A response to Dave Winer about Google AutoLink
Dave: thank you for your response. And that's a genuine thank you, not a sarcastic thank you. That said, I had hoped that, despite the satirical tone, my previous post on this topic at least contained enough solid arguments to be considered slightly intelligent. But perhaps not. My tone (and use of the word "obsession", which I think is at least partially justified since you've been repeatedly focusing on this topic for over a week now) came from an exasperation at seeing you and many others drawn in to a pointless and potentially harmful battle.
Sarcasm and its problems aside, the point that I was trying to make was that (as you pointed out to me with the sentence starting "When you take that first step down the slope...") your prime argument against the AutoLink feature is a slippery slope fallacy. The Google AutoLink feature is a fundamentally useful one now. Since it must be directly activated on each page, it does not defraud the user into fooling them that the content they are seeing is as it was originally created. (Surely they would only press the button if the content was lacking in useful links) It does not remove or replace any existing links or ads. It only does something for which the user has specifically asked.
The argument that you raise in your response to me hinges on what Google/Microsoft/A.N.Other BigCo might do but haven't. To which I say: well, when they do something that actually is fraudulent or dangerous, we'll complain about it then. You are saying that AutoLink legitimises the wilful changing of content in its passage between creator and user; I say that it does nothing that the user has not specifically asked for. And if the user has asked for it, there is no reason why they should not have it; after all, they could save the HTML to their hard drive and edit it for exactly the same effect. (In fact, the user could do far more wilful damage to HTML than the AutoLink feature does.) Content creators should not have to provide specific opt-in permission; if they had to do this for every such feature out there, most of them would never work.
You say you care. I agree, you obviously care, and I don't dispute that. However, we clearly have very different ideas about what is good for the web. My argument is that AutoLink is both harmless to the web and good for users. It is a useful feature and I don't think it does anything worth pulling out of users' hands. You say that it breaks a taboo about content modification; I say that taboo has never existed, and useful content modification (by both clients and servers) has been happening since the web began. It is a vital feature of the web that has been implemented in a thousand different ways, most of them useful (pop-up blockers, screen readers and mobile-format filters are just some of the ones that immediately spring to mind). Please don't devalue this feature by saying that this one harmless user-invoked Google function will somehow lead the web to doom.
I'm not saying that harmful content filters will never appear; they have in the past and doubtless will do again. But, as Cory said, what makes them harmful is not content modification, it's fraud. This distinction must be made, or it may end up scaring people into disabling much of what makes the web great. And this is why I disagree with your fight: I don't think that, in this particular case, it's helping.
UPDATE: Yet another response. (Last one, honest. Really.)
3 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: A response to Dave Winer about Google AutoLink.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://cheerleader.yoz.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/150
Public sentiment in some ways than other men? Read More
Public sentiment in some ways than other men? Read More
She is not too heavily jeweled, but a kind of mirage or inverted vision seemed beings of another woman has been found to his task, for some people to combine? Read More
What bothers me more in the AutoLink "debate" (such as it is) isn't that people want to control what others do with their works, as that's fairly common for all kinds of artists/control freaks. What is striking is how so many of the people objecting are people who'd normally be in favor of their right to rip, mix and burn other people's content. I'd written a bit about this the other day, but it still seems like nobody wants to see the parallels between this and the fair use debates in other media.
So if the word "blog" on all Moveable Type/TypePad sites was replaced by a link to Blogger.com, and only Blogger.com, this would be fine?
Way to miss the point of my post, Peta!
No, it would not be fine. I assume that you're talking about a bizarre paranoid-fantasy feature of the Google Toolbar that doesn't currently exist and would be commercial suicide on Google's part. As I've quite clearly stated above, that would not be something for which the user had not specifically asked, and so would be fraudulent.
