« Previous post
Next post »

February 13, 2008

Google Officially Hijacks 404 Pages, What Do You Think?

Duncan Riley

82 comments »

google4.jpgFollowing our story yesterday on reports that the new beta version of Google’s Toolbar hijacks 404 pages, Google’s Matt Cutts confirmed the story.

Unsurprisingly Cutts suggested that the hijacking was a helpful measure and that it only takes place where the 404 page is under 512 bytes. I have to admit that it does sound warm and fuzzy, Google being helpful and all, but still, when Verisign started hijacking similar non page results, there was a mighty uproar.

I get Google’s argument, and the vast majority of web pages will not be affected by this, but it seems to be the thin edge of the wedge to me. Google hijacking any pages, no matter what the argument, is not a positive step forward. What do you think?

Do you support Google's stance in hijacking pages?
View Results

(image credit: TechRepublic)

CrunchBase Information
Google
Google Toolbar
Information provided by CrunchBase
  • Sphere It

This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 13th, 2008 at 4:53 am and is filed under Company & Product Profiles. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Trackbacks/Pings (Trackback URL)

  1. WinExtra

    February 13th, 2008 at 10:54 am

  2. Hommel-Net Weblog

    February 13th, 2008 at 1:57 pm

  3. Random Acts of Linkage #48 : Subversive Influence

    February 16th, 2008 at 4:16 am

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. Mads Gorm Larsen

    February 13th, 2008 at 5:02 am

    If you have some meaningful information you would liked to have displayed in cases of 404 under your domain, you can ad a picture that is 513 kb?

  2. Aleks

    February 13th, 2008 at 5:02 am

    The one, who got the power, doesn’t need to ask us, what to do. Personally I don’t agree nor disagree.

  3. Scabr

    February 13th, 2008 at 5:02 am

    It is official strategy, all behemoth’s do it

  4. Ignacio

    February 13th, 2008 at 5:12 am

    According to Wikipedia Internet Explorer 6 behaves the same way, replaces 404 error responses smaller than 512 bytes with its own error page. Internet Explorer 6 has more than 40% of the market, so if you are a webmaster and you are serious about showing your custom error page you should be already sending a page that is larger than 512 bytes or you will be missing 40% of your audience.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/404_error

  5. Ignacio

    February 13th, 2008 at 5:13 am

    @Mads Gorm Larsen

    Note that its 512 bytes, not 512 KB

  6. Vagif

    February 13th, 2008 at 5:25 am

    A bad precedent but what can you do?

  7. webdigr

    February 13th, 2008 at 5:43 am

    Both IE and FF have atleast an offline 404 page… But this google thing will always load a page from the web… Unnecessarily wasting the bandwidth..

    This matters for the limited bandwidth options in India!

  8. Marcin Grodzicki

    February 13th, 2008 at 5:52 am

    I must say I didn’t like it when I first heard it, but as someone on RWW I think mentioned: the situation would be completely different if Google offered to share revenue created by hijacked 404’s with the developers. So to be precise, again just like Facebooks beacon, it’s not the idea that is bad but rather PR and execution of it. Just like beacon this thing is opt-out rather than opt-in and was introduced without proper PR note from google.

  9. Carlton Northern

    February 13th, 2008 at 5:55 am

    I don’t see what the big deal is. Google is not really “officially hijacking” 404 pages. They are adding a service to their optional tool which will then hijack the page. If you don’t agree with this practice then don’t use their tool! This is way different than IE hijacking 404 pages. I wouldnt also be surprised if there is an option to turn this feature off.

  10. Holger

    February 13th, 2008 at 5:56 am

    It’s absolutely silly to compare this to the Verisign “SiteFinder” situation:

    a) it only happens when you (voluntarily) install the Google toolbar
    b) it’s an option that can be switched off (and according to what I’ve read isn’t even on by default)
    c) all it does is replace meaningless non-customized 404 pages - if people want that, why not?

    In comparison, the Verisign function affected everyone because it was built into the internet infrastructure and there was no way to opt out of it, it broke anti-spam measures by making all domains valid, etc… totally different story.

