Autolink and the User

I think we can only sensibly argue the case against AutoLink if we understand the case for it... this is very first draft and a bit beer fueled (and I was intending to declare my bias at the beginning).

I then headed the next page 'benefits to the website publisher' and my brain went on strike :)

It seems that so far we can't see any real benefit for the searcher but I can't believe that we are right, and I have a nagging doubt that we can't seperate ourselves succesfully from our site owner inner selfs.

A company the size and with the financial clout of Google must have a fair idea of what their goals are and common sense says the major goal (whilst there is no direct monetisation in place) is to increase brand loyalty by delivering value to their user base.

Come on GG or any other Google rep, please tell us the way that the toolbar adds value to the end user? I really want to know.

In the meantime, does anyone else have some viewpoints how this can increase your happiness and joy factor, compared to not having it installed?

It pains me to say this, but I can see how it would benefit.

If I am searching for a book or ISBN number or something and I come across a page with it on, and hark... there is nice easy link to amazon or some other merchant where once their would not have been...click.

I am where I wanted to be arnt I? I just got there differently.

... let's just say that in some circles, Amazon isn't really seen as anything that is even remotely related to "joy" - on the contrary, affiliation in any sense of the word (including affiliation by purchase) with this particular merchant is seen as largely undesirable. With the whole web becoming one large A-aff... well...

For me, personally, i can query anything i like by means of ConQuery, so i'm not getting any benefit. Especially as i use the toolbar very rarely (it's on that other browser i almost never use). Then again, i'm not the typical "joe surfer".

It would be a nice tool for me, personally, if i could define patterns (eg. by means of regexps) and then actions to be taken on those patterns. Sort of like building a "customizable API" to web pages. That would be truly valuable.

We are not. Cut and dry.

Ask/show your granny/mother etc see what they say.

you search google for Harry Potter ISBN

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLD%2CGGLD%3A2005-08%2CGGLD%3Aen&q=harry+potter+isbn

You don't need the serps or those adwords things just click on the autolink toolbar and hey presto

DaveN

I dont know of a single toolbar user. I know of a lot who have had toolbars thrust on them (drive-bys etc), but none who would have installed them knowingly.

No, you're where Google wanted you to go - same as with the MS slogan, where the answer to "Where do you want to go today?" is "to our own sites".

You can't choose where Autolinked links point to - Google does that: adding links to their commercial partners or to their own sites. It's a commercial straitjacket, not a tool for consumer liberty.

I'm not an SEO guy, I'm an anti-corporate guy (using SEO as required to get the message accross) - I see the toolbar like any other spyware product - dragging the user away from non-commercial or alternative content sites (like mine), and commercializing my content. This stuff in the bane of the independent content producer (like Zeldman, much more than me), who are trying to leverage the power that the net brings to give an alternative voice a chance of success against the corporate machine.

(Sorry for the political rant!)

Most people on here have some sort of website yeah? :-)

Now you run some sort of affiliate type deal. Do you put your competitors aff links on the page next to yours, purely to give me the best choice. Do you hell! :-)

So in essence you are sending me where YOU want me to go, quite likely the place that offers you the best income stream. How is that different.

Remember I was putting myself in Joe Users shoes.

I think Tim Bray just put forth a killer way to knobble this:
http://www.threadwatch.org/node/1726

the toolbar is certainly not 'evil' for users. They can clearly choose not to use it and although it isn't crystal clear which links are which I tend to think that if someone chooses to use something then it's their responsibility to check they know how it works.

It depends who Google feel they should respect - and while searchers and surfers may be Googles clients web publishers are their lifeblood (aka suppliers). To me the benefit Google are providing to their clients isn't enough to justify the upset they're causing to their suppliers. They must realise this but they're going ahead with a beta and by the looks of it a full product - if they've now decided that they don't care about the publishers even enough to provide an opt out (and lets face it most people would never impliment it) then it's indicitive of how thngs will move in the future.

If Google aren't prepared to even listen at this stage then at any point in the future when money and genuine client benefit is at stake they certainly won't.

Who's that comfortable with Google being their spokesman, putting words in thier mouths or links on thier pages.

Should I be allowed to go every menu outside of a restaurant and place directions on it to other nearby reaturants with the same food? You could make the same argument that would help the patrons experience, by offering nearby alternatives.

