Rumors

August 2, 2007

Google Phone Rumors Follow FCC Decision

Lots of buzz today regarding the Wall Street Journal story that claims Google is cozying up to wireless operators to create a Google-rich phone complete with search, email and other mobile gems, while also developing their own handset at the same time.

Rumor is that those who have seen Google’s phone prototypes (yay, unnamed sources!) say the phone isn’t as “revolutionary” as the glorious fanboy creation. It really doesn’t even appear that Google is all that concerned with the phone’s specifics as long as it comes pre-installed with Google goodies. The WSJ says that Google is more than willing to give up control and allow wireless carriers to create their own phone based on a common set of specifications. Who cares about the phone itself, Google just wants to sell ads.

The WSJ reminds us of a fun Eric Schmidt quote:

"What's interesting about the ads in the mobile phone is that they are twice as profitable or more than the nonmobile phone ads because they're more personal," said Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt at the D: All Things Digital conference in May.

Yup, and that’s exactly what Google is focused on.

Google seems to be hitting mobile pretty aggressively, coming from both ends on this one. You can’t blame them. Local search is growing 40 percent faster than regular search, and mobile is an extension of that. It makes sense for Google to want to be there to try and own the space out of the gate. How else will they be able to snatch up the same disproportionate amount of revenue and market share that they have going with regular search?

At the same time, you have to wonder if they’re pushing too hard and turning off both wireless carriers and users. You know the wireless carriers have to be looking at Google with terror in their eyes. Google’s already invading their turf and causing trouble with the FCC, now you expect them to let Google inside their walled garden? Good luck. Sure, the carriers may get more subscribers by pairing with Google, but it’s not like the Goog is going to share that revenue.

And, of course, as a user, I’m paranoid about the idea of letting Google invade my phone. Don’t get me wrong, if I’m going to send an email, do a search or map something out via my phone, I’m going to use Google 80 percent of the time (Ask’s maps rock), but even I like the illusion that using Google is a choice that I have made out of my own free will. Even if it’s not true, and my Google barcode is showing, please just let me go on thinking that, okay? Don’t try and force it on me.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 08/ 2/07 at 2:31 PM | Comments (0)
See more entries in Google, Rumors

April 11, 2007

Keynote Conversation With Steve Berkowitz

[So far this morning I have chatted with Kim Krause-Berg and her hubby Eric, been taunted by Tamar and Barry, and got to buddy up with Danny Sullivan (major thanks to Paul Mooney!) for a bit (He sat next to me. I’m stealing the chair and hanging it in the office.). Oh yes, the official Danny meeting has happened. I can die a happy blogger. Hi Danny!] [So. Jealous. --Susan]

Oh, Microsoft’s Steve Berkowitz is speaking. Apparently, the session has started while I was daydreaming about what a rock star I am.

Steve explains to a packed room that he does product management at Microsoft, which means he helps drive the priorities for what they’re going to be working on. It’s about understanding what the customers want. He says that everyone at Microsoft has a very customer-focused attitude, studying customer research to learn and define what users want. Steve has never seen the organization want to drive towards critical mass more than it has right now. He’s very excited about the company itself and where they’re going to go. Aw, that’s nice. I’m excited about Bruce Clay, too. We’re all pretty cool people.

Danny opens up an important topic and asks Steve how Microsoft will handle the double branding of MSN and Live.com

The easy answer is that Microsoft is trying to extend that affiliation.

According to Steve, software and services are where the world is going. It’s about bringing the PC onto the Web. Microsoft is trying to figure out how to extend the Windows presence, the idea of what Window is, and the value proposition of Windows.

The value of Microsoft will come from user’s ability to take their identity with them using Live ID. As things evolve and new properties emerge, users will able to take who they are where they go, similar to how you can take your cell phone number wherever you go. Windows will become an extension onto the Internet.

One of Microsoft’s focuses right now is getting the products right. If they perfect the products users will be able to mix and match the properties in a way that makes sense for them. You’re going to see Microsoft take Live and integrate more social content. They’re brining lots more current events and UGC into the experience.

Danny asks Steve how Microsoft will win with search. Are they going to do anything to make it pop or are they okay with being number three?

The goal of search is to first reach critical mass in an advertiser’s perspective. And, no, Steve says, it’s not ever satisfactory to not be number 1.

Search will continue to evolve and we’re going to see it evolve in many different ways. There are two different kinds of searches – destination searches and convenient searches. The latter means that users search because they’re there. They’re surfing MySpace and there just happens to be a search box. Steve predicts search is going to evolve to be about where you take the experience of search and that’s what Microsoft is working on. They want to create innovative ways to deliver search where users are. Users want to know what their friends searched on.

He says the search war is not over. It’s about getting the basics right, focusing on that and then moving towards innovating – which is what Microsoft is doing in the Labs.

Danny says that one of the advantages Microsoft has is that they control the OS and the browser. We’ve had these deals where competitors are challenging that. Comments?

Steve calls these deals the “deal of the day”. They’re important today, but won’t be over the long term. That will happen because the product still needs to improve and get better.

According to Steve (slightly paraphrased. I’m not a robo typer):

One of the interesting things about being with Microsoft is that when you look at Windows in its purest form it’s a really nice interface. But by the time you get it it’s a completely different interface. You’re getting pop-ups from Symantec, from Google, from everyone. You look at Microsoft and say “why did you do this to me?” But we didn’t do anything to you. At the end of the day the customer is the final decision maker. It’s customer choice to set defaults.

Only not, because Microsoft and Google and working hard to change that. Danny asks if Microsoft will ever not set the default.

Steve laughs. I’m pretty sure that means no. It's part of the development cycle.

Danny asks if Microsoft will ever partner with Yahoo or Ask.com.

Oh, no.

Ms. Dewey has come to life and is now annoying all of us with her presence. No, seriously, she’s here and I hate her. Kim and Eric are both laughing. I am so not amused. Why are they doing this to me?

Make it stop.

She’s still here and Danny asks Steve about the future of Ms. Dewey. Great, now we’re talking about her. Maybe if no one looks at her she’ll just go away!

More talk from Ms. Dewey.

[I’m ignoring all the ridiculous banter thrown out by Ms. Dewey. Trust me, she didn’t say anything important. Only things to make your ears bleed. The guy next to me is totally confused. He keeps asking me who she is and why she’s here. I’m asking myself that second question.]

Steve says that Ms. Dewey represents that search is very much about the UI. It’s a way to deliver information in a different way. (If by different, you mean horribly annoying, then yes.)

Oh, thank goodness. The grand annoyance leaves and now it’s back to the original question -- does it make sense to partner with Yahoo or Ask?

Steve can’t answer that.

My goal is to concentrate on organic search. Searchers are using the products, they just don’t use them enough. We want to increase engagement. We want them to use not just Mail or Messenger but all of Microsoft’s properties together. We want to touch consumers in different ways and crack open the vault of stuff Microsoft creates. We’re going to build an amazing business, just by getting our stuff together. I feel so liberated about getting into all these different areas. You’ve got all these people building these great products and now it’s about connecting them.

Danny asks Steve to compare and contrast Google, Yahoo and Microsoft. What puts Microsoft ahead of them and where are there strengths?

Naturally, Steve says it’s not a question about who’s ahead and who’s behind. (*giggle*) We all have great audiences. Where people do better than Microsoft is depth of engagement. The way Yahoo has built across Yahoo traffic. Users are going to see great things from Microsoft in the future. They’re going to see them integrating things in a much smoother way.

Steve things their advantage is its scale and its reach. It’s going to be the things Microsoft surrounds search with that are going to make it that much more enticing and that much better. Microsoft is more than search. (Uh, let’s hope so.)

