Comments on: Google Sidewiki: all your comments are belong to us

Google Sidewiki: all your comments are belong to us

johnny novak — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:16:18 -0800

Google Sidewiki serves a small wiki page down the side of any site on the web: a place where people can make annotations and comments without having to sign into the site itself. You have to install Google Toolbar to use it, as well as signing up to Google Webmaster and activating your Google profile, however, Google believe it will bring a new age of transparency to the social web. Others, however, see it as a spammers' charter, an attempt to hijack all comments on the web, a tool for brand and reputation attacks or the final nail in the coffin for Google's much vaunted 'don't be evil' tagline. Even Jeff Jarvis, the ultimate Google fanboy, is unhappy with it.

By: blue_beetle

blue_beetle — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:18:13 -0800

You can read my thoughts about this on the Metafilter sidewiki.

By: johnny novak

johnny novak — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:26:10 -0800

You may remember this idea from such classic implementations as Mosaic, Microsoft Smart Tags and a bunch of other start-ups going back to the earliest days of the web. Nobody liked them much either.

By: GuyZero

GuyZero — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:28:56 -0800

You may remember this idea from such classic implementations as... Yeah, I've wondered about that too. The most surprising thing about this is how un-original it is.

By: filthy light thief

filthy light thief — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:29:59 -0800

Google is (apparently) getting experts on board to comment to make this more successful than Third Voice and Microsoft's Smart Tag, both of which have faded from existence (TV and ST found via /.). I still think it's a silly idea, as I haven't heard any way they'll be preventing the Greater Internet F*ckwad Theory from becoming reality for this service, and spreading YouTube-like comments to any and all sites.

By: Scattercat

Scattercat — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:33:25 -0800

Maybe Internet Fuckwad is contagious. We may have a new pandemic on our hands here. (Quick, someone build a research station in Kolkata so I can cure the Red disease before this one has an Outbreak.)

By: djduckie

djduckie — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:39:26 -0800

So the idea here isn't to take comments away from already commentable sources, is it? I thought the idea was to add comments to places that weren't commentable. I guess i could be wrong.

By: Bathtub Bobsled

Bathtub Bobsled — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:40:38 -0800

How about we introduce a new paradigm in internet development? You guys can bang out better rhetoric to describe the concept, maybe soften it and shorten it to a nice acronym, but the premise is pretty simple, yet groundbreaking: Fix the shit we already have before we continue adding shit we didn't need.

By: boo_radley

boo_radley — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:43:33 -0800

ah yes, ftswahbwcaswdn's razor.

By: benzenedream

benzenedream — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:44:05 -0800

Knol 2.0. Maybe I'll be able to sell these speakers on Sidewiki!

By: smackfu

smackfu — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:46:32 -0800

My favorite example is the one with the President of RISD commenting on the sidebar of the RISD page.

By: _dario

_dario — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:47:26 -0800

Doesn't work on Chrome (chuckle).

By: adipocere

adipocere — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:48:29 -0800

If you poke around Google Labs every so often, you'd be surprised at how many of their little projects fail. That is not the worrying part to me. What bothers me is that 1) this has been done before and it 2) obviously and notoriously failed each time, 3) quite deservingly, and 4) nobody thought any better of it. Flash back to the early 90s, remember all of the gushing over Bill Gates and how wonderful Microsoft is. Ten years later ... Google's ten years of love are almost up, and they will be watched, very closely.

By: fire&wings

fire&wings — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:49:35 -0800

Yo Google Sidewiki, I'm really happy for you, I'ma Let you finish, but Youtube already has some of the most insightful and considered user commentary of all time.

By: Sys Rq

Sys Rq — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:50:52 -0800

O NOES!! ITS STUMBLEUPON WITH LESS UTILITY!!!1 END OF THE INTERNETS!!!

By: boo_radley

boo_radley — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:52:25 -0800

The worst part about their implementation is that you have to have their wretched toolbar installed. I hate extra toolbars, google.

By: Thorzdad

Thorzdad — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:54:07 -0800

Yet another reason not to install Google Toolbar. Like I needed even one reason...

By: boo_radley

boo_radley — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:55:06 -0800

Oh, and the really stunning thing is that the sidewiki "content" is really, really sensitive to urls. Like, http://www.metafilter.com/85446/Google-Sidewiki-all-your-comments-are-belong-to-us#2758935 http://www.metafilter.com/85446/Google-Sidewiki-all-your-comments-are-belong-to-us#2758933 http://www.metafilter.com/85446/Google-Sidewiki-all-your-comments-are-belong-to-us#comment and http://www.metafilter.com/85446/Google-Sidewiki-all-your-comments-are-belong-to-us#thePlasticDotComItIsOKToLike will all have different references inside of sidewiki. There's no way that can be useful for really dynamic systems.

By: johnny novak

johnny novak — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:55:42 -0800

Flash back to the early 90s, remember all of the gushing over Bill Gates Agreed, getting site owners to sign up to all those services and install a toolbar is a very MS style move.

By: xthlc

xthlc — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:00:41 -0800

You have to install Google Toolbar to use it, as well as signing up to Google Webmaster and activating your Google profile, I remember, back in 1999, there was this startup company that wanted to pay my small interaction design firm for some basic services. They made a downloadable application, let's call it Surfboard, that looked like a bad Winamp skin and clung like a tumor to the side of IE5. Surfboard would let you chat with other people who were viewing the same page as you, and see what other people had said about the page. Surfboard would also serve up ads, of course, and phone home with info about your browsing habits. Surfboard also had, IIRC, three separate competitors that all made more-or-less the same goddamn thing. They had something like $25 million in VC, which was peanuts in those days, and invited us to a beach-themed launch party that included acrobats and hula girls. By the time they crashed and burned, they had a slightly less shitty UI, a 4-digit "user base" and a substantial invoice from us that went unpaid. The Guardian piece that johnny novak linked nails it. Every 2-3 years, someone tries to invent the same backchannel for the web, updated slightly to reflect the current trends in platform and positioning. Unfortunately, a social application that a) requires any level of critical mass in order to succeed, b) requires that you download and install something, as well as sign up for two different services, and c) doesn't get you either laid or stuff for free, will d) fail.

By: furtive

furtive — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:04:41 -0800

They were framed, I tells ya!

By: blue_beetle

blue_beetle — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:09:30 -0800

If Google was smart^tm they would buy Twitter and show dynamic "real-time" twitter search results for the page you're on. Avoid the whole sidewiki mess. and stop trying to redefine "wiki"

By: gurple

gurple — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:09:47 -0800

Sidehackers!

By: PenDevil

PenDevil — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:11:24 -0800

Yeah... 2005 called, they want their tech back.

By: mediareport

mediareport — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:22:23 -0800

Good lord. What a colossally fucked-up idea. It's so antithetical to the basic sharing that goes on already at any given site. Utterly astonishing Google let this one get out of development.

By: JaredSeth

JaredSeth — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:23:57 -0800

Has anyone ever looked at what passes for "discussions" in Google Finance? I don't see how this can end well.

By: ardgedee

ardgedee — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:27:21 -0800

> How about we introduce a new paradigm in internet development? You guys can bang out better rhetoric to describe the concept, maybe soften it and shorten it to a nice acronym, but the premise is pretty simple, yet groundbreaking: Fix the shit we already have before we continue adding shit we didn't need. "Hey Fred, I've got this great idea!" "A new product? We need a new product! Our previous product have total market saturation! We can't go anywhere but down if we don't have new products!" "It's, er... fixing our current product." "It doesn't need fixing." "Sure it does. It's buggy as fuck. You've got so many high-priority bug tracker printouts on your wall that it bleeds red when the AC fails." "It doesn't need fixing. It's making all the money it can possibly make without us doing anything. We need a new product." "But I've got these great ideas for fixing our product." "Rob, let's sit down for a moment. If you can answer the following three questions 'yes', you'll be greenlighted. Ready?" "Ready." "Rob, question 1: Will fixing things cost us nothing?" "No." "Question 2: Will it have no impact on resources we could be using to make new products?" "Er... well, we could hire more..." "Yes or no, Rob." "No." "You're 0 for 2. I'm not seeing a green light here." "Try me." "Question 3: Will fixing things increase our revenue?" "It could." "You're not thinking this through, Rob. Will fixing things increase our revenue?" "No." "Gosh. That sucks. Thanks for your utopian vision, but we've got to get back to work now. Come up with something that makes us more money."

By: Cool Papa Bell

Cool Papa Bell — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:28:23 -0800

Oh, the hilarity that can ensue... "2 Girls 1 Cup is a famous shock site/viral video..."

By: borges

borges — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:28:29 -0800

1999 called too.

By: Artw

Artw — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:29:05 -0800

Didn't this basically suck the last X number of times someone tried it?

By: boo_radley

boo_radley — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:29:24 -0800

Also, I really wish someone would smother MS Groove with a pillow.

By: Rhaomi

Rhaomi — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:32:13 -0800

By all means, keep making fun of Google Sidewiki. I'll just be over here taking notes in Google Notebook so I can construct a pointed rebuttal using insults researched from Knol, which I will soon upload to Google Video so I can share it with my homies on Orkut and Lively.

By: Fezboy!

Fezboy! — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:34:07 -0800

Until something like RDF-capable browsers and a nimble/non-intrusive agent to sit behind it + a dead-simple UI + a game-proof trust evaluation system are rolled together with enough market share to reach the tipping point... Well, even with Google attached to it, Sidewiki isn't going to be anything but a weird blend of wasteland and spam.

By: JHarris

JHarris — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:38:16 -0800

I guess I should be the one to play angel's advocate here and say it might actually be useful? I can remember there being times when I wanted to post something on a specific webpage as a compliment, or a warning, a note, or correction, for others, but was unable to because the site didn't support comments, or the comments in question might not be acceptable to the site's owner. This doesn't really seem like more than automating writing about a web page on a blog, except with the comment findable directly by the URL of the blog, and also supported by a system toolbar. Sure it could be used to spam, but it seems defeatist to avoid creating something because it might be used for evil. And yes it's sucky that it depends on a toolbar. (It probably doesn't work in Chrome because it includes Google Toolbar's functions internally.) I guess I just don't see how this is evil. It might be useless, but then it's in Google Labs, which means they themselves want to see if people like it.