You're not likely to get any serious or substantive alternate opinions posted in this or similar topics because you've shouted down any people who'd offer 'offensive' perspectives.

This is not intended to solicit, "Awwww... we hurt poor Adam's feelings!" 'cause as I've noted, I have thick skin. But I plan on only posting "Yes, absolutely! Me, too!" posts on TW in the future, because doing otherwise is an annoying exercise in futility.

Want other opinions? Read John Battelle's blog or Scoble's (for the comments, in particular, in which there's quite the diversity of opinion), and so on.

Oh, and the subject title of this post refers to a great party I attended yearly at Northwestern University. I'll leave that at that :)

no one's shouted you down, just you happen to be in a minority.

So you should be a good person to explain why it's good for users, genuinely I would like to know where I'm missing the benefits.... is it that it makes comparison easier (fewer clicks) or is it offering something unique and new?

Do you think, just possibly, the reason that their is an almost united view on AutoShite here at Threadwatch, might be becuase this site has a very focused set of members?

Scoble's site is extremely broad, as is Battelles, in audience at least.

Threadwatch's membership is almost entirely made up of web publishers and ecom folks.

You are alone, for your own reasons. Not Threadwatch's.

Adam, you've always defended your views with clarity, force and conviction, and I sincerely hope you're going to continue to do so here and elsewhere - it is important to do so. It's when everyone agrees that I start to worry. ;) I still think you're wrong, though!

I'm just saying that asking for contrary views here is a bit futile. It's like a church camp leader asking kids, "So, who can give me some justifications for atheism?" Most kids aren't likely to have many arguments at the tip of their tongue, and those that do are likely not to speak out for fear of ostracization.

But hey, I'm in this thread now so I might as well be somewhat useful.

Do keep in mind that -- as I've said previously -- I don't think autolinks is all that useful in its present form. I love the concept, but the execution is quite limited, IMHO.

With that said, some advantages as I perceive them:

1) The MAPS linking saves quite a few keystrokes.

Addresses are often on more than one line, and it's a pain in the ass to cut and paste them:
- Open up new browser window.
- Type maps.whatever.com
- Go back to first browser window.
- Copy street
- Go to 2nd browser window
- Find right form field again, paste street
- Go back to original browser window
- Copy city and state or zip code
- Return to 2nd browser window, paste the new stuff

2) The tracking code thing is also quite handy
Many e-commerce sites list tracking codes, but stupidly don't link them to UPS or Fedex. So the user normally has to do this
- Copy the tracking code
- Open up a new browser window to UPS
- Select the geographic region
- Find where to enter in the code, and do so
- Check the "I agree button," then submit

Whereas with autolink it's one click -- done.

* * *

Personally, I find the ISBN links are rather useless and possibly a bad idea (more controversy than worth).

And lastly, I look forward to Google autolinking more terms (tech abbreviations, domain names, etc.), but hope and fully expect them to alter the link style to avoid consumer confusion.

Oh, actually, one more thing. I may be 'alone' but I'm also a Web publisher / Webmaster / ecom guy, so it's not like a non-geek, non-Web guy crashed your party :D

P.S. -- Thanks, Encyclo!

Let's say I'm looking for local pizza restaurant. I find the address on the website and autolink it. I go to Google Maps and there's an add for other pizza places advertisements on Googles page. Google makes money on the click through.

Yes I know there no advertisements there now, but you're kidding yourself if you don't think there will be. So in a single click google has taken my customer given them to someone else and made a profit from it.

From the original note in this thread:

Placing your site owner hat down on the table for a moment
> and putting on your Mr & Mrs Average searcher hat on how do
> you think the Autolink feature of the toolbar increases or
> decreases value?

First of all, if I'm interested in enough in Pat's Pizza Parlor that I'm looking up a map for their address, it's likely that I'm already pretty set on that restaurant ;).

But with that said, if Google can help consumers find a better deal or expand their choices ("Wow, I didn't know about Charlie's CHICAGO-STYLE Pizzeria! I've been looking for a chicago-style pie here for ages!") then, once again, the consumer has been helped.

"Google can help consumers find a better deal or expand their choices ("Wow, I didn't know about Charlie's CHICAGO-STYLE Pizzeria! I've been looking for a chicago-style pie here for ages!") then, once again, the consumer has been helped."

