I think is common place now for some websites. Facebook links, Digg links and doesn't stumble-upon do it now? At least it doesn't hover next to your mouse or take up space in the actual page content. I think a close button (like digg) or a hide button could do the trick.

The bad thing is that Chrome's selective statusbar appears on top of this, that's annoying.

Where's the [X] button?

The problem is not the size, it's the presence. So it's not Google's fault, it's webmaster's fault.

Basically, it's cool that Google offers this as a service, but i don't see much use in it either...

Previously Discussed here: http://blogoscoped.com/forum/150367.html

I sorta wish things like this were completely option and it remembered your cookie if you chose not to have it displayed. I can't stand the new Digg bar and that is almost the same except its at the top of the page.

why not add a hide button. not every need those bar every time .

Not all bars created equal.

This bar is initiated by the site owner. Google only provided a tool. Site owner is master of his domain and can annoy whom ever he wants with whatever he wants.

Digg/Facebook/SU bar etc. are different animals: initiated by user with "help" from the presenting site and override site owner.

> Google only provided a tool.

I think the responsibility actually lies between both the webmaster, and the tool provider. A company like Google should ideally deliver tools which make sense, as not all webmasters are experts on usability, coding, layout and so forth (some may not even know how to program such an always-at-the-bopttom bar), and if they don't, we can point that out. If Google is the one party making it *very easy* to annoy users by ready-made solutions, then it increases the chance people use such solutions, too. (Imagine Google would become a popunder ad provider, would you still think it's *only* the webmaster who's responsible?) Besides, I have not seen such annoying bars in such frequency before, so if Google pushes this type of technology then that's showing effects. Of course, the webmaster is responsible too, there's no question about this.

I hate the way the Digg bar takes up so much space.

> tools which make sense, as not all webmasters are experts on usability, coding, layout and so forth

MySpace.com makes sense to a whole lot of people which are clearly not experts on the above... ;-)

I think everyone would agree MySpace is to be praised not blamed for popularizing social networking.

> Google would become a popunder ad provider, would you still think it's *only* the webmaster who's responsible?

Yep.

Netscape created javascript:window.open(); are they to be blamed for all Pop-Unders?

Well, clearly browsers learned from the early mistake and these days they have pop up blockers so they in fact block their old window.open() approaches themselves (unless certain prerequisites, like a user click, are met). But even then the situation is not comparable, as window.open() could be used for a whole lot of things except pop up ads – admittedly, many of them still somewhat annoying, like apps opening in a new smaller window without much use for that – whereas the Google Friend Connect bar is a well-definied specific widget that only serves that Friend Connect purpose, and is not (completely) programmed by the user. Offering a specific widget is something different then offering a broad technological framework. Again, IMO the responsibility lies between both the tool maker and the tool user.

IMO "Master of your domain" should be guiding principle when looking at responsibility. Hence, choice of FC toolbar is better than no choice of FB toolbar...

Does this Social bar come with Google Chrome or is it installed by websites using Google Friend connect code? I don't usually use Google Chrome (I have version 1.0.154.53 in Windows XP), so I don't think I have installed any apps for it, but I have so many free browsers I can't remember everything I have installed to each one of them. =)

You realize of course that this is a social networking widget that the creator of the site actively wishes to be part of their user's experience on that specific site and which allows for social interaction between users of any participating site.

Your complaints about this are unrelated to google or Chrome. THe webmaster of that site has the ability to embed google's social features using several different kinds of widgets, including the social bar, and various boxes embedded in the page

http://www.google.com/friendconnect/home/intro

You are 'Google Blogoscoped' and you don't know about this? I think you need to do more research before you post linkbait (which appears to be attempting to leverage the recent controversy over the 'DiggBar' which is an entirely different animal worthy of scorn)...

GR, I do know about Google Friend Connect, so I'm not quite sure I understand your point. I reported about Friend Connect several times before:
http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2008-12-04-n12.html
http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2008-05-13-n12.html

> Your complaints about this are unrelated
> to google or Chrome.

You seem to have misunderstood the post. Google Friend Connect is not a Chrome feature – I was visiting the site in question with Firefox, for what it's worth – but my point was that some Google departments release tools that *save* on screen space while other Google departments release tools that *waste* screen space. And yes, despite your claims, I believe Google Friend Connect is related to Google.
http://blogoscoped.com/forum/153119.html#id153151

you should use gf on your blog....come on everyone is doing it

[signature removed]