And now my favorite part of Danny’s interviews – the word association game. Yay!

Ready, go!

Google – Amazing
Yahoo – Working hard
AOL – Trying to hold its own
Ask – I love it.
Microsoft – Potential
Steve Berkowitz – Having fun

Such a great keynote and a very excellent way to start a Wednesday morning. Did I mention I got to sit next to Danny and pretend I was important? I did? Oh.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 04/11/07 at 9:08 AM | Comments (4)
See more entries in Live Search, Microsoft, Rumors, SEM Events, sesny07

February 8, 2007

The 950 Penalty or a New Ranking Theory?

I should preface this by saying everything you read below is pure speculation, but the fact that it’s pure speculation is why this post is so fun and you should read every single word without getting up for more water, checking your email, refreshing your MyBlogLog profile or using the restroom.

If you haven’t noticed the much-hyped debate regarding the maybe real/maybe not real Google Minus-950 penalty is heating up and is actually getting interesting.

We first started hearing talk about a supposed Minus-950 penalty back in January when several webmasters complained that pages that traditionally ranked very well were now being hidden on the last page of the search engine results. Even odder was that the only sites that seemed to be experiencing this problem were spam sites or high quality niche sites. Sites that fell in the middle were left unaffected. (Or have just been taught that openly complaining is annoying and is not a good way to make friends.)

At the time, the discussion in the forum focused on whether this penalty actually existed and why it was only certain pages that were being affected, not the entire site. Three explanations presented were:

1. The penalty was a result of over-optimization, most often using too similar anchor text on a page.
2. A sign that Google can’t differentiate between scraper sites and the original content producers. For example, Google runs across an instance of duplicate content in their index, doesn’t know which site to punish, so both sites are banished to the last page of the SERP.
3. It's somehow related to Google’s disengaging of the George W. Bush Googlebomb since both acts moved once high ranking pages out of a searcher's view.

As you can see, the “explanations” offered read more like “outright guesses”, and no possibility seem too outrageous. Like most forum debates, the conversation went largely unresolved.

The thread was rekindled today after WebmasterWorld administrator Tedster read through a patent filed (on my birthday) last June by Googler Anna Lynn Patterson. The patent is named “detecting spam documents in a phrase based information retrieval system” and discusses a system where word phrase frequency is used to determine if a page is spam. Some have called it low-scale version of latent semantic indexing.

The patent’s abstract reads:

“Phrases are identified that predict the presence of other phrases in documents. Documents are the indexed according to their included phrases. A spam document is identified based on the number of related phrases included in a document.”

The idea here (I think) is that too many like or related phrases signals that a page is keyword stuffing and not providing useful information to the reader. Based on that find, Tedster broke off the original thread and asked: Is it a “950 Penalty”? Or is it Phrase Based-Re-ranking. Basically, is the 950 Penalty real or is Google re-ranking results due to phrase-based factors.

Tedster believes the latter, that this patent is responsible for the “penalty” site owners have been experiencing:

“My gut is telling me that this isn't really a penalty, it's an interactive effect of the way the Google dials have been turned in their existing algo components. It's like getting a poor health symptom in one area of your body from not having enough of some important nutrient -- even though you've got plenty of others and plenty of good health in many ways.”

It’s hard to tell what’s going on or if anything is going on at all. Tedster backs up his assertion by reporting that he knows of a site where “one solid new inbound link from a very different domain” solved the site owner’s problem. But another member says it took him “de-optimizing” his site and lowering the keyword density of things like page titles, and body content before his site regained its rankings. So we’ve come full circle.

What do you think? Is there really a penalty or is there a filter that re-ranks results based on a sort of latent semantic indexing? If there is a penalty, is it just the MSSA penalty in disguise or is it legitimate?, Is one thing responsible for everything or is it just easier for people to make up new Google penalties than to accept responsibility for a crappy site?

The conversation is still going on at WMW so go check it out.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 02/ 8/07 at 4:44 PM | Comments (5)
See more entries in Rumors, SEO, Search Engine Optimization

December 11, 2006

Google in bed with terrorists; known to kick puppies.

You’ve probably heard rumblings of this one already, but I think it’s worth noting, if only because the story just won’t die.

Basically, Webmaster Radio’s Jim Hedger went on record in SES Chicago claiming that Google was funding terrorism by serving ads on sites that are connected with known terrorists groups (including site properties within controversy-laden Orkut), and not being proactive enough about obliterating automated clickbot programs.

Hedger says he has a contact behind the lines in Fallujah working with the Iraqi insurgency that was reportedly setting up AdSense-supported blog networks, encouraging users to click on ads, and then using that revenue to fund terrorist groups. It’d be nice to know why Hedger is working with this guy instead of turning him over to the appropriate officials, but that’s neither here nor there.

The system is said to work like this:

1. ”Groups set up blogs and sites with Google AdSense ads
2. Commit click fraud on those sites
3. Collect revenue from Google
4. Donate revenue to ‘charities’ which funnel to terrorist groups”

Obviously, this story has linkbait written all over it. But if you concentrate on the click fraud aspect and the clear lack of editorial control Google demonstrates within AdSense (thereby ignoring that whole silly terrorist angle), it’s suddenly a lot more newsworthy.

If what any of Hedger is saying is true (and it may be. Jim is a respected voice in the industry.), it’s the flaws in Google’s AdSense program that are technically funding terrorism.

So what does Google do about it? You fix the flaws.

If you want to increase the quality of AdSense sites out there, there needs to be an extensive editorial review process. Someone needs to look at every site that is created, decide whether it meets their guidelines, and then either approve it or reject it. You don’t have to look any further than all the crappy MFA sites to see something needs to be done. Obviously, this will likely never happen. I don’t suspect that Google will ever be okay with dedicating the amount of resources needed to accomplish this.

And truthfully, even if they did, it might not be enough to keep sensationalized headlines like this out of the press. People will always enjoy speculating that Google is engaging in nefarious behavior. And they probably are, completely unknowingly. There’s no way for Google to keep track of what advertisers do with the money they make through AdSense. I’m sure some of it used for unfriendly business, but that’s not Google’s responsibility to detect, nor should it be.

However, something really should be done to at least improve the quality of sites getting past Google’s filters. It’s irresponsible for them not to address a problem they know exists.

The other issue here is click fraud. If Hedger’s allegations are true and people are using clickbots programs to generate false clicks that needs to be stopped.

Or maybe it already has. If you haven’t read Andy Beal’s recent click fraud exclusive, you should. He reports that click fraud levels are less than 2 percent. Andy spoke to Google’s business manager for trust and safety, Shuman Ghosemajumder, and was privy to information that was previously only shared internally. Ghosemajumder went over Google’s four-stage process in identifying and filtering invalid clicks, and defined what Google considers to be an invalid click:

“Non-fraudulent clicks (such as a visitor genuinely clicking an AdWords ad more than once) and “click fraud” (those clicks that are obviously not legitimate).”

If that’s the case and Google is being proactive, then I think advertisers need to start seeing documentation of that. Give users an IP and referring domain for the clicks they’re charged for so both sites are working with the same data. Don’t just share information with the Andy Beals of the world. The rest of us deserve information too.

I think a lot of people were watching this story and hoping it would die down on its own, but if the talk on Matt Cutts blog, the comment train over at Search Engine Journal and the growing thread at Threadwatch are any example, this one’s got legs. I think we’re going to be hearing about this for awhile. And it’s worth talking about, as long as we’re focusing on the right story.

[And maybe this has no importance, but how in the world does Jim Hedger have contacts working behind the lines in Fallujah? Or am I the only one without contacts in third-world countries? I’m always the Jan, never the Marcia.]

