Tynt And Visibli: The Rise Of User Hostile Blog Plugins
There’s been a bit of an spammy trend lately in the blogosphere, the rise of user hostile plugins. What I mean by user hostile: plugins that offer little benefit for visitors and break anticipated user experience to (try and) selfishly benefit a site.
Bottom line? They are obnoxious, and instead of actually benefiting that blogger, media entity or company as intended I would say they cause more harm than good. Anything you can do that will piss off a user is not worth any “SEO benefits.” I use that in quotes because as an SEO who considers the web holistic, I’d advise you to always consider the broader implications for your brand.
Trying to force people to do something by breaking their browsing experience or interrupting their workflow to try to get one extra link or click right now is not worth the broader harm to building a community of intelligent, connected people.
Here are two examples of these plugins in action. I’m sure you’ve seen them around the web already.
Tynt (the product that breaks copy-paste)
Tynt is that simple, yet intrusive application that breaks copy-paste, or as John Gruber of Daring Fireball calls them: the copy-paste jerks. Tynt thinks we are all content thieves or that we don’t know to link to sources. Those who install it on their blogs have to think their readers are too. Or that everyone on the web is out to rip off ideas. Either way it’s annoying enough that I consciously try not to link to bloggers who use Tynt unless I really want to share the story.
For example, I like HubSpot and want to link to them more. I really do. But it’s really obnoxious to quote their content as they’re using the user-hostile plugin. Here’s what happens when I try to copy-paste a bit from one of HubSpot’s blog posts:

It’s not like the important sites don’t know to link as credit. Yeah, the important sites, the ones that will actually send link equity to you. If spam bloggers rip you off they’re not likely to link to you anyway: Tynt solves a problem that is purely in the minds of publishers and breaks a basic function of your computer. Any site that will actually send you meaningful link equity will know to link.
Visibli (the product that breaks outbound linking)
Visibli is equally (IMO) user hostile. If you haven’t seen it yet, consider yourself lucky. I StumbledUpon it after I saw an interesting link in Twitter and was taken to the blog of integrating marketing firm V3. The post was interesting, but when I clicked an outbound link I was given quite the surprise. Here’s the link:

When clicking the link, note two things the Visibli tool does (shown via red boxes below):
- Masks the *real* link with a link on a visibli subdomain (I am told you can have this be changed to a sub-domain on your own domain too).
- Embed a toolbar promoting the previous site you were on.

It is self-important of any website to think a user wants you creating a frame following them around to outbound links. We know to right-click and open in a new window if we want to go back somewhere else on the original site. If someone left clicks a link, guess what – they are done browsing your site. Following users around with a toolbar is intrusive and may make people not want to return to your site.
I understand why a publisher might think they would be useful in theory, but in action they are just a nuisance for web-literate users. And from chats with a few other users I’m not the only one who feels this way.
The CEO of Visibli caught a tweet of mine about the service and followed up with me via email. Here is his response to the question of what the user benefit is:
The benefits to users are similar to what they’d expect from browser-based toolbars, which we know millions of people use. For the user, it again provides easier access and exposure to other articles by the same publisher, and other social tools that make it easier to share, etc. Not so different from what we see from StumbleUpon and LinkedIn (who also use web-based toolbars above external links), but ours is simply a white-labeled solution for bloggers/companies.
I’ll buy this – except for the fact that sites like StumbleUpon are services not publishers and they add a lot of value to users who are interested in finding more content in a category. I’m still not convinced there is enough value for a user if it is just hyping the previous site I was just on.
I’ll also add that, although at first sight it might look hostile, readers are actually engaging with it at pretty high rates. I mentioned earlier that 12% more come back to bloggers after clicking out; additionally, when we work with other organizations (e.g. artists), the interaction rate is also high – over 5% have interacted with the bar in some way through the call-to-action buttons. In some ways, this is an indication that perhaps the bar isn’t as hostile to users at it might seem.
The numbers seem good but I still can’t help wonder if you are also annoying another % of connected users who might be even higher value?
