Stop Google from Stealing From You!

noob_0001 · 03-05-2005, 02:05 PM

Have you heard about Google Autolink? You should read about it.
I found these codes that you might want to put in your pages to prevent google from stealing from you like M$ tried in 2001 to do.

Maybe this why they are making their own browser.

Tell google that you do not like this!!!

http://www.google.com/support/toolbar/bin/request.py

Have a nice day

Code:

<script language="Javascript">
// AutoBlink
// Puts Google's Autolink on the Blink :)
// (c) 2005 Chris Ridings   http://www.searchguild.com
// Redistribute at will but leave this message intact
// -
// 5th March - Implemented speed enhancement suggested by the guy who wrote
// http://www.dougaltoolbar.com/
// -
// 5th March - Added additional elements to reduce machine load
// 5th March - Added option to not remove links but to 
// rewrite ISBN links as amazon affiliate links!
// Fill in the following
// if you wish to do this. e.g.  var amazonaffiliate="goodlookingco-20"
// Leave as is to remove links in the normal way
var amazonaffiliate="";

var linkcount;
function checklinks() {
 if (!(linkcount==document.links.length)) {
   // Something changed the links!
   // Iterate for an id of _goog
   for (i=0; i < document.links.length; i++) {
	if (document.links[i].id.substring(0,5)=="_goog") {
	// If we find an id of _goog then do something
		if (amazonaffiliate=="") { 
			// No affiliate id defined so remove the links
			var tr = document.links[i].parentTextEdit.createTextRange();
			tr.moveToElementText(document.links[i]);
			tr.execCommand("Unlink",false);
			tr.execCommand("Unselect",false);
			i--;
		} else {
			// An affiliate id defined so rewrite ISBN links
			if (document.links[i].href.indexOf("isbn")>0) {
var isbn=document.links[i].href.substring(document.links[i].href.indexOf("text")+5,document.links[i].href.length);
document.links[i].href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/external-search?search-type=ss&tag=" + amazonaffiliate + "&keyword=" + isbn + "&index=books";
			}
		}
	}
   }
  }
  linkcount = document.links.length;
  setTimeout("checklinks()",500);
}
if (document.getElementById && document.createElement) {
	linkcount=document.links.length;
	setTimeout("checklinks()",500);
}
</script>

Code:

<script language="Javascript">

// AutoBlink Plus
// Puts Google's Autolink on the Blink :)
// (c) 2005 Chris Ridings   http://www.searchguild.com
// Redistribute at will but leave this message intact
// -
// 5th March - Implemented speed enhancement suggested by the guy who wrote
// http://www.dougaltoolbar.com/
// -
// 5th March - Added additional elements to reduce machine load
// 5th March - Added option to not remove links but to 
// rewrite ISBN links as amazon affiliate links!
// Fill in the following
// if you wish to do this. e.g.  var amazonaffiliate="goodlookingco-20"
// Leave as is to remove links in the normal way
var amazonaffiliate="";

var linkcount;
function checklinks() {
 if (!(linkcount==document.links.length)) {
   // Something changed the links!
   // Iterate for an id of _goog
   for (i=0; i < document.links.length; i++) {
	if (document.links[i].id.substring(0,5)=="_goog") {
	// If we find an id of _goog then do something
		if (amazonaffiliate=="") { 
			// No affiliate id defined so remove the links
			var tr = document.links[i].parentTextEdit.createTextRange();
			tr.moveToElementText(document.links[i]);
			tr.execCommand("Unlink",false);
			tr.execCommand("Unselect",false);
			i--;
		} else {
			// An affiliate id defined so rewrite ISBN links
			if (document.links[i].href.indexOf("isbn")>0) {
var isbn=document.links[i].href.substring(document.links[i].href.indexOf("text")+5,document.links[i].href.length);
document.links[i].href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/external-search?search-type=ss&tag=" + amazonaffiliate + "&keyword=" + isbn + "&index=books";
			}
		}
	}
   }
  }
  linkcount = document.links.length;
  setTimeout("checklinks()",500);
}
function ISBNCD(S) {
    var F = 10, T = 0, J, C;
    for (J = 0; J < S.length; J++) {
        C = S.charCodeAt(J);
        if (C > 47 && C < 58) {
            T += (C - 48) * F--;
        }
    }
    T = (9999 - T) % 11;
    return T == 10 ? "X" : T + "";
}
function createISBN() {
	var isbn="04";
	for (var i=0; i < 7; i++) {
		isbn=isbn+(Math.round(Math.random()*9));
	}
	isbn = isbn + ISBNCD(isbn);
	return isbn;
}
if (document.getElementById && document.createElement) {
	linkcount=document.links.length;
	var instr="<div style='visibility:hidden; position:absolute; top:-5000; left:-5000;'>";
	for (var x=0; x<25; x++) {
		instr=instr+(createISBN() + "<br>");
	}
	instr=instr+"</div>";
	document.body.innerHTML=instr+document.body.innerHTML;
	setTimeout("checklinks()",500);
}

</script>

Rivux · 03-05-2005, 02:53 PM

Its not that big of a deal and it certaintly is nothing like what MS attempted a few years ago. Google only creates links when a user requests it using the toolbar, nothing is done automatically and its obvious to the user what is happening. Nothing is done on the sly its all very out in the open.

noob_0001 · 03-05-2005, 04:02 PM

Doesn't it put links automatically for addresses and links to amazon for ISBN numbers? So if you sell books then amazon gets the money and mot you.

