It’s widely agreed that linking to sources where you got information is a good thing. Though attribution doesn’t play a major role in determining whether a use is an infringement (unless attribution is a requirement of the license), it can certainly be the difference between a webmaster taking action against a site or saying thank you for the link.

But the problem with linking source material is that people actually click those links and search engines also take them seriously as well. Giving attribution means that visitors will leave your site to visit the source and many will never return. Furthermore, links are not the most attractive things and many have tried to find a way to make them easier on the eyes.

Over the years, many have tried to find ways around these problems, often with very controversial results. The first, and best known, was the use of framing, which displayed the source link a box below a top banner for the site that provided the link. The practice has been extremely controversial and created such a backlash that even Digg was forced to relent with its experiment on framing.

However, now there is a new method that is starting to gain some traction and will likely be the subject of much conversation. It’s called Lightboxing and, though it isn’t widespread yet, it may be coming to a site near you.

What is Lightbox Linking

Note: I will not linking to or calling out any sites engaging in this practice. The one webmasters I spoke to about this practice has agreed to change it, if possible, as, according to him, he understands the risk of confusion among a minority of users and that the limited benefit is not worthwhile with that in mind. Also, to be especially clear, the Lightbox script nor its creator, Lokesh Dhakar, are involved in this in any way, instead it is just the style that is being used.

The lightbox effect has been around on the Web for a while but first reached popular use thanks to the Lightbox 2 script, which is designed to be used on galleries of images.

The way the lightbox effect works, when used with images, is that it grays out the Web page it is on, making it barely visible, and opens a larger version of the image on top of the gray. The idea is to give a clear way to view the larger image and still provide easy access back to the page it was on.

However, it was only a matter of time before people began to use the effect for other things as the lightbox could house just about anything. Recently, I began getting reports of sites using this effect to link to other sites and, recently, I saw it in the wild.

In this case, as well as others, rather than simply opening up the linked site directly or in a new window, the site instead used the lightbox effect, placing the content from the linked site in the center of the page.

This technique isn’t widespread, but given the controversies that have come from other non-traditional linking strategies, including the recent Diggbar controversy, it seems likely that many webmasters may take issue with it if it does reach the mainstream.

Comparisons to Framing

The most obvious direct comparison is framing. Framing is a practice that was extremely common, and controversial, in the late 90s and made a resurgence recently with the introduction and removal of the Diggbar.

On that front, there are many similarities. For one, Lightbox linking does display the linked site with logos and other materials from site that referenced it (even though those references are grayed out). Also, as with framing, the linked site is not displayed in the full of the browser and has to be “broken out” to take over the entire screen. Finally, as with framing, the linked site’s presence in the lightbox remains even after links are clicked. Finally, the URL bar continues to show the address of the site doing the linking, not the one the user is actually reading, the same as with framed content.

However, the technology behind lightbox linking is different. Where framing is done using frame tags, lightboxes rely upon CSS, and AJAX to work, this creates several key differences.

First, the links themselves are in the clear and SEO-friendly. Where framing links are links to the same domain that display outside content, lightbox links provide a straightforward link in the HTML that is only altered by the link’s class. Second, even though some of the logos and items from the original site are visible, they are not as clear or as confusing as with regular framing. Also, unlike with regular framing, the site doing the linking does not get an extra page view or ad exposure. Beyond the dubious benefit of keeping the visitor on the URL (versus just having them hit the back button), nothing is gained by linking in this way.

That being said though, in the implementation I saw, there was no easy way to remove the lightbox effect and open the linked site in a page of its own, that is, outside of opening a link within the box in a new tab. Also, the amount of screen real estate the linked site got in the lightbox seemed very small to me, making it hard to read the site and visit other sections.

Since this kind of linking is still fairly new, there aren’t a lot of people talking about it. However, it may be a conversation that needs to take place.

Legal Issues with Lightbox Linking

Since the comparison to framing is the best one available, we have to refer to the previous discussions about the legality of framing. The case law is extremely thin, with only one settled case dating to 1997, but there are two areas of concern among legal scholars.

1. Copyright Law: Though linking in this manner does not create a copy of the work, it may be seen as creating a new derivative work based up on it by adding the other material around it. However, that is definitely less the case here than with traditional framing, which adds must larger elements to the work.
2. Trademark Law: Finally, given the concern that some may mistake this kind of linking for an indication that there is a relationship between the two sites that does not exist, there is a potential trademark issue to weigh in.

Unfortunately, these issues are very unsettled as the law never adequately addressed framing issues in the 90s, when it was more common, and now there are many unanswered questions legally about any kind of non-traditional method of linking. This has the effect of casting a cloud over both those who want to engage in such linking and those that wish to protest it.