We then come back to "who watches over the watchman". Google are IMO not offering these links (in the long term) out of the goodness of their heart. They want to charge businesses for the links (hells bells, that has to be their aim - they are a listed company, not a philanthropic organisation)

So, as far as I am concerned, they are putting affiliate links over my site.

Let's say I own a hotel, and have a great web site for my hotel. Included in that site will be the word "hotel" and the address of the hotel many times. Are you seriously suggesting that Google has the right to add links to other hotels in the town?

...is that it only displays US maps, only tracks US deliveries, and I don't buy books (except maybe once a year, on a flea market, for my wife).

If only Google had started the autolink feature in a more obscure, less-SEO-ridden country, people would have loved it. What's more... other people would have felt left out - LOL.

Right but Joe's Pizza doesn't have a website so Google or Charlie's Pizza makes a profit, he runs it so he does.

As a consumer I don't expect Joe's Pizza to help Charlie's Pizza or vice versa. For a third party to become an enabler to that is wrong. For a third party to profit ... well ...

Allowing someone other than the content owner to decide to put links on a site is too abusive to allow it to happen in the first place.

Sure, it is *only* book links and maps now, but where do you say "OK, this is the line: this is too far?" You can't. Google will always push a little more and a little more until you've lost all control.

We need to nip this in the bud before it becomes dangerous.

If you consider that anyone who writes on a message board or blog as a 'web publisher' or a 'google supplier' -- in addition to those people who have their own web sites, you are affecting a bigger population than you ever realized.

With this technology, Google could easily link a particular term to a product on Amazon making my innocent bulletin board post look as though I am recommending a product I may not approve of.

Essentially, Google has the power to put words in my mouth. That's a big issue.

Does anyone have any data on what percentage of G's users regularly use the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button? It seems to me that, while they're not equivalent, they're at least analogous: the IFL button takes you straight to the #1 result of your search, and the AutoLink sends you to what G has determined to be best for you (whatever their non-algorithmic method of determining "best" might have been).

I've never used the button. But I would guess that those who use it regularly won't have much of a problem with having G insert links to whatever it's determined to be useful to them.

...you're thinking as webmasters again. Sorry to troll, but you ARE webmasters/SEOers. Have you asked your neighbour yet, what he/she thinks of TB3.0?

(and yes, Adam, I still think you are nuts)

"The man wants to boil the frog. But if he just tosses the frog into boiling water, the frog will leap out. So the man eases the frog into water pleasantly warm, lulls the frog, then gradually turns up the heat. The frog gets cooked."

What you are missing is that this is just a moment in time. It is obvious that the major portals of the net (MSN,Y!, G$) would love to be able to modify the content of websites at will. Imagine the potential billions to be made.

Autolink is the nice cool water, after all it is only fucking over the independent book stores.

(in fact we're going to post something about that in a minute!)

But trying to see both sides of the discussion. You can't win an argument by being unreasonable.

> only fucking over the independent book stores.

Until they bid on the ISBN numbers. I bet eventually, if the autolink feature persists -- its integrated into one of the advertising programs.

Autolink:

Great for advanced users. I mean, the local search > autolink > maps connection is an *excellent* set of integrated applications. I immediately changed my behavior and adopted its use the same day I first saw the feature.

Irrevelant for most users. Sheesh...tons of people still just type in URLs into the Google search box!

Very scary for anyone doing e-commerce, merchants and affiliates alike. If Google starts to monopolize the commercial search space, little step by little step, it'll be a disaster for all but the large companies with the ability to buy lots of user attention.

Aloha,
Kirk

Some of the functions are similar to some Firefox extensions. For instance, I have an extension called "Map-It" where I can highlight an address and Firefox will show me it in MapQuest. That's very similar to a function in AutoLink.

So let me ask you this...

I imagine someone could easily create a Firefox extension that turned all ISBNs into a link to Amazon. (Maybe there already is one.) Would this extension also be evil? Or is it different because it's not bundled into the Google toolbar?

(I'm playing devil's advocate here, although I'm really not sure how I'd answer the same question.)

...

In fact I use a couple of FF extensions that modify the content.

What's more - I'm expecting an extension (or an IE toolbar) soon that just scrapes a page and turns it into something ad-infested and offensive altogether. Turning text into links (that open in a _blank window FTM) is just soooo subtle compared to what's in store. And it's not that the concept was invented by G...

