seem to bring back up again and again to bolster your position.

If Disqus ever decides to syndicate the comments on our site to another, as you say (which is another issue), still it would only be comments we approved.

In another comment, you said:

“For every vague example of bad comments, I can come up with specific examples of good comments as well. Your criticisms are self serving and one sided.”

So you're saying that not bringing up examples of good comments makes our position one-sided and self-serving?

Hmmm, I think there's no need to share examples of “good comments” to present what you seem to imply as a balanced viewpoint, because good comments is precisely Google's Sidewiki's raison-d'etre. After all, it's the very nature and purpose of Sidewiki.

But we're showing the flip-side, how it can be abused, and the potential negative effects that may, has, and likely will happen. It doesn't make our argument self-serving or one-sided. It actually BRINGS balance to the equation.

Otherwise, if left unchallenged or undisputed by not voicing our seeming one-sided concerns and asking the questions we're asking, then it would make Sidewiki's very existence just as self-serving and one-sided.

Also, even if you say it does more good than harm, it doesn't diminish the harm it has caused and the potential harm it may cause. And it doesn't make it right, either.

Our criticisms are based on legitimate fears and concerns, and PRECISELY because allowing those bad comments can really hurt. It only takes one bad apple to rotten the basket. So yes, we may be one-sided. But please don't tell me that we are and that you're not.

People who rave about Sidewiki say that it's giving them a voice. That's wrong. Sidewiki is not giving people a voice. It's giving them a choice on how people choose to voice their opinions.

We simply equally want the same choice to not have those opinions voiced on our establishments, or at least have a voice in how they're handled. And right now, we don't believe they're handled properly.

So why would it be fair for Google to give people a choice but, at the same time, take away MY choice?

In spite of the supposed majority of users being good and well-intended, as you think you are, you seem to be speaking from your own experience. Problem is, it certainly doesn't mean your experience or intent is as “pervasive” as you think it is, while at the same time saying that Sidewiki is not as pervasive.

A road paved with good intentions indeed.

A slippery one.

Artie said: “The easier assumption is that it's a feature of the google toolbar.”

That's about as sound as assuming that clicking on a bookmark means the site that's displayed afterward is owned by the creator of your browser, since you clicked on the browser interface to display it.

Neither assumption is especially logical, within the experience of the typical web surfer. What IS logical is that anything appearing under a domain's name in the location bar is an accepted part of the site at that domain.

Re your response to Sylvie… If you wish to say that someone is lying when they suggest that their objections to the tool go away if the Sidewiki content is made unambiguously separate from the site to which it's linked, just say it. You'd be wrong in my case, but at least it would show some balls, as far as that's possible for an anonymous non-entity.

You and some others have suggested that choosing not to allow Sidewiki comments indicates the site owners have something to hide. A ridiculous assumption, but one which some people will certainly make. Just as many of us, while recognizing your right to anonymity, wonder what you've got to hide. It's usually wise to question the motives of a person who vigorously promotes a perspective, but isn't willing to put their name behind it.

You make a lot of assertions, but your “logic” mostly amounts to dismissing others' perspectives and slinging insults. That doesn't add to your credibility.

As far as control – that's your issue, Artie, not mine. My issue is clarity. Move the content to a separate window, with a Google URL in the location toolbar, and the ethical issue regarding the tool itself is resolved. Then it's down to, as you say, handling abuse. An entirely different matter, but not a particularly new or unique one.

Artie also replied: “What is my objection to having to inconveniently leave the context of the site or quote in question to go read something?”

The only difference is the window the content appears in. Are you suggesting that you're incapable of following the contextual references if you need to switch tabs in your browser? Is it the extra click that's tough for you?

Or is it that it no longer looks like it's on the same site?

When you said, “I can go to some third party site and
read about something, or I can see it in context next to the
actual source,” you yourself are suggesting a perceived unity of Sidewiki comments and the site to which they're linked.

Opening the Sidewiki content in a new window allows for expanded comments and even threaded replies, in an easier to read format. It does not in any way make the tool less useful. I'd personally find that sort of format more valuable, and more amenable to balanced and open discussion. It would certainly be less easy to game it in an abusive way.

Those things seem a large group of benefits, compared to the trivial inconvenience of switching between browser tabs. And they make it more in line with true social media.

Paul

Wow, I heard a little bit about Sidewiki, but ignored figuring out what it is, I guess I need to check out what people are saying about my sites.

Then block sidewiki before problems arise

thanks for the useful info!

Oh boy! What a nice way to end my holiday…
Google Sidewiki = Google graffitti

This is extremely daunting and very, very sad when someone’s reputation is on the line…
Surely Google must have a way to stop this?

Sidewiki was made with good intentions no doubt, but if they have made it they can break it…

How do we protect our reputation? Do we have any power?

Wonder if there is some way to gather a petition to Google to at least give site owners the option to opt-out of Sidewiki. This is like leaving your front door open in a bad neighborhood – just making it too easy for all the online scammers and pirates out there. Certainly goes against Google's motto: “Do no evil.”