Bottom Line

The reason I write this article is not to vilify or accuse anyone of anything, but rather, to put the question out there: How would you feel if your site were linked in this way?

If you worry about such linking of your content, though I can not be sure without testing, it does appear that frame breaker scripts can defeat this kind of linking if desired.

But is it as serious of a concern as traditional framing? Is it a bigger one or a smaller one? Having only seen first hand one site doing it, I’m unsure if it is going to be wide-spread enough to be of much concern. The bigger question, however, is whether this is something webmasters and bloggers will take issue with and protest against.

That’s a question I am not wholly sure of.

Yesterday, much to the relief of many who had protested the service, Digg announced that they are axing the DiggBar as part of their service once the new version of their site launches.

This move comes only days after Kevin Rose took over the CEO reigns from Jay Adelson, who resigned to persue other options, and as the widely anticipated new version of the site is still in beta.

The move is going to be widely welcomed by those who protested the original DiggBar for the way it handled content. It also closes a particularly ugly chapter in the history of Digg where its product has caused it several public relations black eyes.

Background

Last year, almost to the day, Digg introduced the DiggBar, its controversial tool that allowed users to Digg, favorite or share an article without leaving the site. It was introduced along with Digg’s then-new URL shortener, which used the digg,com domain.

The DiggBar created a great deal of controversy because of the way it worked, which was to display an iframe over the page itself, displaying the Digg buttons, logos, etc. over the content. This meant that the content appeared to be hosted on the Digg domain, unlike with other URL shorteners, the link was not simply redirected to the source.

This led to accusations of content theft against the DiggBar. Especially worrisome was the potential search engine implications as, at least theoretically, Google and others would not be able to see where the source of the content was and may rank the Digg URL above the original.

Initially Digg defended its product, saying that it wasn’t evil and that they had taken steps to mitigate against the SEO issues. However, a week after that they relented on several key issues, including having the URL simply redirect for non-logged in users.

Controversy once again arose a few months later when Digg, without warning, changed the way the URLs worked to redirect the short URLs to Digg’s landing page and not the source, this led to accusations of hijacking.

The latter issue was undone after Rose returned from vacation, he had said he was gone when the change was made, indicating that the two may have disagreed over the DiggBar and its place, thus making it one of Rose’s top priorities after taking over the CEO position.

Since then, the DiggBar has remained largely unchanged, until yesterday’s announcement.

Bottom Line

No matter the reason though, the DiggBar is dead, or at least will be once the new version of Digg launches shortly. This is a good thing for all the reasons that Rose mentioned in his post but also in that it puts one of Digg’s most controversial elements behind it.

As the new Digg seeks to open up more partnerships with content creators, including having them directly submit their own work, this move seems to be a means to make peace with the content creators who are still upset about the DiggBar and the way it framed their sites.

Hopefully, it will be a lesson other sites learn from. Though, judging from the way Hootsuite and other twitter-oriented URL shorteners are using a similar iframe, it doesn’t seem very likely.

In a post on the official Digg blog, John Quinn has announced several changes to the controversial DiggBar, including two changes that are aimed at appeasing Webmasters upset with the bar appearing on their site.

First, the DiggBar will no longer show up on users that are not logged in to Digg. This means most visitors that click Digg-shortened URLs, such as those posted on Twitter, will be redirected (via a 301) to the original site and will bypass the Diggbar. This makes Digg URLs function the same as TinyURL and other URL-shortening services.

Likewise, links on the Digg homepage will not display the DIggBar for users who are not logged in.

Second, they are making it easier for Digg users that don’t want the bar to opt out. They are working on making the process more obvious. This comes in response to some who complained that the option was difficult to find.

The end result is that those who are not logged into Digg and those who are but have opted out of the DiggBar should never see it again. Only users who are actively logged into Digg and opted to view the DiggBar will see it and they will continue to do so both on Digg’s site and on shortened Digg URLs.

Digg hopes to push these changes through next week though the homepage has already stopped linking to the DiggBar for users who are not logged in. However, shortened Digg URLs still, in some cases, show the Diggbar whether the user is logged in or not.

This is actually the second round of changes to the DiggBar since it was announced. The first saw Digg switch to JavaScript based linking, so search engines would not see the DiggBar when indexing Digg’s homepage, and use Meta tags to block search engines from indexing DiggBar URLs. Though these changes were a positive step forward, they were not enough to completely quiet the criticisms about the DiggBar.

Digg hopes that this new round of changes will finally satiate the bloggers and other webmasters that have railed on it for the past two weeks.