My post was putting on my Joe "Muppet" User hat to see what they would think.

That does not mean that I think this is good from a publishers perspective, because it aint. As you rightly allude to it starts down a dodgy path wrt web publishers.

I just wanted to clear that up. :-)

Slate's Paul Boutin said:

and

Tim Bray apologizes for being rude but is unapologetic for calling it evil and stupid. It's a long post and there's no perfect quote, so read the lot, i'ts good stuff. Here's one bit i particularly liked:

Graywolf says that Google is the Borg lmao!

are now covering the debate

..are carrying an item on it

We spoke about that one. I asked chris if he'd hold off till we knew where google were going - untill then, im not prepared to give in and compromise on TW

we're right with you Nick and don't want to compromise either - but if (when) Google decide to withdraw AutoLink I don't for one minute believe that some other company isn't going to come along and develop another 'user aid' which does the same - at least if people who support the idea can opt in using a tag the developers might be encouraged to use it and not make the rest of us go through this whole argument again.

We feel that rather than a google-specific tag like the M$one a general tag which can also cater for specifics is a good idea and is going to save a lot of adding individual tags in the long run.

but I'll drop the subject now and go find you a recipe for a soothing madras or something shall I :)

say i'd be right behind it once we knew for sure - im not about to go to war on this lol! I just dont want to support it right at this moment.

I picked up a "hint" that we might hear G$ speak pretty soon on this. At that time, we can decide whether a creative commons liscense or a meta tag, or a combination of both is in order...

1.) The thing about boiling a frog by heating the water slowly is a myth. Frogs have enough sense to jump out. Humans, OTOH... ;-)

2.) As someone already pointed out (but it's worth reiterating), Average Joe User doesn't generally use toolbars, unless they get sneakily foisted on him via spyware. So as long as Google is keeping their toolbar as a voluntary download, I'd be you're looking at a techie user base. (The same reason why Alexa rankings are pointless for general interest sites...)

3.) It's a consent issue. The toolbar user consents, and Google certainly consents, but there are three parties involved here: Google, the user, and the web publisher. And IMO, all three need to consent for it to qualify as not evil. Say a married man finds a single woman willing to have a threesome with him and his wife, and brings her home without consulting the wife first.... You've got two out of three parties consenting, right? Surely the wife should just give in, as it is clearly a 'good thing' in the majority opinion, no? ;-)

http://bbs.fuckedcompany.com/index.cgi?okay=get_topic&topic_id=1647110

Worth a read, not really work safe nor politically correct either but worth a read.

normally I can think of an opportunity from almost eveything, it may be a crap idea but normally something.....

but aside from never having to pay for a map again (when it goes worldwide) can anyone see any 'incredible opportunity' AutoLink is presenting to a website owner? Help me think this through please :)

from the POV of Amazon!

I went through three pages of that mess looking for the context of the post you quoted, Gurtie. And I thought we could be rude.

No, I don't see "incredible opportunities" for businesses. If you want links to maps and such things on your site, you put them there yourself.

I randomly clicked after page 2 - that was one amazing thread....

As this thread has grown I took an active decision to sit back, watch and see what others thought as in all honesty I can't see any good in the toolbar for the end user but I also acknowledge that I am far from the average prospect for this type of tool.

I am afraid that we may all be too close and too untargetted to get a broader view. I think UKGimp got it spot on when he said

here.

It's close to the weekend for me. I have long left the office, Daniel is (finally) asleep in bed. Sue and I both has the sniffles and she has gone to bed to practice the new Olympic event of mega snoring and I am sitting here with a Lemsip and my laptop thinking and typing.

And I think the only way to find out is to take UKGimp's post literally.

I have one of those "family gathering things" tomorrow, when you get to see all the relatives that are close to death, cousins you can't stand, aunts that should know better, uncles that drink too much beer, and in general the parts of the family that only get together when someone dies or there is a wedding!

Oh, and they all think I am the devil incarnate as I step outside into obscenely cold temperatures to smoke a cigarette.

If you can't tell from my expressions above it isn't my favourite way to spend a Saturday, but duty calls etc.

Anyway,, I'm taking a laptop. I'm taking a mobile phone, I pay obscene fortunes for GPRS usage (How I envy you Nick with your moderately priced mobile data prices in dk) and I am going to let them loose on a few pages with and without the toolbar installed. Then I am gonna interview them!

