| 4:30 pm on Sep 23, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I wonder if there are long-term hopes of using this data to influence rankings. (shudder)
| 5:04 pm on Sep 23, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I understand that is not likely, however, the whole concept is rather disturbing, imho.
Imagine someone with an axe to grind adding comments to match their displeasure. It is bound to happen.
| 6:30 pm on Sep 23, 2009 (gmt 0)|
^ exactly, people don't even have to have and axe to grind... look at youtube comments for crying out loud.
you give people a voice and they'll quickly prove they don't deserve it.
| 7:04 pm on Sep 23, 2009 (gmt 0)|
>using this data to influence rankings. (shudder)
Aren't they already? If not, why would the misguided "bounce rate" even be shown in g analytics? Clearly, pressing the back button is a "comment" ;-)
| 7:49 pm on Sep 23, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I looked if Google offers a way to disable Sidewiki for a website, but haven't found that.
It's fine with me if people discuss my sites on other sites, but I don't want that to happen in what's basically an extension to my webpages. Especially as it isn't moderated, so politeness is not mandatory.
| 7:52 pm on Sep 23, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|If not, why would the misguided "bounce rate" even be shown in g analytics |
I can think of two reasons:
1) It was already in Urchin when G bought it for GA
2) It can be useful data for the webmaster, and theoretically Ga is supposed to be there as a webmaster service - and to help them spend their Adwords dollars along the way.
This comment nonsense, though - the whole world has gone mad with social media fever. A soapbox for everyone!
| 8:15 pm on Sep 23, 2009 (gmt 0)|
The "feedback on this site" google analytics feature on the order confirmation page is more likely to be a culprit for rankings manipulation. This was awhile back, maybe you can override it by now.
| 9:14 pm on Sep 23, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|the whole world has gone mad with social media fever |
You'll notice an interesting trend recently.
Google is 2-3 years BEHIND the forefront of the internet.
This won't last long.
I would calmly explain to Google attys who've been known to read these boards that:
someone, somewhere is going to misuse this "feature" in a slanderous and libel manner towards a Fortune500 big boy and Goog Inc will named as a CO-DEFENDANT in the suit for not using HUMAN editors to police and remove said comments. :)
Even more than my analysis about incorrect PR bar status, this is a lawsuit waiting to happen.
[edited by: whitenight at 9:16 pm (utc) on Sep. 23, 2009]
| 9:15 pm on Sep 23, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|It's fine with me if people discuss my sites on other sites... |
But Google is just another web site. Right?
This reminds me of the ol' Abuzz.com. Very different, but still "wisdom of the crowds." Solution 1's point is well taken--Google is not just another web site. That's the only reason this is worth watching.
I think it's going to flop. This sounds very 1999 to me.
| 9:26 pm on Sep 23, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|you give people a voice and they'll quickly prove they don't deserve it. |
It used to take some initiative to have a voice or a soapbox. But as more and more "free speech" can be had without any real effort, the quality across virtually the entire spectrum is going down. No longer do you need to work, study, or "pay your dues" in order to be heard - the result is a staggering amount of rude, crude, ill-informed and irresponsible drivel all across the Internet, which sadly is beginning to seep more and more into offline communication too.
Not that I necessarily have an answer to improve the situation...
(Or that I may not have even participated in it on occasion...)
| 11:48 pm on Sep 23, 2009 (gmt 0)|
What a toss... If people want to run commentry on my sites or blogs they can do so on my sites thanks very much. It's not bad enough that Google scrapes and steals and monetizes the worlds data with almost total freedom now this? It's going south I say!
| 11:56 pm on Sep 23, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I'm quite happily clueless about this stuff.
But, can you disallow visits from machines that have the toolbar installed?
(Probably a silly question, but... :) )
| 2:07 am on Sep 24, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Now all the people who use the Web can be reviewers all the time.
I wonder how many people will actually use this, though?
| 8:09 am on Sep 24, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|Now all the people who use the Web can be reviewers all the time. |
|I wonder how many people will actually use this, though? |
Better question, how many people will use it responsibly>
From an ecom perspective, I can't help but feel this takes the worst aspects of the ebay feedback system, and lowers the tone. I mean, at least with ebay you have to actually buy something.
Its Wikipedia without the "quality" control. Got an opinion on a website? Publish it for the world.
Like MatthewHSE says, time was when your opinions were peer-reviewed before you got a soapbox to shout them at the world. Now, you just need a blog or even social media page. Soon, even that will be superfluous, only an opinion required.
As for rankings, can you imagine Google putting up with a situation where all the top 10 results have comments such as "waste of time", "rip off merchant", "factually incorrect" all over them? I can't. Thus, either ranking will feed back into the comment system, or comments will feed back into ranking. Or there will be editorial review, which I can't see.
| 8:25 am on Sep 24, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|I wonder if there are long-term hopes of using this data to influence rankings. (shudder) |
Sites without comment capability have been ranking above sites that have it in places like G's blog search for a long while now. Influencing rankings meant either getting rid of that ability completely or forcing registration and not displaying comments on page unless logged in. I suppose using sidewiki may mean that people can comment again without needing to have any traces of a comment section in your page code.
Personally, if I want people to comment, I'll add the option to the page myself. I don't like forced add-ons much.
[edited by: JS_Harris at 8:59 am (utc) on Sep. 24, 2009]
| 8:37 am on Sep 24, 2009 (gmt 0)|
As I understand it, Google has developed a system that will put the positive feedback towards the top. Surely, that's not right either!
|if I want people to comment, I'll add the option to the page myself. I don't like forced add-ons much. |
I agree, and that's why many have blogs, to allow feedback.