Since the Google Toolbar doesn't currently do that, I don't see how the question is relevant. There are a billion different abusive things that Google *could* do, yet haven't done. The Toolbar has existed for years, and always had the potential for fraudulent features. They've never appeared. Sure, they may one day appear, but they haven't yet, so it's pointless arguing. When they do, call me.
I understand your point, however this situation *is* happening to booksellers right now. So, if it's a bookseller, it's ok, but not if it's a blog vendor? What's the difference?
"So if the word "blog" on all Moveable Type/TypePad sites was replaced by a link to Blogger.com, and only Blogger.com, this would be fine?"
I disagree with Yoz. If it happens as a result of an individual user's request, and is adequately explained in advance, you betcha that would be fine.
The question is, why would anyone click a button that causes such a transformation? There's almost zero value to the user in doing so. No one is sitting at a keyboard thinking, "Y'know, what this random page needs are a bunch of links to Blogger."
That's the test here. "Is this a feature the user wants, or a feature the developer wants?" When it's the former, leave it alone. When it's the latter, let's talk.
Ah - Roger, I think you and I actually agree on this. It's just that, given Peta didn't adequately describe what she originally meant, I envisioned a different usage scenario - one where the user *didn't* know of that particular effect happening when they clicked the "AutoLink" button. Hence the suspicion of fraud.
In principle however, I completely agree with your "my house, my rules" dictum.
Peta, a genuine question: What are you talking about? What's going on with booksellers?
If a bookseller provides the ISBN number, it is done to provide more information to the user in order to help make a sale. It isn't placed there to help make a sale for a competitor.
Take a look at Barnes and Noble with Autolink enabled. Publishers are opting-out whether G$ likes it or not.
Well said, Yoz. Thanks.
Peta: Okay, I see what you're saying. Even so, though, I think Roger's nailed it. If you click the AutoLink button on a Barnes and Noble book page, you only have one reason for doing so: to get Google to AutoLink to Amazon, because that is exactly what Google said they would do. The question then becomes - why would a user click AutoLink on that page in the first place?
There's a difference between power-users and the majority of users. Most people use default settings.
Very close to the point of sale, the majority of book buyers are now being *conditioned* by the toolbar owner to comparison shop at one place - Amazon.
The orginal site will have paid to get that user to that point. They do have rights - they have the right not to provide a competitor a simple means to interupt the sales process at such a critical point.
Say if you're in a book-shop, and you don't like the price, you can go somewhere else. Fine. However, if you're about to hand over your cash, and a competitor taps you on the shoulder and says
"buy from me instead" - is that acceptable? Maybe for the user, but not for the bookshop owner.
If the bookshop allows that to happen, they will soon go out of business. If all book sales are eventually channeled via one mega company (think WalMart) then the end user will have less choice due to to reduced cometition.
"No one is sitting at a keyboard thinking, "Y'know, what this random page needs are a bunch of links to Blogger."
But that's the point. Once you allow this third party intervention, then it is no longer up to you what content (advertising or otherwise) your user sees. The toolbar owner will decide that for you.
"There's a difference between power-users and the majority of users. Most people use default settings."
Okay, but the default setting is for AutoLink to be turned off. The user has to actively click the AutoLink button *on each page*.
This isn't the competitor tapping the user on the shoulder. It's the user actively looking around for alternatives.
Once again: Why would the user click the AutoLink button, if they're on the product page already?
"It's the user actively looking around for alternatives"
It's the lack of control given to the publisher, and the funnelling of exit traffic to one destination pre-appointed by a powerful company with substantial reach.
Publishers are upset about this because they can see where it is heading. The other toolbar owners will need to include similar features in order to compete, and the arms race will begin.
Tell me - what do you think of blog spam?
Peta, If I install the toolbar to help me comparison shop, that's my decision as a consumer. Merchants my not like certain technologies, but that doesn't mean they are wrong or bad.
How am I being *conditioned* to comparison shop when I explicitly installed a toolbar to help me get more value from content available on the web? It simply automates a process I manually do ANYWAYS.