Posted by Lisa Barone on 12/11/06 at 2:02 PM
See more entries in Rumors

December 6, 2006

Yahoo! Shakeup follows Peanut Butter blandness

Late last night, Stefanie Olsen at CNet posted a rumor about an executive powwow at Yahoo! and speculated that there could be "significant layoffs" in the future.

That rumor was borne out today with the announcement that Yahoo! would be "re-aligning" their organization in order to more effectively focus on their customers. What exactly does that mean? Well, in first place it means that at least two top executives are out of a job. COO Dan Rosensweig is out, as well as Lloyd Braun. Valleywag is speculating that Chief Communications Officer Chris Castro might have been shuffled out the door as well.

Going forward, Yahoo! will be organized into three operating groups: two customer focused: "Audience" and "Advertiser & Publisher" and a newly focused "Technology" group. Each will be headed up by an executive who will report directly to Terry Semel. CTO Farzad Nazem will continue as head of the Technology group. Susan Decker will lead the Advertiser& Publisher group. Additionally Sue Decker is being groomed for the CEO slot in the future. The Audience Group does not as yet have an announced leader.

Speculation about the future for Yahoo! is everywhere, from the comprehensive coverage (Search Engine Land, Search Engine Journal, Inside Google) to the chatty commentary (Jeremy Zawodny, Matt Cutts, Valleywag) to the official word from Yahoo (Yahoo's press release, Terry Semel.)

If you're dying for even more chatter about the shakeup, head over to Techmeme to get your fill.

Wow, I wish I was at SES right now. I'd love to hear the talk in the halls about this.

Posted by Susan Esparza on 12/ 6/06 at 10:17 AM
See more entries in Rumors, Yahoo

October 16, 2006

Search Headlines

Search Engines Were Never Meant to be Human

Whose idea was it to let a search engine speak? Did someone really find this amusing? I don't know, but you've probably already been introduced to Ms. Dewey, the search engine with "a human face" that offers 'witty banter' while bringing up your search results.

The unfortunate part is that none of it works.

Ms. Dewey has the relevancy of HotBot, an unfriendly SERP, and the attitude of an annoying two-year old that will neither go away, nor stop talking. The Google Operating System blog calls the figurehead "ironic, clever and provocative", but I think what they meant to say was tiresome, annoying and boring.

Maybe if it's human, we can kill it? You think?

No, that's wrong. (Talk to me later if you're interested.) [Lisa, you're scaring me a little bit here. Though I agree that Ms. Dewey is extremely irritating, takes much too long and is less helpful at returning results than Pupna, violence is never the answer. --Susan] -- Except for when it is. Muahaha!

GDrive Leaked. Again

For a company that's hoping you'll trust them with all your important business documents, they sure don't do a very good job protecting their own. Phil Lenssen was able to get a hold of Platypus, Google's internal GDrive client, and post a mirror of the help page for Windows and Linux. For obvious reasons he couldn't get past the log-in, so who knows what's behind it..

So, GDrive is real, and it's all very internal so little people like us will never get to use it, but David Utter asks one very good Google-related question:

"Will Google continue to leak product information to bloggers on Fridays (assuming they have done so by design to date)? It has to be cheaper than paying Ogilvy to do PR, right?"

Seriously. The YouTube rumor, now this, why is every trying to take my Friday buzz? Harsh, man.

How can search engines rerank results?

Bill Slawski uses his patent filing skills to construct 20 ways the search engines may rerank search results, including filtering out duplicate content, personalization, country specifications, accessibility and others. The most interesting of the twenty was one that doesn't always get a lot of attention:

15. Reordering based upon implicit feedback from user activities and click-throughs

There have been a lot of papers and patent filings that describe reordering of search results by looking at user behavior and query selections.

Here’s one that describes looking at different queries over user sessions:

Query Chains: Learning to Rank from Implicit Feedback (pdf)

[Rand also mentions manual boosts as part of his 'cracking' of the Google algorithm completed at 12 am this morning. Does the boy not sleep?]

Bill's entire post is an excellent read, as is anything written by the SEO by the sea.

Fun Finds

Seth Godin ponders the eternal question: Why do people look like their dogs?

Nick Carr wonders if United States vs. Google will be this era's defining antitrust case.

P.S.
Tom Schmitz – I love you for this! I'm still laughing.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 10/16/06 at 5:06 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Google, Rumors, SEO, Search Engine Optimization

October 9, 2006

Google and YouTube: What is going on?

Things are starting to get both very interesting and very, very confusing.

Google and YouTube reportedly took a break from their own (very much alleged) negotiations to pen parallel licensing agreements. YouTube has signed deals with Sony BMG, Universal Music and CBS; while Google has penned deals with Sony and Warner (YouTube's already got this one in the bag).

For those keeping score, that's YouTube, 4; Google, 2

Here's your breakdown:

YouTube

• Universal Music: Doug Morris officially got a clue. Instead of threatening to drag YouTube into court for costing him and the artists of Universal Music tens of millions of dollars, he has instead decided to pair up. The deal looks to be pretty similar to the deal YouTube struck with Warner Music, where Universal will allow YouTube to access approved copyright-protected content, as well as incorporate it into their own homemade videos.
• SonyBMG: As it becoming standard, this agreement will allow YouTube users to "interact" with videos by Sony artists, (I love their use of the word interact, like they're going to have a tea time or something) and comes with its own friendly user-generated content clause.
• CBS: In a most interesting pairing, YouTube has penned a deal to create a CBS branded channel on YouTube (cause it worked so well for Paris) that will feature short clips from popular CBS programming, CBS news snippets, previews of its new fall lineup and more. There's also a user-generated content aspect where "fans" can upload their own content from "tailgate parties, pep rallies and other campus events". Heh, that sounds utterly ridiculous to me.

  I'm all for television networks pairing up with YouTube if its going to give users something of value, but this doesn't seem like real value to me. This seems more like advertising material instead of actual content. Almost like CBS knows pairing with YouTue is a smart idea, but they don't know why it's smart.

Google

• Warner Music: If you remember the terms of the YouTube/ Warner Music deal, there are no surprises here. Google Video will get access to Warner Music's music video collection and other artist-related content. Users can purchase the videos for $1.99 and AdSense publishers will be able to run and earn money through related ad-supported videos. And of course, the added user-generated content clause means users use Warner's music library for use in their own productions without getting sued.
• Sony BMG: As with the Warner deal, Google gets ad-supported Sony music videos, AdSense publishers are able to create and profit off of ad-supported Sony videos, and viewers will be able to access "user-created video content" featuring an array of Sony BMG artists.

What's (where's?) the deal?

So those are all today's announced deals, but what's really going on? Why are Google and YouTube signing, what looks to be, synchronous content licensing agreements. Are they the ones out scouting or are the record companies all of sudden anxious to capitalize? It looks like a combination of both.

There's a lot of speculation that Google and YouTube will announce some sort of licensing agreement later today, however, there doesn't seem to be any actual proof behind it. Right now there's just a whole lot of talk and unnamed sources.

A Google/ YouTube pairing would surprise me. Why would two large brands want to risk their identify and become associated with the other? The losses seem larger than any potential gains.

But the aligning licensing agreements look suspicious. Are both companies getting their ducks in a row or are they simply covering their own bases and doing what's best for them individually? Personally, I think the latter. Who knows how long these deals have been in the works. YouTube and Universal have likely been talking for some time, given Doug Morris' rage a few weeks back. Maybe today's slew of announcements is just the workd of some really odd timing.

