This will allow users to save a link to content as well as copies of web pages for personal use, as well as share them with others through IM, Email, and RSS.
Yahoo toolbar allows you to save pages from wherever you are browsing. Without the toolbar you're limited to saving stuff from the Yahoo Search page.
|Move beyond bookmarks - create your own personal, searchable web... Save all the pages you like (exact copies, not just links!) |
Leads to some questions...
- will shared copies of webites retain Google AdSense ads?
- will shared copies of internet content retain affiliate links?
- if it's the case that AdSense ads and affiliate links are not preserved, is there a way to opt out of having people share this content in a manner that may not have been intended by the webmaster?
Anybody testers trying this out, yet?
A bit of search history ;)
mentioning a9 and yahoo
|will shared copies of webites retain Google AdSense ads? |
will shared copies of internet content retain affiliate links?
It remains to be seen, but I would think, due to copyright issues, that what Yahoo! are saving is simply a link to the original page, not a copy of the page.
That's not to say that it won't be displayed in a frame, complete with Yahoo! content related ads of course and anything like that may have a negative impact on CTR's for content advertising publishers.
count me in the nay-sayers side on this. Granted here apparently you delete the pages, I'm still not a fan of having my search history connected to a name, address and everything else. One mistake and you post it on the public folder ;)
the good news:
"You can also delete all of your saved pages from the My Web page. "
Google will still keep a "log" after you supposedly delete it.
Just like with MySearch, and with Google Search History, i'd say that this could be pretty useful - if one remembers to login. It seems there's a nice bookmarklet to those of us who don't fancy the full toolbar :)
Added: Privacy aside (Y! also keeps logs, afaik) ... As a webmaster:
Is there a way to specify that you don't want your pages saved, or a copy displayed in public? I haven't seen or heard of anything yet, and unlike Alexa you can't just ban Y! (or G! for that matter) without thinking twice.
I specifically don't like the idea that my pages can be displayed in public folders, as that's just duplicate content - even more so, it's duplicate content that won't get updated and might end up having more credibility than the original due to the Yahoo domain name, or cross-linking users.
I've seen enough 302 mess and similar to feel confident this could turn nasty. Or, you may call me paranoid *lol*
Btw: Welcome to WebmasterWorld fedtmule :) You've gotta be Danish with that nickname
[edited by: claus at 3:34 pm (utc) on April 27, 2005]
This is a clone of an existing service ,Furl.net ...
So I see that a user can actually save a page and not just a link.
Seems to me to open up a legal can of worms (not that we can do justice to a legal discussion here).
|unlike Alexa you can't just ban Y! (or G! for that matter) without thinking twice. |
I guess Yahoo! know that.
looks like yahoo reacts on del.icio.us (rather than on google search history).
but i could be mistaken.
> Save an exact copy of any page you like - from Yahoo! Toolbar or directly from your search results
> Share your [personal web] favorites with friends and colleagues
That sounds to me like Yahoo will allow people to republish exact copies of web pages and then allow them to be accessed by anyone the copier sees fit.
I don't think that is right - especially if Yahoo runs ads to monetize the service.
I wonder if the no-cache tag would opt your site out of this "lovely" feature? If so, I can see many more people using it than before.
This is certainly a lot more dangerous that Google cache!
I just gave Yahoo My Web a spin. It preserves adsense and affiliate links.
The application saves the adsense and aff ads to the bottom of the page. This even happens on about.com.
Yahoo doesn't cache the NYTimes, The Chicago Tribune, or SF Chronicle (no registration needed to view SF Chronicle). Why not?
Newspaper articles are the web pages people are MOST LIKELY going to desire storing (the online equivalent of newspaper clippings). Newspaper articles generally are not archived- or else they make you pay two bucks to get a peek at that Braised Duck Breast recipe you were looking for.
Are newspapers opting out? Or is Yahoo blocking them from being saved?
I think many webmasters may agree that if their page is going to be cached, then they would want it cached as-is, without Yahoo redesigning the page layout.
How do you feel?
- Do you think that Yahoo is pushing it to use your content in the My Web context?
- Do you feel Yahoo is crossing the line when Yahoo manipulates your page layout by moving ads to the bottom of the page?
- Would you, as a webmaster, appreciate a way to opt out of providing a cache?
Looking on the Bright Side
- Do you think it's a good thing that someone can save your web page and come back to it again and again and again, with that many chances that they'll click through on your aff links or adsense ads?
