I’m in FULL agreement… Side Wiki is like a free pass to spray graffiti on our websites… On content that we own, on hosting that we pay for…

I’m not sure what the future holds for it (I hope a quick death), but I wouldn’t be surprised to see Google penalizing sites that block or attempt to block the Side Wiki feature.

And I definitely agree with Google slapping their ads on our sites. It’s ridiculous.

It’s bad news all around. Nice post.

–Scott

“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

Hi Sylvie,

Your term traffic hijacking is really a good one. (I called my post on the subject, “Is Google SideWiki Evil?”).

However, I wonder whether Sidewiki will have an impact, be adapted by a users. My personal guess (emphasis on guess) is that SearchWiki didn’t make the impact Google anticipated and Sidewiki is the answer; the next attempt to get something similar going.

Thinking about Sidewiki, isn’t it likely that large corporations who are often not exactly customer friendly in nature get targeted by individual consumers or groups and take legal action against Google.

My 2.07 euro cents
Cheers.

Wow… what a nightmare.
I do local SEO, my new clients are coming to me for help in their Google Local Business Listings (aka Googlemaps)
The amount of vicious comments bashing the competition in Googlemaps is really ugly.

So now bashing or leaving false reviews/​comments/​ statements about your competitor can be done on the organic search listing?

Damn… it just looks like it’s going to be exponentially harder to earn a living offering products and services online.

I’ll be watching this very closely. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
I think I first found out about you guys from the Warriors forum roughly 9 years ago

I don’t like what I’m seeing from Sidewiki so far. Already seeing lots of spam and attempts at traffic hijacking. If you’d like to get a feel for the sort of stuff being posted, check out this search that shows people promoting their entries via Twitter:

http://search.twitter.com/search?q=Just+wrote+a…

What really irks me is that when viewing Sidewiki entries directly, even though the URL is Google.com, the site being annotated is iframed. So it’s the same sort of traffic jacking we saw with Google Image Search but have mostly grown to accept.

Will it be acceptable when they start running Ads on those Sidewiki entries, effectively monetizing YOUR content for themselves, while eating up YOUR SERVER RESOURCES?

@ Dan Sherman — I wholeheartedly agree with you. This whole issue can and likely will become ridiculous, very quickly. Some have argued that “fewer than 3% of Google users have the toolbar, so we’re worrying over nothing”, but I think it is short term thinking. People fail to realize that the first people to use it will be the scumbags, and they are tickled pink that this exists.

@ David Bruce Jr — Re: Google Maps — Exactly my point! People have already abused Google’s “shiny new applications”, whenever they have the chance to do so, and Sidewiki is worse, because it sits right there on YOUR website, for anyone with it installed.

It isn’t just a “new way of social commentary” that would ordinarily live on a different site. It exists to divert people away from using YOUR commenting functionality to communicate with you, on your site, with moderation controls.

Blecch!

@ johnfurst — It doesn’t matter one bit to me whether Sidewiki takes off or not. The point is that it only takes ONE nasty scumbag who decides to make his competitor’s life difficult. One scumbag who posts lies on your Sidewiki. One idiot who creatively makes his lies appear to be truthful. And it only takes ONE potential customer who sees that lie and decides not to buy your product.

I agree that some big corporation is going to have big problems with this. It has already begun.

For example, how about pharmaceutical companies who have to investigate every single negative side effect and document it for compliance with regulations? Sidewiki eliminates their ability to investigate, but allows the complaint to remain on the company’s website for all the world to see.

I have a feeling it will be something like this that can take down Sidewiki and force Google to listen. From what I see on their “feedback request” thread, they aren’t listening to any of us.

@ Paul Myers — I’m utterly appalled at the nature of some of the dirt people are posting on other people’s “homes” online. Stuff like this makes it difficult for me to like people anymore.

You seem like a thoughtful and intelligent marketer, but your post makes you sound like you don’t understand social communication:

“By allo­wing abso­lu­tely ever­yone to com­ment on any page of your web­site, and allo­wing clic­ka­ble links within those com­ments, it has flung open the doors to brand new ways to mess with your life.

This means that anyone who has the Goo­gle Tool­bar ins­ta­lled, inc­lu­ding your com­pe­ti­tion, now has the abi­lity to say anything they like about you or your pro­ducts, and there is abso­lu­tely nothing you can do about it.”

This is not unique to Google SideWiki, anyone can post anything about your website at anytime, link things to it, twitter about it, facebook status about it, blog about it, and ALL of it is searchable, most gets indexed by Google anyway. Anytime someone searches your brand or website, they don’t necessary get your business, they get the Internet’s graffiti wall of comments and links to you and anything the Google brain thinks is similar to you.

You go on to say.…

“At the time of this wri­ting, there is no sim­ple way to locate new Side­wiki com­ments that have appea­red while someone is vie­wing dif­fe­rent pages of your web­site, so the only way you can pro­tect your­self is to load each page of your site manually, while Side­wiki is open, and repor­ting com­ments as abu­sive… manually.

The pros­pect of having to load each page of each web­site every day, just to see what peo­ple are saying about us, is patently ridi­cu­lous. You would need to hire a full time repu­ta­tion mana­ge­ment team to keep track of it all.”

New’s flash, these exact same activities, comments, opinions, and spamming are already happening to you all over the internet, or could easily begin, and yes, there’s no easy way to track/​engage these comments. If you’re still under the delusion that you’re in control of your brand then yes, you should hire an army of internet marketing specialist working away tireless to maintain control of your online identity.