By: JHarris

JHarris — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:44:53 -0800

Hm, my mistake... I thought it was in Labs from the above comment, but it's not. (I didn't actually load the link 'cause I stumbled upon Sidewiki a couple days ago accidentally, and was commenting based on that.)

By: smackfu

smackfu — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:46:17 -0800

That it could be useful is presumably why it keeps getting funded. It's how to get to useful from nothing that has always been the problem, and why people are such doubters. It sounds like Google's idea is to prime the pump with paid commenters, which sounds OK until you realized they already tried that and failed with Knol.

By: Mick

Mick — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:48:46 -0800

They're all gonna laugh at you!

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:52:08 -0800

Google sidebar just informed me that Metafilter is in Danish and asked if I wanted to translate it. I said no, as I apparently already read and write Danish.

By: robertc

robertc — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:55:40 -0800

Breaking news for all those "I'm losing control of my content" whiners: people discussing your content on other websites is not losing control, it's just the way the web works - eg. Digg, Reddit, StumbleUpon, Delicious, MetaFilter. Just because a browser addon is displaying these comments alongside your page doesn't make it fundamentally different. If Sidewiki was somehow aggregating all those other comments into a useful an usable feed then it would be a bit more interesting. The other thing that might make it interesting would be if it integrates somehow into Wave,

By: ardgedee

ardgedee — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:07:04 -0800

> You may remember this idea from such classic implementations as Mosaic, Microsoft Smart Tags and a bunch of other start-ups going back to the earliest days of the web. Nobody liked them much either. > Third Voice > Yeah... 2005 called, they want their tech back. > 1999 called too. Vannevar Bush and Ted Nelson would like some words with you kids.

By: Artw

Artw — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:09:37 -0800

Hi Ted Nelson, when are you going to ship?

By: rough ashlar

rough ashlar — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:12:59 -0800

Oh, and the really stunning thing is that the sidewiki "content" is really, really sensitive to urls. Like, ll all have different references inside of sidewiki. There's no way that can be useful for really dynamic systems. Or when website ignores part of the URL. http://www.metafilter.com/85446/ goes to the same place as http://www.metafilter.com/85446/not-at-all-what-is-there It looks like there could be some great fun one could have with sidewiki. Just dynamic URL everytime could defeat someones elses comments.

By: fire&wings

fire&wings — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:15:07 -0800

I guess I just don't see how this is evil. People would have to use it for it to be evil.

By: ODiV

ODiV — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:15:53 -0800

To be fair, we were all against strict theocratic-authoritarian chip-based mind control the first few times it was tried too (God rest their souls), but look how well it has turned out! Sometimes you just have to have someone do it right!

By: ardgedee

ardgedee — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:23:08 -0800

> Hi Ted Nelson, when are you going to ship? Obviously he's not going to ship until he gets it right.

By: Sys Rq

Sys Rq — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:35:26 -0800

To be fair, we were all against strict theocratic-authoritarian chip-based mind control the first few times it was tried too (God rest their souls), but look how well it has turned out! Chips, you say? I'd just assumed G____ B___'s following was attributable to some sort of Videodrome embedded signal shenanigans. To bring that back to the subject of the post: It's nice they're touting Free Speech and all that; the thing is, speech ain't worth squat if no one's there to hear it. (Riddle: How is speech like a tree?) So, uh, hey, Google: When deciding how to wrangle an audience, mind control microchips seem to be the way to go.

By: GuyZero

GuyZero — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:43:41 -0800

Can we no longer write Gordon Brown's name?

By: julen

julen — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:03:09 -0800

I can see how this could be helpful for Google (who can develop much stronger user profiles and better predict/sell ads/etc) and for users (who get a level of meta information, a different discovery avenue, or use as an annotation service), but as a content producer, I'm not seeing any new benefit. I am seeing several new issues: There will be content directly attached to mine that I have no control over and can't opt out of. Conversations could be split between my page and theirs, but won't be visible to all users (without extra work for me). Things I explicitly don't want to have a conversation around and attached to it (I don't care what you say on Facebook or Digg or anywhere else, I just want the content to stand alone and make it's direct impact on you so you think about it before discussing it any number of other places) will now have a conversation attached to it. Plus: With Google now responsible for some comments attached to millions of websites, I don't trust their automatic checking and pruning and timely management. When someone posts in a comment on my website "Yeah, I'd hit that" about a picture of pre-teen girl, I'm sure as hell going to be all over deleting that ASAP; with Google's "solution" - assuming they aren't able to automatically determine it's a bad "I'd hit that" posted on their google-hosted sidewiki - I would have to complain, ask for it to be deleted, and wait while someone judges whether or not it is bad. Similarly, if I'm running Big Bob's Used Cars, what is to stop Big Joe from coming and adding his ads or masquerading as a disgruntled customer in the sidewiki content? Finally, I'd be sacrificing 100-125 pixels of my page and information layout to this service which have the potential to have a high noise to signal ratio and possibly ads in the future from which I will get no moolah or sayso. (The second is more important to me, personally; when I was running the Ancient World Web, I was always happy to say No to ads for The History Channel's speculative brand of "history" shows. I'm willing to bet that Google adsellers would be less discerning than me, and might put me in the position of appearing to OK something I was not OK with.) That 100-125 pixels? It's on the left. It's the first thing people will see, and could possibly sidetrack them from ever reading my content. So, yeah, as the content provider, I'm underwhelmed.

By: empath

empath — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:07:44 -0800

I think this is good for heavily moderated political blogs and blogs that don't allow comments to get an opposing point of view.

By: Zinger

Zinger — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:11:26 -0800

I guess I just don't see how this is evil. It might be useless, but then it's in Google Labs, which means they themselves want to see if people like it. and Breaking news for all those "I'm losing control of my content" whiners: people discussing your content on other websites is not losing control, it's just the way the web works - eg. Digg, Reddit, StumbleUpon, Delicious, MetaFilter. Just because a browser addon is displaying these comments alongside your page doesn't make it fundamentally different. People discussing your content on OTHER websites is fine. Giving people the ability to post anything they like alongside something *I* have built, and spent a very long time trying to get exactly right is so very not fine. Think of it this way... you've got a house and property that you've spent rather a long time painting, fixing, cleaning and landscaping just so. Then along comes city hall with an ordinance that allows, nay, enables every twit in town to take a paint brush and slap random/stupid/vulgar comments all over your brand new siding. It's web graffiti, and I don't appreciate google or any other company finding new and fun ways to allow people to spray it all over my site.

By: idiopath

idiopath — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:13:21 -0800

smackfu: "It sounds like Google's idea is to prime the pump with paid commenters" WILL COMMENT ON WEBSITES 4 FOOD

By: empath

empath — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:25:09 -0800

Zinger, I think you're not clear on how the web works. If I want to view your site with the sidewiki content added, then that's no business of yours. The same as adblock and noscript, etc. You put the content on the web, but you have no control over how I view it.

By: DU

DU — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:29:02 -0800

So it's the internet I already have, but in a frame and with (even more) comments from morons? I'M SO THERE!

By: Zinger

Zinger — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:31:27 -0800

I'm very clear on the way the web works, thanks, and I'm well aware of things like adblock and greasemonkey. If YOU want to change the way the site looks in YOUR browser, that's fine. This is a whole different ball game. It's allowing any schmoe to put any ol' thing on my site for EVERYONE to view. No thanks.

By: smackfu

smackfu — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:49:23 -0800

My feeling is that it would only be useful if it was ubiquitous, and yet if it was ubiquitous, it would be evil.

By: empath

empath — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:59:04 -0800

This is a whole different ball game. It's allowing any schmoe to put any ol' thing on my site for EVERYONE to view. Uh, no. It's not on your site. Is this confusing for you?

By: DU

DU — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:06:48 -0800

Have you guys seen what those internet vandals did to my blog? There's a big row of "tabs" at the top advertising other sites!!!

By: Houstonian

Houstonian — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:11:19 -0800

I think we should leave feedback within the Google Sidewiki, on the Official Google Blog. It seems funny that many of the comments there so far are positive. But then again, the blog's article says, "Instead of displaying the most recent entries first, we rank Sidewiki entries using an algorithm that promotes the most useful, high-quality entries. It takes into account feedback from you and other users, previous entries made by the same author and many other signals we developed."

By: You Can't Tip a Buick

You Can't Tip a Buick — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:13:35 -0800

Sidehacking? More like... sidetalkin'!

By: roll truck roll

roll truck roll — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:21:02 -0800

How's this different from the "Comments" feature in Google searches? That feature seems to have been a total flop. I click the icon on search results from time to time, and have never seen a comment.

By: Zinger

Zinger — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:23:51 -0800

Uh, no. It's not on your site. Is this confusing for you? No, but apparently it's confusing for you. It IS, for all intents and purposes, on my site. The sidewiki content posted about my site appears on the sidewiki, right there, in the same screen, when you're browsing my site. And as the site owner, I have no way of opting out of this "helpful" tool. Clearly you don't actually run any websites or you'd see what a major pain in the ass this is. Among other things, I run a blog, and I already provide a facility for comments. Because of comment spam, I have to spend time every week to weed out the spam, the completely irrelevant or misplaced comments, and then publish the good stuff. For example, I continue to get comments from someone who believes I'm in need of their brand of Christianity... long, carefully 'reasoned' and well-written comments, but which nonetheless have absolutely nothing to do with anything I've ever written. I choose not to publish these comments. Now, thanks to Google, this person can happily graffiti my site with all sorts of things, and there's not a darn thing I can do about it. I can't opt out of Sidewiki, and I can't moderate the comments displayed alongside my site. The absolute best option I have is to create a Google profile, spend oodles of time making comments on other websites, hope I get a good enough reputation, and then make comments on my own site in the hope that the crap gets pushed down 'below the fold.' And that's not even getting into the massive spam battle that's about to take place as the spammers find ways to get around the algorithm that will supposedly filter out comment spam. Or competing sites using this tool to slag each other's websites. Or users who can't be bothered to RTFM completely ruining a company's reputation by claiming their product is crap and "warning" people away. It's a big can of worms we really don't need and I honestly can't think of a single good thing that will come of it.