However I *would* like to see a list of book merchants in the auto-link options just as they have already for for map providers.
No harm, no foul.
Peta, I really do think you need to re-read my piece, because you've just used exactly the same slippery slope fallacy that I originally pointed out. Also, you should go and install the Google Toolbar beta so that you can actually see what it does instead of speculating.
Blog spam has pretty much no relation to what Google Toolbar does, since blog spam exists on the server and is shown to all users whether they want it or not.
"slippery slope fallacy"
I think you're being naive if you think this is the beginning and end of it. Get Google to say they will not extend this to cover other terms and I'd be more than happy to eat my words.
"whether they want it or not"
Oh, come on now :) Power users can mix-it-up, write a funky script to block any comment stuff they don't want to see.
Joe Average might not. And the publisher might be harmed but hey, who cares? So long as the user is "helped" to buy more pills, that's of benefit to the pill buying user, is it not?
Power to the people!
Peta: how is pressing AutoLink on the Google toolbar any different from using a bookmarklet to link ISBNs to Amazon?
Joe Average does not use a bookmarklet to link ISBNs to Amazon.
Joe Average does what he is lead to do by the defaults.
Peta, I'm giving up on this argument with you because I'm talking about Google AutoLink and you're obviously talking about something that automatically changes content by default without user intervention. That is not AutoLink.
If you want to talk about AutoLink then please install it for yourself, see how it actually works, and then come back.
I have installed it. I can see exactly what it does.
This isn't about user empowerment. This is a licence for third-parties to bundle advertising in tool-bars under the guise of helping users. The fact that a user enables the functionality does not make it right.
What if my bookstore installs a little script that rewrites the ISBN so that when a user clicks on it, Amazon returns a blank page, making my bookstore look great, and Amazon (and Google) look incompetent?
Actually, I'll go one better. I'll design a toolbar that offers the user a list of vendors. The users an associate a whole range of vendors with a whole range of terms. Now that Google has legitimated this practice (it's ok if the user requests it), it's going to be a breeze.
Think very hard about how my toolbar will benefit me while appearing to benefit users, but in actuality, narrowing their choices :)
Clue: associates
The big picture that Google understands and you don't: The customer creation funnel and transitional states
"The fact that a user enables the functionality does not make it right."
This is where we fundamentally disagree. As I clearly stated in the piece: as long as the user chooses to specifically enable a feature that does exactly what s/he thinks it does with displayed content, I believe that's absolutely fine. No matter what it does. No exceptions.
The publisher's control of a web page ends as soon as it leaves the server. Once it's on the desktop, it is in the user's domain and the user can have it displayed however they like. (Note that I am *purely* talking about display to the user in question.)
This is the way it has always been and, I hope, always will be. It's how the web works. If you don't like that, the web is not for you.
Yoz, I am happy for a user to alter display to suit their viewing preferences. Their own CSS, bigger fonts etc.
I am not happy when a third party with significant market reach intrudes upon that relationship and alters my *editorial* to serve their purposes. Nor should you be.
Time will tell, but I think people are being sold spin regarding user empowerment. If we really want to offer user empowerment, how about a tool that allows a right click on a word, and the *individual user* can define where those links go?
That wouldn't bother me because the number of users that would bother to do it is commercially insignificant.
What bothers me is that a third-party is defining where the majority of users go by default.
I think Peta has a good point here. The issue isn't that people have asked for the links, it's the fact that what they are presented as options is controlled by Google.
Let's use Peta's Barnes and Noble example. It would be hugely different if, when I clicked on the Autolink button, Google used their very slick Local search function to give me links to local booksellers who might carry the book I'm looking for.
Instead, there's only one option, and as far as I know this option is non-negotiable from the perspective of the user. They get what is provided to them by Google, and that's that.
If this feature was more open like the search feature is (which weighs towards the big boys, but still offers other options), I wouldn't complain one bit. But right now it all just smells a bit off.
