anatomy of a netscam

[Briscoe Library]

The sort of thing you're describing here is remarkably similar to infomercials on TV and advertisement sections in magazines.  These are explicitly denotated (though as subtly as possible) as advertisements--that is to say, they use the word "advertisement".  I see no problem with doing the same with Web ads.

As for ensuring that people are able to discern quality information sources on the Web, it looks like exactly our sort of thing.  I mean, that's what we do when we purchase reference materials for the public to use in our libraries.  We should take on a similar role on the Web, by making a concerted effort to discern the quality of the sources we provide links to from our sites.

However, just as we don't go out to bookstores and decry the misinformation there or go into peoples' homes and pick through their personal reference materials, we can't (and shouldn't) dictate what sources the web inhabitants choose to use (and I'm not implying that this is the intent of anyone in this discussion).  What we CAN and SHOULD do is work together to create a strong web presence for libraries that provides the same sort of service that we've done in our local communities: access to information by providing access to the highest quality tools available.

What this comes down to is that there needs to be a mechanism by which these tools are judged/rated by OUR criteria, and then we make it clear which tools are best for which sort of information need.  Of course, as this debate shows, we're still hammering out exactly what these criteria are.

I have to agree that integrity and respect for privacy should be high on the list.  I'd have a difficult time recommending a reference tool that does not at the very least provide the user with the option of not using his/her searches for commercial gain.  As for advertising, on the other hand; let's face it, it's going to cost some fair bucks to keep a decent web indexing site current and worthwhile.  If they can get it through advertising, more power to them, so long as they are responsible in its implimentation.

Anyway, that's my $.02.

Keith

Keith Engwall
Systems Librarian
Briscoe Library - UTHSCSA
engwall at uthscsa.edu

----------
From: 	John Hogle[SMTP:jhogle at wahoo.sjsu.edu]
Sent: 	Wednesday, July 10, 1996 1:22 AM
To: 	Multiple recipients of list
Subject: 	Re: anatomy of a netscam

Having met Anne and having a lot of respect for her, I appreciate her
perspective.  Unfortunately, the vast majority (95%-plus???) of neophyte
Web users have little understanding of the mechanisms and the intents of
the visible artifacts of Web pages and browsers.  I know this well because
over the last year I have introduced many fellow library science students
and others to Web search tools, including search engines and hierarchical
directories.  Over the past four weeks I have done so with some staff and
a number of visiting teachers at the Exploratorium in San Francisco. 

None of these are stupid people. They are well-educated, capable, and
interested in the potential of the Internet and want to use it.  The
problem is that the Web and the Internet are a radically different set of
information mechanisms and practices than most new users are familiar
with. If a banner is not explicitly identified as an advertisement, many
users may not understand its role. For example, I searched for "travel." 
It brought up the banner of NetMedia's #1 Travel Network banner, which
says "Exciting Travel Destinations and Services." The display of the "Top
10 Political Sites" banner is particularly misleading. A significant
fraction of new users will not understand that these are merely ads and
not results of their search. 

As information specialists we better understand the nature of the use and
misuse of information media.  I am not worried about our ability to sort
out the valid from the crap.  I am, though, worried about some people I
come across who think $2.95 an hour for AOL is a good (if not only) deal,
Packard Bell PCs are a good buy, and their favorite politicians don't
compromise their ideals. We need to ensure that the public understands
that information tools, whether in the local library or on the Net, can be
misused, can mislead, may not be what they imply they are.

Cheers,  John Hogle / reference librarian, Exploratorium
                      jhogle at wahoo.sjsu.edu / jhogle at exploratorium.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 9 Jul 1996, Anne Callery wrote:

> Hi all -- I'm not in advertising here at Yahoo!, but I can explain a 
> little about advertising opportunities...  It is entirely possible for an 
> advertiser to buy a word and have their ad come up at the top of the 
> search results page for that word.  For an example of that type of ad, 
> just enter a search for "flowers" and see what ad is displayed at the top 
> of the search results page.  I don't know exactly what words the company 
> in question may have bought; I tried a few and they came up consistently 
> for the word "republican".  These ads are regular banner ads like the 
> ones purchased on regular Yahoo! pages.
> 
> But, I really don't understand what the big deal is.  To anyone who has 
> ever used Yahoo!, it is obviously an ad.  Even to somone who has never 
> been to Yahoo! before, enters a search, and views the search results 
> page, it should be pretty obvious that the ad is set apart from the search 
> results.  It's in a little colored box and it sits above the line that 
> tells how many matches were found, followed by sections with matching 
> categories and sites.