If a Google/YouTube merger was coming, why would both companies need to be aligned so tightly? They wouldn't.

Whether a Google/ YouTube alliance is on its way or not, these partnerships go a long way to legitimize YouTube. Clearly, anyone looking to buy YouTube is not a moron, as Mark Cuban continues to profess. Users have rallied behind it, the record companies are learning to monetize their properties, advertising opportunities are being formed, and even a powerhouse like Google is taking a nod and allowing users to create and upload their own content. There's a formula here that is working and not the least bit moronic.

I want to see this give Google Video a second life. With tons of new content now available, new advertising avenues and the chance to build a Google Video community, there's no reason why it can't succeed. If any company can create the type of community feel that YouTube has, it is Google. Google users love Google and they love other Google users. It's both endearing and annoying.

Up until this point, Google Video has suffered a rather lackluster performance for two main reasons. First, most of its core audience has already been swept up by YouTube. Second, Google Video isn't where you go for user-created videos. It's where you go to see that television show that aired last night, weird music videos, out-of-copyright cartoons or uploads of commercials other users found funny. It's always been a different kind of site than YouTube, a less successful one.

However, that can change, if Google wants it to. Google Video now has advertiser backing, and if Google knows how to do anything its to leverage its advertisers. With deals with Sony and Warner, advertisers funneling money through the service and users being encouraged to use the music library to create their own videos, it could give Google another chance at monetizing this property. And if that happens, YouTube gets its first real competitor. It may come down to which site has deals with the best record labels. And wouldn't that be fun.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 10/ 9/06 at 12:35 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Branding, Google, Rumors, Search Engines

October 6, 2006

Friday Recap

It is being widely over-reported that Google may be in talks to purchase YouTube for a sum of $1.6 billion. Since TechCrunch reports the rumors have only a 40 percent chance of being partially true, and this isn't the first, second, or third YouTube rumor we've heard lately, we'll hold out before coming up with fun ideas for the renaming of Google Video.

For me, the most interesting part of a potential Google/ YouTube pairing will come when Mark Cuban suddenly "disappears" after referring to Google as a bunch of morons. Bye, bye, Marky.

David Naylor wants you to know he really hates Google's SearchMash. Ouch. That whole "unbranded" not-associated-with-Google thing doesn't seem to be working out to well.

On a completely unrelated note, Google says they're going to stop launching new products and concentrate on making the ones they have better. I like that idea.

Speaking of Google, people are finding a lot of uses for Google's new Code Search and none of them have anything to do with helping programmers find code on the Web. So far there's an acronym (backronym?) generator (i.e. joe = just one example; mom = most other machines, and my favorite, lisa = logic is separate and) and the not-so-surprising discovery that programmers have potty mouths. [I get Susan = some uncommon settings are not. That's very Zen.--Susan]

Because he's slightly crazy in the head, one Digg member proclaimed that Digg users are potatoes. Yeah. There are no words for his logic, though he tries to find some anyway.

I won't lie. I've never seen or sought-out anything Star Trek-related, and I was the only one not to get the reference when my soon-to-be sister-in-law announced if her baby was a boy (it's not, thankfully) it would be named Tiberius. However, this is amusing even to me. Star Trek people are crazy. Just like potatoes.

A weird video of a man wearing a world-record-breaking 155 shirts circulated the web earlier this week. I was intrigued only because (a) I had never seen so many Big Dog shirts in my life and (b) who knew shirts even came that large. Phil Lenssen was so deliriously amused that he wrongly proclaimed that "the internet was invented to watch a guy score a world record for the most t-shirts worn at one time".

Sorry, Phil, but that is blatantly untrue. Everyone knows the internet was made for stalking (others, as well as yourself). Don't spread lies.

Matt Cutts discovered that savvy advertisers were bidding on his name for their PPC accounts, causing the "deviously" savvy Michael Graywolf to get in on the action himself. Nicely played, Michael.

The evilMatt Cutts blog gave disgruntled site owners a Google lullaby to help console them, or at least to coax them off the ledge, when their sites do a Google nosedive. If you listen closely, you can almost hear the millions of site owners woefully humming this song at this very moment.

Also from the evilMC: the definition for the term "BDTBS" and an example of the greatest ad placement ever. Now those guys are using their noggins.

Google must have heard Susan's incessant crying (and my pleas to make her STOP) about wanting her very own pony. So, to appease her and help me regain my sanity, they finally gave her one. Praise be to God. [I named it Sparkles!--Susan]

Robert Scoble had a real life don't-you-know-who-I-am moment when he was asked to sit outside after showing up to a country club lunch in jeans. This renders me into giggle fits (for many reasons). Who knew you could be denied access to a country club for being a geek? See, this is why we stay in dark basements.

Now, I like to think I'm a relatively bright individual (hush, Susan), but this still baffles me. It's not real, right? Why are people (not Seth) talking about it like it is? I'm so confused. Wait – is it real? Is today Friday? My head hurts.

ISOS showed why you should never trust them with your proofreading. Meanwhile, ClickZ proves that just because you write an article about the proper spelling of the word "Email", doesn't mean you can't misspell it (citing "editorial policy") throughout the entire article. Funny stuff.

Lastly, today is October 6. That means there are just over three weeks left to get your Halloween costume in order. If you need help, give Costumzee a try. They have the scariest Michael Jackson face I have ever seen. Actually, no, this one is still scarier.

Tis the season, folks.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 10/ 6/06 at 12:07 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Branding, Fun Stuff, Google, Rumors, Search Engine Optimization, Search Engines

October 4, 2006

Search Headlines

Russian cyberattackers get 8 years in jail

The three Russian men who used threatening cyberattacks to extort $4 million from UK Internet gambling sites have each been sentenced to 8 years in jail and charged $3,700 in fines for their actions.

Ivan Maksakov, Alexander Petrov and Denis Stepanov would reportedly demand money from e-commerce sites and then crash their sites if they did not cooperate.

CNET reports:

"One bookmaker, which refused to pay a demand for $10,000, was attacked and brought offline--which reportedly cost it more than $200,000 a day in lost business"

Crazy. It's like a storyline straight out of a bad Russian spy novel.

Intel being investigated by the EU

The European Commission is looking into allegations that Intel used illegal techniques, such as unfair rebates, to prevent rival Advanced Micro Devices from gaining market share. An EU review panel will be brought in to determine whether Intel should face formal antitrust charges.

Intel, who controls nearly 80 percent of the market, denies the antitrust allegations and says its business practices are "both fair and lawful". Advanced Micro Devices has already sued Intel in the United States and made attempts in Asia and South America as well. Let's hope Intel doesn't become the EU's new Microsoft.

Speaking of Microsoft...

Microsoft may be facing more antitrust problems as a handful of security firms are complaining to the European Commission that Vista prevents its users from using security products not put out by Microsoft. Cry babies.

Symantec, McAfee and F-Secure all say that Vista takes away users choice by automatically directing them to Microsoft's own security product and say the EU is right to be investigating Microsoft.

It all must seem like a giant case of deja vu to poor Microsoft. Google can install its toolbar on every computer worldwide, but if Microsoft wants to bundle its product line it becomes an international scandal. First, it's their document reader, then their media player and now it's their security program. Can Microsoft do anything without angering someone?

No.

Politicians, Eric Schmidt don't get Google

During a UK Conservative party conference, Eric Schmidt warned politicians that in order to stay competitive in upcoming elections they must wrap their heads around this whole Internet thing. The Internet, Eric said, will change general elections similar to the way television did. Eric remarked that the reason many politicians don't "understand" the Internet is "partly because of their age".

Yes, that's right. Eric told British politicians they were too old to understand the Internet. Eric Schmidt is awesome!