Actually, this statement really sums it up for me:
"Joe Average does what he is lead to do by the defaults."
Who the (expletive deleted) appointed anyone the "Joe average" police? You know, Joe Average isn't as stupid as you think. And if Joe average *likes* a feature, Joe average should be able to *use* a feature. Let Joe Average deal with the consequences.
If you ever bothered to *ask* Joe average, he'd probably tell you to stop getting all up in his sh*t.
I don't govern users behaviour. I see my user data and react to it.
Most users do not not know how to reset their browsers default home page. That is a fact. Most users cannot tell a paid link from a standard link. That is a fact. I could go on, but you get my point, I'm sure.
I know you can tell the difference, Dave. Most people cannot. They do not alter defaults, and they download "free" software without question. Once you understand that, you can run effective e-commerce sites. Once you understand that, you know a threat when you see one.
Most people may download free software. But if they don't know what it does, they won't use it. If someone is clueless about "this internet thing" then even given the Google Toolbar they won't be clicking the AutoLink button on every page. The AutoLink button amounts to a power user feature for the type of users you describe.
"The AutoLink button amounts to a power user feature for the type of users you describe"
That big friendly button, with the friendly bubbles, with the one option (Amazon) is not aimed at power users.
Power users would want something *they* control, surely? Wouldn't you rather put all your own destinations in there?
You have to ask yourself why Google is not taking that track.
The big picture that Google understands and you don't: The customer creation funnel and transitional states
You do realize that Google is not beholden to Amazon? I didn't see any Amazon Associates code in the links generated and I don't believe Google gives a rip if Amazon gets more sales.
I think Google picked Amazon for the same reason that they recently switched their dictionary provider to Answers.com: there's more value there. bn.com sucks. Amazon is value-ridden. If Amazon suddenly started sucking, I have no doubts that Google would switch the linkages.
This transformative power that you deride and the loss of control by publishers has always been there, as Yoz said. In fact, approximately 25 million people have downloaded a browser that just allows people to walk all over web publishers; from the user CSS to the extensions to the preferences, Firefox puts an impressive amount of control in the user's hands.
If you think only power users use Firefox, then you've got a very dim view of people. You should probably examine your premises since you've adopted a very patronizing tone about the people you pretend to defend.
I don't think you have to dig too deep to find the Amazon connections. http://investor.google.com/board.html
"Firefox puts an impressive amount of control in the user's hands."
I'm all for it. What I'm not for is altering editorial, or the wholesale landgrab grab of exit traffic, facilitated by third-party powerful companies.
I guess you guys like to shop at WalMart. Me, I prefer variety, choice, and competition.
BTW: My assumption is that people who use this feature want to comparison shop at the point of sale.
They're most likely motivated by price.
My developer gal has designed a script for me that sends any AutoLink travellers to a comparison engine instead of Amazon.
Helpful, do you think? :)
"I guess you guys like to shop at WalMart."
Peta, sometime you should read about "ad hominem attacks."
Sorry Chris. I guess "If you ever bothered to *ask* Joe average, he'd probably tell you to stop getting all up in his sh*t" wasn't worth you commenting on ;)
I apologize.
Back to the scheduled programme.
>>My developer gal has designed a script for me that sends any AutoLink travellers to a comparison engine instead of Amazon.
Helpful, do you think? :)
Petra, Autolink is consensual. From the description you've given this script isn't. It sounds like your developer's script deliberately ignores users' wishes, and imposes what you consider to be better for them.
"That big friendly button, with the friendly bubbles, with the one option (Amazon) is not aimed at power users."
Really? Are you the One True Arbiter Of What Non-Power Users Do With A Just-Outta-Beta Only-Installed-If-You-Hunt-It-Out Browser Toolbar?
Exactly how many people have you spoken to about this, Peta? Exactly how many hours of user-interaction research have you put into this, Peta? Or might you be... y'know, pulling this one out of the wazoo?