What about your right to say what links are in your content?

Rivux · 03-05-2005, 05:16 PM

Nope it doesn't do anything automatically, the surfer needs to initiate it. As well it doesn't overwrite any links you already have so its not as if its stealing your amazon affiliate money.

noob_0001 · 03-05-2005, 07:45 PM

But once it is turned on the webmaster has to control over it. Would Google like it if someone nake a toolbar that displayed MSN results before the google results?

It does not overwite links, it just creates new ones, it does so if your ISBN numbers are not liked. B&N had to do that to prevent lose of traffic to Amazon.

dave conz · 03-06-2005, 03:33 PM

I think the fact that the links are initiated by the user is a technicality which Google will use to avoid any legal responsibility. The bottom line is that they are using my content to make money without my permission. Their "Do no evil" mantra is looking shakier by the day.

Ferre · 03-06-2005, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave conz

I think the fact that the links are initiated by the user is a technicality which Google will use to avoid any legal responsibility. The bottom line is that they are using my content to make money without my permission. Their "Do no evil" mantra is looking shakier by the day.

And it's un-ethical. I have a non profit site and have no adds for a good reason, I don't need some frikkin spamming company to add them for me because people happen to use their hyped free browser. If they want to show adds it's all fine by me but let them use their own browser to display them, not my site.

A browser that adds any content to a page, or alteres it is non ethical.

noob_0001 · 03-06-2005, 08:14 PM

Glad to see that their are some intelligent and sensible people here like Ferre & Dave Conz.

Rivux · 03-06-2005, 10:16 PM

What you call intelligent and sensible is really an overreach of webmasters right. The user has a right to download a toolbar, then use that toolbar to alter content on a page. People do it all the time with the WebDev Extension for Firefox, does that mean that the extension is evil?

If Google was pushing the toolbar onto people by autoinstalling it, and then pushing the ads onto pages by autolinking then we can talk about some evil occuring here. But none of that is happening, the surfer is enhancing the content of the page using a toolbar that they willingly downloaded and then willingly used an option in that toolbar to add content to the page.

Im not saying that the webmaster doesn't have rights, but this is a far cry from what MSN did and what other companies do with scumware/spyware.

imaginemn · 03-06-2005, 11:26 PM

Google's autolink is basically described in Google's post-install screen as: turning "street addresses into links to online maps." So if I put an address into one of my pages when a visitor visits my page with the toolbar installed, it will display a "look for map" link.

A link automatically generated by the toolbar. If the visitor clicks on the link they will see a popup window similar to this example.

After a user has clicked on the link a NEW link appears on my page. The link looks exactly like other links with my address.

It appears as if the author of the page added the link. The webmaster at this point has no control over this. This is basically adware at its best. Although this feature may be useful many site owners may not want this service on their sites.

If you have a guestbook (do people still have these?), blog, forum or other sites that enable user's to enter data that has many address listings on pages wouldn't this slow down the page's load time? I would assume, yes.

Overall this may just be good news for Microsoft. They will probably have a legitimate argument that if Google can do this why can't they use their "smart tag"? Some will say (Rivux) that Microsoft is different because they have a monopoly in the OS and Web browsers, blah blah blah.

This will just pretty much open the flood gates to who knows what. First it's street address' what's next?

imaginemn

Ferre · 03-07-2005, 06:01 AM

Next is that people will start to use images and flash instead of text on their sites to avoid spammers like Google to alter their pages.

Rivux · 03-07-2005, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by imaginemn

Overall this may just be good news for Microsoft. They will probably have a legitimate argument that if Google can do this why can't they use their "smart tag"? Some will say (Rivux) that Microsoft is different because they have a monopoly in the OS and Web browsers, blah blah blah.

Actually Ive never made that arguement but thanks for making **** up. The difference between MS and Google in this case is that one is done automatically and the other is not.

So far, everyones case here is that you don't like users modifying your content, my point is that they have the right to do it. Im just siding with the user while everyone else in this thread believes the webmaster has all the rights. It really has nothing to do with which company is using the technology.

imaginemn · 03-07-2005, 08:13 AM

Sorry, Rivux. It wasn't a personal attack to you by no means. Maybe I misinterpreted your comments. My bad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rivux

Its not that big of a deal and it certaintly is nothing like what MS attempted a few years ago.