It's somewhat odd, however, that he only spoke about the Internet as a way for politicians to get information sooner. You would think the idea that they can relate and form relationships with core voters would have been mentioned, but alas, it was not.

Eric also predicted that in the not-so-distant future "truth predictor" software would hold politicians accountable for what they say. Um, we already have that, Eric. It's called Google and we use it for fact-checking. You know, someone says something stupid, we raise our eyebrows thinking it can't be true, search for it and then blog what we find for anybody who will listen. Someone please introduce Eric to his product.

Fun Finds

Stuntdubl's 18 Questions Your CEO Forgot to Ask When Building your Website.

USA Today explains the relationship between Ask.com and Teoma and how Eli's daddy, aka AG, is even cooler than you originally thought.

Aaron Pratt: Can Google Multitask?

Posted by Lisa Barone on 10/ 4/06 at 4:21 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Ask, Branding, Google, Microsoft, Rumors, SEO, Search Engine Optimization, Search Engines

September 27, 2006

Search Headlines

Did Fox News just buy YouTube?

We're not sure yet if this is fact or fiction, but Digg is reporting (in a somewhat sketchy post) that Fox News Corp just shelled out $580 million to acquire YouTube. Could it be true? If so, this is very big news, however, we're still looking for another source to confirm it. Meanwhile, cynical Susan is crying big fat lie.

John Battelle interviews Matt Cutts

John Battelle and partner-in-crime Melanie Colburn spent the past month email-interviewing Matt Cutts. The result is a very good read. For me, the most interesting part of the interview came as Matt discussed the role human intervention plays in the Google algorithm.

"When savvy people think about Google, they think about algorithms, and algorithms are an important part of Google. But algorithms aren't magic; they don't leap fully-formed from computers like Athena bursting from the head of Zeus. Algorithms are written by people. People have to decide the starting points and inputs to algorithms. And quite often, those inputs are based on human contributions in some way."

It's important to remember that just because Google doesn't manipulate search results or the stories appearing in Google News, the algorithm was designed by a human, which means some bias has been entered into the equation. No algorithm is 100 percent objective, both with its content and sources.

SEW was more interested in Matt's comments concerning W3C and using the meta nofollow tag. You may be too.

Evil Matt Cutts!

Speaking of Matt, this is kind of hilarious. SEO Home (via SEW) located the slightly evil mirror version of Matt Cutts blog. The crazy behind the blog rewords Matt's entries to make them spout evil instead of holy Matt goodness.

Remember Matt's post about verifying Googlebot? Well evilMatt tells you how to verify Googlebot and then eat it and cook it. Hmm, I think evilMatt needs a hug. Look how he attacks my poor Ask:

"Speaking of Ask Jeeves, we kicked their asses so bad Jeeves ran away and left just Ask. Now they want you to “try” their new approach to search engines? HA! We could buy your little company with my Christmas bonus."

Okay, fine, that was funny.

Yahoo linked to click fraud. Again.

BusinessWeek's recent click fraud article garnered a lot of attention last week, but what few touched on was that it once again linked Yahoo! to the controversial issue. Part of the article focused on a company called MostChoice.com, who says Yahoo! charged them more than $10,000 last year in fraudulent clicks coming from Oemji.com.

"Ninety percent of the clicks came from such places as Mongolia, Vietnam, and Honduras, where MostChoice does no business. Only eight clicks, less than 0.3%, turned into sales, compared with 30% or more from clicks on ads on Yahoo's own Web site."

Very not good. It looks like more click fraud trouble is headed Yahoo!'s way, but we'll have to wait and see where this one goes.

Fun Finds

Kathy Sierra shows users how to make powerful sites easier to use without neutering them. An excellent read.

Google Video lets viewers watch the premiere episode of House of Carters for free. Oh, please. Stop pretending you don't know who Nick Carter is.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 09/27/06 at 4:25 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Branding, Rumors, Search Engine Optimization, Search Engines

September 11, 2006

Weekend Round Up

Anti-Podcasting Treaty

This may turn into something. Boing Boing highlights a UN treaty that would give broadcasters "a right to control the use of works they don't own". Cory writes:

"The Broadcast Right will allow broadcasters to stop you from copying or re-using the programs they transmit, even if those programs are in the public domain, Creative Commons licensed or composed of uncopyrightable facts...

Worse yet, they want this to apply to the Internet. A few US corporations -- Microsoft, Yahoo -- have hijacked the US position on the Broadcast Treaty and now the US is using every trick in the book to get the world's governments (who roundly reject the idea) to create a "webcasting right" at the same time as the broadcast right."

The proposed law is being called "deadly to podcasters", as it would forbid them from quoting or re-using each others' work and would allow podcast-hosting companies to tell people how podcasts can be used. Imagine creating content only to have your host tell you what you could and could not do with it. Even worse, broadcasters would have to pay their lawyer once to make sure they had fair copyright use, and then again to make sure they had fair broadcast use.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is currently passing around an open letter for podcast-supports to sign stating that they reject the "webcasting right" and are opposed to the treaty.

AdWords Preview Tool

The Inside AdWords blog announced Friday that advertisers using Google's geo targeting function can now see how their ads looks based on different geographic criteria. This means advertisers located in New York can now see how their camping equipment ad looks when displayed in Colorado, New Jersey and Florida-based searches.

As local search begins to drive more and more traffic, tools like this one will become increasingly more important.

To check out your ads, follow the steps below:

1. Visit www.google.com/adpreview
2. Enter your keyword(s) in the search box and click on the "Search" button
3. Preview your ads on the search results page that loads or the subsequent pages (click the next link to see more ads on the right-hand side)

What Makes People Click?

There's an interesting thread going on over at WMW that debates this one. I found it rather troublesome that most members attribute boredom as one of major reasons that searchers clicked their ad.

I'm sorry, but if searchers are only clicking on your ads because they're bored, that says more about you than it does about them, don't you think? I was under the impression that it's the advertiser's job to encourage users to commit to the click, not the clicker's job to tell them why they did it.

If you want to know why searchers are clicking your ads, I'd recommend taking a look at your top performing ads. What do they have that the others don't? Why are they written the way they're written? What were you trying to accomplish?

Usability Testing

Phil Lenssen tweaks the Digg homepage (before and after) to make it more user-friendly, reminding us that when it comes to design, less is more.

I like Phil's cleaner version of the Digg page, though I think removing the category header may be dangerous. It's always good to remind users where they are on your site. Taking away too much from a page will limit its usefulness and may cause users to get lost.

Fun Finds

Today I give you two fun finds:

First, Jeremy Zawodny gives his faithful readers a quick advisory note: When it comes to eating peaches – if it tastes funny and smells odd, stop eating!

We hope you're feeling better, Jeremy.

Secondly, I highly recommend you heading over to Seth Godin's blog to check out his Doing It For Free post. It's a good reminder that passion spurs innovation, not money.

Do you remember that September?

On a more serious note: As a native New Yorker, it usually bothers me to hear others lament about 9/11 in a way that I feel takes away from what actually happened. That being said, I think Ze Frank does a great job of giving the day its props, while not leaving users with that all too familiar saccharine aftertaste.

Also interesting: Wired News attributes the Birth of the Blogs to 9/11, the Google Operating System blog remembers what Google looked like that day, (hat tip SER.) and Ask.com remembers the day in its own way.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 09/11/06 at 4:13 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Design, Google, Rumors, Search Engine Optimization, Search Engines

August 2, 2006

A Round-Up Of Sorts

Google signed a deal with XM Satellite Radio to insert ads on the radio company's non-music channels using its dMarc technology. The new ad system could be implemented as early as this year's fourth quarter, giving AdWords advertisers access to the more than 7 million XM subscribers.