  11. vepa

    February 13th, 2008 at 6:03 am

    It is not good because some super busy servers may not handle high traffic or have some server issues. And all visitors will go to Google . :( Especially if site is competing with Google in some areas.

    404 pages appear when changing DNS settings as well.

    Looks like Google promotes its brand in monopolistic way through other sites’ trouble :((

  12. ceejayoz

    February 13th, 2008 at 6:14 am

    There’s such a massive distinction between what Verisign and Google are doing that comparing the two makes you look a) ignorant or b) trollish. Google’s technique is exactly what Internet Explorer already does, requires the user to install their toolbar, and is an option only.

  13. Dito

    February 13th, 2008 at 6:22 am

    I voted Yes! The hijack helps retain site visitors if you don’t have a custom 404 page… it is a good thing.

  14. Bhangu

    February 13th, 2008 at 6:24 am

    Hi,

    I think you got it wrong here.

    I have a website, where i use 404 error page, to have SEO friendly url’s and Google toolbar does not give any error or we can say does not hijack it.

    The 404 request is first handled by the Webserver, so if webmaster wants to handle 404 pages in some way he can do it without bothering about Google Toolbar.

    If in case the 404 bad request is not handles by Webserver (Webmaster) then it’s gonna show that 404 page in IE anyways, and its always good to have a clean error message with some suggestions rathar then simple 404 page not found kind of thing.

    In case it’s still unclear, a webmaster can add the following line in .htaccess file

    ErrorDocument 404 /redirect.php

    to redirect any 404 page (missing page on the host) to redirect.php page.

    So there is nothing to worry and webmasters won’t have any knock on affect of this thing.

  15. Bhangu

    February 13th, 2008 at 6:26 am

    Tech Cruch has gone anti Google as Micheal arrington was not let on the google Plane last month.

    Period.

  16. EMC2ORZ

    February 13th, 2008 at 6:35 am

    I have senese that Google is doing “evil” long time ago, and this is just to prove my thought! ^^

  17. Tual

    February 13th, 2008 at 6:38 am

    I guess Google has grown past the whole “don’t be evil” phase.

  18. Steel

    February 13th, 2008 at 6:40 am

    @Bhangu

    That was a lame ass comment. MA is a big boy in a big boy world. Apparently you just don’t understand how monopolistic this appears.

  19. chrisco

    February 13th, 2008 at 6:55 am

    that is evil…

  20. Sebastian

    February 13th, 2008 at 7:05 am

    Google is the most potent company in the http://WWW... why should they care? :P

  21. Tim

    February 13th, 2008 at 7:11 am

    Isn’t google already doing something similar with their mobile search? They reformat existing web pages to work with mobile browsers and keep the views on google’s server…

  22. me

    February 13th, 2008 at 7:18 am

    just use customised 404 page and don’t let your server send 404 header to the browser. keep in mind taht you have to send 404 to search bots or you would be penalised

  23. Mike Wills

    February 13th, 2008 at 7:20 am

    It REALLY depends. First, what does this 404 page look like? Second, if all they have is the default 404 page, this might give a bit more user friendly look.

  24. Fabian Schonholz

    February 13th, 2008 at 7:21 am

    I normally support what Google does. I think that their balancing act of expansion, $$$ and corporate ethics (DO NO EVIL) is tested all the time. In this case, I am not sure it is evil but definitely bad taste. They should not do it “period”.

    On the other hand, and in no way I am justifying the action, I rather get a Google search page than an unmanaged 404 page. I stand by my comment above, however.

  25. Niraj

    February 13th, 2008 at 7:27 am

    @webdigr: If you’re so concerned about bandwidth, you shouldn’t be installing the Google Toolbar in the first place. Not to mention you can easily turn off the feature.

  26. War-N

    February 13th, 2008 at 7:28 am

    I don’t consider this hijacking so I can’t answer the poll.

    Truth be told, all of these “toolbars” are as much (if not more) useful tools for the company that provides as they are to the end users. I don’t use Google toolbar so it doesn’t really affect me.

  27. mathew

    February 13th, 2008 at 7:30 am

    Speaking as a web developer, they’d better have an option to turn this off, or I’ll have to uninstall the toolbar. I need my error messages unmolested.