[edited by: martinibuster at 6:37 pm (utc) on April 27, 2005]
Just checked the robots.txt: [myweb.search.yahoo.com...]
All disallowed. So, unless they accidentally remove that file at an unfortunate time, the public pages should not be visible to other search engines.
do people actually use these features? lol
why not work on a better engine instead of the useless bells and whistles?
if Y! saves copyrighted works, my guess is that they will get sued eventually. If I save the NYT article today, and 2 weeks later it's still there (and I can share with you), that's wrong and illegal, especially when NYT charges $2.50 for it now.
|I save the NYT article today... |
Post#12 - Can't save NYTimes. Beyond that it's a cache just like the Google Cache.
I used that as an example. Could've been Times Magazine or Some Small Town Chronicle. Copyright is copyright.
|Post#12 - Can't save NYTimes. |
Smacks to me of not wanting to poke the elephant in the ear with a stick.
But fine to poke at all the rabbits.
What's to keep Yahoo from becoming the worlds biggest repository of bootleg porn with this feature?
I don't see an opt out feature / tag for webmasters who really really really do not want the readers using this awesome feature.
Did I miss it?
(At the end of the day, this is equivalent of creating a local webarchive (File Save As) and uploading it to xdrive or something similar? Right?)
If you have NOCACHE in your meta tags, I think Yahoo should should not allow users to copy the page. We've had discussions before where online shoppers used the cached version of a page to buy a product at a lower price than the current price. Same issue arises here.
OK, who here has copyright law experience? Or has Yahoo found a way around copyright law because they call this a personal web?
I spent an hour testing what exactly happens when a page is saved to myweb.
It is almost absurd that a) you cannot block it from happening, Yahoo takes the page from YOUR BROWSER, there is not even an entry in the server log file! Just my own ip was the single entry.
b) I tried the no cache meta tag and that too is not respected.
c) The worse part is that not only does your web page design, get twisted around, Yahoo has the audacity to place THEIR contextual ads on your content, and your ads appears so far at the bottom you have to scroll past a lot of blank space to see them.
Do your own tests and see what I found is true.
[edited by: martinibuster at 8:21 am (utc) on April 28, 2005]
[edit reason] TOS #26 - Please consider reading the TOS, thanks. [/edit]
As it has been mentioned already, this is just what furl.net is already doing for some time. I'd say that the webmaster doesn't have a right to opt-out from this feature. If there is something displayed in my webbrowser, I can save it for my personal use. This time, I am saving it on the Y! server, not to my local disk...I think I definitely have a right to do it, if I will not republish the content.
Soso and shri, i agree with both of you, this is just like the user saving the page on the hard drive.
My primary, and probably only, concern is the republishing in public folders. I have very mixed feelings about this, as it's not quite the same as a search engine cache which at least gets updated.
>>>Yahoo has the audacity to place THEIR contextual ads on your content..
I did NOT see that.
The main problem with MyWeb is the parseing/modifying the saved html, and the public folders.
I have verified several times that two blocks of adsense ads a 728x90 and a 120x600
have been reduced down to one two block ad that is not related to the page.
I would at least ensure you have a copyright META tag in your header includes.
No-Cache is also probably a good idea, whether or not it will any effect remains to be seen.
We are looking into reported issue of Adwords not rendering within the cache correctly right now. We are still in BETA with the MyWeb product so there may be one or two issues like this we need to sort out before full launch. If there are other suggestions that you have for new functionality or improvements to the product please send them to me via forum mail or add the suggestions to this thread.
Tom99: In response to your theory that we are inputting our own ads into the product. We have no monetization within this product. You may want to run a spyware detection software on your PC and this may solve your problem.
I think in terms of adsense blocks being modified, it may simply be a case of AdSense reacting to it's context. Also happens to an adsense ad when viewed through the Google cache.
Tim, thanks for stopping by and considering our feedback.
I am as confused about this as I am about furl.
Forgive the dumb question but why do people need to / want to save copies of pages they have visited?
Does MyWeb work if you are offline? If not... if you have to go online... why wouldn't you just go to the page you visited before?
Why if you have a book on your shelf would you photocopy the book and then read the photocopied pages?
Is this supposed to be for temporary pages which don't remain online for very long - or are frequently updated with no archive?
| This 39 message thread spans 2 pages: 39 (  2 ) > > |