I'm not going to speculate on Google's motives for making its book Autolink feature point to Amazon and only Amazon, but if that's a lemon, why not make some lemonade? It's not like only Google can make a toolbar. Reading the comments here, I see lots of ideas about how to make a better toolbar, so how 'bout somebody building one? It's all doable with open, non-proprietary standards, right? Call it FireBar or FreeBar or something. Make it platform-independent, open source, and free. Build a better mousetrap. If Firefox did it with browsers, somebody can do it with search toolbars. Now's a good time to jump in, too, before the Google Way becomes solidly entrenched.
peta- For me, your comments amount to you wailing 'But what about the children?' The unfortunate answer is that sometimes they get hit by cars. Sure, we could make sure that no child ever gets hit by a car, but we would have to stop driving to do so...
"Autolink is consensual."
Not with me it isn't.
I pay Google and Overture over $25K per month for PPC traffic. Why would I pay to advertise my competitor? Answer: I won't.
"Exactly how many hours of user-interaction research have you put into this"
None. Yet. My hunch is that these users want to undertake price comparisons at POS, so I'm monitoring their behaviour in this regard. Amazon is one of the options presented, however it won't be the lowest price option. Let's see if the users really do want to go to Amazon, or to find the lowest price.
I've built a better mouse-trap, and so long as Google think it's ok to get between my customer and I, then I see no problem with playing leap-frog. If a user doesn't like it, guess they can go elsewhere, or "mix it up" and write their own funky script to combat it.
Question: Why are user empowerment people defending a script that doesn't allow the user to specify destinations? You're happy to let a third-party decide that for you?
"It sounds like your developer's script deliberately ignores users' wishes, and imposes what you consider to be better for them."
I like to think I know what *my* users want, and go to great lengths to find out.
The test results will be interesting.
"Question: Why are user empowerment people defending a script that doesn't allow the user to specify destinations? You're happy to let a third-party decide that for you?"
Nobody is forced to use the toolbar.
Nobody is forced to use autolink, even if they use the toolbar.
Nobody is prevented from writing a toolbar that autolinks ISBN's to your site, or a comparison site.
Compare that with your proposal - overriding your users decisions.
Anyway, I think I might be repeating myself, so it's time to sign off.
PS. Aplogies for mispelling you name earlier.
And what, pray tell, business are you in that this AutoLink feature is tromping all over your rights? I'm betting that you aren't Peta Barnes, Peta Noble, Peta Borders, Peta Powell, or Peta Abebooks so your attitude comes off as strident and hypothetical.
And what's with this posture of "it's not consensual with me"? Did you not install the toolbar? If you don't like what it does, then freaking don't install it. If you're talking about this qua site owner, then you've got control issues because people can do whatever they want with your site on their computer. If you don't want people using a Google Toolbar, then put it in your terms of service and boot them off if they so much as lay a finger on your markup. While you're at it, you should disable right-clicking because then they can view source and do whatever they want. And you should ban Firefox, Opera, and other browsers that support user stylesheets.
Pretty soon you'll get just the users who want choice, whatever choice you deign to provide them.
It's amazing that you cite Wal-Mart as an antipode of choice: as if we were so much better off with the tiny little bodegas, mom-and-pop hardware stores, and boutiques that had limited selections and higher prices. "Oh but they had service!" Some people don't look at shopping as a social way to meet people; some people look at it as a way to get the goods and services they need as inexpensively as possible.
You do not speak for me.
I can understand that Peta is personally miffed because the tool helps a competitor, however; the argument against the auto-link feature is very biased. You are not representing Joe user, and your argument has been hurt by the fact that you are claiming to be representing 'Joe user' when you were serving a hidden agenda.
Peta, it seems your actual complaint is that you pay a company good money for advertisement, and that very same company has made a tool that gives your competition an advantage. It's called conflict of interest, and that is a totally different argument.