I just don't think ANY toolbar, whether it's Google, Yahoo, MSN, etc. should be able to manipulate content on any web site.

Once, again. I apologize. You always give valuable feedback and I personally appreciate you taking the time to comment or give your point of view on things, whether I agree with them or not. Just to clarify, my comments were not meant to be negative in any way. I'll have to blame sleep deprivation. It was after midnight here in cold, cold Minneapolis.

imaginemn

Rivux · 03-07-2005, 08:24 AM

No prob imaginemn, no hard feelings.

But I have to argue with your comment about 'no toolbar should be able to manipulate content on any website'. Surfers have been doing this since the beginning of the internet, either consciously or unconsciously.

Some examples

-Firefox Extensions (WebDev, adbar, anidisable, flashblock, nuke anything, nuke image)
-Popup/Ad Blockers
-Turning Javascript/ActiveX off
-Text-browsers (older browsers)

If they are using an older browser, or a text browser then the user is modifying how they see your page (even if they don't view it as that). But lots of surfers turn off flash, activex etc which change how your page is displayed. Same goes for ad blockers and more specifically Firefox extensions that give the users a lot of control over how they surf the net. Are we going to ban any firefox extension that allows someone to modify a webpage?

Surfers have the right (and will excerise it no matter what the webmaster does) to surf the web however they think is best. If this means installing a toolbar(or extension) that allows them to easily get directions from an address on a page, then they are going to do it. People need to stop being so territorial and realize that technology is going to be developed to make surfing easier for the end-user and that you should embrace it, not fight it.

But like I mentioned above, this is totally different from scumware/spyware that does these things without the user knowing it. To me there is a massive difference between someone willingly installing a toolbar then willingly using a feature in it versus having a company place ads/links on a page without the surfers knowledge. So as far as Im concerned Google is on the up and up with this one, they aren't doing anything behind anyones back, they aren't tricking the user, they are just giving them another tool to make surfing easier.

evilregis · 03-07-2005, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by imaginemn

I just don't think ANY toolbar, whether it's Google, Yahoo, MSN, etc. should be able to manipulate content on any web site.

My web developer toolbar modifies content. It goes so far as to let me modify anything on that page but the HTML itself. Adblock allows me to block any ads that appear from a given domain. Flashblock blocks all Flash content from playing in my browser until I tell it to play. JumpLink allows me to modify linked URLs to strip out garbage (about.com, hotmail.com.) Thumbs will take a page that I am on and display a page of thumbs of the first image on all pages linked to in that page.

If I choose to install those extensions, and I choose to use them, then that is my business. The web is built by webmasters for their viewers. The audience owns the web. Not the builders. The fact of the matter is the webmasters are a sliver of the browsing population and the masses will do whatever they want to do to make their experience better. If that means installing a toolbar manually, choosing to install a certain functionality in that toolbar, and then choosing to make use of it, then that is well within their rights.

Personally, I can't imagine using such a feature. But if I were to want to, who are we, the webmasters, to say that I can't use a feature that is available to me that I choose to use each and every time I use it. It's not like you turn it on and every page displays as such.

imaginemn · 03-07-2005, 09:22 AM

It's understandable to have these types of features. I won't argue there. But I think the problem I have with this particular one is that it's an opt-in only feature and the user cannot opt-out (at least at this point). If there was a tag to disable this or a way to turn off the feature via the toolbar then that's acceptable to me. The auto opt-in and no way to counter it (as a webmaster/designer) is what I dislike.

As I said before, I think it could be a useful feature. I won't have to pay mapquest (or similar) for every impression. That's a benifit. But, why do I need this autolink feature when I am purchasing something online and it displays a "look for map" link on my confirmation/invoice page. I would have to click on the link and then print out the receipt to display my address.

But it's still in beta so, we may be just be enhancing our typing skills if the feature changes in the next few weeks.

Great discussion and many valid points. Thanks to all.

imaginemn

noob_0001 · 03-07-2005, 09:26 AM

This is probably a violation of copyright - creating a derived work and not compenstating the creator. This could be a big lawsuit against Google.

The content creators have no say about it like they did with smart tags. Why didn't google give us the option of opting out?

Rivux · 03-07-2005, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noob_0001

This is probably a violation of copyright - creating a derived work and not compenstating the creator. This could be a big lawsuit against Google.

The content creators have no say about it like they did with smart tags. Why didn't google give us the option of opting out?

I think you are missing the point, or you just did not read any of my posts (or evilregis's). This isn't about the webmaster, this is about the surfer and the surfer has the option to opt-out at any time. Are you going to go sue the makers of the firefox extensions that modify your page? Of course not, so why are you going to sue google?