By: egypturnash

egypturnash — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:24:56 -0800

This was cool exactly once, when _why did it. _why's backchannel comments vanished when he got bored running the back end, rather than when the VC dried up like most of the other attempt to do this. I really doubt it will get much traction unless Google finds some incredibly clever way to get it in everybody's browser all the time. Also I predict there will be a way to opt out of sidewiki for your domain in a few days, given the amount of whinging out there.

By: empath

empath — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:26:38 -0800

Now, thanks to Google, this person can happily graffiti my site with all sorts of things, and there's not a darn thing I can do about it. I can't opt out of Sidewiki, and I can't moderate the comments displayed alongside my site. Your site is still there. The only people who will see sidewiki content are people that opt into sidewiki content and decide to view it. Nobody will be confused that it is really your content. I don't see how you should have any right to determine what I can look at while I view your site.

By: empath

empath — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:29:32 -0800

fwiw, i played around with sidewiki a bit this afternoon and I think it's kinda annoying. I'm interested to see how it develops, though. (I can't wait to see the sidewiki on the National Review's site as it develops).

By: Houstonian

Houstonian — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:31:48 -0800

Here someone says this:

"Until Google dumps this or provides an opt out, web site owners who'd like to retain control of what appears on their own site can block all Google Toolbar users by adding the following to their htaccess file. The "notoolbar.php" points to a file explaining Google's bad behavior and instructing the visitor to uninstall Google Toolbar in order to proceed. You can create your own file and name it whatever you like, just be sure to change the code below to make it match the file name you've chosen. RewriteEngine On RewriteCond %{HTTP_USER_AGENT} GTB [NC] RewriteRule .* notoolbar.php [L] "

Would this work, to prevent Sidewiki entries on a website? Does it sound like it would not work? Or does it sound like it would just aggravate readers?

By: ixohoxi

ixohoxi — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:33:18 -0800

Yes, this is made of pure fail for reasons that have already been pointed out—no, I'm not gonna install your fuckin' toolbar, ever, and yes, it's tragically close to being the exact same thing that has already failed the last 819,723 times it was tried. But, I can almost see the logic of the idea. I mean, Wikipedia is pretty awesome, right? It has its flaws, but it's one of the most successful examples of the "wisdom of crowds" principle. I bet you all use it every day. So why not apply the same principles to the entire web? Think of all the things you could use this for:

If someone makes a bullshit statement on their site, you can add refuting links/info to the Sidewiki.
To clarify ambiguous or incomplete information with discussion, links to complementary resources, etc.
To mention related concepts or link to related resources that might not be obvious to the reader.

Yes, a lot of this is already possible on many sites, but Sidewiki provides a uniform interface, doesn't require a separate account for each site, neuters a site owner's ability to screen unfavorable commentary, and works even on sites that don't offer built-in commenting functionality. You can call out bullshit in a blog; you can't call out bullshit on a corporate propaganda site. I really do think it's a good idea. I'm not familiar enough with the inner workings of Wikipedia to know exactly why it works, but I suspect it's due largely to the effort of a small but devoted number of editors who specialize in various areas of expertise. I guess there's no reason the same thing couldn't arise on Sidewiki, but only if Google provides the framework for that to happen (as Wikipedia has done), and—well, I'll believe it when I see it. And, yeah, the toolbar requirement dooms it to failure from day one anyway.

By: maxwelton

maxwelton — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:37:57 -0800

I guess I'll be adding a random number to all of my URLs...I agree with julen, above. I've dumped a ton of time and effort into various web sites. I don't care so much for critical comments, but moronic, offensive, or comments which purport to be from dissatisfied users which just happen to point at competing web sites? No thanks. Plus, and I haven't looked, is there a way for me to view the google sidewiki content without having to install the moron's browser favorite, their (or any) toolbar?

By: ixohoxi

ixohoxi — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:39:22 -0800

Zinger, trust me...you're completely confused. Without Sidewiki, someone can post derogatory/libelous/misleading/incoherent comments about your website elsewhere on the web—in their own blog, for example. With Sidewiki, someone can post derogatory/libelous/misleading/incoherent comments about your website elsewhere on the web—in Sidewiki, for example. It's not on your website in any sense. The only difference is that Sidewiki makes the commentary instantly and automatically available. If you don't want people criticizing your content, then provide honest, well-researched, well-cited content.

By: ODiV

ODiV — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:53:55 -0800

If you don't want people criticizing your content, then provide honest, well-researched, well-cited content. Welcome to the Internet! It's a wonderful place! Will you be needing a guide?

By: maxwelton

maxwelton — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:00:44 -0800

If you don't want people criticizing your content, then provide honest, well-researched, well-cited content. Let's say you run a site that sells widgets. If people post on other sites that you suck, or you should use Bob's Widgets instead of your own, well, that's life. But if people are on your site and right there is a link to Bob's Widgets, well, that kind of sucks. If that link is disguised as a comment from a dissatisfied customer who claims they got much better service at Bob's widgets, that sucks more. Let's say you've got a content site which relies on google adsense or another affiliate program to generate some cash. In the google sidewiki appears the same ad, except with your competitor's affiliate code attached. Or google themselves start placing ads which compete with your own, "robbing" you of needed income. There are a few ways something like this make the web more interesting, but there are way more ways this makes it worse.

By: Zinger

Zinger — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:06:36 -0800

Houstonian, yes, you can block the Google toolbar, but AFAIK, that particular thing blocks google from indexing your site as well, effectively dumping you out of the search engine listings. So you either takes their Sidewiki or you drop off the face of the Internet, because no one will find you. Nice eh? Empath: "I don't see how you should have any right to determine what I can look at while I view your site." Oh, I get it now. It's okay for *you* to control your experience on *your* computer, but no one else is allowed to have control over anything? Or worse, it's okay for some big corporation to wrest control out of someone's hands? ixohoxi: Without Sidewiki, someone can post derogatory/libelous/misleading/incoherent comments about your website elsewhere on the web—in their own blog, for example. Wow, really?! Thanks for clearing that up. It's not on your website in any sense. The only difference is that Sidewiki makes the commentary instantly and automatically available. It is loaded into the same screen on which you view MY site. Thus, it's on my site. Period. If you don't want people criticizing your content, then provide honest, well-researched, well-cited content. I never said I didn't want people criticizing my content. What I said was that I could do without crap I can't delete on my website property. Let's make this about another site - a humanitarian feed the children aid site. They work hard to provide a good site that helps charitable people donate to a good cause. Google comes along and provides a sidewiki that loads in the same screen. Some jerk decides to post a child porn video link on there, so that's the first thing people with Sidewiki see when they load the site. Maybe some nice people visiting the site take the time to report the link as "abuse" and maybe Google gets around to removing it. Or maybe some enterprising souls pose as members of the charitable organization and provide helpful "direct links" to the donation area of the site... how does a user tell which is legit and which isn't? How does the *average* not very savvy web browser tell what's legitimate especially when *it's right in the same screen?* And do we really want charitable organizations having to waste valuable resources dealing with yet another channel for people to be asshats in? One that's presented in tandem with their own site?

By: Houstonian

Houstonian — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:11:56 -0800

For those who think this is pretty neat, did you know that there's another conversation going on right now, on the Sidewiki for this post? In it are 3 interesting ways Sidewiki will affect Metafilter.

By: Artw

Artw — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:17:47 -0800

It's not on your website in any sense. it's on my URL.

By: jenkinsEar

jenkinsEar — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:21:24 -0800

This would be a great idea if they charged everybody who wanted to comment five bucks, just once.

By: Zinger

Zinger — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:24:22 -0800

As a follow-up on the above, so far as I can tell, anyone who is for this particular thing seems to be for it so they can "call bullshit on corporate propaganda" or "prevent marketers from controlling their message." Or to put it another way, they like it so they can graffiti a corporate site and stick it to the man. And I understand the desire. But 1) There are other ways of doing this that don't screw over all other webmasters, and 2) does no one else see the irony of celebrating this tool as providing this "freedom" when the tool comes from a major corporation that has huge influence (and thus, control) over the internet?

By: empath

empath — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:25:45 -0800

Oh, I get it now. It's okay for *you* to control your experience on *your* computer, but no one else is allowed to have control over anything? Or worse, it's okay for some big corporation to wrest control out of someone's hands? The plugin is hosted on people's browsers and the content is hosted on google's servers. At no point in the process is your property touched. This is no different than Stumbleupon.

By: Houstonian

Houstonian — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:42:16 -0800

I think this will cause legal problems for Google (or make them ensnared in lawsuits), because they are naming themselves as the ultimate arbiters for what remains in a Sidewiki and what is removed. Every time an ex-lover/friend/employee/whatever posts something negative on their former lover's/friend's/employer's website, that person can report it as abuse, but Google decides if it is abuse or not. Every time a Republican/Democrat/Fundamentalist/Atheist/whatever posts their opinions on a website for their opposition, it gets reported as abuse but Google decides. And even when Google chooses wisely, what if they are not able to respond with enough speed? Pornography on a website for children, hate speech that encourages people to kill or injure others, etc., would be removed, but how quickly can they patrol the Internet. I love Google, but I'm not sure I'm comfortable with their self-appointed role in this process.