Its called “Social Media”, deal with it.

@ bretthorvath — Thank you for your comments, and I especially thank you for making your comments here, on my blog, where I openly allow intelligent two-​​way communications to take place, in the spirit of open and honest dialogue.

Which is exactly my point.

Comments made in the form of open dialogue with the site owner, respectfully managed on the site owner’s turf, is something I, and my husband, firmly believe in.

That’s why we have a blog. To encourage Social Communication. With our readers. With our fans. With people who agree with us. With people who respectfully disagree with us. With people who want to communicate with us, and who equally want us to communicate with them.

THAT is my personal definition of Social Communication. And THAT, I highly recommend, encourage, and believe in.

I don’t have a problem with Social Communication. I have a BIG problem with Google deciding to piggyback my traffic. Traffic I work hard to attract. Traffic I want to visit my site. My traffic. Not Google’s traffic. That is my problem.

You said…“these exact same activities, comments, opinions, and spamming are already happening to you all over the internet, or could easily begin, and yes, there’s no easy way to track/​engage these comments”

My response…

If Google wants to create a separate website, where people can mention my site, and the experiences they had while on my site, and how they feel about my site, and where I can reply to those experiences publicly, I would WELCOME this with open arms. It would actually be an amazing benefit for site owners, because it would give us one more possible place to reach out to the public and respond to concerns. (And the extra traffic would be nice, too)

But that isn’t what Google is doing. They are placing a large frame AROUND my site, piggybacking MY traffic, and telling people “hey, don’t use this site’s built in commenting system or their customer support center, use our tool instead to voice your opinions about them”, and that is traffic hijacking, in my opinion.

It is the absolute antithesis of what Google purports to be, and it is one step over the line.

I’ve always said “It doesn’t matter what people say about you, what matters is how you publicly respond to what they say”, and I stand by that statement.

That’s why, although we are very much against Sidewiki, we are willing to wait and see how people choose to use it before we take drastic measures to block it. We’re in a “let’s see whether our site visitors are grown ups before we use “anti-​​graffiti” paint on that huge graffiti wall that was placed on our site without permission” mode.

You said…“Its called “Social Media”, deal with it.”

I’ll ignore the sarcastic tone of that statement, and respond respectfully…

As I hope has become clear, I have no problem with Social Media. My concern lies NOT with those who would use this tool in a “normal human” manner, to express their thoughts and opinions, whether in agreement or disagreement.

My concern is with those who have BAD INTENT, like spammers, people with a grudge against capitalists, competitors who have more time than brains, and jerks who just enjoy picking fights with anyone they dislike.

I’m not talking about people like you, who may or may not agree with my philosophies, from whom I welcome intelligent debate.

I’m concerned with my inability to moderate content that, for the untrained eye, LOOKS LIKE IT IS ON MY SITE, rather than on a different website altogether.

Google themselves has figured out that MOST people online today do not even understand what a browser is. That’s why they created a handy video tutorial to explain this highly technical concept to people: http://www.whatbrowser.org/

So, I rhetorically ask you, if Google knows that

1. Most internet users have no clue about the very basic technology that allows them to surf the web, and…

2. Most internet users have no idea what’s the difference between Google and the address bar, then…

Isn’t it peculiar that Google would invent something that, once installed, appears to be something that is part of MY site? Especially if, as they say, their motto is to Do No Evil?

Excellent post. I read one of Paul Myers’s posts late last week. Crazy stuff.

Google really is creating a graffiti wall that stretches the length of the entire Internet. 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

Wrong, Brett. This is not social media. It’s social abuse.

Saying that it is social media is just like saying that it’s OK to vandalize store windows, hijack (i.e., kidnap) customers, incite riots, and plaster graffiti all over someone’s private business establishment during an otherwise acceptable, legal, and peaceful social gathering or protest.

See the difference?

You said, “If you’re still under the delusion that you’re in control of your brand then yes, you should hire an army of internet marketing specialist working away tireless to maintain control of your online identity.”

Controlling a brand is one thing. And you’re right, there is no control over brands anymore. In fact the new reality of social media has spurred a whole new category of jobs, corporate divisions, even entire companies dedicated to managing online reputations.

But you’re equally delusional if you think Sylvie was talking about brand, reputation, or identity control.

We’re not.

We’re talking about safeguarding our business’ storefront, its assets, its money, and more importantly, its own customers.

Allowing peaceful protests outside one’s establishment is one thing. That’s what social media sites are for. But allowing abuse (even if the abuse can be reported) is downright evil. It’s like giving away cans of paint to the peaceful protesters in front of our establishment with the hope they will use their paint peacefully, intelligently, and without ill will.

It’s no different than, say, a hacker breaking into our site and defacing it, literally stealing money away from us until the site is restored. But in this case, hackers are not the problem. (There always will be hackers.) the problem is with a seemingly legitimate piece of software that opens the floodgates for hackers to have their way.

Let’s take this a step further. It’s like the analogy “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” But in this case, it’s more. It’s like parking your van outside of someone’s place of business, and giving out the guns for free to whomever asks for it to do as they please, expecting they will all follow the law and use them for good.

Don’t be surprised if someone decides to take their gun to hold up the store in question.

I thought you guys *got* social media. You’re proving you have no clue.

All the “graffiti” talk is completely off the mark. You can’t see the spray paint without special glasses. You can’t mark up anything without a special pen.

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.

I have a Geo-​​locating iPhone app that buzzes me whenever I’m at a store or restaraunt. It gives me reviews, photos, data, possibly good deals, and allows me to leave reviews as well. This is the exact metaphor for what’s going on here.