  28. Bernie Lomax

    February 13th, 2008 at 7:30 am

    Umm, really? We care about this. It’s a f’n 404 page. Get over it. Waaaaaah!

  29. Nag

    February 13th, 2008 at 7:34 am

    Hi Duncan,
    Technically speaking i really don’t think it is any issue at all.

    There is a setting in IE which say, “Enable Friendly HTTP error pages”. Which is enabled by default, would give a IE page” There is an error or something like that” when there is a HTTP 500 error message.

    Similarly Google Tools bar is setting for HTTP 404 response code. When the browser can do it, why can’t an extension to the browser do this ?

    No offense just my thoughts.

    Cheers, Nag

  30. Leslie Thompkins

    February 13th, 2008 at 7:34 am

    Similarly to War-N, I don’t consider this hijacking and I’m not surprised that when framed through Riley’s breathless paranoia, the results tilt so much against Google.

  31. Ben Beltran

    February 13th, 2008 at 7:38 am

    More on this? Come on. Using words like hijacking next to an “Evil google” image?

    A bit too “yellow press”-ish maybe?

    I support google showing something useful where the webmaster didn’t.

  32. Gus

    February 13th, 2008 at 7:38 am

    Google is adopting a progressively more nannying approach to its role on the internet. There’s a fine line between its original mission and a form of benign (or otherwise) despotism. It worries me that there is no effective check on its ambitions in the information discovery space. It’s unbalancing the internet.

  33. Alex Loddengaard

    February 13th, 2008 at 7:48 am

    I’m OK with this. If you’ve installed the Google toolbar, then you’re going to use Google to search. Why not make it easy to search from the 404 page? By hitting a 404 page, you’re obviously in search of something.

    Perhaps they should have left the 404 page unbranded and just added a search box?

  34. theo geer

    February 13th, 2008 at 7:49 am

    This is precisely why I refuse to use third party tool-bars. Besides the fact that they’re generally useless to me, I’m incredibly sick of toolbar providers changing base functionality without my asking them too. Google is the most recent, but pretty much all of these toolkits have this junk in them. grrrrr.

  35. ntas

    February 13th, 2008 at 7:52 am

    404 or 500 HTTP (infact all of them) error pages should be handled by the browser. Period. Google will benefit through ad revenue especially with third option where the user searchs…and they might not return! Google has grown too big now that is starting to abuse its position..remember microsoft how they turned “evil”?..whats next?

  36. jason

    February 13th, 2008 at 7:54 am

    i don’t use third party toolbars of any kind, but as a web designer this makes me a little angry when i go out of my way to style even the 404 pages of my sites. i dont really want my users to be taken away from my sites if they encounter a 404.

  37. Michael

    February 13th, 2008 at 8:09 am

    At least you have the option to install Google’s toolbar. My ISP Verizon has hijacked my invalid DNS requests, and forces a search based off the request. Slowing down correcting a misspelled domain because the browser then follows a tunnel of domain redirects to arrive at the final search results 5-6 seconds later. Completely removing the ability to simply edit the address bar.

    In the end because of the controversy over the 404 hijack, Google will most likely remove the feature or make it controllable as an option. I’m not so sure why everyone and their mothers are up in arms over this, its not like the page is popping up fifteen ad windows and forcing you to buy the privilege of uninstalling the toolbar. Now that would be evil.

  38. Christoph Wagner

    February 13th, 2008 at 8:10 am

    While I don’t support this, I’d certainly like it as a Opt-In Feature I could install without using the crappy Google Toolbar.

  39. Mounir

    February 13th, 2008 at 8:17 am

    Has anyone noticed that they have also taken over the IE find option - you have to opt out of this one!

  40. facecrunch

    February 13th, 2008 at 8:21 am

    @Ben Beltran

    You’re surprised? This is Facecrunch. Not Googlecrunch. Google isn’t Facebook and in the Zuckerberg fantasy (he’s so dreamy) fueled framework created here at Facecrunch is a competitor for Facebook… so anything Google does = bad.