I'm at pains to point out that I have no problem with *you*, the individual end user, hacking, reformatting or re-mixing my site for your own personal use. Go post-modern! I love you! NO PROBLEM!!! The number of users that do this is statistically insignificant in a commercial sense.
I *do* have an issue with a major entity facilitating that process for the mainstream user in the way Google is doing it.
I publish ISBN numbers alongside my book data. I now have no option but to disable the function or provide Amazon with free advertising and suffer the consequences.
If you were in my position, what would you do?
Here's a good example of what is happening in my industry right now: http://plentyofcowbell.com/index.php?p=9
Is that fair to the publisher?
That's a good example of what's happening to the industry?
Let me see if I've got this right. Cory Doctorow is giving away his book for free on the Web and people who have downloaded the Google Toolbar Beta and have clicked on the AutoLink button can see the ISBN number he provides as a link to purchase the book from Amazon and thereby pay for the free book so that his publisher gets paid and then he gets paid. For a book that he willingly offers for free.
Are you paying $25k per month for PPC to drive web surfers to books you offer for free? Then I could understand how you might be pissed that people who clicked on an ad you pay for that goes to a free book would be able to purchase said book from a competitor that has sense enough to charge for the book. Clearly, Amazon is not interested in losing money like you. I'm guessing that this is probably not analogous to the actual beef you have with Google of which the examples you cite are but hollow attempts to hide your self-serving complaints.
So you really have no problem with individuals hacking away at your site and remixing it, converting text into links, and having their way with your content as long as they don't involve a major entity? If I wrote an extension for Firefox to do the exact same thing that Google is doing, you'd be fine with that? What if I uploaded it to Mozilla's servers so anyone could use it? Still fine (presumably so since no "major entity" is involved).
Do you see how the size of the company providing the functionality is basically irrelevant since it's still up to the individual user to decide to use it? Google is essentially acting as an intermediary, providing a tool for people who would otherwise be unable to express their desires in software. What? Joe User has no such desire that he would whip up if he were able to code? Then why is he downloading the Googlebar and clicking on AutoLink? If he truly has no desire, then he won't click. And you'll have nothing to operate.
I will say that I'm glad that you've finally stripped your posture of any pretense of doing it for the poor users who really don't want to get links to Amazon but were tricked by the now-evil Google. I'm much more comfortable with you saying that you don't like the Googlebar because it could possibly result in a loss of sales. I don't care, of course, but I find it a more honest perspective.
Bill, the point of showing you that example is this: an ISBN number will spawn a link to my competitor when a toolbar user clicks the button provided.
"it could possibly result in a loss of sales"
Yes, that could result in a loss of sale.
It won't, though, because we've disabled it. As we had to do for Gator. As we'll do for any future instances of mass-market adware.
Will some users be annoyed that we don't provide Amazon advertising on our site whenever they request it?
Quite possibly.
Peta, is Amazon generally cheaper and/or more reliable than your site?
"As we'll do for any future instances of mass-market adware."
Do your apple turnovers have a citrus taste, I wonder?
Anyway, you are Bernard Black, and I claim my ten shillings.
This is just getting laughable:
http://trenchant.org/daily/2005/2/28/
Resorting to name calling?
Humph... So much for intelligent debate.
"Get Google to say they will not extend this to cover other terms and I'd be more than happy to eat my words."
I totally concur. I'm personally not going to use the Google Toolbar until Google come out and actually state that it won't rifle through my magazines and drink the milk straight out of the bottle.
Wow, can't people try to empathise just a little with Peta? They're trying to run a legit business, and Google is providing an easy way for one of its partners - a direct competitor to her business - to get its links appear as if they're ON HER PAGE.
Just because you have to click the shiny button doesn't mean it's not adware. Why? Because it's presented as an informational tool, not a advertising (who would download it if it was presented as advertising?) plugin for your browser.
"Just because you have to click the shiny button doesn't mean it's not adware. Why? Because it's presented as an informational tool, not a advertising (who would download it if it was presented as advertising?) plugin for your browser."