You’re consumers of information too. You’d tell any webmaster to shove it if he told you that you couldn’t block his ads with popup blockers or AdBlock. You’d laugh in his face if he coded his site so you couldn’t use Greasemonkey or Google Toolbar. Respect your users and the tools they want to install into their own browsers.

It provides yet another social media point of failure for your PR, but it also provides a potential win as well. Give it a chance. I haven’t seen any of the scary stuff anyone here has been clucking about anyway. The other 80% of you wish you had enough site visitors to worry about malicious comments. Please.

@“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.

I think you equally failed to read and understand the point my wife made in her article.

For one, Sidewiki is a good idea… only if I had the choice to opt-​​out from it. Or moderate the comments or, at the very least, have instant response from abusive comments.

But I don’t.

Second, Sidewiki also takes up 1/​4 to 1/​3 of my website’s interface — it’s not some add-​​on or sidebar or toolbar. A sidebar pushes the site and is part of the browser, while Sidewiki is layered on top of my site, obfuscating it. Big difference.

Third, they are slow to respond to abuse, one of my wife’s biggest contentions, along with the fact that Google (unlike some third-​​party social medium) owns 90% of the world’s eyeballs.

Fourth, Sidewiki appears on order forms and even product delivery pages, giving ill-​​intending scammers an open door to cost businesses money. 48 hours (the time it takes for Google to respond to abuse reports), for some online businesses, could mean thousands of dollars.

Fifth, you said: “I have a Geo-​​locating iPhone app that buzzes me whenever I’m at a store or restaraunt. It gives me reviews, photos, data, possibly good deals, and allows me to leave reviews as well. This is the exact metaphor for what’s going on here.”

Wrong analogy. That’s no different than, say, my compete.com toolbar or some of the other toolbars I have on my browsers that do the same thing. Or even scripts like Greasemonkey or toolbars and sidebars that are part of my browser.

This is different.

A better analogy is Google handing out menus from a competing restaurant to patrons inside my restaurant, as they’re sitting down and just as they’re about to order. If Google was an actual person inside my establishment doing this, they would be kicked out in an instant. Not 48 hours later.

@ Artemus Maximus — I’m not sure why both you and Brett seem to feel that it is acceptable adult behavior to come on to someone’s board and insult them with comments like “you have no clue” and “you are delusional”. I find this incredibly strange.

Do we strike you as people who don’t do our research before making statements about how we view tools, software, systems, and strategies? Sheesh!

Can we please have a reasonable, grown up discussion without resorting to insulting intelligence?

OK, let me see if I can word this differently, since it is clear that I must have missed the mark in explaining this issue accurately.

You said…

“You can’t see the spray paint without special glasses. You can’t mark up anything without a special pen”

Yes, agreed. But what does that have to do with anything? Google is handing out the glasses and the special pen, to anyone that wants it. The way I see it, there are TWO types of people who will want it…those who wish to mark up my site, instead of interacting directly with us in an adult manner, and those who wish to use the special glasses to view the comments that others have left on the wall.

There are also basically two types of people who could potentially want to leave comments using Sidewiki instead of the methods I supply them to communicate with me directly…

The first type would be people who, for whatever reason, would not feel comfortable leaving their comments directly on my site, or sending me an email to communicate with me. But their intent is good. These people I have NO PROBLEM with.

The second type would be the spammers, trolls, nasty competitors, whose intent is to HURT my business, and Google has now given them an easy way to do exactly that.

So yes, you need special glasses to see and special pens to graffiti my site, but that’s exactly my point. Most users may want to have those special tools for honest and good reasons, but I am concerned about those who have BAD intent, now having the rights to screw up my hard work.

You keep speaking from the perspective of someone who would not use it to abuse anyone, but you’re proving my point in the process.

You said…

“Give it a chance. I haven’t seen any of the scary stuff anyone here has been clucking about anyway.”

I have already said “although we are very much against Sidewiki, we are willing to wait and see how people choose to use it before we take drastic measures to block it. We’re in a “let’s see whether our site visitors are grown ups before we use “anti-​​graffiti” paint on that huge graffiti wall that was placed on our site without permission” mode.”

But I HAVE seen some pretty awful stuff that has been posted, the abuse and spam has already begun.

Just because you haven’t seen it yet doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

I’m sorry, Artemus, but my points have already been proven to be true concerns. Maybe not for you (yet) and maybe not for me (yet) but I am not the type of person to deal with issues like this in a “as long as it doesn’t affect me, I am ok with it” manner.

When bad things happen, I stand up and speak out about it. I don’t sit on the sidelines watching, waiting until it hurts ME before I do something about it. Nor do I prematurely criticize others who bring up potentially viable concerns.

@ tylamac — Exactly true! The word “skeptical” best describes how I feel about this. I am completely skeptical that Google fully understands the ramifications of what they are doing with this tool, but I am hopeful that they will set aside their geek hats long enough to listen to business owners who are up in arms about this travesty.

It seems that all those who argue FOR this tool keep saying the same things, over and over again, from a very innocent perspective, making the mistake of assuming that powerful tools like this will only be used by people who join hands and sing Kumbaya around a campfire together.

They seem to ignore the possible ABUSES that those with ill intent will quickly discover.

@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

Artemus Maximus said, “I thought you guys *got* social media. You’re proving you have no clue.”

Sorry, sir, but “Don’t agree with you” is not the same thing as “Don’t understand the argument.” Nor does the fact that you haven’t personally seen the kinds of comments people are expressing concerns about mean that they haven’t been posted.

