Through all of this AutoLink
discussion, the thing that strikes me the most is how unfortunate and inaccurate the term “AutoLink” really is. The whole point is that the feature isn’t auto at all – it’s on-demand only. Automatic linking of content without user intervention – that would clearly be on the other (that is to say wrong) side of the line. That was the problem with Smart Tags, for sure. In that case the user didn’t actually have to do anything once it was configured the first time. AutoLinks, on the other hand, don’t do anything until the user specifically requests it to be done – just as is the case with online translation services or any of the other tools that are available for users to interpret stuff on the web.
I wonder if the conversation would have been different had Google chosen a more descriptive name for the feature?
The author of a site called
Plenty of Cowbell (I think his name is Roger) is, “very troubled by [Cory Doctorow’s] recent post defending the auto link features in the google toolbar.” He provides a screenshot to demonstrate why he thinks Cory should be against it – a screenshot of his Easter Standard Tribe news page.
The page doesn’t come close to making the case that the Auto Link stuff is “Evil” though! Sure, in the screenshot the ISBN has been made into a link. But the mouseover text clearly indicates that it is a link that was added by the Google Toolbar, and he (or any user) had to click a clearly-marked button to make anything happen in the first place.
Roger goes on to write, “Was it your intention when you made your book Eastern Standard Tribe available as a DRM-free download for anyone who wanted it, that google would make money from YOU?” The problem is that NOTHING in the AutoLink provided by Google does anything of the sort. First of all, there is no evidence that Google has any intentions of making money of the link. Secondly, the DRM-Free version of the book is still available, and just as easily as before. The AutoLink has not in any way prevented anyone from going to get it – in fact, the link to the free versions is WAY more prominent than the little AutoLink.
If anything, this screenshot proves that AutoLink is in fact NOT a threat to someone like Cory. In fact, the unhindered availability of the DRM-free versions are likely the very reason Cory supports the AutoLink feature – he has been absolutely consistent about the fact the user should have the freedom to do what they will with digital content they have received through legal means.
For me, alarmist posts like the one Roger made, with his big red “Evil” scribbling on the screenshot, are part of the problem not the solution. I and others who have no problem with AutoLink know very well the difference between user-controlled AutoLinks and not-user-controlled Smart Tags. So quit with the alarmist rhetorical posturing and make the case. Cause it hasn’t been made yet, by anyone.
In the past week or so
Google has created a big stir among the webtelligentsia by releasing a beta of Version 3 of the Google Toolbar. The issue? Google has added an AutoLink feature that, on command, adds links related to certain kinds of information on the page. Many people have noted that AutoLink looks a lot like the Microsoft Smart Tags “feature” that was introduced, and then withdrawn (with some exceptions), in 2001.
At the time I was solidly against Smart Tags. I wrote, “To link or not to link, and to what, is an editorial decision, period. And the decision to do so rests with the people involved in the editorial process, and nowhere else.”
For some reason, though, I’m having trouble getting quite that upset by AutoLink. So the question for me, really, is why that might be. What are the key differences between AutoLink and Smart Tags that make the difference?
First, AutoLink doesn’t “just happen” – a user has to first download and install the Toolbar, and then click on a button to make anything happen. Smart Tags, as I understood them in their original form, would have worked automatically. There might have been a preference to toggle somewhere, but once that was done it would systematically add the links to every page the browser displayed. AutoLinks is not comparable at all in this respect.
Second, I think the web has changed in the intervening 3.5-4 years. As Jason points out very effectively, there are now many client-side modifications that are provided to web pages, from pop-up blockers to word highlighting and features built in to many Firefox extensions. Because a user has to explicitly choose which page for this to act upon, it doesn’t seem very different than these other user-specified modifications.
Third, though related to these, is the argument that Anil Dash makes, that once material gets to one’s personal computer, they are free to “rip, mix, and burn” it as they see fit. Anil draws the loop even tighter – if you complain about AutoLinks on editorial grounds, you are really sharing political ground with the RIAA and MPAA, who would also propose that users have no rights over the information that enters their personal media environment.
I won’t go quite that far, personally, and I still think Smart Tags in a browser is a bad idea – the explicit step required by AutoLink is a big deal for me. I would also prefer it a great deal if Google provided a simple way to designate alternate information providers for their AutoLinks. Overall, though, I think AutoLink is an interesting feature, and that ultimately, there is a free speech link to all of this. Just as the solution for potentially objectionable speech is more speech, not to prevent speech, the solution for users who are concerned by this is to provide more such options, not to foreclose on the first viable option that’s available.
MSN Search Update
I re-checked the search I put the Beta MSN through yesterday and interestingly – expectedly – it included more returns than before – though the total was still just 10% of Google’s number and no more relevent. But I think it’s important to guage how MSN and a couple of the others change over time. I think people have an instinctive feel for Google by now, but a new entrant like MSN Search should be given the opportunity to improve over time, to get up to speed, so to speak. Anyhow – over the weekend I’m going to write up 3 or 4 queries and develop a schedule to see how each responds and compare the results. I’ll include Google, MSN Search Beta, and Yahoo! Search. Any suggestions anyone can offer will be more than welcome.
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- …
- 15
- Next Page »