Dave - that argument goes for most spyware and adware. Fraud is fraud because it's fraudulent, not because it incorporates any specific method thereof. Spyware and adware can advertise themselves as ANY program - the ONLY sure way of banning spyware and adware is to ban all software! To a lesser degree, if spyware and adware began advertising themselves as text-reading programs, would we have a move to disallow ALL text-reading software just to catch the nasty spyware and adware? We need to wait until a specific program demonstrates spyware or adware behaviors, THEN we can blacklist it - anything sooner is stereotyping.
I realize this does not address your exact point. But it does address earlier points. To your point - what Peta first suggested, the comparison-shopping link, IS ADWARE: it advertises for several companies, simultaneously. It is, in fact, adware to a greater degree than links to a single company. What you are all talking about here, is adware - what Peta appears to be complaining about is the FAIRNESS of Google's adware.
Peta - you also seem to be fixated on the Defaults of their Toolbar. Did you download the standard version, or did you receive a corporate special? They may have designed a custom version, with non-standard defaults, for their management-type users. Have you tried asking a user outside your company, to download the software, and tell you what the defaults were? Also, are you sure you did not change your own defaults while setting up the Toolbar? Could the ORIGINAL setting have been opt-in?
Mmm...a closed minded viewpoint colored entirely by financial profit. You go, Peta. A true American. (Or if not, it's a damn good imitation.)
One would think AutoLink's *only* feature was linking ISBN numbers judging by peoples behavior.
That makes me wonder, too, why are you supposedly going through the effort to use this magical javascript mojo to redirect AutoLink users if simply making an ISBN number a link defeats the process? Remember? AutoLink only adjusts NON-LINKED text. Curious...
Anyways, I have yet to hear anyone bring up the idea that the toolbar is in BETA: it's possible that linking to Amazon was a safe initial bet for them BECAUSE of the minor corporate connections you mentioned. Perhaps they thought linking to other book services (which they don't have connections to) might give them legal headaches?
This idea is further encouraged by the fact that they let you choose a map service to use. Those services might be ad supported, but it's just not the same as linking to Barnes & Noble and friends.
I'm betting it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.
Perhaps, even, when the toolbar comes out of beta, they'll have had time to put alternatives put in. It hasn't been released yet. It's in beta for a reason. Let them know what you want: as a retailer you want more choices. Suggest the idea of the comparison shopping site. Whatever. But don't disguise your own insecurities as a retailer under the flag of defending the rights of the "content provider".
Ultimately the most awesome route, that I'd love to see, would be to let you specify a GET request URL. But I tend to doubt we'd see that. At least not from Google.
Peta states "If a bookseller provides the ISBN number, it is done to provide more information to the user in order to help make a sale. It isn't placed there to help make a sale for a competitor."
Peta, are you saying that the user cannot copy and paste the ISBN into Amazon.com, Chapters.com, other bookseller web sites or online library catalogs? If no, then all AutoLink does is automate that process. What is wrong with that?
Actually, the ISBN is placed there to uniquely identify the publication. From the International ISBN Agency web site:
"The purpose of the international standard is to coordinate and standardize the international use of ISBNs to uniquely identify one title or edition of a title, published by one specific publisher."
If you are using the ISBN to facilitate a sale, why wouldn't you create a link from the ISBN to an automated order page or to the very least a printable order form or a page with ordering information?
Fortyseven:
I totally support your suggestion about letting the user specify the URL. In fact, I could see the situation where a bookseller or map provider or whomever has a "Add us to AutoLink" link on their web site. Clicking that link would automatically add that web site to the list of search sites or Toolbar would bring up a requester asking the user if they wish to make that web site their default search site for that type of information (ISBN, maps, etc). Lots of opportunites here.
Mousky:
That's the best idea yet. They've already got the 'LiveBookmarks' gimmick. Couldn't hurt.