Google has announced a new service named Sidewiki. Sidewiki is not a new idea, but it’s execution with a service provider as large as Google may cause concern especially to Website owners.
Lets have a look at what Sidewiki does.
Google Sidewiki is essentially a commenting system that allows users of the Google toolbar to comment upon websites and blogs as they visit them.
The noble idea is that visitors to a web page or blog will make a valuable contribution to the website in the collapseable sidebar. This at first glance seems to be a fantastic idea.
There is a cloud or two bearing down on Google's horizon. Webmasters are one group of net citizens that may not be too happy if Sidewiki is a success.
Why? Well there are two ways of looking at Google Sidewiki. One an extra layer of knowledge that will further enlighten readers of web pages in a manner beyond the imagination of the original author. The second I fear is more likely, Sidewiki is a freshly painted wall ready for the scum and detritus of the internet to spray their two pence worth upon.
And this really is the rub for webmasters. You spend your own time and possibly money to produce a website… Then someone whom you don’t necessarily agree with has the ability to attach their own (possibly contradictory) message upon your carefully crafted words. Most importantly, you have no control over what is published!
Now don’t get me wrong, I am not one against free speech, far from it. But if you invest your time and money on creating a site, you have created a platform for your message. As a website owner, you should have the right as to how much of that platform you are willing to share with others.
I for one own a couple of websites, and on each I have some form of public feedback available for visitors to the site. I think this makes perfect sense, feedback is almost always a good thing, and I look forward to receiving feedback be it positive or negative. I personally choose to be very light handed in how I edit that feedback, even if it is critical of my web content. I apply simple rules…
- Is the feedback well intended, even if I disagree with the opinion?… If so I reply to it but leave it unedited.
- Is the feedback personally abusive?… If so it is deleted or edited, with a comment to explain why. (I have never felt the need to do this incidentally)
- Is it spam?… Spam is removed from my sites without hesitation or explanation. I know my readers don't want to by World of Warcraft gold, I certainly wont give publicity to the scumbags that pollute the web with their adverts.
As a web owner, a popular commenting system outside of my own design is only likely to dilute the effectiveness of my own feedback systems. That in itself concerns me. Google themselves have clearly thought this through, and have put in certain weights and measures to try and combat some of the negatives that SideWiki introduces.
- Feedback can be graded by the other users of the system, poor grading by other users pushes comments to the background
- Other users may report abusive postings
- Google has an algorithm for catching posts that are non helpful in nature.
The first two countermeasures I don’t hold a lot of faith in. While they may reduce the amount of spam out there, lets face it no-one like spam, I don’t think that it will prevent more subtle abuses of the system. If you look at viral marketing, the more nefarious form of marketing is to emulate a belief of a grass root support for an idea or product. Entries to SideWiki which have this purpose in mind, will not be blatantly offensive or controversial so are unlikely to offend and may even convince readers that they hold information of merit.
The last, an algorithm I think may be more likely to succeed. Google are lets face it experts on information analysis. But there is still an issue here for the webmaster.
For here lies the big issue for me. If someone has an opposite opinion to me, that is fine. Even if I did not welcome their comments and provide feedback systems for them (not all sites do) there is nothing at all to stop them starting their own blog and creating their own platform. Its pretty easy to do and all it need cost you is your own time. There is no need for them to piggy back on my web space to voice their opinions.
Another issue that I have is that webmasters are effectively going to be forced into a new activity in order to manage their sites. I am now forced to download the Google toolbar just so that I can monitor my own sites. This is to add to the time I spend creating content, and dealing with correspondence as well as monitoring the feedback systems that I chose to add to my sites. Sure I can ignore SideWiki, and not worry too much about what is being said there, but I run hobby sites. A commercial venture will have no choice but to monitor Sidewiki on the lookout for competitors or vandals hijacking their site via the SideWiki.
And I have not even mentioned owners of sites which are controversial in some way. Fertility sites, religious sites, youth advisory sites, Information sites about contraception, are going to have a hard time keeping zealots at bay. I think this is particularly dangerous especially where misinformation is concerned. I can see vulnerable people being left in doubt over matters where any nutter with an agenda can add their own bias to crucial information regarding health and welfare issues.
In short Google. I love what you do normally, I genuinely believe you have made the web a better place in all sorts of innovative ways, but SideWiki is not for me.
I would rather have the option to opt out and let my own feedback systems give a voice to my readers. Will I get this option?
Official Google Blog: Help and learn from others as you browse the web: Google Sidewiki