Rumor Alert: MediaPost reported Google's plans for dMarc include its expansion onto TV. Hmm...

Ask.com & Bloglines released a new access: restricted tag that users can employ to keep Ask from indexing and including the information in the Ask.com or Bloglines blog search.

Ask also announced the addition of an ISBN number shortcut to its Smart Answers. Just type in the ISBN number (don't lie, we know you have all your favorites memorized!) and Ask will find the book, bring up a photo and direct you to a site where you can compare prices and buy it. It's a handy tool, though Yahoo! beat them to this one.

AOL announced its moving to a free model. I know, try to look shocked.

Matt Cutts uploaded two more videos. He is just all about the link bait lately.

USA Today profiled Danny Sullivan yesterday, talking about how he made the transition for working in the graphic design department of two prominent newspapers to his launch into this crazy thing called search engine optimization. If anyone deserves all this attention, it's Danny. In the article, Incisive Managing Director Rory Brown calls Danny a "rock star". A rock star, indeed!

Yahoo! launched their corporate blog, Yodel Anecdotal. Cute. I hope the blog turns out to be clearer and less... silly(?) than their initial definition of it:

"Think of this site as the front door to our home (work with me as I posit a questionable metaphor): In our kitchen, we’ll offer you a cup of coffee and direct you to the fridge door, where we’ve displayed the things we’re most proud of. We’ll demonstrate our latest inventions from the workbench in our garage, engage in healthy debates around the dining room table (pass the pepper, please), and sink into overstuffed chairs in the living room to share some of our favorite photos. We’ll point out the shower where we do our best thinking (apologies for the visual) and the den, where we goof around."

Um, yeah. Welcome home. Or something.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 08/ 2/06 at 5:48 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in AOL, Ask, Branding, Google, Pay Per Click, Rumors, Search Engine Optimization, Search Engines, Yahoo

Does Google Pay Content Providers?

A recent Mercury News article caused quite a stir in the blogosphere Monday when it sort of, but not outright, accused search engines of paying newspaper sites for the right to index and link to their content. The article turned the popular notion that the search engines "steal" revenue away from newspapers upside down and showed the newspapers actually being financially rewarded by the engines.

Taken from the article:

"Recently completed deals, which include arrangements in which media organizations such as the Associated Press will be compensated on a pay-per-click basis, could herald a major shift in the relationship between the old media and new Internet gatekeepers.

"The people who own the content did a lot of work to generate the content,'' Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt said in an interview with the Mercury News. ``We want them to get the majority of the revenue from advertising.''

It's unclear what exactly Eric Schmidt meant by that last statement, but it was enough to make bloggers stand up and take notice. Do the search engines pay content providers to use their articles? If so, how does this affect smaller newspaper sites and blogs who are also fighting for spots in Google News? I think the bigger question at hand was if Bob's Blog pays Google $x, can he too land himself in Google News?

Historically, content providers were never offered payment for "allowing" the search engines to link to their content, at least not in cash. When Yahoo! or AOL made a deal with a newspaper, the site's commission was in traffic, not direct deposit. AOL would provide a snippet of a New York Times article, and then link back to the original article on the NYT site. If the user wanted to read more, they had to follow the link back to the NYT. AOL got to use the story and the NYT got the traffic.

But the Mercury News article seemed to be painting a different picture, one that showed Google paying syndication fees. Google responded yesterday saying:

"Google has always believed that content providers and publishers should be fairly compensated for their work so they can continue producing high quality information. We are always working on new ways to help users find the information they are looking for, and our business agreement with the Associated Press is one example of that."

I still don't know what that means. Is Google working on a deal similar to the one Yahoo News has? Or is that an admission that Google currently runs a pay per click partnership with the AP for allowing them to crawl their content? It's still unclear, but the statement does indicate some sort of official business model regarding this is on its way, or at least being debated. I'd also like to know what "fairly compensated" means and just what kind of money we're talking about (pennies or billions?).

It seems important and I think users have a right to know if Google (and the other engines) has a deal with certain content providers. If companies can pay to have their content appear in Google News it could lead to a potential bias of what stories get covered and how, and I think it's only fair for users to know that ahead of time.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 08/ 2/06 at 10:10 AM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in AOL, Google, Rumors, Search Engine Optimization, Search Engines, Yahoo

July 11, 2006

Microsoft-ness?

Google received its own entry yesterday, so I guess it's only fair we talk about some of the things Microsoft has been up to lately. I know, I know but we at least have to keep the facade of neutrality. I'm kidding, We love like Microsoft.

Barry points us to a SER thread that suggests MSN may ignoring, or at least not accurately following, Google's robot.txt file setup for api.google.com. If MSN was following Google's instructions, searching MSN Search for site:api.google.com would bring up zero results. Instead, doing a site command brings up fourteen.

Err... I just accidentally clicked the second URL MSN lists (/create) and received an email from Google thanking me for signing up to Google Web API's service. Oops?

Wait. Make that two emails from Google thanking me. Note to self: stop clicking on things MSN brings up.

To be fair, MSN isn't crawling the content, just the URLs. Yahoo! and Google are guilty of the same thing. So is this really wrong or just a different interpretation of what the file says? And why are people only picking on MSN?

---

If you're looking at Microsoft's in-the-works Live Drive to compete with Google's Gdrive, you're looking in the wrong place. The folks at LiveSide (no affiliation to Microsoft) say Live Drive will not offer the same type of functionality that the rumored Gdrive will.

"Live Drive will offer a "FolderShare" like ability to access files from a remote computer - provided there is an internet connection between computers, and that the computer being accessed is running. Windows Live Search (the desktop one) is planned to be able to search across these remotely accessed files, providing remote access, and search capabilities, but no actual "in the cloud" storage."

That "in the cloud" storage users are looking for will come from a different source: S Drive -- the codename for Windows Live Messenger Sharing Folders. Similar to Gdrive, S Drive will offer file sharing and file synching between computers.

Of course, Live Drive, S Drive and Gdrive (and perhaps Ydrive?) are in pre-beta testing, so who knows when we'll see a glimpse or if they'll even be brought to the market in their current state. For now, it's just more rumor to keep the geek in you up late at night.

---

On the heels of Ask's partnership with Treasure Hunters (did you SEE last night's episode. That Kayte Fogal does have a flair for the dramatic!), MSN will debut an original interactive baseball reality show on its MSN Original's channel called Fan Club: Reality Baseball.

"Along the way, users will be able to select the team roster, determine batting order and choose pitchers. They'll also be able to make decisions on roommate assignments and player trades. Whatever they collectively decide will be implemented, and they'll then be able to watch the results via short-form video and text narrative."

Eh, I'm not too excited. Maybe because it involves minor league baseball (ten bucks to anyone who can tell me, without looking it up, what state the Schaumburg Flyers play for). Or it could be because you have to watch it online and I haven't converted to that form just yet.

What I do find cool is that ClickZ says team members, their families and friends will blog on MSN Spaces as part of the program. Going behind the scenes to get dirt from mom, dad and best friends? The eternal high-schooler in me can definitely get behind that. I'm a sucker for a blogs. And TV-induced drama.

What I really don't like is how hard it was to dig up the URL to the Fan Club site. Are users supposed to be able to navigate there through the Originals homepage? Because if they are (and they should be), I couldn't for the life of me figure out how. Thank goodness for Web searches.