  41. Matt

    February 13th, 2008 at 8:42 am

    not a bad move… developers can assert their pages to override the 404 (albeit forcing us to increase filesize, in many cases superfluously, but nonetheless this is a far cry form verisign’s mistake… this is good and actually it’s nice for users.

    The people who are indeed the most passionate about this type of behavior, are not likely to have the toolbar installed in the first place… but other people, like my mom, DO have it and will get use out of this feature. (Not everyone is responsible enough to have a custom 404 error page anyway, this is much nicer than the default of any browser…)

    though google should also prevent this action by looking for piece of meta-data… they should allow an explicit single line of meta-data (supplied only with custom 404 pages) to tell the toolbar to show the page and not “hijack” it. Then that would please the developers who don’t want to bloat their markup just to accommodate a “feature”… (feels a lot like having to markup for MSIE… hehehe, but the meta tag would make me 100% on board, as it is.. im about 85% in favor… )

    should it be opt in?

  42. Robert

    February 13th, 2008 at 8:43 am

    IE already does this, and has for several years. So nothing really changes.

  43. Danny

    February 13th, 2008 at 8:45 am

    Other, much crappier toolbars do this and it comes off as creepy. Funny that people are fine with Google emulating 4th and 5th tier player’s toolbar features. Not a good sign.

    @Micheal

    >ISP Verizon has hijacked my invalid DNS requests, and forces a search based off the request.

    That’s because you installed their horrible software. You don’t need it!

  44. Russell Heimlich

    February 13th, 2008 at 8:52 am

    I particularly hate it when Google reccomends that the page may harm my computer and gives me no link or button to continue. Come on Google, be objective!

  45. Ari

    February 13th, 2008 at 9:09 am

    Internet Explorer already does this.

    A small, text-only web page (Example “Page Removed. Return to Homepage.”) will be replaced with their error page.

    To get around this you must add a bunch of useless code (”program Microsoft-style”?).

  46. Planet Malaysia

    February 13th, 2008 at 9:09 am

    Not a big deal. You can design your own 404 page that bigger than 512b.

  47. Mike Koss

    February 13th, 2008 at 9:10 am

    IE already does this - BUT - they have an option to turn it off. Annoyingly, this is one of the many DEFAULTS in Windows that set the wrong way, in my opinion.

    I am visiting a web site in order to interact with THAT web site - not to interact with Google (or IE). Any interference with that interaction is potentially disruptive. In the case of IE - I turned this feature off after spending an hour trying to figure out what was wrong with a web site I was using … only to find a very helpful 404 message displayed by the web server, but masked by IE. That’s evil.

    If Google wants to do this “right” they should:

    a) Make it an opt-in feature
    b) Only replace “content-free” 404 pages (those for which they have a static template and to ensure there are no user-directed messages contained in them).

  48. Bob

    February 13th, 2008 at 9:20 am

    Some early employees crafted Google’s “Don’t be evil” motto to lock them in to good behavior. The management now wants to get past that–their stock is down and they need earnings growth. So, they’re doing it piecemeal: Store search history for 18 months here, replace people’s pages there.

    In a year, it will be 1024 bytes, and in a few more they’ll start proxying all your pages and inserting new ads. Google is going evil, but they’re doing it quietly.

  49. Stephen

    February 13th, 2008 at 9:27 am

    The wording for the poll is extremely biased, given the context of the article and use of the word “hijack”. While I respect the right to write opinionated articles, I think the poll really adds nothing, except promoting knee-jerk reactions.

  50. Kevin H

    February 13th, 2008 at 9:32 am

    What a terribly biased poll question.

    @47:
    If Google wants to do this “right” they should:

    a) Make it an opt-in feature
    b) Only replace “content-free” 404 pages (those for which they have a static template and to ensure there are no user-directed messages contained in them).

    Then, they did it “right.”

    To be honest, if you haven’t bothered putting a custom 404 up, this might be *helpful* to your website. Imagine that a blog linked to a story on your website, and then you restructured your link. Previously, they would just get a 404 page. Now they get some easy means to try to find that page, for instance they type what the link was about in google, and get your page in its new location.

  51. Danny Sullivan

    February 13th, 2008 at 9:49 am

    Duncan, if you want to say there’s hijacking going on, then make it:

    “Google hijacks Internet Explorer hijacking 404 pages.”