By: me & my monkey

me & my monkey — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:22:11 -0800

Houstonian, yes, you can block the Google toolbar, but AFAIK, that particular thing blocks google from indexing your site as well, effectively dumping you out of the search engine listings. So you either takes their Sidewiki or you drop off the face of the Internet, because no one will find you. Nice eh? Google Toolbar and Google's crawler have different user agents, so there's no technical reason why you can't block one without blocking the other. Now, thanks to Google, this person can happily graffiti my site with all sorts of things, and there's not a darn thing I can do about it. I can't opt out of Sidewiki, and I can't moderate the comments displayed alongside my site. The absolute best option I have is to create a Google profile, spend oodles of time making comments on other websites, hope I get a good enough reputation, and then make comments on my own site in the hope that the crap gets pushed down 'below the fold.' If you're the site owner, you can use Google Webmaster tools to associate your Google profile with the site, so that your comments are "official" and treated with higher relevance, according to Google's documentation. It is loaded into the same screen on which you view MY site. Thus, it's on my site. Period. Well, no, it isn't loaded into the same "screen". Unless you mean "it's on the same computer screen", in which case, looks like I've dumped a big load of gay porn onto Metafilter! At least on my screen. Mmm, cocks. Anyway, the sidewiki bar appears more as browser chrome - it's not overlaid onto your content, it just uses some of the screen space that may otherwise have been used by your content. It's pretty clear that it's a separate thing. Plus, as an end-user, you have to go through some not-insignificant hoops to make this visible at all. The people who have the ability to do this are not likely to confuse one thing with another. If you don't want people criticizing your content, then ~~provide honest, well-researched, well-cited content~~ don't put it on a public web server. I think this will cause legal problems for Google (or make them ensnared in lawsuits), because they are naming themselves as the ultimate arbiters for what remains in a Sidewiki and what is removed. People do this sort of thing with regular search results all the time, and Google doesn't get involved in these suits. I don't see, from a legal perspective, how this is all that different from registering a yourcompanysucks.com domain and filling it with negative content so that people find my site before yours.

By: wildcrdj

wildcrdj — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:40:03 -0800

Hmm... [frameset][frame]MyStuff[/frame][frame]YourStuff[/frame][/frameset] (<- not actually HTML, I know). Is my stuff on the same "screen" as your stuff? Why, yes it is. This is that, except with a browser extension. Anyone can embed your site in a frame, or build a Firefox plugin that puts their content on top of your site, etc. That's been true for a long, long time.

By: SAC

SAC — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:47:40 -0800

I think this Sidewiki is a horrible idea, but Zinger seems really confused. Zinger, if I have GTalk open on the sidebar, is GTalk now "on your site"? What makes you think the whole of my browser should be dedicated to only one site? This is nothing like Graffiti. This is more like Yelp! except now it's on the browser sidebar. Still, though, the idea is lame.

By: Zinger

Zinger — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:58:57 -0800

The plugin is hosted on people's browsers and the content is hosted on google's servers. At no point in the process is your property touched. This is no different than Stumbleupon. Yes, for crying out loud, it is. The content doesn't load in that plugin until people visit MY site - the URL I bought and paid for and the site I spend time to maintain. Since you have such a hard time seeing how this is problematic, let me make it simple for you. Pretend you have a house and a front yard. Google just stuck a huge billboard on your front lawn - the lawn that you own and work hard to maintain - and you can't remove this sign. You didn't ask for it, you can't get it taken away. People with Google Markers can write anything they damn well please on that sign. And furthermore, you can only see that sign if you install Google's Sign Seer ... so you may not know that someone has written EMPATH IS A WANKER right on your front lawn until you happen to find out that there's this magic sign technology available. But meanwhile, everyone in town has had a great laugh at your expense. Or worse, they wrote EMPATH IS A PEDOPHILE, and now the local police are watching you carefully. If you're the site owner, you can use Google Webmaster tools to associate your Google profile with the site, so that your comments are "official" and treated with higher relevance, according to Google's documentation. Oh good. So Empath would have to sign up for a corporation's proprietary tools, prove he owns his own house, and for this he gets the privilege of making sure "I AM NOT A PEDOPHILE!!" is at the top of this corporation's sign on his front lawn. Again, assuming he figures out the sign is there. If you don't want people criticizing your content, then don't put it on a public web server. Oh come on. This is like saying, well gosh, if you don't like people spraying graffiti all over your nice garden, then you shouldn't have made one for everyone to see!! And anyway, again, I never said I objected to criticism. You're welcome to criticize me all you want - to the extent the law allows - on your website and on your dime. Without the help of Google. I love Google, but I'm not sure I'm comfortable with their self-appointed role in this process. Exactly. On preview: Zinger, if I have GTalk open on the sidebar, is GTalk now "on your site"? No, of course it isn't. Neither is the tab full of gay porn that someone else mentioned above. Or that MS Word app you have open. The difference between the Gtalk open in your browser and the Sidewiki is that the Gtalk content is viewable by you, and you only, and it isn't directly connected to my URL. When you visit my site, the content in Gtalk, or in your gay porn tab, or in your Word doc doesn't change, and it isn't directly linked to my URL. The Sidewiki content is directly linked to my URL -- that's the whole point of the sidewiki, after all. When you visit a site with sidewiki on, you see content linked to that site. It's the difference between buying a copy of a book, and scribbling notes in the margin for your own reference, versus being able to alter the printing equipment such that everyone who ever buys a copy of the book sees your notes in the margin.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:02:26 -0800

Nothing digital will ever be completely controlled by its creator. You are either okay with that or you might want to steer clear of the Internet.

By: SAC

SAC — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:11:13 -0800

Yes, for crying out loud, it is. The content doesn't load in that plugin until people visit MY site - the URL I bought and paid for and the site I spend time to maintain. This is exactly why I brought up the Yelp analogy. Crappy's Pizza down the street bought and paid for their restaurant and sign and name, but Yelp also has every right to serve user reviews of that restaurant. This is tied to your URL in the same way Yelp reviews are tied to the "Crappy's Pizza" name. No one is forcing anything on your property. This really is no different than me reading a review of Crappy's salads while I'm in the restaurant. And maybe it sucks, but yeah, Crappy does have to check Yelp to make sure no one is saying his restaurant has roaches.

By: smackfu

smackfu — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:57:03 -0800

So has anyone started putting notes on people's profile pages yet?

By: Zinger

Zinger — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 22:00:38 -0800

This is exactly why I brought up the Yelp analogy. Crappy's Pizza down the street bought and paid for their restaurant and sign and name, but Yelp also has every right to serve user reviews of that restaurant. This is tied to your URL in the same way Yelp reviews are tied to the "Crappy's Pizza" name. But so far as I know you have go to Yelp and search for a review about a site. I gather that even their toolbar addition is just a search plugin. And that's just fine. To continue the analogy above, if someone wants to search the local newspapers to see if someone has written a letter to the editor declaring that Empath is a wanker, that's fine, and indeed, it's also fine that someone can write into the paper and call Empath (or myself!) a wanker. But that same person does not and should not have the right to put a billboard saying the same thing on Empath's (or my) property. Nothing digital will ever be completely controlled by its creator. You are either okay with that or you might want to steer clear of the Internet. Or... we could make sure that large corporations like Google aren't allowed to become the arbiter of what constitutes "approved" content on sites that don't belong to Google.

By: hAndrew

hAndrew — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 22:01:19 -0800

I am a little taken aback by all the dislike for this idea. As a consumer of web sites, it seems like a good idea to me (if it could be made to work, as in, get it running on many people's browsers). Am I missing something bad about it? Obviously for huge sites like cnn.com or something the wiki might end up containing a load of rubbish. But if someone can annotate a broken old page for a restaurant saying "The new, correct phone number is 555-1234", won't that be great. If people can annotate a journal article's page on the journals website, explaining that equation (2.7) has a typo and you should replace x with p in that equation, won't that be great? I guess content producers will be worried about losing control of the experience of visiting their site... but in my primary role as a consumer of content on the web, I don't really care about their angst, no offense intended. They will deal with it. As a consumer all I care about is that if I want to look at the side wiki then I will, and if I don't then I won't.

By: SAC

SAC — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 22:13:24 -0800

But so far as I know you have go to Yelp and search for a review about a site. This is exactly what's going on... except instead of "going to Yelp", I'm going to Google, and instead of "searching for a review", I'm letting this thing automatically search for me. But that same person does not and should not have the right to put a billboard saying the same thing on Empath's (or my) property. Or... we could make sure that large corporations like Google aren't allowed to become the arbiter of what constitutes "approved" content on sites that don't belong to Google. Again, nothing is being put on your property. I, a user, am choosing to open a separate window that takes data from Google that references other peoples views on the content of your site. This window just happens to be a sidebar.

By: empath

empath — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 22:14:21 -0800

But so far as I know you have go to Yelp and search for a review about a site. Or if you have an iphone, it superimposes reviews over the image of the restaurant. I'm sorry, you just don't have a leg to stand on here. In what way is this different from stumbleupon?

By: Zinger

Zinger — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 22:22:50 -0800

I guess content producers will be justifiably worried about losing control of the experience of visiting their site... but in my primary role as a ~~consumer of content~~ nitwit on the web, I don't really care about their angst, no lots of offense intended. They will deal with it. As a selfish consumer all I care about is that if I want to look at the side wiki then I will, and if I don't then I won't, because I can't see the bigger picture or implications I altered the experience of visiting your comment. Hope you don't mind.

By: SAC

SAC — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 22:33:00 -0800

Zinger, do you see how your version of the comment says, "posted by Zinger" at the bottom? You see how we can all tell the difference and how no one is confused by the two versions? Do you see how the addition of your comment gives a (poor) outline of the issues you have with hAndrew's comment? Now, with this Sidewiki thing, I would only see your comment if I explicitly asked Google to give me those comments. In addition, with the Sidewiki thing, it wouldn't be mixed in with the Metafilter content and would, in fact, be in a whole different frame.

By: hAndrew

hAndrew — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 22:36:55 -0800

Hehe OK good one Zinger. That was pretty funny. You seem to have all engines firing on this topic. It doesn't mean as much to me as (primarily) a consumer of content, and a nitwit, but I will try a rejoinder: You could have really topped it off by signing your altered post hAndrew and trying to make it look like I actually wrote it. And some people would misunderstand and think I did write it. And some people will misunderstand the sidebar wiki and think that the site owner advocates any and all stuff that appears there, and they will be wrong and it will be hard to correct them and that's too bad. But I think what your edit of my post really shows is that that sort of misunderstanding / misrepresentation can and does already happen on the web and there's nothing that can stop it!