I find it unlikely that you would not want some of the things I’ve seen posted using Sidewiki associated with you or any site you owned. They include links to pirated products, porn sites (a problem because of the inappropriate association), vulgar and anonymous trash talk and, in one extreme case, the comment that, “This guy looks like he’d rape your kids.”

Yes, people can already post that stuff on other sites. That is precisely where the problem lies: In the case of Sidewiki, it does not look to most visitors like it’s on someone else’s site.

I know you are aware that those are off in a separate channel. A lot of the people in these conversations are. However, a lot of people who are less familiar with technology and the specifics of Sidewiki won’t know that. For them, it will appear as though the owner of the site “on” which the comments appear has allowed, or even endorsed, them.

No-​​one has the right to force me to be directly associated with, and appear to endorse, any form of speech. That is the effect of having the Sidewiki pane open in a window with my URL in the location bar.

Aside from that, the tool creates potential liabilities for site owners, even when the viewer knows the content is not created or controlled by them. If someone could convince a judge that it’s normal and prudent business practice to monitor every Sidewiki comment that is linked to their pages, they can establish grounds for suit against the site owner for malicious or libelous comments the owner does not act to have removed.

Judges have been convinced of far less sensible things, as you are probably aware.

The solution to this is very simple: Adjust the tool so that the comments are unambiguously separate from the visited site, preferably in a new browser tab or window, rather than a pop-​​up type system. If the URL in the location bar of that window is a Google link, the problem is over.

That answers all the ethical questions related to the technology, without interfering with anyone’s right to discuss what they want, when they want, using the software of their choice.

Paul

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.

Michael, this is the third reply and possibly most terse, so forgive me:

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. Operationally, it’s non feasible because it handicaps the service. If you don’t want Sidewiki to be available for a page, don’t make that page publicly accessible to all users. If you hold the position that the site owner doesn’t own the Sidewiki (which is literally true), then as a user– I don’t want you controlling the content in it.

As for the bad comments, I’ve seen a lot of “YouTube” examples being thrown around, and that’s certainly a black eye for G (And AOL comments which I despise). But Sidewiki sorts by quality, not chronologically — which in itself is light years ahead of what you’ll see on youtube. We trust their websearch to do the right thing on average, so where’s all the fear coming from now? 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. BTW, what’s an acceptable time frame for so called abuse response? This is a straw man argument that if abuse was instantenously removed, would still not satisfy your underlying concern.

Ah, the site designer argument. I sincerely appreciate the thought put into the layout of a site. But If I want to click a button and open a sidebar, that’s my prerogative! I don’t care what the webmaster thinks at that point. 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.

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. Any useful tool can be abused. Again though, this argument only seems valid to people claiming there’s no differentiation between sidewiki and a site. I don’t accept that argument.

Also, according to your logic, Email is the worst perpetrator of fraud the world has seen this decade. Should we eliminate it? I’m not helping Sidewiki from a defensive business perspective, 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.

Your logic defies reality in your re-​​scripted analogy, unfortunately. From a nit-​​picky logic perspective — 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. 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…)? You never finished that thought, so I assume you abandoned that line of logic since it doesn’t work.

The iphone analogy is EXACTLY correct. A virtual layer of information is provided on demand to the user. No physical signs, menus, pens, spraypaint, or other incorrectly attributed concepts. You need the tool to see the information, the other patrons need the tool too to see it. Patrons without it go about their experience in a regular fashion — possibly missing out immensely. 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.

In closing, I’d like to address something that a lot of you seem to miss completely. Sidewiki is and unless further innovation — will always be a derivative. Discusssions that mirror what the page contains. The tough love approach is that if sidewiki circumvents something on your site, at the end of the day; you control the most important variable: the site itself. You’ve all missed the forest for the trees. 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. 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.

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/

@ Artemus — This is very obviously a case of business owner vs. casual web user, and I’m afraid you and I will never see eye to eye on the issue.

I see this issue from the perspective of a business owner, one who works hard and spends a fortune to maintain the integrity and security of my websites. I make sure that hackers can’t abuse my site. I make extra sure that customer data is secure. I work damn hard to make sure that my site remains G rated, and complies with legal statutes concerning what children may inadvertently see on my website. Sidewiki makes it impossible to maintain that integrity, and it offends me. Period.

You continually approach this issue from a “comparison shopper’s” point of view, one who seems to want spammers and competitors and trolls to have more rights than I am afforded.

Your belief in the basic goodness of humanity astounds me.

I was once like you, and fully believed in the basic goodness of people. I still believe in the basic goodness of people, only when they must stand face to face with a real person. But after over a decade online, I have seen the worst in humanity, if they are given the ability to hide behind fake names, fake identities, and fake IP addresses. If given half the chance to get away with it, they will say the worst possible things and do the most disgusting and vile acts, in the name of Freedom of Speech.

You say that you didn’t mean to insult me, but I don’t believe that. If you and I were face to face, I sincerely doubt you would have tossed insults so casually, because you strike me as a person who would enjoy a debate, done with class and thoughtful consideration. But because you can freely post here under a pseudonym, it makes it easier for you to directly call my intelligence into question.

I’ve given you full freedom to debate this issue on my blog, but I do not wish to debate this any further with you.

You’ve refused to acknowledge the points I’ve made, which means you either didn’t read, or you chose to spin it the way you liked.

The bottom line is that Google has the right to do what they want and create as many applications they think are useful. You have the right to defend them.