If you want to see your feedback you'll have to install the toolbar. That's rather pushy in my view.
This goes down as one of Google's bad ideas, imho.
| 9:14 am on Sep 24, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Sounds like a plan to be "the pulse of the planet". Google can just sit back and watch users comment on current topics. No need to send out a bot anymore: the data is already in Google's databases, pouring in as it happens. Brilliant idea, from their perspective.
I hope there will be an opt-out for webmasters who want to moderate the discussion in order to reach a higher level.
| 1:30 pm on Sep 24, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I don't like this one bit.. whats to stop Google from monetizing the side wiki content as well with adverts competing against the main site? How could an algorithm know fact from fiction as well? Whats to stop me from listing "Factual" cheaper & better goods on all amazon.com sidewiki pages and pointing to competitors?
sounds horrible to me.. it sounds so 1999 as others have put it and if MS had announced such tripe the uproar would have had this threat into 100s of pages already.
| 2:41 pm on Sep 24, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I suspect this will be like many other Google products and features that are either ignored by the public or that have fallen by the wayside. Remember all the complaints that Knol was going to kill off information sites, for example? Or all the teeth-gnashing about "Froogle" back in the day?
For what it's worth, Google has built some checks and balances into Sidewiki, but those checks and balances make it even more unwieldy than it would if it were a simple comment system: Not only are users expected to review pages, but they're also expected to review each other. How many users are going to bother? And if your e-commerce competitor does write "Wallys-widgets.com sucks" or "Wendys-whatsits.com has terrible customer service," what percentage of Wally's or Wendy's prospects will even see those comments?
Sidewiki may be a noble experiment, or it may be an ignoble experiment, but it's just an experiment, and not all experiments succeed.
| 3:09 pm on Sep 24, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I'm not all that keen on having additional content, user generated or not spliced on to the side of my site. It's just that simple. I am more than capable of adding these features myself.
| 3:27 pm on Sep 24, 2009 (gmt 0)|
One obvious "first use" is for competitors to spam your site with bad comments. I see no way for Google to filter that kind of stuff out.
| 4:03 pm on Sep 24, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I'm amazed that this feature has has such a soft "Thud".. had Microsoft announced something like this you would have seen stories on front page of slashdot, digg, reddit and many other sites ripping MS a new one.
| 4:06 pm on Sep 24, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Google posted a video of it on their YouTube channel.
They make it seem so fun to use.
| 4:27 pm on Sep 24, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Sounds like a nightmare to me. Visitors will read comments about the website instead of actually reading what's on the website. Heh, why take the time to evaluate and understand something on your own when you can just read someone else's opinion instead, right?
| 4:45 pm on Sep 24, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I just tried it out here, and the Sidewiki on google.com has a couple of dozen comments from software (Google?) engineers. They all seem to love it, maybe it also helps in career ranking!
Seriously though I really can't see this lasting too long. I don't get the incentive to comment on a site unless I was the owner or the competition...or really really bored.
| 6:36 pm on Sep 24, 2009 (gmt 0)|
It was bound to happen sooner or later. Really, how many people here haven't at least thought about this?
Personally, I'm optimistic. Sure there's lot's of negatives, but there's also lots of positives. Sure there will be a lot of spam/idiots/slanderous commenting, but as has happened in every other outlet (Blog comments? Email? IM Spam? Craigslist?) it will soon be recognizable and ignorable.
As a site-owner I am nervous, especially since this is Google, but if this thing is here to stay I would rather plan and strategize than moan and complain.
| 7:08 pm on Sep 24, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I can't think of a single positive aspect of such system.. and yes, its been tried before in many ways, just not on the scale that google could do it.
| 8:58 pm on Sep 24, 2009 (gmt 0)|
spam/idiots/slanderous commenting, but as has happened in every other outlet (Blog comments? Email? IM Spam? Craigslist?) it will soon be recognizable and ignorable.
if it was recognizable and igorable all of the above wouldn't be booming. IM bot spam got so bad in the AIM chat networks that its totally gone. The mainstream public is still getting ripped of from spam and craigslist fraud.
| 9:04 pm on Sep 24, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Someone asked if it is possible to detect google toolbars.
The answer is yes, quite easily. If only GTB users see the garbage then I would consider blocking them from my personal sites (can't do it for my customers 'cause they'd lose revenue).
The corollary is: how does a non-GTB-user such as me know whether there are comments about my site in the first place? Will google tell us when they are posted? (hollow laughter) Even if they tried they'd get it as badly wrong as google alerts!
One of my customers gets a load of complaints because a scammer is using almost the same site name (eg Wally's Widgets) as him - just the word "Inc" is missing from the scammer. People look at google, see the vital two words and fill in the form on his web site or email him on the erroneous assumption he's the scammer, despite an obvious disclaimer on the site. There are complaints on blogs and forums all over the web already that he's had to reply to.
Imagine if they latch on to this google garbage. What would that do to his trade? And could he sue google for allowing defamation? Or even get them to do a take-down. I know google is big but early on it was established that in some circumstances the "carrier" is liable for content (agreed the one I'm thinking of was a newsgroup posting).
Of course, google is only doing the same as dozens of "read about this site here" sites that they list in place of the actual sites.
For a variety of reasons I am not a fan of M$ but I'm beginning to hope bing catches on real fast! :(
| This 67 message thread spans 3 pages: 67 (  2 3 ) > > |