By: Zinger

Zinger — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 22:42:30 -0800

Zinger, do you see how your version of the comment says, "posted by Zinger" at the bottom? You see how we can all tell the difference and how no one is confused by the two versions? Quite so. No one was confused because I am not allowed to have a sock puppet account on this site, and I wasn't able to post that under the name hAndriw. In fact, this site seems to have something called moderators, and get this - rules about posting and self-linking, and images! And you have to pay a one time fee to the fellow who had this great idea about a community blog with some measure of control. It's not a free-for-all, and ... call me crazy... but I think that's why it works.

By: Zinger

Zinger — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 22:43:12 -0800

Shoulda previewed - glad you took that in the manner it was intended hAndrew! :)

By: JHarris

JHarris — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 02:54:26 -0800

Let's make this about another site - a humanitarian feed the children aid site. They work hard to provide a good site that helps charitable people donate to a good cause. Google comes along and provides a sidewiki that loads in the same screen. Some jerk decides to post a child porn video link on there, so that's the first thing people with Sidewiki see when they load the site. Maybe some nice people visiting the site take the time to report the link as "abuse" and maybe Google gets around to removing it. If Sidewiki presented itself as being part of the humanitarian site then there would be a problem with that. But I don't think they are doing this. Zinger: "And I understand the desire. But 1) There are other ways of doing this that don't screw over all other webmasters, and 2) does no one else see the irony of celebrating this tool as providing this "freedom" when the tool comes from a major corporation that has huge influence (and thus, control) over the internet?" 1. No one is being screwed over here, so long as Google clearly explains Sidewiki's nature. That could be a problem, but I don't think Google is so stupid as to claim they are affiliated with the sites with Sidewiki pages. 2. Sure it's ironic. But it would be a mistake to reject that aid. Big corporations tend to have vast resources and government access, and they're also known to harness the media in order to muddy issues and make facts difficult to root out from a sea of misinformation, to a degree that large-scale citizen action becomes difficult to organize. There is no reason to reject the aid of another huge corporation in combating that. And honestly, there is probably a little less to worry about with this coming from Google than from, say, Microsoft. Also, influence may be similar to control but it is not the same thing. I think, anyway. And anyway, again, I never said I objected to criticism. You're welcome to criticize me all you want - to the extent the law allows[...] The law places limits on how far someone can be criticized? The difference between the Gtalk open in your browser and the Sidewiki is that the Gtalk content is viewable by you, and you only, and it isn't directly connected to my URL. When you visit my site, the content in Gtalk, or in your gay porn tab, or in your Word doc doesn't change, and it isn't directly linked to my URL. I think I might see the problem we're having here. What if a web page made by Party A were criticized by Party B on their blog? You already said there would be no problem with that. What if Party A linked to Party B's page in question, so they could follow it immediately and see it? I suspect you would not have a problem with that. What if people viewing Party A's site had to perform a Google search for Party B's page? This is how it usually goes down. What Sidewiki provides is, in essence, an automated form of that search. Party A could leave their criticism directly on the Sidewiki page, instead of the user having to actually to search out Party B's site. This is what you find troubling, and I suspect because it takes out the need for readers to be proactive in seeking A's site for information on B's page. The action required by readers would be installing the toolbar, a one-time event, rather than for each page a reader might see. What about a toolbar that, instead, merely performed a Google search automatically for every page you visited and reported the results of that? Would you have a problem with that?

By: Peztopiary

Peztopiary — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 03:29:41 -0800

I'm going to leave out some comments about censorship and stuff, (hey irony) because oh man would I be being all bitter, but I think ultimately the ability to comment on another person's site without having to seek permission is a good thing. Sure it might get misused, but it might actually get used to warn people away from scams that they may not have seen coming. I do think it might frustrate people because it allows other people to create things without working as hard. As an example if I go to mefi.com and link my blog with a comment it would be really annoying for people who thought, rightly, that I was using mefi's popularity to boost my own. On the other hand, the question of whether anyone is actually hurt by such behavior is I think not easily answered. I'm certainly not making mefi any worse, and the only people who are going to see it are the people with Sidewiki on. Which shouldn't be very many people according to the reactions of everyone in this thread. I do hope it catches on though, because I like the idea of posting an honest product review of brand X on the webpage where people go to buy brand X. I can see how brand X would find that annoying, but I can not see why people who aren't brand X would rail against it. Frankly, anything that lets someone attack the source is I think a good thing. Plus it allows me to create Art! I'm totally going to do a paragraph of the Odyssey at every site I visit until I run out of paragraphs/patience.

By: maxwelton

maxwelton — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:34:39 -0800

There is a 5% chance this thing doesn't drown under youtube-y comments and spam anyway. Ultimately, what this is going to be: The death of adsense, to be replaced by site-contextual ads in the adwiki where google is the only benefactor. I run a site about collectibles where I specifically try to engender conversation about the collectibles themselves and not about the owners, in an effort to keep things civil (after all, we're here about the objects, not the people, in this site's case). I have no such control over conversations in this wiki thing, and that could easily spill over as negative consequences for me, personally. The non-techy people who visit my sites will absolutely be unable to distinguish that this thing is separate from my site. They just won't. Hell, most of them don't understand that you can have outlook AND a web browser open. (To be clear, I could give a shit if content in the google sidebar is critical of me personally or of my web design or whatever. BFD. I'm concerned about hurtful conversation about my site users or about user-generated content which might drive people away. Plus I make just enough money from affiliate stuff to pay my hosting. If competitor's links start showing up in the sidebar, right there next to my own, I might as well say fuck it.) I can easily see getting requests from users to moderate or remover comments in the sidebar. What do you think they'll have to say when I try to explain that it isn't mine? What happens to my site when people ask me to remove content not based on anything that is happening in the realm I control?

By: ixohoxi

ixohoxi — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 06:20:31 -0800

A lot of you are assuming that this thing will fill up with spam and idiocy and self-links—and if it's nothing more than a box where anyone can type whatever they want, you're probably right. But is that what's happened to Wikipedia? Of course not. Because, through trial and error and a lot of discussion among their users, they've devised a very comprehensive set of policies, and a set of mechanisms to enforce those policies. It's not perfect, but at least the most egregious offenses (e.g., vandalism) get corrected almost instantly. Uncited and dubious claims are marked as such. In most instances, both the cases for and against an idea are presented. There's remarkably little editorializing and self-linking. It has its flaws, but on the whole, it's worked out far better than most people would have imagined. It's not that people can't post YouTube-style drivel on Wikipedia; it's that you and I can delete or correct the drivel when we see it. So I'm curious: would the haters still hate Sidewiki if its contents were comparable in quality to Wikipedia? I'm not saying that it will be—I kind of doubt it, and in any case I haven't looked at their policies and policy-enforcement system to see whether it looks viable. But, if they could find a way to do this without the toolbar, and if they can find a good policy balance like Wikipedia has, it might actually work. Even in a best-case scenario, though, some entries would undoubtedly be better or just plain more useful than others. Wikipedia is big, but the web as a whole is even bigger, and there are corners that are simply never visited by the kinds of people that can make meaningful contributions to a wiki entry. Maybe someone will take the time to annotate the chemtrail conspiracy sites with refuting citations—and to monitor the entry to make sure the chemtrail people don't remove those citations—or maybe those wiki entries will simply turn into self-validating propaganda written by and for the chemtrail people. It's hard to say. Wikipedia's entry on chemtrails is good, but would the same thing happen when the wiki is fragmented across the entire web?

By: ixohoxi

ixohoxi — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 06:21:12 -0800

I can easily see getting requests from users to moderate or remover comments in the sidebar. Dude, the people who are smart enough to install the sidebar in the first place are smart enough to understand what it is, and to understand that you have no control over it.

By: Zinger

Zinger — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 06:27:20 -0800

Plus it allows me to create Art! I'm totally going to do a paragraph of the Odyssey at every site I visit until I run out of paragraphs/patience. Right. You'd do art. But some very determined people would do, say, birther posts, on every site they visit. Including on Obama's own website. And they do posing as Democrats. So after a while, it looks like there might actually be something to this birth certificate question. After all, even when I visit the Democratic site, it's right there too! You want Google to be the arbiter of elections now? Other people, like say the seriously underemployed Kirk Cameron, would do creationist posts everywhere. For instance, my site has absolutely nothing to do with creationism or evolution. Do I want to lose my audience because someone has started a major C vs E flamewar in the sidewiki for my site? I have a site that I make sure is family friendly. Do I want to offend people because Google has allowed anybody to post adult content in the sidewiki for my site? What Sidewiki provides is, in essence, an automated form of that search. Party A could leave their criticism directly on the Sidewiki page, instead of the user having to actually to search out Party B's site. This is what you find troubling, and I suspect because it takes out the need for readers to be proactive in seeking A's site for information on B's page. It's not just that they can post criticism. It's that they can post anything. It not only takes out the need for readers to be proactive in seeking A's site for information on B's page, its that it allows anyone to be a jerk right there next to B's page. Since the lawn billboard thing doesn't seem to be gaining much traction with the pro sidewiki crowd (what, you're all apartment dwellers?) how's this one: Just out of Google Labs: DNAWiki. Now you can annotate people! Anyone can post content specifically associated with your DNA code, and it automatically loads for everyone to see right in the wiki. And because the Interwebs is full of such nice people, one of the first things to be posted in your DNAWiki is a big, fat picture of Goatse. And, because the content on this Wiki is governed by an algorithm, and the actual code behind the post says to the algorithm says "This person is so nice, they donate goats to the needy in Africa" the algorithm sees nothing wrong with the post and leaves it there, in spite of all the times you have hit the report abuse button. So now, every time you post something on the internet, every time you say something to your boss, every time you say something to your wife, the very first thing they see in association with you is... goatse. But hey, that's okay, because your boss is intelligent, right? And constant association with goatse couldn't possibly have an affect on how people perceive you, right? Because it's just there beside you, and not, you know, tattooed on your forehead. And at the moment, only people with glasses can see it. Although there's talk of some sort of fix that would allow everyone to see it. And maybe turning it into some sort of overlay so it it would be projected on to you, instead of being just beside you. But that hasn't happened yet, so it's probably okay. Right? Oh, and the second post on your DNAWiki is from me. It says, "how do you like them apples?"