But I have every right to block their deliberate attempts to hijack MY traffic and the moment anyone abuses us in any way, using Sidewiki, I will absolutely stand by my right to remove the offending application from view, to protect my business, and my customers, from the dirtbags that won’t hesitate to use their “freedom” unwisely.

Have a terrific day, Artemus. Best of luck to you in your future endeavors.

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.

Artie said: “We will just have to differ that people will consistently think Sidewiki is part of the site. [snip] There will be some, but is that really Google’s fault?”

Yes.

They have an easy alternate approach that leaves their users the same access to time– and context-​​sensitive conversation, while eliminating the misperception. So, yeah. It’s their responsibility.

As far as the likelihood of people believing the content is under the control of the site it’s linked to, I think the percentages are much higher than your dismissal would suggest. After 22 years of moderating electronic forums of various kinds, and 14 years of selling to the general online market, I’m convinced that even the most intelligent of people will make the easiest assumption.

Why? Because it’s usually right.

What is your objection to having the Sidewiki content appear in a separate window, with a Google URL in the location bar?

Paul

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.

>I’m convinced that even the most intelligent
>of people will make the easiest assumption.
>Why? Because it’s usually right.

Occam’s razor FAIL.
What part of having to click the button on the Google toolbar, and the big “google sidewiki” banner still somehow pushes the assumption in the other direction? The easier assumption is that it’s a feature of the google toolbar.

What is my objection to having to inconveniently leave the context of the site or quote in question to go read something? Were you being rhetorical in some weird, twisted, defeat my own argument kind of way? I can go to some third party site and read about something, or I can see it in context next to the actual source. It’s not a hard decision, Paul.

@Salty, glad you were able to defend yourself, but I find your tactics more detrimental than good. By your screenshots, you’d do more damage to the success of a great concept like this as it tries to demonstrate usefulness (case in point your being the poster boy for so called abuse), where no corner would have your back. I respect your free speech (and wouldn’t want to personally be caught on the opposite side of you), but doubt i’d find myself voting for whatever you’ve written thus far. By libelous, I mean something content mediators could be taken to court for, if even frivolously. For me, getting sued for libel is just as bad, even if it doesn’t stick. Even if your target is really a bad person, it just reinforces his likelihood to sue for libel at the best, or defamation of character as he tries to rebuild his life. He has rights.

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

Thanks for the update on how Sidewiki is being used. I’m really disappointed by what Google’s doing here. They created a solution for a problem that simply wasn’t there. But I don’t think being of service to the end user was their aim. I’ve seen other blogs talking about Sidewiki being another channel for capturing behavioral data.

Also interesting is that they launched Sidewiki with little fanfare at the same time they launched Wave. The whole internet is buzzing with interest over Wave (a bloated piece of software that, again, solves a problem that wasn’t there). But surprisingly little is being said about Sidewiki.

I find it offensive that Google is quick to move on protecting their own reputation, but they continue to let Sidewiki comments such as those you have taken screen shots of above to persist.

Paul,

I agree with everything you said here except the liability exposure. Correct me if I’m missing something, but hasn’t it been well established that there is quite broad immunity for republication of defamatory republication of defamtory remarks on the internet?
http://www.theiplawblog.com/archives/-cyberspac…

Convincing a judge that sidewiki somehow provides the site owner who has NO control at all over the comments doesn’t sound very plausible to me.

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.”

Sylvie, thanks for an insightful article as always; it was very well researched and points made are very valid. Thanks too for the .js links for scripts to help block this unwanted addition.

I can’t imagine the business community at large not filing C&Ds and lawsuits about this if it goes unchecked; nobody has the right to what is in effect “iframing” my site by adding unwanted sidebar content, whether that be ads or comptetitors’ slander.

In this case, the FTC may be an ally since the upcoming Dec 1st rules/​laws have requirements regarding disclosure, which this ‘sidewicki’ non-​​monitored content, seems, may easily run afoul of. What if the FTC sees sidewiki content as something you or one of your affiliates may have posted on your site, eg “great site” without disclosure? It’s a big can of worms, and I’m certain many people may want to file C&Ds/legal action to require google to be compliant with the FTC laws and others, which this sounds like it may not be.

–k

Thanks for keeping us informed. Do I understand that one has to have Google Toolbar not just installed but actually open for Sidewiki to operate or be visible? Not that many people use Google Toolbar do they?

BTW, Love your content, hate your pop ups and these side twitter & skribit things.

Thanks for keeping us informed. Do I understand that one has to have Google Toolbar not just installed but actually open for Sidewiki to operate or be visible? Not that many people use Google Toolbar do they?

BTW, Love your content, hate your pop ups and these side twitter & skribit things.

It’s downright ludircous. Google clearly didn’t think thise on through.

THey created a spammers haven and a place for the more critical side of the world to go be themselves on a new medium but a medium that could be someones livelihood.

I don’t understand this one bit, it’s bewildering but let’s just hope it blows over.

It’s downright ludircous. Google clearly didn’t think thise on through.

THey created a spammers haven and a place for the more critical side of the world to go be themselves on a new medium but a medium that could be someones livelihood.

I don’t understand this one bit, it’s bewildering but let’s just hope it blows over.

Isn’t Google shooting itself in the foot? Looking at your examples, I could reverse engineer a google search and pick through the first 3 pages. Collect the highest adwords costing sites and then post appropriate affiliate links on the sidewiki. I get rich and google loses hefty adwords income. Not that I have the inclination to do that, but I bet the black hatters have already figured that one out. Usually Google is smarter than this.