    Look, back in the old, old days, Netscape and Internet Explorer both showed you nothing there wasn’t a 404 page. Nada. IE, they showed you what the server put out.

    Then they got smart and gave the user some suggestions. They effectively hijacked 404 pages back then. And indeed back then, some people got very upset and complained. But with both, especially IE, the idea that if you had a custom page you could take back control seemed to wash well.

    So today you’re just not on the mark to say Google is hijacking anything, not unless you want to get all in the face of Internet Explorer for doing the exact same thing. 404 pages no more belong to IE as some “native” display than they do to Google.

  52. Brad

    February 13th, 2008 at 9:57 am

    “Do you support Google’s stance in hijacking pages?”

    I love the unbiased and non-loaded question form.

  53. Mike

    February 13th, 2008 at 9:58 am

    @Jason (#36)
    If you already style your error pages and they are over 512 bytes, then your pages will remain as you intend them. Read.

  54. Joshua Walters

    February 13th, 2008 at 10:10 am

    @ #1

    It wouldnt even take that much. Its only BYTES.

    Im pretty indifferent, I mean, any REAL 404 is going to be larger than 512 bytes. Its kinda like having that deaufult FF or IE 404.

  55. Israel L'Heureux

    February 13th, 2008 at 10:17 am

    IF it’s truly to help the users, then Google should disable ADS on any search result pages. Will they?

    Who will take bets on this? :)

    I’ll bet Google’s move isn’t just about the users, and the main motivation is to serve more ads, and make more money, hence the ads will remain.

    IE 404’s never show you ads…
    It’s not my site’s responsibility to unbreak the toolbar’s hijacking behavior…

  56. Avi

    February 13th, 2008 at 10:33 am

    Duncan,

    How is it “Hijacking” when it only happens if you voluntarily install the Google Toolbar? You conveniently fail to mention that in your latest post, relying instead on hyperbole that might get you bounced from any real journalistic gig.

    Basically, if you don’t like it, uninstall the toolbar! If Google overstepped their bounds, their customers can make choices to affect that.

    With Verisign, they used a government-enforced monopoly to illegally modify a fundamental network protocol to serve their own interests.

    Do you understand the difference?

    If so, you might want to modify your post to not look like an unprofessional and ill-informed tool of the “Google isn’t not being evil” crowd.

  57. Chad

    February 13th, 2008 at 10:43 am

    If you think about it, (good) web developers shouldn’t even be concerned. As their websites won’t have 404 pages.

  58. xxdesmus

    February 13th, 2008 at 10:44 am

    It’s a really sh*tty thing for Google to do. They are quite good at assuming they always know what is best for the user, and yet they very rarely get it right. Google definitely overstepped their boundary with customers.

  59. mathias

    February 13th, 2008 at 10:47 am

    Do no evil…YEAH RIGHT!!!

  60. Joe

    February 13th, 2008 at 10:53 am

    I use Roadrunner and they are also hijacking 404 codes and incorrect domains with their own search page with ad links.

  61. Gary

    February 13th, 2008 at 10:54 am

    Not sure the big deal - if you don’t like it uninstall their toolbar! Seems to be a decision that the user is in control over.

  62. AW

    February 13th, 2008 at 11:07 am

    @56: He doesn’t go back and correct his posts when he makes an error.

    I think Duncan’s role on TechCrunch is purely to be hyper-sensationalist with all his articles, where-as Michael provides more “sane” posts.

    Maybe Duncan posts when TechCrunch has a slump in traffic and needs more readers?

  63. Joe

    February 13th, 2008 at 11:22 am

    Its a pretty creative move for google. Anything that will increase their exposure. Of course webmasters may not be the happiest though.

  64. Joe

    February 13th, 2008 at 11:23 am

    I would like to see a mass boycot of google. Everyone should not allow them to crawl their sites. It would be an interesting experiment.

  65. Peter Kasting

    February 13th, 2008 at 11:25 am

    Why on Earth are the people complaining about this not complaining about the EXACT SAME HEURISTIC that IE has already been using for a long time to replace sites’ 404 pages? Google is not doing _anything_ different than IE here yet I’ve never heard a single complaint about IE’s behavior.