That's true.

Just for the record, I'm not a fan of SideWiki at all. I think the whole concept is bizarre – and that its even MORE bizarre that Google doesn't see it as bizarre.

What I was getting at though was how hard it will probably be change Google's attitude just based on examples of crappy and even defamatory comments.

So far, the only power we have, according to Google, is to “claim” our own sites by posting our own Sidewiki entries, on each and every page of our own sites, so that people know how to reach us directly. Uggh.

That's all well and good if you only have one site with a few pages, but what about those of us who have dozens or hundreds of web properties? Each with hundreds of pages? Impossible task.

The only other option is to install a Sidewiki blocker. See the article where we are posting constantly updated lists of technological solutions.

OK, that is just hysterical! Thank you for doing this, and hopefully drawing attention to how Sidewiki could be used/abused by people with nefarious intent.

I love how you're doing it, too. Keeping within the boundaries of their rules, and showcasing the possible damage that could be done on these sites.

My favorite is the jihadist comments. Seriously, smart stuff!

Hi Abey. Thanks for your comments. However, you're seeing this from your perspective, rather than seeing it from the perspective of someone relatively new to online tools. Remember, you're talking to someone who runs a company that specializes in supplying web based businesses with customer support services. Which means, we see MORE than just one perspective. We see the flood of emails from people who ask the “dumbest” questions, because they just aren't web savvy. Most can't tell the difference between an ad appearing on your site vs. your content. This is hardly different.

Somehow I think an opt-out option would appeal more to Google's sensibility than widespread use of blocking tools. Thanks for the petition link.

Get a CLUE!

How about I throw tolet paper on your house all day long… Do you have the time to protect every one of your assets from jerks and people? No… So give me some COURTESY and RESPECT with MY PROPERTY!

Give me the ability to OPTIN or OUT. Not FORCE ME to use it.

Ughh! This is disgusting. But it's almost cyber-1984 in the making. Think of how much control someone could exert over the entire internet, just by gaining control over SideWikie and having the ability to decide which viewpoints to delete and which to leave intact? In fact, one could target any business, organization, religion, political group, or otherwise. Whether by using libel, by distracting visitors, by embedding download links or even links to dangerous websites/porn, etc. It reminds me of the old methods used to get rid of political opponents – just label them insane and have them shipped off to a mental institution.

In other words, once someone has control of this tool, all he has to do is decide who to go after.

One of the beauties of the internet is that it can't be controlled like the media can. I personally would not be surprised if this is just another way to get around that and make the internet controllable.

Until now I have never had much but good things to say about Google. In the interest of their own motto, I truly hope they realize this mistake and change it before it gets too late.

You got my vote, John. (and for the record, my deep dark shameful secret is that I am a big fan of Failblog, so I can tell a good Fail from a dumb one) LOL

Quote: “Headline: 'Every page on the web is missing one crucial voice. Yours.'”

So, in their advertisement they are implying Sidewiki comments ARE a part of the web page the comments are left for.

No more sidestepping the issue by their supporters with, “technically not a part of the page.”

Will

Well, the nice thing is that the Sidewiki links will iframe your site, and there are TONS of tools out there for breaking out of iframes. Just take a look at the NY Times, open Sidewiki and click the direct link to a Sidewiki entry. Their iframe breaker works so fast, the Sidewiki will be gone before most people even see it's there.

Myself and others (and probably you) have been using this for years to get traffic via optimizing for Google Image search. Now Google offers Sidewiki as another traffic funnel. Not their intention, of course, but it's mine.

So that's the only existing solution to Sidewiki. Install an iframe breaker (I even think there are WordPress plugins that do it), and redirect Google toolbar users to a page that explains why you will not be allowing them to make use of your site.

That is an excellent suggestion, Dan. Much appreciated!

Don't worry, KonaGirl. When I get this mad, I'm like a pit bull and won't stop biting until someone pries my jaws open. LOL

Apparently you just don't get it.

People CAN SEE the comments without having the toolbar installed.

Google has started indexing websites and ranking them high, but the difference is these say “google.com/sidewiki/shdkasdhd….” in them and the sidewiki comments are there to see and you can also make comments.

How do I know? Because I have done it myself. I do not have sidewiki installed, I do not have g toolbar installed.

Those who seem to think that sidewiki is harmless, is the new 'social communication' tool and that everything is just fine are clearly blind to the implications of the problem and are choosing to not use their brains.

Concerning legal issues, even if you can't be held liable, the problem is this. You can still get sued, still have to spend money getting your lawyer on it to send a letter to the other person's lawyer just telling them to screw off., which if you're like me, can cost you a few hundred dollars, if not thousands if the other person's lawyer decides to take it further.

It is people like you that support these decisions that allow companies to make idiotic tools and not back down.

Dan, thanks for that.

When I had tested earlier, regular JavaScript frame breaking code didn't work and I developed a work-around. Now, it does.

To break out of frames at Google, here is the JavaScript:

if(top.location!=location){top.location.href=document.location.href;}

Put the above into a SCRIPT tag.