Isn’t Google shooting itself in the foot? Looking at your examples, I could reverse engineer a google search and pick through the first 3 pages. Collect the highest adwords costing sites and then post appropriate affiliate links on the sidewiki. I get rich and google loses hefty adwords income. Not that I have the inclination to do that, but I bet the black hatters have already figured that one out. Usually Google is smarter than this.

Criminal damage, class suit action and lose of revenue springs to mind. That will soon put paid to Google’s idiocy and lack of care in their application bullied upon the whole of WWW.

Criminal damage, class suit action and lose of revenue springs to mind. That will soon put paid to Google’s idiocy and lack of care in their application bullied upon the whole of WWW.

Sylvie,
Thank you for taking the time to share how this is progressing.
This is unbelievably concerning.
I appreciate that you’ve taken the screen shots to show us the negative examples.
Time to install a sidewiki blocking script!

I completely agree with this article. Anyone that thinks SideWiki can be good is dreaming. The only way SideWiki could work is in a perfect world and I think we both know that that is not going to happen anytime soon. What I also find interesting is that Google can’t even keep the junk comments off of one site… YouTube… yet they think that they can moderate junk comments across the entire Internet, good luck Google.

Plus, YouTube users have the ability to turn off comments. Sidewiki doesn’t give us that luxury.

I can’t speak for Paul, but liability issues aside, the perceived liability can bring a world of grief.

If someone thinks the comments are part of the site, or are left there and not reported as abuse (or seemingly ignored), and therefore are endorsed by, or acceptable to, the site, it could still spark frivolous and unwanted lawsuits. It could, such as the case law you linked to, not as republication but as originating from the owner him/​herself. The publisher.

I’m not a lawyer. And I may have to re-​​read that article, which is a bit confusing. But in this case, Sidewiki appears to be part of the site, and is layered on top of it, and can be construed as endorsed by the site. It’s not on a separate third party site or via email, as the case linked demonstrates.

And therefore, it may not be perceived as republication. Again, I may be wrong. But it’s still a can of worms, even if unfounded, if you ask me.

The difference, Paul, is that with YouTube, the user has at least the ability turn off comments if they wanted to. Sidewiki doesn’t allow us that luxury. We have no choice.

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.

I wrote briefly about all these issues in a forum about 2 weeks ago and agree that Google had better fix the spam algorithms and kick those moderators in the butt.
What burns me furthermore is the fact that about 3 years ago or so someone else came up with this whole concept and I signed on as a promoter to avoid just such possible abuses.Then ‚all of a sudden the concept took a whole other approach ‚leaving me to think I was daft in my interpretation of the concept, and I ignored the e-​​mails for the most part.. {The new program is totally unrelated and based on flash.}
So now I wonder,if Google bought the idea and ‘developed ‘it without a proper large network of moderators.
It’s possible to put a comment form on any blog and ‚yes,even on a web site[ I have it] but I can also moderate the comments. JsKit makes that easily possible.
I installed sidewiki about 3 weeks ago and have yet to use it.
Fortunately bloggers like yourself have a great reputation and comments of malice would not be easily believed by your large group of followers.New readers subscription would suffer of course.
My own blog would either sink or swim upstream with added visitors there to just read any bad sidewiki comments.
Personally I think Google should have invested in JsKit stock/shares.»much safer.

This is very discouraging, and well…very “1984”–in the Orwellian sense! It has the potential to totally remove fair play from the web.

Totally “1984” in the Orwellian sense. This removes fair play from what could be a great educational resource as well as a way for honest people to make a living.

Silvie,
Most excellent summary, as well as seemly rebuttals to in idealist or three.
While I’ve seen much commentary, here and elsewhere, I’ve yet to see discussion of a rather obvious corollary.
This product can be the Web equivalent of a WMD (Weapon of Mass Distruction).
Yea, verily, it has some constructive uses, and if not for Google’s toolbar ToS, I’d probably enjoy exploring it in that fashion.
It can also become, very quickly, a terrorist weapon … a Web equivalent of the IEDs used in the Middle East.. And, rather obviously, governance is not swiftly forthcoming.
You, and others, have posted about the possible — and demonstrated — business side-​​effects. But no one seems to want to consider the very real dangers of a dedicated pogrom.
Remember the ‘Google bomb’? This just raised it to nuclear capability.

very reminiscent of third voice back in the very late 90’s.
there was an uproar back then too — a very loud one.….

stuart halpryn
http://NetActivated.com
http://YGM.net

Hi Sylvie and Michel,

Thanks for getting on top of this and making a clear presentation for the problem.

For anyone wondering if this “Storefront and Home Invasion” is acceptable, you need only look at the man hours spent right here to present the problem and comment on it. Legitimate internet marketers have much more productive things to do than defending against this blatant invasion by Google, but now we are forced to defend ourselves and our internet property. My reference to “Storefront Invasion” here is obvious but “Home Invasion” refers to the theft or wanton destruction of our web related property and contents, which directly steals money and property from ourselves and our families.

This is like Google coming into your street corner brick and mortar store, removing the locks while holding you at gunpoint, and then posting 10 people on the sidewalk in front of your store with giant signs saying “Come on in and take what you want. We have the owner at gunpoint and she can no longer stop you from taking what you want. So just come on in and help yourself to her stuff.” While they are at it they are broadcasting that message over loud speakers.

I completely agree that we must forbid this conduct from Google. Facebook got alapped when they tried to claim legal right to members’ content. They straightened up after the protest.