I may live to regret it as they might actually like it but I do promise that whatever they tell me, I'll tell you.

I want to ask you that if you have the same type of extended family gathering things as I do, that you do similar and let us know what you find out

Thanks and I hope your weekend is better than I expect mine will be :)

Gurtie dropped this HighRankings link in the thread i just closed in favor of this one. Just so you don't miss it: Scroll down and read Jill's posts about her conversations with Cutts - most enlightening...

Thanks Gurtie!

Well, i definately want to see the results Jason, but I won't be able to trust it.

Lemme explain.

If I were to do that with my mum for example, I would first have to spend 20mins explaining what an ISBN number was. Then I'd have to spend half an hour showing her how to work Google Maps (despite the instructions) - I'd then have to (or perhaps first) show her how to navigate outside of what Jeeves shows her...

The point is, that the "average user", is not that bright. No insult intended, it's just that we spend all day, every day talking about, working with and dissecting information on the internet. We live and breathe the business of the net, we operate withing the conversation of the internet and consequently, we know a fair bit about Google, links, etc etc

Normal people dont, so if my mum actually got the point of AutoLink, she'd probably not find it useful but she certainly wouldn't object to it becuase she has no wider frame of reference in which to put it into context and look at what it may become and how that could affect peoples businesses (including hers)...

It's like asking an 8yr old if sweets are good - sure they are! They have no concept of tooth decay.

it would be people who know a bit about computers but not a lot. People who use the internet but don't really make their living on it (I'm basing that on the fact that in general SO's, designers, programmers, affiliates tend to have moved away from IE or don't use SE toolbars).

In short guys I'm very much afraid that the toolbar target market are the people that are most verocious in their support of AutoLink.

If you think about it that's obvious - people who don't use toolbars at all don't care and won't be posting about it. The only people with an opinion are the ones who're already discussing it. And Google who clearly aren't discussing it at all.

The only unprompted opinions you might get from the un-computer-literate rellies are, I think, that the maps thing is useful and then the occasional horror struck reaction if you show them their own address and make it link.

If you explain to your granny about the Amazon links they'll agree it's bad. If you don't they'll say "oooh, that's nice love, shall we watch EastEnders?"

Engineers, product managers, and fellow artsy-fartsy friends.

One had strong misgivings (PM). One had minor concerns but thought it was generally okay (dancer). The others thought the tool was either benign or damn cool.

Not a huge sample size. Just a handful of people so far, and all in the silicon valley area. Might be different in flyover country, etc.

And Nick, I don't mind strong disagreement. I don't even mind being told I'm totally wrong. But the ad hominem attacks are really annoying. That's the last I'll say about that; I'll decide to either deal and stop whining about it, or just bid adieu.

Nick, I agree that the average user is thick. In fact I even went so far as to parody it with the widget chav algo thing just before Christmas.

But those same thicko chavs are not only the people who fund a search engine's monetisation plans but also the same people who fund a lot of marketers businesses.

Let me take a snippet from that widget chav doc and paste it here as an (extreme) example.

Now although parts of my family come close to Sharon none of them are actually that bad , but in essence my family are as close to the ordinary masses that you will find on any British High Street on any Saturday afternoon.

The plan is to not guide them through the browser, the toolbar, google maps and amazon etc as I actually believe that although they are certainly chavs and definately potential customers they are already knowledgable enough to know what Google, Amazon, a map (though probably multimaps.com rather than Yahoo or Google maps here in the UK) and I don't think they'll need that level of education.

It was once said to me in a discussion with the MD of a UK financial services company that (and I am paraphrasing here)

I am afraid that the middle classes (which is something I sure aint in) are not the target market for a search engine nor most online marketers. Chavs and the working class is the user base both the search engine and I go after and I actually think they will know the difference between a standard INternet Explorer and IE with GTBv3.

My fear is that they'll like the latter

THAT is the point i am making Adam. They are not directed at you personally - come on, put that thick skin back in place and let's get on with the show eh?

Gurtie, a point well made, and your feedbacks sound about right too Adam - im expecting G$ to break silence soon - they have to. Every day that passes without them being part of the conversation just makes them seem more M$ like to everyone, supporter or non...

