Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Google The Internet Technology

Google SideWiki Brings Comments To Everyone 221

Rophuine writes "Google has launched a product called SideWiki. It takes the form of a plug-in to Firefox and Internet Explorer which allows users to mark up the web by adding comments which can be seen by anyone else running SideWiki." Google's version joins a long line of attempts to impose a layer of comments on the Web, including Microsoft's Smart Tags and Third Voice.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google SideWiki Brings Comments To Everyone

Comments Filter:
  • by Raindance ( 680694 ) * <johnsonmxNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday September 24, 2009 @01:22PM (#29530729) Homepage Journal

    Despite the name, Sidewiki is not a wiki such that people can edit, prune, and synthesize information, nor is it moderated in any way. It's just a comment system, with no way to amplify the signal vs the noise. It's also unclear how people are supposed to use it- e.g., what to post (which is a significant failing imo). Interesting as an approach to layer user comments onto webpages, but not useful yet. Arstechnica pretty much nailed it with the following:

    This new offering from Google is intriguing in some ways and it shows that the company is thinking creatively about how to build dialog and additional value around existing content. The scope and utility of the service seems a bit narrow. The random nature of the existing annotations suggest that the quality and depth of the user-contributed content will be roughly equivalent with the comments that people post about pages at aggregation sites like Digg and Reddit.
    What makes Wikipedia content useful is the ability of editors to delete the crap and restructure the existing material to provide something of value. Without the ability to do that with Sidewiki, it's really little more than a glorified comment system and probably should have been built as such. As it stands, I think that most users will just be confused about what kind annotations they should post.

  • No Chrome? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by francisstp ( 1137345 ) on Thursday September 24, 2009 @01:23PM (#29530745) Homepage

    It takes the form of a plug-in to Firefox and Internet Explorer

    What, Google aren't even releasing plug-ins for their own browser first? What kind of endorsement is that?

  • by dschl ( 57168 ) on Thursday September 24, 2009 @01:27PM (#29530791) Homepage

    Experience has provided me with some skepticism regarding the intelligence of crowds. This Sidewiki would be like having a running commentary on the web, written by the same type of people who write Youtube comments and -1 rated comments on Slashdot.

    Thanks, but no thanks. Hope that one dies in beta, unless they figure out how to filter out the crap, and bring the valuable contributions to the top. They could start by testing their filters on Youtube.

  • SearchWiki (Score:3, Interesting)

    by FornaxChemica ( 968594 ) on Thursday September 24, 2009 @01:43PM (#29531009) Homepage Journal
    Google Search already has the SearchWiki [slashdot.org] that doesn't seem overly popular because no one remembers it exists when writing about the "new" feature. Wasn't it already supposed to "bring comments to everyone"? I think people are just not interested in commenting websites, or rather, the ones posting comments won't be doctors and academics as shown in their example. Google lives in an ideal world where comments are relevant.
  • by Anonymusing ( 1450747 ) on Thursday September 24, 2009 @01:47PM (#29531059)

    The only way this could work is if site owners could somehow manage the content, perhaps by authorizing some users to leave comments. Or perhaps they'll work it like Adwords, where the highest-paying contributor is listed first -- and maybe the site is paying for that. Or there would be some kind of vetting process for contributors.

    Never mind. You're right, it will never work.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 24, 2009 @01:49PM (#29531073)

    Does this give Google a real-time ping with the URL for each and every page I visit?

  • by BoppreH ( 1520463 ) on Thursday September 24, 2009 @01:51PM (#29531107)
    a) On a 404 page - "This page has been moved to ____" b) On paid content websites - "You can download it at [thepiratebay link]" c) Talk to the author (oh god, I'd rage at this) - "Hey, it didn't work in my IE6!" or "You used 'their' incorrectly" I can't think of any other case that has not been covered by conventional moderating system.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 24, 2009 @01:55PM (#29531151)

    You realize that because you 'had the idea' before Google launched the actual implentation you now, per Slashdot convention, can claim that Google has not done anything new or novel.

    This is generally applied to Apple and Microsoft and their predecessors are typically sci-fi writers or something Stallman wrote or a lecture someone once heard somewhere. The tie in is often tenuous, and the credit valid only at Slashdot and your local LUG meeting, but valuable nonetheless.

    Not sure how well it will go over with Google as the target though. Lots of love here for them.

  • Re:No Chrome? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Syniurge ( 1550185 ) on Thursday September 24, 2009 @02:17PM (#29531429)

    Chrome will support it built in to the new version.

    Hmm, wrong:

    Peter Kasting says
    From the article: "It will also eventually be integrated into Google's Chrome Web browser."

    I am a Chromium developer, and as far as I know, this is untrue; I believe the hope is to make this a Chrome extension, not something that's part of the base product.

    (from the Ars Technica comments)

  • by maxwell demon ( 590494 ) on Thursday September 24, 2009 @02:36PM (#29531621) Journal

    Actually XMosaic did contain annotation functionality. You could add personal annotations to a web page (which could be seen only by yourself), and you could also add public annotations (but I think the web site would have had to cooperate).

  • by Bazman ( 4849 ) on Thursday September 24, 2009 @02:42PM (#29531683) Journal

    Did you not read the links from TFA:

    http://www.google.com/support/toolbar/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=157294 [google.com]

    It might work, or it might suck. Only one way to find out...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 24, 2009 @03:40PM (#29532385)

    I'm going to use this to mark up websites that spam or push spyware. So no, it would not be a good idea to give webmasters the overriding ability to moderate the comments for their own site.

  • by harrv ( 627638 ) on Thursday September 24, 2009 @03:43PM (#29532421)
    A few years ago I hired a landscaper who wouldn't return my calls or fix his shoddy work after screwing the job badly. If I wanted to warn others about this, I could use Sidewiki to leave a note about my experience. I'm sure he would disable it if he could, but the fact that he can't is the beauty of such a system. I'm not changing his content or using his server--I'm using a Google service.
  • So close yet so far (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Logic and Reason ( 952833 ) on Thursday September 24, 2009 @04:39PM (#29533085)
    I've wanted to implement something like this for a long time, except my version would:
    • be just comments; it wouldn't style itself a "wiki"
    • store the comments on Usenet or some other distributed, open system
    • use optional PGP signatures in place of logins
    • have an optional, distributed, poster-based moderation system

    What I mean by that last point is that you'd have the ability to 'mod up' posters rather than comments, and moreover your moderations would only apply to you. No one else would see your mods, nor would you see anyone else's, except that you would have the option to make your mods recursive: if you moderate Bob at +1, then maybe you would see Bob's +1-modded posters at +0.5, and those posters' +1-modded posters at +0.25, and so on.

    Of course, the moderation and PGP signatures would be completely optional, and would be applied in addition to regular spam filtering like that of existing Usenet and email clients.

  • More advertising? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ljw1004 ( 764174 ) on Thursday September 24, 2009 @05:39PM (#29533831)

    I wonder if Google will put advertising banners at the top of the sidewiki bar, as another way to make themselves money off other people's content?

Work is the crab grass in the lawn of life. -- Schulz

Working...