The higher on the page the JavaScript is located, the faster the redirect. The first line below the HEAD tag is ideal for most pages.

To redirect Google Toolbars version 6 (the one with Sidewiki) use this JavaScript (4 lines):

if( navigator.userAgent.indexOf('GTB6') > 0 )
{
location.href = “http://example.com/page.html”;
}

Change http://example.com/page.html to the URL of the page to redirect the browser to.

As before, put it into a SCRIPT tag and the higher on the page the JavaScript is located, the faster the redirect.

Will

Why is Google referred to as one big giant entity or machine? You hear about the Fortin's Blog, Will the Master of Scripts, the Callen's Blinkweb, Harlan's Tactic 7 or 10, so WHO is GOOGLE?

That's where this SideWalk problem started and that's where it will end — when the HUMAN beings, the PEOPLE directly responsible for making the decisions are addressed. The people running Google are no more powerful than all the people running 12+ year old Marketing businesses out here, are they?.

I'm just guessing but I don't think the Google Top Dawgs are hearing anything but screaming
and yelling when they happen to be close enough to notice the commotion. Then they get called away to something else before having time to get an accurate reading — so they ignore what time will eventually take care of anyway.

If you want answers go straight to the TOP…the place where YOU already are! I have no idea if there are rules that say you can't talk to Google decision makers but that wouldn't make much sense. People are people so talk to the people — that would be real funny if there were just 1 or 2 power trippers doing all this simply because they can! Somebody really needs to check on that.

Controlling over 90% marketshare is because everyone supports them – people follow the
Leaders and go where they go. If Google has so much control, it's because YOU and your
followers hand it over to them…so I say, SYLVIE — you go girl!! Take back the Control… before
it really gets out of hand!

BTW – I have no clue what the sidewalki is or how to use it —
most people probably don't even know about it. The ones
who abuse it would find a way to do what they do with or
without this thing. It should be invitation only if it's there
but Hey — that's for YOU guys to figure out and let us know!

Google is revealing how people are ignorant. Less than 8% of people surveyed by Google themselves knew what a “browser” is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4MwTvtyrUQ

And now they expect people to know the difference between a website and Sidewiki???

Ugh.

This is posted on a pharmaceutical marketing blog:
“If someone writes of an adverse event on a Sidewiki, or promotes an off-label use, it is now on the company’s home page.”
Source: http://pharma-marketer.com/2009/10/27/the-sprea…

It is irrelevant whether the author believes “it is now on the homepage” or that it will be seen as such. But the post is concerned with site owner liability for sidewiki entries, as it should be.

Litigation looms inevitable, lets hope *our* attorney takes the Big G to task, along with the responsible wiki poster for example's sake.

It is sad, no, depressing, to know someone will have a catastrophic, life-threatening or worse event that might lead to some degree of correction for this situation. I hope I never have the opportunity to say “I told you so” (and I won't). But the stage is set.

JEDs

Thanks Alelm. I tool your advice and left the following comment at the link you provided:

“I request Sidewiki be abolished or be severely modified.

From the viewpoint of a visitor, sidewiki looks just like a part of a webmaster's website. According to a survey done on Google and posted on YouTube, most people don't even know what a browser is, let alone a browser addon.

A webmaster owns his domain and has the right to decide what appears on his webpages.

But, in effect, Sidewiki adds a section to a webmaster's website which uses up his site real estate and which HE HAS NO CONTROL OVER.

The webmaster can not decide whether he wants to opt in to accept Sidewiki on his site. He is not given a choice.

He can not even moderate the comments which appear on his website.

This tool can be used for the following purposes:

- To blackmail a webmaster (if you don't ___ I will write ___ on your sidewiki).

- To cause accidents, injury, and death (a “prankster” writes off-label instructions on a pharmaceutical website, saying to take X drug in such-and-such a fashion. Result: Visitors who think this is part of the actual official website can overdose, wrongly mix drugs, and worse. The visitor gets ill or dies, the webmaster get sued.)

- To control and bias the apparency of public opion – all one has to do is get control of the moderators. Comments of one viewpoint get deleted, comments of the opposing viewpoint get approved. Voila, the internet and the projected “viewpoints of the people” can now be controlled by vested interests.

- To steal – a webmaster creates a sales page for his product and drives traffic to it. The thief adds comments to the sidewiki, with a link to his own sales page for the same or similar product, and thus redirects some traffic to his own page to earn money as a parasite.

I could say more but I think anyone else could think of a myriad of other examples.

Until the day Sidewiki was created I had nothing but good things to say about Google … and all I can say now is, remember, don't be evil. Whether intentionally or otherwise.”

Sidewiki does not look like part of a website. It's a toolbar plugin. You have to install the plugin separately, and you have to click on the toolbar to access it.

It is a lot like if Google did magically create an empty lot next to every house, and filled the empty lot with whiteboards. Sure some people will just put up graffiti, but everyone ignores graffiti. People will also post valid complaints, suggestions, and praise!

And we will all know which houses to avoid.