Please post your findings :-)

Okay Adam, I am sorry for calling you a fucking nut. You are actually a very sane man, just very wrong. See, the bulk of the people here at TW are experienced webmasters, veterans who have seen big companies do bad things in the past while pretending that they are doing us a service. We can smell where this is going.

Only a handful of companies have the ability to irrevocably damage the Internet and Google is one of them. What you are witnessing is the beginning of a power grab. When Pol Pot marched into the cities of Cambodia he was regarded as a liberator too.

You may think that highlighting ISBIN numbers isn't a big deal, but it is only the first step. Convincing you, and the rest of the blogging 'community' may be nearly impossible -- a fact that Google is counting on.

Just so you don't miss it: Scroll down and read Jill's posts about her conversations with Cutts - most enlightening...

Yes it is similar to some firefox extentions, but it's also very different.

• In firefox the user highlights and right clicks the term not the whole page
• The user chooses the destination NOT GOOGLE or some other third party
• The links are not on the page making them look creator endorsed

Just add the opt-out already sheesh this isn't that hard a concept to grasp ...

And he (Matt Cutts) went on to say that so many sites are not as usable as they should be, not linking things that should be links, and the autolink tool would "help" these to be more usable.

Interesting. Is Google's vision of the user experience more that of a wikipedia page or a link-crazy blogger?

And will this "encourage" webmasters to place more links on their pages, since if they do not, Google will do it for them anyway?

Of course, that has implications for links as votes. If every page has, say, 100 links, instead of 10, Google can still aggregate its calculations of popularity, topicality and whatever else it wants.

The difference, of course, is that it becomes a lot more problematic (and visible) if one is attempting to manipulate the effects of those links...

If they believe all ISBN numbers should be linked you would be creating quite a lot of pages that link to themselves, which goes against every usability expert's advice I've ever read.

So maybe we (the little guys) comply with Google dictates - but maybe we link ISBN's to Barnes and Noble or Powells or BAMM all the time to the detriment of Google's chosen favorite Amazon? I'm not sure Amazon will be too happy about being dragged into Google's scheme.

Wouldn't that mean that the little guys would be helping one of the big guys to compete with another of the big guys? I'm not suggesting we roll over and let Amazon own the vertical, but that doesn't seem like a good way to stop them. It's like if, back in the arms race days, Barbados had started a nuke program to contribute to the US in order to keep the Soviets at bay.

Qwerty the webmaster is free to choose any bookseller they wish - those are just famiier examples. My point is in re. the Matt Cutts quote, that we are not going to just jump through the hoops that Google holds up for us like trained poodles and that Google's attempts at redrawing the linking map of the web might have some unexpected consequences if we are forced to pre-emptively link ISBN's.

Of course, I can't think of many sites other than bookstores or libraries that are even going to have ISBNs, and naturally, if they're going to link them, they're going to link them to their own pages.

Nobody uses ISBNs in standard citations in scholarly papers, do they? It's been a while since I had any reason to look at either the APA or MLA handbook.

Matt Cutts' quote summoned up a vision of Adwords (without Adsense) applied inline to content...

Random Future Blog
Read "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" last night, since my vacation is near the same hotel that Thompson was in. Of course, I can't finance the drugs that he was on, since the divorce lawyer took all the money...

n/a

Congrats, that is exactly what I am afraid of seeing :O) I don't care about the current toolbar, it's the idea that the floodgates are about to be opened that has me wearing brown trousers!

That's what I said to Matt Cutts in my conversation. Sure it's fairly innocous in it's current incarnation, and I believe that Larry and Sergey would never let it get that far, but what happens when they eventually leave the company?

Matt just laughed when I asked him that.

did he laugh like a nice guy or did he laugh in an evil way while rubbing his hands together and smirking?

Now that you mention it...

the Observer Blog has picked up on it now.

I just came to post that! :)

Not a bad summary really either eh?

I was impressed more by one particular comment on the Blog than the piece itself.

Especially the "sounds like spam" line!

Sounds like something Google could have written about themselves this week :-)

Study complete on how The toolbar is perceived by the average web surfer.

The amazing statistic is that 100% of those questioned believe it is scumware!

According to Rubel the Wall Street Journal has an article today by Walt Mossberg which comes out against AutoLink.

Once again it seems G is willing to talk to the hefty reporters if not to the rest of us because

.

Today is three weeks since the beta was launched and there's been no public comment on any of the feedback so far. How much more consideration does this need?