By: smackfu

smackfu — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 06:28:57 -0800

I'm on Zinger's side in this. Awful idea, and I would hate it as a content producer. If I don't want comments, I don't want comments, Google.

By: johnny novak

johnny novak — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 06:43:21 -0800

Google is little more than a giant advertising company. Sidewiki is a way to serve ads on every page on the whole of the internet without the creator's permission. How long do you think it will be before they start serving ads on Sidewiki?

By: grapefruitmoon

grapefruitmoon — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 06:47:07 -0800

But, but... nobody comments on my blog anyway! You mean I now have another forum through which I am ignored?! *sobs*

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 07:21:44 -0800

Have you actually tried the service, Zinger, before assuming that sites are going to be inundated with spammers, sock puppets, and birthers? I've been playing with it for about 12 hours now, and it has a voting system that pushes stupid comments off the front page and further and further toward the back of the comment queue, and also allows people to flag comments as spam, and flag them in other ways. The comments the pop up immediately for Twitter, for instance, aren't all useful, although some are. I saw a single spam message yesterday, flagged it, and it's already gone.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 07:25:14 -0800

Sidewiki is a way to serve ads on every page on the whole of the internet without the creator's permission. That hasn't happened, but even if it does, this is a side panel that users are choosing to open. If they don't like the ads, they can shut it again. No revenue is being taken away from the original Web owner. It's rather annoying that people are acting like Google is putting something on their property without permission. That's a bad metaphor, doesn't relate to how Web browsers actually work, and behaves as though the user of a Web page should have no say in the way they want to experience the Web, which is precisely the opposite of what seems to work best on the Web.

By: Peztopiary

Peztopiary — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 07:41:10 -0800

If they created DNAwiki I would sign up on the spot. Even better, in your scenario I wouldn't have to sign up, the Google would just do it automatically. Convenient! Your scenario implies that because people are abusive assholes, (actually it isn't even that, since except for this specific case where someone has a grudge against me, the odds of me getting randomly goatse'd in a way that didn't leave every one else in the same boat, (ie. mass goatse DNAwiki spam), are low), so actually because the potential for people to be abusive assholes exists we should all be denied cool things. Nuts to that. Ban the people not the tools. Having played with the thing for a bit, it doesn't let you post images as far as I can tell. Also, I'm doing the Iliad not the Odyssey, and even in paragraph form the Iliad takes up lots of room. So the odds of me being a "useful" contributor to a site are actually fairly small, since you can downvote comments and most people are unlikely to want to read a giant chunk of text. I think the future implications of this are something that we are going to have to deal with at some point regardless. The ability to look at a tube of Crest and know the most common tags assigned to it is probably a ways off, but it is coming. Why not go all the way, and make it so I can get consumer reviews of the product? Better, why not make it so I can just get the negative ones? Know a thing by those who hate it and all. Those glasses you mentioned? Is that meant to be scary? Because I want a pair.

By: Zinger

Zinger — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 07:41:55 -0800

I saw a single spam message yesterday That didn't take long to start appearing, did it? And how did it get past Google's content policy algorithm in the first place? flagged it Yes, it took your intervention to make it go away. Thus it creates more work for the site owner that they didn't ask for. No revenue is being taken away from the original Web owner. Sidewiki isn't posting ads yet, but it's likely only a matter of time. And yes, it would be taking money away from the site owner. Google serves ads based on nearby content. If I run a site that sells widgets, do I want the content on my site to trigger ads for my competitors in a sidewiki? Even if I don't run an ecommerce site, this would allow Google to make money from my web property without my permission. You okay with Pfizer sticking a huge billboard up on your lawn? Would you be okay with Microsoft slapping an ad on your nicely restored 1950s Mustang? How about an ad supporting [pick the political party you hate] all over your porch? It's rather annoying that people are acting like Google is putting something on their property without permission. It's rather annoying that people supporting the Sidewiki talk ONLY in terms about how THEY want to experience the Internet, without a thought to how this might affect the people who actually produce the content you enjoy consuming so much. And it's a double standard to boot. It's okay for you to control things, but not okay for anyone else?

By: xjudson

xjudson — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 07:41:58 -0800

And Starbucks has just introduced their version of instant coffee...it instant sucks to.

By: ODiV

ODiV — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 07:49:37 -0800

Zinger: I think it's a horrible idea and disagree with you that this is Google putting something on your site. Even if I don't run an ecommerce site, this would allow Google to make money from my web property without my permission. I thought this is what they do anyway. You okay with Pfizer sticking a huge billboard up on your lawn? Would you be okay with Microsoft slapping an ad on your nicely restored 1950s Mustang? How about an ad supporting [pick the political party you hate] all over your porch? No, I would not be okay with these things. Would you have a problem with glasses people could buy that would put a HUD over their vision (Gibson, eat your heart out)? What if this HUD included ads covering your lawn, Mustang, and porch?

By: nax

nax — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:02:48 -0800

All I can say is, I used to understand the basic construction of my world; I knew how stuff worked. At this point the complexity and ingenuity of the web has gotten away from me, like an immigrant grandmother who thinks she has learned the new language only to be confronted by her grandchild's new friend's greeting, the incomprehensible "yo, wassup?" This is because I am old. Carry on.

By: Peztopiary

Peztopiary — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:12:56 -0800

Nah nax it isn't old that does it. It is basic complexity. As things speed up we need to find ways to deal with it. One of those ways is not dealing with it, shrugging our shoulders and carrying on in the older ways. It works very well, and isn't at all a bad way to do things. If you never use this service, you probably won't miss anything, (besides Art!). It just seems like trying to say that this is a type of service that shouldn't exist is needlessly reactionary.

By: hippybear

hippybear — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:15:04 -0800

So, basically, the Sidewiki is like an irc channel which follows the users who choose to use it from site to site and allows commenting and conversation? I bet nobody bothers to even log in.

By: Alterscape

Alterscape — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:53:14 -0800

I suspect that this will end well. Except for the part where it doesn't. It does fit with the larger strategy of back-channel communications they've been pursuing (e.g.: "like," "share," "comment," etc, in Google Reader, for example). I use Reader, and neither I nor any of my contacts really use either of those features more than rarely, since if I bother to comment at all, it's usually on the actual blog posts. I can sort of see a case for functionality to flag posts that your contacts have already commented on on the actual site in Reader, but that's still a bit too echo-chamber-y for my tastes. And this just seems like that, only even more useless.

By: xthlc

xthlc — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:56:27 -0800

Many people in this thread seem to be giving this the full plate-of-beans treatment. Rest assured: content producers don't have to worry, because nobody is going to use Sidewiki for longer than 5 minutes I'm actually not hating on Google for this. I'm just bemused. It's a Labs project so I doubt there's really a serious effort on Google's part behind this; it's just some oblivious hacker's pet project that will wither on the vine in a few months. No, if Google were making a commitment to Sidewiki, they'd have people on the project who were cognizant of the many, many times this has been done before and would be trying to succeed where others had failed. They'd have a protocol and open API, include deep browser integration with Chrome, lean hard on mozilla.org to make it a default Firefox feature, and include the ability to discover other Sidewiki content (e.g. on the same domain, or using Google's related pages info). Then, maybe, you'd have reason to freak out.

By: Zinger

Zinger — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:11:19 -0800

Would you have a problem with glasses people could buy that would put a HUD over their vision (Gibson, eat your heart out)? What if this HUD included ads covering your lawn, Mustang, and porch? Yes, I'd still have a problem with that. What if I were a dyed in the wool Republican, but the Democrats bought HUD ads for my house, so that every time anyone looked at my house, they got Democratic ads? What if I were an atheist, and the HUD showed ads for the Southern Baptist Church, and these ads were worded in such a way that it seemed like I endorsed them? What if your government used it to post ads - or to get back to the current situation, comments - on your site or your house (and everyone else's) that suggested that you and everyone else supported proposition X, when really you don't? so actually because the potential for people to be abusive assholes exists we should all be denied cool things. Nuts to that. Ban the people not the tools. And if I, not Google, had the power to ban the assholes on the sidewiki for my URL, or if I was just given the option to opt out, I'd be fine with this. But I don't, and I can't. That's the problem. I am constantly amazed at how much people are willing to give up just for the chance that a tool might allow them to find a $1 off a toaster, or help them avoid eating mediocre pizza.

By: Artw

Artw — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:11:51 -0800

content producers don't have to worry, because nobody is going to use Sidewiki for longer than 5 minutes Basically. Though the worst case is you'll end up having to patrol something that looks like it's associated with you for links to donkeydick.com, the best and most likely case is everyone but the owners of donkeydick.com will ignore the thing and you won't have to bother. Sadly there's no other case where it's useful or an improvement or anything.

By: adipocere

adipocere — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:23:24 -0800

I don't think analogies work particularly well here — this is a (relatively) new thing. About the closest analogy I could come up with would be a heads-up display which, yes, displayed things, but displayed them as attached to my property. It isn't exactly like graffiti and it isn't exactly like a Zagat's guide and it isn't exactly like a covert channel. We have nothing in the physical world which is like this. I think the main, hard to articulate objection is that SideWiki, for those who have it going, appears to be integrated with the site owner's content, yet the owner has little control over it. The "information" presented need not be accurate; we must count upon some ill-defined mechanisms to fix this. See email, see craigslist personal ads, see five seconds after you turn on comments in your blog. Imagine, if you will, that every time you appeared in public, people wearing a special set of spectacles could see, scrolling across your forehead, various things about you. It might be your email address, it might be malicious gossip. It might be a video of you when you were drunk five years ago, in private, with friends. It might be VISIT GOLDENPALACE.COM. While it would not bother some folks, it would irritate the heck out of others.

