Good for the goose, ignored by the gander?

I'm not a fan of page-jacking in any form, from the old Third Voice thing through Microsoft Smart Tags and whatever Google's Addlinks is trying to do.

Let me also preface this by stating emphatically I'm not trying to start a Firefox bashing thread here.

However, I'm a little surprised that the open source community isn't more up in arms about this story, describing a Firefox add-on apparently getting rave reviews in some circles which has the intent of altering web pages:

...more on this story, including security concerns

 

I think there isn't much on the long run we (webmasters/industry pro's) can do about it. It's a new up and coming thing which looks scary but I reckon we'll have to look for ways to use it to our advantage (no clue how yet though). We fight about it but in fairness, if it's technologically possible, it will be done.

Effectively, the end user is only modifying the already cached version in their box. Great for them they can delete whatever's there or add stuff to it. Or alter it. Sucks for us in a way because of possibly lower ad impressions and potentially people ringing up saying "I can't find this and this on your site!" "But it's right there!" "No it isn't!" type of timewasting discussions.

It may be time we add this into our T'c & C's saying you void all right of support/security etc. if you alter the display etc. just to cover your arse. Same thing with manufacturer warranties really. Use it as written here and it's fine by us. Use it differently or modify it and you can kiss your warranty/support/guarantees/security/safety goodbye.

It's definitely a blow for online advertising though. Stuff like this will push paid for / subscription based services I think.

If there's a true need for the end user to modify your site - it probably shows to a degree your site is crap. Maybe this helps getting rid of spam crap as well (like AdSense only pages).

 

I thought it was just me??? I am so tired of people asking to exchange links with those kinds of sites. The internet is starting to look worse and worse with that kind of stuff, especially when you do a search and get an adsense only site!!!!! Argghhhhhh!!

Sorry to all of you here at DP whose only focus is designing adsense only sites. (Not really.....)

 

I guess part of my point was that scripts quickly popped up to defeat Third Voice (actually, several of them as Third Voice kept changing in response to the previous counter-script) and the reaction to Smart tags quickly gave us a way to disable those too... I would hope that one of the coding gurus will soon release a counter to this one as well...

 

What does this subject have to do with Google

Is this a Firefox issue or a Google issue

 

It's both -- although I wouldn't object to it being moved somewhere else.

The Google issue is why the outcry against Autolinks and no outcry against this?

 

Well the auto link issue is something that Google did not invent, I have been on many web pages and seen link ads triggered by copy on the page that I was reading.

The Google auto-linking toolbar is nothing more than related links that Google will give to those that pay to be linked in the long run.

So when I get to your Dr. Dave Baxter page it gives me alternative sites to go to based on the content you present on your page.

This is the same thing that ADSENSE does, just in a different way, unless sites block direct competitors they will lose money running ADSENSE because of lost business being re-directed to the competition.

The Google issue of the linking toolbar should be much more alarming to webmasters and there are a hell of a lot of upset webmasters that are raising hell about it big time on other un-named forums.

 

There is already option to make a sites google adsense ads not show, this is just more indept.

I was thinking java, test for FF, check plug in's, if offensive plugin loaded, show them a BS redirect explaining your distaste in the filtering.

I'm making this up as I go along, have not thought about it before.

 

I suspect that time will take care of Greasemonkey. As soon as it can be hacked and the hack published, we’ll find seemingly safe sites redirected to spam sites thanks to Greasemonkey’s powerful feature set. Major advertisers may just help this along... grease the skids

So why aren’t we seeing outrage?

1. I don’t think Greasemonkey is well known. I didn’t know ‘til this post. (thanks)

2. So far, Greasemonkey is not the big bad Google or MS. So, few will jump on the bandwagon.

3. OpenSource tends to be seen as anti-establishment. Therefore critics are few (OpenSource can do no wrong amongst its die-hard followers.)

 

I had not heard of this before either. I did add javascript to my site, courtesy of Searchguild ((c) 2005 Chris Ridings http://www.searchguild.com)

It seems that the GM program only affects a site with style sheets and/or javascript. Since I use very little css for positioning or content, I don't think I'll see much harm done. If they can block adsense, then I'll be unhappy.

 

There's a handful of FF extensions that do just that.

 

I tend to think that most users of extensions like greasemonkey are probably not the ones likely to click on ads or adsense to begin with.

 

Is this something new?

Norton Internet Security does this by default

 

I was about to suggest that FF doesn't have enough of a market share to show concern. Upon checking http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp WOW.

So FF currently has a 21.5 % market share and gaining. While all other browsers seem to be declining in usage, FF is gaining. So, yes, this is a concern that will continue to grow as FF users grow.

 

That does not mean that everyone will use plug in's to block ads, I hated Norton Internet Security when I was using it because it would block out photos on pages that were the same sizes as common ads and keeps pages from displaying content.

So not every FF user will use FF to block ads.

 

But do remember that most of those FF users are web developers -- thus, stats for sites like ww3schools.com, which probably isn't even representative for web developers as a group, are inflated wrt FF -- look at stats for tour own sites and I suspect you'll find that FF isn't any where close to 21.5%.

These are from http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2005/February/browser.php for February 2005:

and for my own site:

 

Off topic but while we're on the subject of inflated stats, these are also from my website (February 2005):

 

Get down to brass tacks here Minstrel, what the hell is this thread really about and where are you going with it

PS: Put it in words that someone can understand who has zero understanding of the internet or computing please

 

There actually is a common thread:

I am not anti-open-source or anti-Linux or anti-Firefox -- I have FF, though it's only used for checking new web pages, I use a Linux host, and I do use some open source software.

What bothers me is that open source fanatics wail loud and long about Microsoft and Windos and Internet Explorer and Google violating their rights in various ways. Let's hear some of that righteous indignation leveled at Firefox now -- not to do so is hypocritical.

In a similar vein, we hear inflated claims, including from you, Anthony, about how Firefox and Linux are taking over the world... look at the stats yourself: they're simply not true.

So what is this thread about? Spelled out in plain English?

How about this: A request for objectivity, fairness, and equal treatment for both proprietary and open source products.

 

That is great Minstrel, but when Windows is a secure platform where one does not have to be a security expert to stay online for more than 10 minutes without having a machine full of malware I will be the first one to sing Microsoft's praises

Please let me know when this day comes by PM