Curious what you think of these products?









noads replied | Mar 22, 2011 (1 comment)
Both suck. Both banned and prevented via adblock, noscript, hosts etc.
Derek replied | Mar 22, 2011 (1 comment)
Adam, this is Derek Ball, CEO at Tynt. I wanted to make sure that you and your readers are aware that anyone who doesn’t like Tynt adding the links to your copy and paste can opt-out here http://www.tynt.com/support/opt-inout/ . This will work globally on any Tynt enabled sites. And as one earlier commenter noted, you can also use Noscript or other tools if you don’t want to use our opt-out.
You suggest in your post, that everyone who copies content will link to the original source, so this service isn’t necessary. In actuality, most copy/pasters are not bloggers, but casual readers who are sharing content via email (primarily) and Facebook. In these scenarios, the number who do not link is much higher than those that do (not due to any malicious intent, but simply because they have never developed the habit, or understood the appropriate etiquette). For quality blogs for whom our service doesn’t add value, the opt-out exists.
The numbers do speak for themselves. We have detailed analytics on copy/paste and linking behavior and I would be more than happy to have a conversation with you and walk you through them. But we do see hundreds of millions of copies every month of our publisher sites, and millions of unique users follow the Tynt generated links back to the contents, boosting audience of our publishers.
Adam, I do respect your opinion, but would invite you to reach out to me and have a conversation so I can explain in more detail what we see and how we work (and why). I would also love to hear your suggestions on how we might improve our service to publishers to meet the needs of the majority without annoying professional writers such as yourself.
Regards,
Derek Ball
Adam Singer replied | Mar 22, 2011 (563 comments)
thanks for the comment Derek – and the simple opt-out feature is great – didn’t know that it existed. I guess I am in the minority being a blogger, but I, like John, found the tool intrusive. I get the potential benefit to websites / publishers. I’m just not entirely sold on benefits to users. Maybe we can chat about that sometime.
Phill Ohren replied | Mar 22, 2011 (3 comments)
I think this is the bigger picture & the reall benefit that Tynt adds…
“In actuality, most copy/pasters are not bloggers, but casual readers who are sharing content via email (primarily) and Facebook.”
Kami Huyse replied | Mar 25, 2011 (1 comment)
I don’t use Tynt, but as a blogger I have a question. Once you copy and paste to your blog, can you recopy the link and add it as a anchor link somewhere? It seems you can, so I would think it would be a great productivity tool. I wouldn’t mind not having to go back twice.
Jo replied | Mar 22, 2011 (1 comment)
Thank you to Derek’s comment, I will be trying that. I am a huge fan of the Cracked.com website which contains the same feature. It doesnt matter whether i copy a sentence or a paragraph, the “REad more: url” is added.
I appreciate the desired function of the program, however every site i visit that has the feature always contains a myriad of buttons to easily link the article on Facebook, Twitter, Dig, REddit, or share via email. If this was not the case, Tynt would be very useful for obtaining a sharable link but thats just not the case.
For casual users its definitely a frustration. I want to share a quote on my Twitter which has a 140 character limit and often the URL Tynt adds entirely fills that up. Or if i want to share the quote in an instant messenger, which often have character limits as well. and also if i am IMing with someone who is using a mobile messenger/texts its difficult
John E. Bredehoft replied | Mar 22, 2011 (8 comments)
Even without the opt-out, I don’t mind Tynt, since it’s easy enough to remove the additional text (since I do provide at least one link, and sometimes two, to the original content, the additional link text is not necessary).
The thing that I do mind is the system that truly breaks copy-paste by not allowing you to copy at all. I don’t know what mechanism(s) is (are) used to do this, but they definitely prevent me from accurately citing sources. snopes.com is a major violator in this area – if you want to copy text from snopes.com to support a point in a blog post, you just can’t. Therefore, I cite snopes.com very rarely.