By: Artw

Artw — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:24:54 -0800

It's like an invisible crack alley full of junkies on the side of your house, but people only see it if they have magic glasses! NO PROBLEM!

By: Sys Rq

Sys Rq — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:45:33 -0800

MetaFilter: It's like an invisible crack alley full of junkies on the side of your house, but people only see it if they have magic glasses!

By: Sys Rq

Sys Rq — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:46:49 -0800

What are all those junkies doing in that crack alley, though?

By: empath

empath — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:49:17 -0800

Nobody has ever answered my question about how this is any different from stumbleupon, which also superimposes content on sites and lets people leave comments about them.

By: Artw

Artw — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 10:05:01 -0800

Stumbledupon is more like a crack alley you can go to and see a picture of your house, and homeless mental patients have scribbled on it. Then someone stabs you with a needle.

By: Sys Rq

Sys Rq — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 10:05:01 -0800

empath: Like I said upthread, the difference is that StumbleUpon also does other things. Like, for instance, that thing in its name. So, yeah, it's the same, only worse. There's no threat here. Hell, there's no story here, except Google's impending backslide.

By: Zinger

Zinger — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 10:08:06 -0800

Nobody has ever answered my question about how this is any different from stumbleupon, which also superimposes content on sites and lets people leave comments about them. Because it doesn't superimpose content on sites. It puts a bar at the top of your browser window, and if you click the little speech bubble button it takes you back to the StumbleUpon site where you read reviews of the site in question. And while I'm not fond of the bar that appears at the top of my site, there is a great deal more separation between StumbleUpon and me. (And techies help me here, can you prevent the bar from appearing if you want? Frame busting code?).

By: Artw

Artw — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 10:09:04 -0800

I think the important thing here is that no one actually gives a shit about stumbled upon.

By: boo_radley

boo_radley — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 10:53:46 -0800

Sys Rq: "MetaFilter: It's like an invisible crack alley full of junkies on the side of your house, but people only see it if they have magic glasses!" YER A METH-HEAD, 'ARRY!

By: GuyZero

GuyZero — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 11:27:46 -0800

Dear "Tafty Tafters", Your bill for $5 is in the mail.

By: maxwelton

maxwelton — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 11:55:50 -0800

In the hobby where I fumble around with web sites, there are good businesses and bad businesses. The bad businesses are extremely litigious. Friends were served papers because a web forum they ran had a thread titled "help us choose a shop to work on this." Along with endorsements, there were (to my eye) some relatively mild comments saying "avoid Joe's." Joe sued. It took real time and real money to resolve that lawsuit. Even if you think Joe's doesn't have a real chance in court, it takes a lot of money to get to that day, and one thing I've learned about the Joe's Crappy Businesses of this world, they have no trouble spending their money on this sort of shit. I have to stamp out those sort of comments on my own sites (people are allowed to post things like "I had an bad experience with a well-known supplier, email for details" but that's as far as it can go). So if derogatory (deserved!) comments about a particular business start appearing in a sidewiki, I'm doomed. Me: "But it's not on my site!" Two-bit lawyer: "Yeah, but if your site wasn't there, the comment wouldn't be there. Therefore it's your problem." It doesn't matter if a court would throw it out or not; just a visit to a lawyer to send a reply is enough to wipe out my "hobby site operating fund." One other thing: I don't build obnoxiously wide web sites, but I show lots of "large" photos and the sites I do build take full advantage of 1024-pixel screens. If somebody is using this sidewiki on an older display (and there are still a huge percentage of people who use them) I assume they now see a horizontal scroll bar on my sites?

By: julen

julen — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:01:48 -0800

For me, the difference between StumbledUpon and Sidewiki is partially positioning: StumbledUpon presents itself as a community of reviewers who have a well-defined set of rules and guidelines and who produce annotated, reviewed and/or tagged links. For the site consumer, those comments and reviews (beyond the larger "here's something interesting/infuriating/pretty/whatever to stumble upon) are associated with the original content but not visually coupled with it, and it's clear that the StumbledUpon content is a review/commentary/appreciation (by the fact that you click to get to it). There isn't a lot of the fact-checking/extending that Sidewiki promises and consumer review sites can also offer. Google is positioning Sidewiki as a crowd-sourcing service as an informational add-on that has a "wiki-level" knowledge authority, and visually coupling that content with the content provided by the page owner/author - and placing crowd-generated content within the window in the first-read spot. Although their examples all include experts providing useful (sometimes multi-paragraph long) content in the sidewiki, actual usage will vary from straight guestbook-like activity ("awesome site!" "you suck!" "great site!" "interesting." "that guy up there doesn't know what he's talking about." "dude, I don't know what to say, good job?" "heh heh heh, boobies!") to the ideal informational activity ("this restaurant isn't actually open on Sundays anymore, but they're open until midnight every other day now") to well-meaning but inaccurate information ("Interesting page! Did you know that Thomas Jefferson also delivered a stirring speech in 1770 in which he proclaimed 'Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!' That's how I always envision him!") With wikipedia and other wikis and notes posted on the original content site, there's a mechanism to fix the two "facts" that are wrong in that last statement. With sidewiki, Google is going to let us crowdsource that information up/down the page, assuming that there's a crowd - and there's a crowd who will participate in marking it (not) useful. So it could sit there for a while, being misleading. For me, stumbleupon is great because any amendments to original content is done in a strong sense of individual review ("that page sucks because it suppresses any mention of the aliens who built the pyramids; the evidence is very clear that they used giant pincers; that's why the corners on the blocks are rounded." or "this page is missing the most interesting site dealing with egyptian archaeology on the web: [link]) as opposed to a sense of additional information that we are supposed to get with Sidewiki. (Their model paves the path to "See Also: this website [link] that reveals shocking new evidence about how the pyramids were built. It's AWESOME. You must read this."). With Sidewiki, some of the viewers may infer an approval of the content that is displayed on the screen coupled with the original content; that mistake is harder to make with stumbleupon, which tells you there are comments associated with the page, but you click to see them. As someone who put a lot of work into a hand-selected, carefully annotated web index, the idea that I could carefully choose not to point people towards a resource I find to be bad science, based on wishful thinking and subtle biases, and which has no logic, knowledge, or understanding underpinning it, and then have someone come along and attach that link to my carefully researched and honed page was frustrating. A teacher who points her kids to that page may not realize that some parents have installed sidewiki; the kid who comes in with a paper about aliens and pyramids will say "I got the information from that page you sent us to, so why am I getting this D-?" I agree that this will probably go nowhere: I've worked on social bookmarking and search in the past, but there is a lot about sidewiki that makes me think there hasn't been a lot of research into the space and some key considerations on this project. The fact that it will probably shrivel into dust, however, doesn't mean that it's not worthwhile to point out the issues.

By: julen

julen — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:11:23 -0800

Whoops! Even though I keep calling it StumbledUpon in that post, I know it's StumbleUpon. Yeesh.

By: haveanicesummer

haveanicesummer — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:05:49 -0800

SideWiki is worth it just for the hilarious hijackings that will take place a la Three Wolf Moon.

By: mock

mock — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:12:00 -0800

This is going to be great! Google has nice deep pockets, and American companies are already notoriously litigious, so I imagine that the defamation lawsuits will completely revitalize the legal industry. I hear that law firms have been having troubles with the economy and all, so this could really help them recover. Just think about how awesome this will be when every time someone posts a big ol' picture of some cock on the sidewiki for your family friendly business you can sign yourself up for some of that "loss of business due to defamation" Google money. And that even ignores the possibilities of getting the trademark people in on it...

By: zachlipton

zachlipton — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:49:48 -0800

So the internet is a wonderfully democratizing innovation as long as I can only comment on websites that permit commenting and subject to their policies and whims? I agree, there is a big problem here with bifurcating discussions, but that only applies to the rather small percentage of websites that already allow comments and don't censor all the negative ones. We happen to care about that issue because we tend to hang on out one such site, but are we seriously calling it evil to give people another forum in which to express their views? Now I doubt this will fare particularly better than any of its many competitors from the past 15+ years, but really people, evil is a darn strong word to throw around when it comes to the promotion of free expression.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:50:33 -0800

What are all those junkies doing in that crack alley, though? One is led to assume crack.

By: Artw

Artw — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:55:14 -0800

You can't just go assuming they're doing crack constantly. Some of them may be turning tricks. Or on the nod after giving some H a try. Or having an interesting and informed debate regarding the contents of your house. You can't just discredit them because they're junkies.

By: robertc

robertc — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:02:14 -0800

No, if Google were making a commitment to Sidewiki, they'd ... have a protocol and open API Protocol, Javascript API, Java API. No integration into Chrome, mind you, but there are a couple of bookmarklets already.

By: SAC

SAC — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:08:52 -0800

maxwelton: One other thing: I don't build obnoxiously wide web sites, but I show lots of "large" photos and the sites I do build take full advantage of 1024-pixel screens. If somebody is using this sidewiki on an older display (and there are still a huge percentage of people who use them) I assume they now see a horizontal scroll bar on my sites? Zinger: And techies help me here, can you prevent the bar from appearing if you want? Frame busting code? I don't know if you guys understand the implications of what you're arguing. Do you really think that the site I visit should dictate how I chose to view that site? If I don't allow a site to resize my browser, am I harming the content provider? What if I force all text to a specific font and size? In both cases, I'm setting MY browser to show me sites the way I want it to. Zinger: Because [StumbleUpon]doesn't superimpose content on sites. It puts a bar at the top of your browser window, and if you click the little speech bubble button it takes you back to the StumbleUpon site where you read reviews of the site in question. Sidewiki is a button on the Google Toolbar. If I want to see the sidebar, I click that button. When I go to another site, the sidebar goes away until I click it. You clearly haven't even tried it, but you seem more than willing to trash it regardless. This is not something I will use, and it's not something I think is a good idea, but the arguments that it's somehow infringing on content providers seems insane.