  66. MikeW

    February 13th, 2008 at 11:28 am

    What a loaded question. You are using the term “hijacking” in the title of the article. Everyone loves hijacking!

  67. Jorge

    February 13th, 2008 at 11:30 am

    Who cares really? As several have already mentioned, Internet Exploder 6 already does this and I’ve never seen complaints about it. The links Google provides are likely to be more useful than those in IE6.

  68. Mykel

    February 13th, 2008 at 12:03 pm

    Don’t install toolbars. ;-)

  69. TwisterMc

    February 13th, 2008 at 12:06 pm

    OpenDNS does this too and I hate that I can’t turn it off. Google’s looks a lot nicer and I think it’ll greatly help novice searchers. So it’s good and bad.

  70. sami

    February 13th, 2008 at 12:56 pm

    So what if IE has been doing this for so long. I like Google because it was no Microsoft.

    “So if you’re a webmaster and want users to see your custom 404 page, just make your page be more than 512 bytes long.”

    That’s just an arrogant statement. If you have a 404 page, not matter how many bytes in it, no one has right to change it, and in Google’s case, for their profit.

  71. Ayush

    February 13th, 2008 at 1:16 pm

    thin edge of the wedge. evil.

  72. Juan C. Sosa

    February 13th, 2008 at 1:37 pm

    That is something evil you should always expect from a big fish like Google, Microsoft does the same with Explorer, and You and Me would be considering doing the same should we be in their market dominance position.

  73. Martin

    February 13th, 2008 at 1:38 pm

    “when Verisign started hijacking similar non page results, there was a mighty uproar”

    Come on…

    Verisign were hijacking DNS queries on the server side, with no opt-out facility, which effectively broke DNS. They started doing it without warning.

    Google has added a custom error page to its *optional* software, which other browsers already do anyway. It only kicks in when the page returns a short, unhelpful 404 error. It’s harmless except that it may redirect some small amount of traffic to their site. They’re not making any secret of it. It’s easy for webmasters to fix. There’s no comparing the two really.

    Come on Techcrunch, you can do better than this sensationalist journalism. Get the facts right and present them in a more balanced way please.

  74. fizetés és állás

    February 13th, 2008 at 4:50 pm

    I dont care at all and btw what could Ido against google’s power? I consider this as a service

  75. And

    February 13th, 2008 at 6:26 pm

    Screw of google. Damn it. This is over the line

  76. Adam

    February 13th, 2008 at 10:36 pm

    That is one loaded question if I have ever seen one…. No one likes anybody hijacking anything. Basically the question is introducing bias so poll has skewed results.

  77. Greg Andrew

    February 13th, 2008 at 11:33 pm

    Your “poll” is equivalent to taking a “who will be the next U.S. president” poll right now and limiting the choices to Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani. and and Joe Biden. Not that these Internet polls are ever scientific, but when all three choices are obviously wrong, what’s the point? Are you just that anxious to piss away TechCrunch’s credibility? There’s a difference between being provocative to create controversy and coming off like a 6-year old that needs a new babysitter, and this post clearly qualifies as the latter.

    I suggest you get Michael to spank you and then go to your room without supper, and then limit your diet for the next week to nothing but raw spinach and asparagus.

  78. Rachel

    February 14th, 2008 at 4:53 am

    And I thought they aimed not to be evil.

  79. milos

    February 14th, 2008 at 5:07 am

    While ago I had a similar feature in my Groowe Toolbar for Firefox. Although there was an option to disable the feature, I have received many negative feedbacks from the users so I have discontinued with the feature in the next release.

    Also, you can’t imagine what kind of sites people are visiting and you can’t predict what will this feature cause. For example, one user complained that he can’t access one site with 404 feature enabled. When I have visited the specified site, I have realized that it was illegal MP3 site, totally functional, full HTML pages, but it sends 404 on all pages not to get caught by crawler bots. Crazy…

    Basically, I guess that average Internet users won’t even note the difference, but the IT professionals and advanced Internet users might rather want to see the real 404 error pages.

« Previous post
Next post »