Ileane replied | Mar 22, 2011 (1 comment)
I see both sides of the coin when using Tynt – I DID catch some spammers red handed – who apparently don’t know how to speak English. They simply copied someone else’s brilliant comment from the same post and pasted it as their own reply – without removing the added text from Tynt. The post has over 100 comments so I never would have realized that it was a cut and paste job if it weren’t for Tynt. LOL
On the flip side – I had a contest where I asked my reader to Retweet a post with the exact format that I mentioned in order to win. Of course Tynt annoyed the heck out of everyone that was trying to follow my instructions to the letter (silly me I forgot about Tynt at the time) . After that I turned Tynt off :(
I might turn it back on again though….
Phill Ohren replied | Mar 22, 2011 (3 comments)
Adam, I’m sorry but I disagree re:Tynt. Although the benefits do lean to publishers it does provide a time saving aspect to users (regardless of whether they are web savvy or not). What I like most is the fact that you can drop the whole ” Creative Commons” thing in there – Making users fully aware that content on your site must be attributed – Who ever sees the Creative Commons badge – it’s always in an obscure place (even on your site).
I installed Tynt a month back and using the Analytics I’ve been able to connect socially with 4 people I wouldn’t of found otherwise.
Nice blog bte, I’ve subscribed.
Adam Singer replied | Mar 22, 2011 (563 comments)
cheers for the comment Phil, glad to have you here.
Phill Ohren replied | Mar 22, 2011 (3 comments)
Also, Re: V3 I do agree. It’s a pretty dam awfull toolbar.
Shelly Kramer replied | Mar 22, 2011 (1 comment)
Hey Adam,
Great post and good follow (or maybe I should say “explanation”) to our brief 140 conversation.
Funny thing, I’m just a blogger, too, and now I feel like a massive douche who’s doing nefarious things and subjecting my readers to hostile tools.
Visibli was introduced to me by a friend who was working handling their PR. It seemed like an interesting tool and when she asked me to try it out, I agreed. In my world, that’s what friends do. I was using the Apture tool bar and actually liked it a lot – and had TONS of comments and people sharing from it. So, to me, the Visibli bar wasn’t much different, and actually offered different look and feel and was well, interesting.
So I’ve been using it. For probably at least 6 months now.
I have a pretty healthy amount of blog traffic and easily annoyed, high maintenance readers. In spite of that, I’ve never had one comment, complaint or any negativity whatsoever about that toolbar. So to suddenly hear that it’s “hostile” is, really, quite a surprise.
Me, I hate popups that get in my way. I loathe blogs that don’t make it easy for me to subscribe by email instead of the ubiquitous RSS feed option and blogs that have crappy sharing options. If you ask anyone who knows me, you’ll learn that I’m a UX freak – and think it is very often overlooked.
In any event, my point is that we all have our issues. I’ve never considered that tool bar “hostile” and certainly never set out to do anything that would take advantage of my readers in any way. Frankly, it sucks that someone would even consider that would be a motive – of any blogger.
But the tool bar is now gone. Because I listen to feedback, think about it, and try and do the right thing. Pretty much always.
Shelly
@shellykramer
Adam Singer replied | Mar 22, 2011 (563 comments)
Cheers for the comment Shelly and appreciate your input on the situation as a site owner actually using the product.
Jeremy replied | Mar 22, 2011 (6 comments)
The age of protecting your intellectual property is almost over, businesses or people who cling to that old idea will change eventually or expire. We are reaching the age of ethics and so the age of collaboration. What we will try to collectively achieve is far more important than making a buck. And, I haven’t seen convincing proof that being overprotective makes you any more sustainable or thriving than sharing.
Mitch Mitchell replied | Mar 25, 2011 (13 comments)
Very interesting post. I actually can understand the first plugin you mentioned, though I hadn’t known it was a plugin until I read it here. It now explains why, when I’ve shared some links on Twitter, that sucker has popped up. As to the second, I’m with you; I’d hate that kind of thing, and if I saw the hidden link I’d just leave it be, thinking it was sending me to a malware site. That plus I really have this major league “hate” thing for toolbars these days.