Is It Enough?

For those that have been concerned about SEO issues, this should finally put those problems completely to rest. Though the previous round of changes should have prevented DiggBar URLs from appearing in the search results, this round will ensure that “link juice” flows correctly, including over the shortened URLs, which now will use a 301 redirect.

For those who hate framing on principle and all of its forms, these changes will be slightly less than satisfying. Though this is definitely a good step forward, the fact is the DiggBar will still be framing sites, albeit in a much more limited capacity.

Regarding the legal issues, the trademark issues have likely been lessened as there is less likelihood of confusion when the Bar is only shown to existing Digg members that understand what the bar is and does. The potential copyright issues and interference issues, however, remain though the likelihood of them being seriously raised are much less.

All in all, I don’t think this is going to put an end to all of the controversy over the DiggBar, but if Kevin Muldoon’s post on BloggingTips (a site I also write for) is any indication, it has gone a long way toward mending bridges. Muldoon even added back the Digg button after removing it due to the DiggBar.

Bottom Line

Though I don’t think this will completely end the controversy over the DiggBar, it will likely put the vast majority of it to rest. Most webmasters that were upset about the DiggBar will likely be satisfied by these changes though there will be some who take an absolutist view on frames that will not.

However, for those that don’t want even this very limited use of the DiggBar on their site, I would encourage you to add a frame breaking script to your site to ensure it doesn’t appear.

The sad and worrisome news though is that Digg was not the first and will not be the last site to use frames in this manner. Several others do right now.

The larger issue of framing is not going away any time soon. As content creators and webmasters, we need to be ready for it.

In a post on their blog this morning, Digg answered many of the concerns and accusations that have been filed over its new DiggBar service (previous coverage) in an attempt to quell some of the backlash.

In their response, Digg claims that they took several steps to ensure that the DiggBar was fair to publishers, including the following:

• JavaScript-Based Linking: The links on Digg’s page are actually links to the original source, but they are modified using JavaScript for visitors that have that option selected. Search engines can’t see JavaScript and, theoretically, should only be directed to the original content. Registered users can turn this off by visiting their Settings and editing their Viewing Preferences.
• Canonical Links and Meta Tags: In an update earlier this week, the DiggBar now identifies the source URL as canonical, indicating that it is the original source of the content, not the DiggBar URL. Furthermore, the new Digg URL pages now also include a meta “noindex” tag to ensure that the Digg page is not indexed in the major search engines.
• Working with Web Analytics Companies: Digg also said they have worked with many different Web analytics firms, including Comscore, Nielsen, Quantcast and Compete to ensure that the source URL will be credited for the traffic. They have confirmed, on all of those sites, that it should work as planned.

The reaction to this has been very postive, include articles both on Mashable and on TechCrunch that are supportive of the changes, the latter even saying, “So crisis averted… Whew, no [sic] I can go back to using the Diggbar.”

However, the comments on both posts have been less enthusiastic. Both sites have commenters that are still critical of the change and are not satiated by the fixes.

Clearly this controversy is going to be continuing for quite some time.

My Thoughts

There isn’t much doubt that this is a step in the right direction. Though I’m going to withhold judgment until I see evidence that these steps are actively helping Webmasters, especially those who had already seen some of their links in Google get replaced by Digg’s, the “noindex” alone shows a willingness to at least make some concessions to publishers.

Though, theoretically, the Digg URLs should not be making it into any search index anywhere, it would still clearly be better for publishers if those URLs didn’t exist at all or forwarded the traffic on directly.

Furthermore, this doesn’t do anything to address the legal concerns listed in the previous post on the topic. The copyright, trademark and tortuous interference issues remain as do all of the non-SEO related ethical issues, including advertising and visitor interference.

Though I’m going to sleep better tonight knowing that the DiggBar has at least done what it can to resolve the SEO issues, which were at least the most immediate of the concerns, there are still many other issues that need to be addressed.

However, I think the best comment on the subject came from Kevin at ToMuse, who reminded me that the reason framing was abandoned in the late nineties, when it first became popular, was because it caused problems with visitors and the Web at large. As more sites used frames, frames began to open up within other frames, creating a mess.

Since only a few sites use frames now, the problem isn’t there yet. But with Digg and Facebook both using the technique, it is only a matter of time before more sites take it up. As this frame monster I created with help from friends on Twitter shows, it’s already possible with a little effort (special thanks to @jfredson).

Though the immediate problems with the DiggBar seem to have been dealt with, the longer term ones remain. Let’s hope that the problem is averted as I don’t think anyone who developed sites in the mid to late nineties wants to go through the “frame wars” all over again.