The same demand must be made now of Google. GET OUT of my store! NOW!! And STAY OUT!!!

Sylvie and Michel: please spearhead a demand that Google “cease and desist” immediately!
You can ask all the top marketing people in the world (and you are personal friends with most of them), to all share your info here with their lists. Then they ahould all request that anyone on their list who cares about this issue contact their U.S Congressman to introduce law ensuring that no such “Store and Home Invasions” will be tolerated. Also everyone should email Google with the same message.

Thank you for your alertness and action,
Columbia Jones

Generally speaking, you’re right. It’s not always as clear cut as we’d like, and there are other approaches that MIGHT get the suit accepted. You don’t have to win a suit to do damage…

Paul

This is the first I’ve ever heard of Sidewiki, and all I can say, whomever at Google thought of this brilliant idea must have worked at eBay last year, and been the one to come up with their “new, improved” feedback policy, you know, the policy where buyers could leave any feedback they wanted, even if they never paid for their purchases, and sellers could not leave any negative feedback, even if the buyer didn’t pay, reversed payment, wrote a bad check, was crazy/​abusive or defrauded them in some way. The new policy where if you got a certain number of neutrals or negatives, and your feedback percentage fell below a certain percentage, eBay restricted your ability to list items for sale substantially, and you can guess what happened, unethical sellers started “buying” from their competition and immediately leaving negative feedback, within seconds of completing the “purchase”, and without paying for the items, so their competition couldn’t list items for sale, and there were even extortionists making purchases and then demanding discounts or money in exchange for not giving negative feedback.

As someone who works in the legal field, I’m frankly shocked that Google’s legal team green lighted this, there’s an absolute legal minefield they’ve stepped into. As a single person with a blog or website, we are personally responsible for anything which appears on our site, even if it was posted by someone else. We have an affirmative duty to patrol and promptly remove objectionable material, be it slanderous, promoting illegal activity, etc. In essence, Sidewicki is an extension of Google’s website, the content is created and gathered through their code, it is stored on their servers, it is retrieved and displayed through their systems. They have control over it, and it doesn’t appear they have the personnel, nobody would, to keep up with potentially hundreds of millions of people who could mess with them.

I forsee a slew of lawsuits, including class action lawsuits, from a multitude of aggrieved parties, from the myspace user who is maligned by an ex-​​boyfriend, the facebook user who is accidentally tricked into posting private information on Sidewiki instead of to their circle of friends, the Hollywood celebrity whose blog is populated with their home phone number and address, embarrassing personal information, or slander, the business owner whose business reputation or sales are damaged by the mischievous or unscrupulous competitors.

If it isn’t gone fast, its gonna be a legal bloodbath.

Thanks. Actually I felt kind of bad messing with the 911 site. I’ll eventually delete it, and post an apology. But it does make a point.

This is a must read for all webmasters and marketers. How in the hell can Google not have foreseen this?

Has anything really changed, though? Prior to blogs, I might’ve had the same argument against them. I have some space I can’t control and don’t know where it’s going to wind up — it’s the nature of the internet, I think. Anything that can be abused probably will be — and the more interactive social products become, the more probable it is that people will mess with us (leaving stupid responses to blogs, such as this one).

Anyway, I thought it was a good read. Nice to hear this perspective I hadn’t even thought about, whether it is or is not an overreaction. Either way, I don’t have a business on the line, so I don’t understand that anxiety and can’t judge either. Thanks for the thoughtful article.

The difference is, on my blog I have the ability to moderate comments.
I can control what others say on it.

Think this only applies to businesses? Let’s say you have children
viewing your blog. How would you feel if they saw pictures of naked
women in Sidewiki? How would you react? Or pictures of a more vile and
disgusting nature?

Even if you could report them as abusive, it’s too late. The damage is
done.

See the point?

I control my blog, and I control comments, such as by moderating them
or even turning comments off.

But sidewiki removes that ability.

Sorry, Dr. Mani, but you’re misunderstanding the point. Read some of the comments to help you. Or read Paul Myer’s comments. This has less to do with managing one’s reputation, than it is about making the comments distinct and separate from my site so people know the difference.

If Sidewiki made their comments open up in a sidebar, NOT layered, or if the URL in the address bar was Google’s (not mine), or if there are links that push the conversation on Google’s turf and seem less seamless with my site, then it would be different.

Finally, Dr. Mani, I want to say something a little more personal, in general. I’ve emailed you personally to keep this private.

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.

The site is MINE and I don’t want ANY commentary on it. My site is MY VISION not yours. Don’t touch it. Go somewhere ELSE and say what you want but not on my site. I control that.

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.

It’s the first time that I actually submitted an image to FAILblog.org but I thought
Sidewiki is a noteworthy mention. Honestly I am a little bit confused about the
process and the “cheezburnger” domain.

Likely the FAILblog.org crowd seems to be in favor of FAILS with more
human suffering or comedy involved. On top of that there might have been
better examples of Sidewiki FAILS too, but … I don’t get paid for finding them

So I did it for the records so to speak. I mention it here, because your
blog post made it possible.

If you can spare 5 seconds, please, give it a vote. If not, it’s fine too.
Blog posts like this one are certainly a better time investment than
voting on some random picture.

You can vote here:
http://cheezburger.com/View.aspx?aid=2732451584

Yours
John

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.

