<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://ideas.4brad.com" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>Brad Ideas - Selling ads on URLs - Comments</title>
 <link>http://ideas.4brad.com/selling-ads-urls</link>
 <description>Comments for &quot;Selling ads on URLs&quot;</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Selling ads on URLs</title>
 <link>http://ideas.4brad.com/selling-ads-urls</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Recently, Lauren Weinstein posted a query for a way to bring a certain type of commentary on web sites to the web.  In particular, he&amp;#8217;s interested in giving people who are the subject of attack web sites, who may even have gotten court judgments against such web sites to &lt;a href=&quot;http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000253.html&quot;&gt;inform people of the dispute&lt;/a&gt; by annotations that show up when they search in search engines.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#8217;m not sure this is a good idea for a number of reasons.  I like the idea of being able to see 3rd party commentary on web sites (such as Third Voice and others have tried to do) and suspect the browser is a better place than the search engine for it.  I don&amp;#8217;t like putting any duty upon people who simply link to web sites (which is what search engines do) because the sites are bad.  They may want to provide extra info on what they link to as a service to users, but that&amp;#8217;s up to them and should be unless they are a monopoly.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;In addition, putting messages with an agenda next to search results is what search engines do for a living.  However, in that may be the answer.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://ideas.4brad.com/selling-ads-urls#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://ideas.4brad.com/taxonomy/term/40">Internet</category>
 <pubDate>Sat, 16 Jun 2007 22:00:22 -0700</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>brad</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">614 at http://ideas.4brad.com</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