Even if you do find your way to the site, you can't do anything. There's a big Coming Soon logo in front of what could be an interesting site. You can't get a sneak peak of the photo gallery, look at the locker room or subscribe. The Schaumburg Flyers site isn't even prominently advertising the sponsorship. They have a little navy blue box that blends in with all their other little navy blues boxes. What kind of word of mouth are they hoping to build like that? Lame.

---

Lastly, props to Live.com for providing users with an easy toggle to go from the cluttered Personalized Live.com page (complete with news, weather and mail info) to a squeaky clean Search Only page. It's great. I love a little Google with my Microsoft. Nathan has the screenshots.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 07/11/06 at 1:04 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Branding, Design, Live Search, Microsoft, Rumors, Search Engine Optimization

June 14, 2006

Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft look North

As the search engines grow up and require more room, all eyes are pointed north. Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft are all reported to be constructing new data centers near the Oregon/ Washington border to better handle your constant demand for a faster, stronger Internet.

For Google, last week's New York Times article unmasked yet another Google secret. The NYT used some crafty detective work (or just their eyes) to uncover Google's super secret center of mass computing that is currently offline and being constructed in Oregon.

I can't imagine it was hard to find for anyone actually looking. I mean, how would you hide a data center the size of two football fields with two four-story cooling plants in rural Oregon? I'm just saying, it sticks out.

Of course, even though its existence is now very public, Google remains tightlipped about the complex locally referred to as Project 02 (Did we miss Project 01?). In fact, the NYT reports local officials were forced to sign confidentially agreements with Google that prohibited them from speaking about Project 02.

According to one resident: "No one says the 'G' word. It's a little bit like He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named in Harry Potter."

You have to love the people of Oregon.

But Google's not the only one growing and expanding. Microsoft and Yahoo are in the process of building big data centers 130 miles north of Google's in Washington. The three powerhouses have been forced to build out their computer capabilities in order to keep up with users' need for immediate results and bandwidth-eating features like video.

Why is the Oregon/ Washington border so popular, you ask? Because that's where the region's largest supply of fiber optic cables are located. Plus, electricity is cheaper, the nearby river provides plenty of water for cooling, there's ample room to grow and it's the perfect backdrop for a made-for-TV movie about a tight-lipped search engine on its way to world domination. No, really.

Honestly, the most fascinating part of the NYT article was the mention that Google uses Velcro to hold its processors in place to allow for easy swapping. Hold on! The heart of this trillion dollar company is being held together with the same material a first grader uses to 'tie' his shoes? Seriously? I guess it's better, and less messy, than duct tape.

In other relocation news: Yahoo! Search Marketing has outgrown its current location in Pasadena and will be making the twenty mile or so hike to Burbank to achieve a more "campus-like" feel. Hmm, maybe they should move on up to Mountain View. I hear there's plenty of campus-like feeling going on over there.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 06/14/06 at 2:47 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Google, Microsoft, Rumors, Search Engines, Yahoo

June 6, 2006

GoogleBowling: Urban Legend or Competition Killer?

Is your site in danger of being GoogleBowled?

We thought this issue had been settled. Especially when the Google Sitemaps team assured us last month that links from bad neighborhoods would not harm a site's ranking, only links to bad neighborhoods. But, no. The topic of GoogleBowling is back in the forums and even Rand Fiskin says the idea of 'bowling' down your competition by pointing spammy sites at them is "totally possible". Or, at least to a point.

Barry defines GoogleBowling as knocking out a site from the Google SERP by linking to it from spam sites or sites from 'bad neighborhoods'. Surely Google's algorithm is smarter than middle-school antics, right? Matt Cutts told us link-selling sites lose their ability to affect reputation, so how could they affect yours?

Though dormant for awhile, the issue of GoogleBowling was resurrected by a 'case study' created by an anonymous competitor in the recent V7ndotcom SEO contest, who says his site was "bowled over" for soliciting links. The unnamed competitor says "lots of people", reportedly more than 40,000, began linking to him when he announced he would donate the prize money to charity. Soon after, his site began slowly dropping from the rankings. The unmasked man blames the drop not on increased competition, but on Google penalizing him for soliciting links.

I have an issue or two with this guy's story. First, he entered an SEO despite having a disclaimer on his site that reads "I am NOT a professional SEO or whatever..." I think it's the "or whatever" that really gets me. Secondly, the case study documents his site's slow progression down the SERP. Surely, if Google was taking action against his site, it wouldn't be done slowly. The site would immediately disappear and would never be heard from again. But that didn't happen, in fact, the site made its way back to number three shortly after.

And though he's causing a fuss over being 'penalized', the unnamed man is still practicing the same techniques.

Adding fuel to the fire, upon returning from SES London, Rand Fishkin announced a trusted source had told him GoogleBowling was possible. Though this re-sparked the forum debate, it's likely because many users only read what they wanted to hear.

Rand blogged that Bowling was only possible if the up-to-no-gooder's made it look like the targeted site "participated" in the program by creating the illusion of reciprocal linking. Rand also said the only sites vulnerable were newbie sites, freshly 301'd sites, sites that changed ownership or ones that have never had strong rankings. Sites that have already established themselves need not worry about being taken out. You're safe.

There is virtually nothing another site can do to hurt you.

Is GoogleBowling possible? Technically, but only if you're just starting out and have already managed to severely annoy your fellow competitors. Otherwise, if you play by the rules and keep an eye on your competition, the only person responsible for the success or failure of your site is you. And that's the way it should be.

Like the MythBusters would say, we determine this myth plausible.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 06/ 6/06 at 4:40 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Google, Rumors

May 31, 2006

Rumor Has It

In case you didn't get enough juicy gossip in this month's SEO Newsletter, here are some additional morsels floating around the Web.

Is Google about to release Google Checkout? And if so, is it really going to make PayPal cry mercy?

Answer: Likely. The blogosphere is in speculation mode after news broke that the GoogleCheckout.net/org/info domains were registered on May 25th – just one day after Yahoo! and eBay announced their newfound love for one another – to a company called DNStination, Inc.

Garett Rogers reported the actual register of the domains is MarkMonitor, a company which "prides itself on the protection of... corporate identity". And who is MarkMonitor's most famous client? That would be Google. Surely, MarkMonitor would not register these domains unless they were doing it to secure the positions for Google, right? Right?

Well, working under that line of thinking, Garett hypothesizes Google Checkout will be a shopping cart system that enables sites to accept online payments. "The money site owners make will be deposited into a holding account at Google – just like AdSense works", says Garett.

Hmm, that sounds a lot like PayPal. Garett thinks Google will ultimately tie this into AdWords, but my interest is on how monumentally huge a Checkout/ Google Base integration would be. It's a Craigslist you can buy from. Or, you know, a Google eBay. Keep your eye on this one. Things could get interesting fast, especially if Microsoft decides to buy eBay.

I heard some rumblings of Google Purchases. Is this real?

Answer: Yes. A tipster informed Nathan Weinberg of a notice he received from Google regarding a much closed beta testing of something called Google Purchase. Reportedly, Google is testing a system that "makes purchases from 'high-quality' merchants using their Google accounts".

The service URL is listed as purchases.google.com, which currently redirects me back to my account information. Hmm. What does this mean? Nathan says perhaps a Yahoo! store-esque feature for Google Base or maybe even a Google Mall. Ooo, Google Mall. Looks like Yahoo! and eBay have kicked Google into high gear.

Wait, did you say Microsoft is buying eBay?

Answer: Maybe, but probably not. While we were closing out of here early last Friday, the New York Post reported Microsoft was contemplating buying eBay and merging it with its MSN portal. Anonymous sources say talks have 'cooled' since the Yahoo!/eBay deal went public, but that the recent partnership 'would not stop Microsoft from pursuing the online auctioneer'. Wow, those anonymous sources sure are ballsy. I say, anonymously.