I am very worried about this. I am just starting out in internet marketing, putting alot of time and effort in to make a nice site and drive traffic to it…just to have anyone who feels like it badmouth me and my business, so I cannot make a living. This really isnt fair.…i think Google are getting far too big for their boots now and are bullying the likes of us trying to make an honest living on the internet. It is hard enough as it is, without this BS. Even with the best website in the world with the best offers, this is going to be a problem. Why do Google do this, they sit on their ‘internet throne’ and push their considerablw weight about. This needs to be ended…soon.

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/​s​i​d​e​w​i​k​i​/​s​h​d​k​a​s​dhd.…” 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.

@Artemus
I read this a long time ago about sidewiki, it has nothing to do with business, or vested financial interest, please, feel free to try to defend it:
“Let me give some of those that still can not get it through your heads how dangerous this tool really is… I am 41 years old and I have been online for over 24 years. I have seen a great deal in my life and some things I wish I would have never seen.

Some need to get it that these comments show next to your site. Who cares if joe blow talks about me on some other site — that is NOT the same thing.

This tool has come from the depths of hell, out of the pit of everything evil and it will be used for such too..

Mary Plain is jealous of the new family that moved in next door. Mary finds out they have a family website and she goes to the site and looks around. Mary decides she just hate these new people that moved in next to her and she wants to get rid of them.

So mary decides that she is going to act like she is their friend and mary spends a great deal of time at their house. Mary just adores the children and says she would like to take some pictures of the family. So while doing normal activities like playing in the yard with your kids, bouncing your daughter on your knee, sleeping with child because they are sick and want to feel safe, and etc …

(Come on we all have done these things because we love our children)

Mary after awhile takes pictures of these things and nobody ever thinks any different about it because she is a family friend. Mary has decided that she had enough pictures and information that she can finally put her plan into action.

So mary goes to the family website and starts posting on the SideWiki. She post how bad these parents treat their children and how hungry they always are and etc.. Mary then decides to take things further by posting links to pictures she took and post those pictures on her website along with long made up stories about each picture.

This entire time Mary is also using the auto twitter and facebook links to share her SideWiki comments and many are noticing these coments and many are posting their opinions and some even bashing the parents. Now Mary wants to go further though because she really hates the mother and father. So Mary calls the department of social services and gives the links to the sidewiki comments, pictures and even makes up her own stories about the daughter being molested, beaten, and etc …

The worst of it though is D.S.S. also gets 100 more calls from people that seen the SideWiki comments and they called in as concerned people.

Now department of social services under law must investigate this family. They get involved and they do their so-​​called investigation and starts to think what Mary said was the truth. So they remove the children under court order and tell the parents theymust do what social services says in order to get their children back.

Side Note: For those that do not know.. Department of Social Services is the most evil government org ever to be created and they do in fact (yes I said FACT) abuse, sexually abuse, kidnap, and kill 1,000’s of children in their care every year. It is a well known fact that 95% of the cases in court are there just because D.S.S. made up lies on the parents and it is also a well known fact that many of these children will never see their own parents again even though their parents did no wrong.

Back to Mary — Now Mary tells D.S.S. that she is even willing to testify in court that these parents have abused their children and she has seen it. So it goes to court after several months (D.S.S. can hold it up for upto 3 months by law but many never se court for about 6 months and during this time D.S.S. is under no obligation to allow the parents to see their children).

During this time the parents are forced to pay child support to D.S.S. and that is based at a minimum of minimum wage, it can go a great deal higher. So now these parents struggle to pay their bills because they have a huge payment now to D.S.S. and eventually lose thier home because of it.. Now this fuels the fire for D.S.S. because when they go to court they say these parents are unfit because they can not keep a roof over the children’s head..

And D.S.S. can in fact terminate a parents rights under law just based on the children being in their care for 18 months. Normally many court heaings of this nature can go on for 2 or 3 years.

So the parents lose their children, their children’s lives are ruined and they are abused in foster care…

All because SideWiki allowed these comments next to a site and 100’s of other people seen these comments and went along with the crowd and thought what was posted was the truth..

So this entire innocent family lost everything..

Now I condensed this story down a great bit as I could write an entire book on this but the point being is if that does not scare the hell out of you I do not know what does. This tool is pure evil itself no matter how much you try to justify its use for “end users” … Mary is an end user and destroyed an entire family based on her jealousy…

Could Mary have done this on her own site? Well sure but the comments with SideWiki fuels the fire and gets it going viral massively in a short amount of time and since the comments are next to the site they are more believable..

Anyone that claims this does not happen or can not happen, I am glad you live under a rock.. The rest of us live in the real world..”

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/​p​a​g​e​.​h​tml”;
}

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

Don’t forget to switch from Google search to something else — Bing or Yahoo or (better still) GoodSearch!

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

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

Please send Your Feedback to Google about the Sidwiki.

I really recommend to all website owners to claim the ownership of their sidewiki and to go to the following google page and leave a comment:

http://www.google.com/support/toolbar/bin/reque…

Here’s the comment I submitted to Google:

This tool can cause irreparable damage to reputations and businesses when used by spammers.
The opportunity for abuse is VERY HIGH with google sidewiki.
Google should give us a way to opt out our own websites OR the right to moderate comments related to our own domains.

Hope this will help!
I wish you all the best

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.”

Welcome to the internet! You are upset Google made something people are doing anyway easier? Have you even heard of social networking before?

The system is definitely not perfect yet. It is possible for users to abuse the system, if they choose.…. just like any system! Meanwhile it’s a great check to balance a lot of other abuses on the internet. If you get directed to a harmful webpage… you can now warn other users about exactly what happened to you! Hurrah!

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.