By: Zinger

Zinger — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:41:33 -0800

I don't know if you guys understand the implications of what you're arguing. Do you really think that the site I visit should dictate how I chose to view that site? If I don't allow a site to resize my browser, am I harming the content provider? What if I force all text to a specific font and size? In both cases, I'm setting MY browser to show me sites the way I want it to. SAC, please read the thread before posting arguments that have already been addressed. You want to make all the text on my site in your browser pink, go nuts. You want to zoom the text to 300% in your browser, knock yourself out. You want to change how everyone ELSE perceives my content, that's when I get annoyed. See comment above about annotating a book vs altering the printing press. You clearly haven't even tried it, but you seem more than willing to trash it regardless. Don't make presumptions about what I have and haven't done. In fact I have tried it - I installed it as soon as I heard about it, and I know exactly how it works. And I know that while it gives you the choice of viewing or not viewing the content, it doesn't give me the choice of whether or not it is directly associated with my URL. Also see comments above about a double standard with respect to 'control' of an experience.

By: SAC

SAC — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:07:30 -0800

Again: Because it doesn't superimpose content on sites. It puts a bar at the top of your browser window, and if you click the little speech bubble button it takes you back to the StumbleUpon site where you read reviews of the site in question. If you have tied out Sidewiki, are you then saying that your objection is that instead of opening a separate tab, it opens the sidebar? Because Sidewiki does not superimpose content on sites. It opens a sidebar instead of a tab. Is that distinction your issue? You want to change how everyone ELSE perceives my content No. I want to talk to other people about a given site. I'm not changing how anyone else perceives your content. I'm opening a separate service and talking about the site. Just like stumbleupon. Just like Yelp.

By: Zinger

Zinger — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:55:47 -0800

SAC, please read the thread. I've already answered this and all the other counterarguments above.

By: empath

empath — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:41:57 -0800

See comment above about annotating a book vs altering the printing press. Zinger, we all understand that this project annoys you. You don't need to keep restating the fact. Let's stop tossing around analogies, because the ones you've used don't apply. You've stated a number of things in this thread that are simply not true, and people have attempted to respond to you to say that it's not so, and you've ignored them repeatedly. So I'm going to start from scratch and take this very slowly, with the hope that it will sink in. It's web graffiti, and I don't appreciate google or any other company finding new and fun ways to allow people to spray it all over my site. I'm going to ignore all of your analogies, because analogies only simplify understanding when they are actually analogous, but you're just using them to confuse the issue. And it may be that you just don't understand the technical meanings of the terms that you are throwing around and misunderstand how the internet works and how it was designed. First, let's define what a website is, and what you actually own about it. I'll use one of the examples from your projects page. You purchased a domain name from DomainsAtCost Corporation. When you purchase a domain name, that simply creates an entry in a database. The database includes a lot of useful information, including personal information about the registrant, but most importantly for our purposes, it includes a pair of entries for "Name Servers." When someone makes a request to see your site, a whois lookup generates the correct name server that a DNS client needs to find the IP address to contact to send requests to that domain -- email, web, ftp, what have you. Once you've registered a domain, you need to purchase some sort of hosting solution or create your own server. I'll just pretend that you've created your own server. When a client makes a request to your webserver, what is happening is their client software sends a DNS request which gets directed to name server that you configured when you registered your domain name. The name server then responds to the request with the IP address of your webserver. The client may or may not use that information to send a request to your webserver for a file. In response to a request for a file (usually index.html if someone is simply trying to go to your 'homepage'), your webserver generally sends a file. The file will generally be a text file. The text file will include sometimes markup that includes a markup language called HTML. It may also be a flat text file. It may be an image file, it may be a flash file. It can be anything. From the point of view of your webserver, and from the point of view of web standards, it absolutely doesn't matter how that information is used on the client, and you have no right to determine that, no matter how much time you've spent in 'designing' your site. The client might display it using a modern web-browser which renders it correctly. The client may be using a command line browser like links which doesn't display images. The client may be using an old web-broswer which doesn''t display modern HTML correctly. The client may block ads or javascript or flash from loading. The client may use client-side scripting like greasemonkey to alter the contents of the site, The client might aggregate content from your 'what does that mean' site with information from (for example) answers.com and display that in a page. The client may be viewing it a frame, like in stumble upon. The client may not even be using a web-browser and might be downloading all your files to his hard drive to keep as a copy. The client might be using a screen-reader for the visually impaired. The client may be a bot that's simply scraping particular content from your site. The client might be using a third party plug-in that gives information about your site -- such as google page rank. The client might be viewing it next to another website which makes comments about your website. None of those things do you have any control over, nor should you. Nothing google has done with this project has changed one whit how your website operates. You still control which name server that requests to your domain go to, and you still control how your webserver responds to requests. Those are the only rights that owning a website has ever given you. It's allowing any schmoe to put any ol' thing on my site for EVERYONE to view It's not putting anything 'on' your site. Your webserver has not been modified in any way, nor has your domain name registration. Nothing which you own has been modified. Now, thanks to Google, this person can happily graffiti my site with all sorts of things, and there's not a darn thing I can do about it. Technically, it will be graffitti'ing people's web browsers that happen to be looking at your site, who happen to have side wiki open, and they can choose whether to look at it or not. Now, thanks to Google, this person can happily graffiti my site with all sorts of things, and there's not a darn thing I can do about it. I can't opt out of Sidewiki, and I can't moderate the comments displayed alongside my site. Well, this is interesting. Let's take another look at how the internet works. Sidewiki requests come from a web browser (which you don't own) and go to domain name called google.com, which Google happens to own (and you also don't own). Requests to google.com go to webservers, which Google happens to own (and you don't happen to own). When someone makes a request to download a sidewiki for any particular site, Google determines which file gets sent in response to that request. You are proposing that you should have the right to 'graffiti' the information that Google provides in response to requests to a domain name which it owns simply because the content happens to be about your website? I think i'm just going to stop here, because I think if I correct every misstatement you've made in this thread, it'll just distract from the core issue, which is that you don't actually know what rights you actually have as a website owner.

By: Zinger

Zinger — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 06:36:21 -0800

Zinger, we all understand that this project annoys you. You don't need to keep restating the fact. Let's stop tossing around analogies, because the ones you've used don't apply. You've stated a number of things in this thread that are simply not true, and people have attempted to respond to you to say that it's not so, and you've ignored them repeatedly. So I'm going to start from scratch and take this very slowly, with the hope that it will sink in. Empath, I repeated that statement simply because SAC was asking questions that I'd already covered, and clearly hadn't read the thread. I was pointing him to an earlier post. Nothing I have stated in this thread is untrue, and I haven't ignored anyone. In fact, I even came back to specifically address your StumbleUpon question, even though I'd felt I'd already said my piece on the subject. As for your long and patronizing "explanation" of the Internet, gosh, thanks for that. Given that I've been using the "Internet" ever since it consisted of Compuserve, monochrome monitors and BBSs, all of that was a complete revelation. And thank you for repeatedly ignoring the statements I made to the effect that I have no objection to people changing the way they view my content in their browser; the problem I have is with people changing the way everyone *else* views what I have produced. Thanks also for ignoring the statements I made about your double standard on this, which was that it's apparently okay for you to demand control over your experience, but not okay for anyone else to have any control over anything. And thanks for ignoring everyone else's comments pointing out how the sidewiki affects this site, which works because the originator exercises content control. Tell you what, why don't you go spend six months putting together a carefully constructed, thoroughly researched, heavily annotated reference site on... I don't know, grasshoppers or something, whatever turns your crank... write lots of original content, spend time and money advertising and promoting it. Then find out that the sidewiki you can't opt out of on your URL of has lots of comments pointing users to complete crap and untruths about your favourite subject, and/or has advertisements -- triggered by the content you wrote -- for your 'competitors', and/or that some clever bunny in Russia or China has taken your original content and plonked it on dummy blogs - without even any attribution, and is using it to sell Viagra. Do the math and learn that while Google is up $3000 and the Chinese bloggers using your stuff are up $5000, you're -$10,000 and six months of your life. Then, and only then, come back to this thread and tell us what you think about what content producers should and shouldn't feel.

By: robertc

robertc — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:54:08 -0800

and/or that some clever bunny in Russia or China has taken your original content and plonked it on dummy blogs Since those ingenious asians and east europeans could already do this to your website before SideWiki came along, and this didn't stop you putting up websites, I'm not sure how this is even relevant? ...Then find out that the sidewiki you can't opt out of on your URL of has lots of comments pointing users to complete crap and untruths about your favourite subject, and/or has advertisements -- triggered by the content you wrote Has anyone had this happen to them yet? Have you? If this is the bar to be crossed in order to comment on the issue, why do you keep repeating yourself? People commenting on your content, whether through an interactive element you've provided on site, through their own blog, or on Reddit, Metafilter or SideWiki, is a good thing, because it shows they care enough about whatever you care about to spend the time commenting. Even if those people are sadly misinformed, it is an opportunity for you to communicate with them on an issue you both care about. The web is not broadcast television, you don't have absolute control over it just because you're a content producer, most people like it that way.

By: empath

empath — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:47:52 -0800

If you want to see how sidewiki is actually being used, go here. People want to get invites to the Google Wave beta, and they're commenting on the sidewiki of the Wave page sharing what information they know about the invites that are supposedly going out today. I supposed Google didn't allow comments on that page as it was originally designed for a reason, but it doesn't hurt the page to have those comments there now, and it was useful information for me.

By: artifarce

artifarce — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:43:28 -0800

Since charities were mentioned, I'm a volunteer social media director for a nonprofit, and am actually excited to see how sidewiki sidelines into my job, if it gets enough off the ground for that. I already track and monitor traffic about my org on sites that range from partially out of my control (e.g., as an admin on Facebook) to completely out of my control (reviews on VolunteerMatch). Given the nature and content of my org (uncontroversial, a feel-good cause), it's more likely that someone will post something positive (or in the very least, informative) in the sidewiki than "kiddy porn" or "links to my competitor". Half my job is just getting someone to even NOTICE my org online and go slightly out of their way to give props, so the potential for positive feedback that's almost immediately visible with my website outweighs the chance for anything negative.