While I wouldn't bet on a Microsoft/ eBay acquisition anytime soon, they are certainly capable of coughing up the $48 billion that eBay is reported to be worth. And with Yahoo! and eBay partnering up, and Google and Dell partnering up, Steve Ballmer may be feeling just a little left out these days.

Did Google really bully a group of scientists into changing the name of their site?

Answer: Yes. A group of scientists trying to 'advance science one step further' created a science-based search engine called Chmoogle. The group believed the name suited their focus perfectly, telling users they do chemistry and searching in one word or less. Unfortunately, Google disagreed, crying copyright infringement.

Rather than go through a court proceeding, Chmoogle agreed to change its name to eMolecules and offered up an explanation for the name change on their site. I have to admit, after reading the explanation, and the provided court cases they use as their defense, I'm with them. Sorry, Google.

Is Yahoo! nicer than Google and Microsoft?

Answer: If you're basing it off how they respond to your job application, yes.

Are the Yankees a better baseball team than the Red Sox?

Answer: That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. The Red Sox are, and will always be, the superior team.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 05/31/06 at 5:21 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Rumors

May 15, 2006

UPDATE: Google Click Fraud Settlement

Ever since Google settled its highly-publicized click fraud settlement for a mere $90 million, talk has been circulating that AdWords customers were getting a raw deal. But if the deal was so bad, why did they agree to it in the first place? Blogger Jordan Glogau of Adotas has a new theory that alleges that the advertisers' lawyers were given a sour-sounding ultimatum – settle or watch the case get dismissed.

As Glogau accurately notes in his post, Google is currently the King of Click Fraud lawsuits, with three suits pending. Currently on the books for Google: the Lane's Gift case that was filed in Arkansas, the now-paused Click Defense/AIT case and the recently filed Kinney vs. Lane case.

Let's rewind. For those just joining us, a class-action lawsuit was brought against Google in February of 2005 that alleged Google had charged advertisers billions of dollars in fraudulent clicks. However, regardless of how much evidence advertisers may or may not have had to prove the fraudulent clicks, it may not have mattered. Google's Terms and Condition states that in order for a suit to be valid, it must be filed in California. Section 17 of Google's Terms and Conditions clearly states;

"This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of California , except for its conflicts of laws principles. Any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with this Agreement shall be adjudicated in Santa Clara County, California."

This case was filed in Arkansas. Bringing a case in the wrong state, regardless of the evidence, usually means the case will be automatically dismissed.

So when the case went forward in Arkansas, it did so under the very likely possibility that it would be dismissed due to wrong venue grounds. Google knew this. And allegedly, Google made sure the plaintiffs' lawyers knew this as well. According to Glogau, Google used this knowledge to strong arm Lane and his lawyers into accepting a $90 million settlement that was, at best, insulting to advertisers.

Jump ahead to May 2006, when Kinney and his lawyers filed to have the proposed $90 million settlement overturned. Kinney argues that Lane agreed to a bad settlement and that his acceptance does not represent the wishes of the rest of Google's advertisers. Kinney is asking the courts to void the settlement.

If the court does agree to block the proposed settlement, the case would be free to either go to trial or reopen settlement negotiations. The controversy has caused the pending AIT lawsuit, properly filed in San Jose last year, to be put on hold awaiting the outcome of the Arkansas case.

Of course, this is all speculation. We don't know enough to say what is true and what isn't. Google, of course, denies the claim and says Kinney's lawyers are trying to 'circumvent the normal class action process'. We reiterate -- this is all speculation -- but it makes you wonder.

Why would Lane and his lawyers agree to a settlement that gives advertisers less than $.50 for every dollar lost, allows Google to be the judge and jury when deciding if a claim is legitimate, gives AdWords 'credit' instead of cash as a refund and includes no guarantee that Google will improve their ability to fight click fraud in the future? Why would someone agree to that so freely if they didn't fear the case was on the verge of dismissal? The only group who benefited from this deal was Google, and perhaps the lawyers who got to split $30 million among themselves. The conspiracy theory makes sense. And that makes it dangerous.

If true, the big losers in this case are the advertisers, and in a much grander scale than previously thought. The futures of their businesses were jeopardized when Google found a convenient loophole around a bigger problem. If Glogau's claims are right, this has the power to be huge blow to Google's AdWords, and an even bigger blow to Google's Do No Evil mantra.

Also, if true, congratulations to Lane and his posse for effectively selling out the entire Internet marketing community. We hope you use your $50 in Google AdWords credits wisely. Assuming they judge you are worthy of receiving them in the first place.

What goes better with Mondays than a little conspiracy theory?

(via Andy Beal)

Posted by Lisa Barone on 05/15/06 at 12:47 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Google, Pay Per Click, Rumors

April 24, 2006

Matt Dispels More Rumors

We love Matt Cutts. Or at least, I love Matt Cutts. Why? Because he's always on hand to dispel rumors and calm the fears of the paranoid -- and when you're dealing with the Internet, the rumors and the lot of invented conspiracies add up.

If you spent any time trolling the forums last week, it's likely you caught some of the buzz regarding the AdSense bot and the rumor that it was crawling sites and giving AdSense users an unfair advantage in the search engines. Lots of people got themselves all worked up over it.

So, does participating in AdSense get your pages indexed faster and give you a boost in the search engines? Matt says no, of course not. That would be wrong. Why/ how are the AdSense bots crawling the Web, you ask? According to Matt, its all part of Google's plan for 'smarter crawling' and 'better indexing'.

One of Bigdaddy's new features is the 'crawl caching proxy' update which cache's all of Google's bots (GoogleBot, AdSense bot, Blog search bot, News bot, etc.) crawls in one place in order to save user bandwidth. If one bot crawls your sites and then another comes poking around a few hours later, it will know that your site has already been visited and will pass on by. Matt provided a series of flow charts on his blog to illustrate his point, so if you don't find my text description adequate you may want to check that out. Basically, it's part of Google's effort for bandwidth reduction. Smart. Very smart.

It should also be noted that the robots.txt rules still apply to each crawl. Matt explains:

"If service X was allowed to fetch a page, but a robots.txt file prevents service Y from fetching the page, service Y wouldn’t get the page from the caching proxy."

Good to know. And in case you were wondering, the crawl caching proxy is not the same as the cached page users see if they click on the “Cached” link on the search engine results page. Those cached pages are only updated when a new page is added to the index.

So, participating in AdSense gets you no additional crawling in Google's index. You don't get indexed faster and you don't get a boost in the ranking. Can we stop talking about this now?

Matt was also on hand to discuss Lee Odden's question regarding Google and Toolbar data. Lee asked if Google uses toolbar data for its rankings. Matt says he will never answer an outright 'no' to the endless stream of 'Does Google Deem [X] Important?' questions. He says it is wise not 'to rule something out absolutely'. We agree. Kind of like what we said about Meta tags. Don't not do it. If you're going to do something, you may as well do it well.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 04/24/06 at 3:00 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in Google, Pay Per Click, Rumors

April 14, 2006

Did AOL get caught censoring emails?

Poor AOL. They just can't get away from the drama over their certified email program. This time they're facing attacks from non-profit group MoveOn.org who claim AOL began censoring emails that contained links to petition site DearAOL.com. After MoveOn.org made their initial claims, more than 150 people who signed a petition for AOL tried sending messages and received an error message that alerted them their email 'failed permanently' and would not be delivered. AOL claimed a glitch in the system, but non–profits cried foul.

DearAOL.com is an online petition that protests AOL's plans to begin charging an email tax to route email around its spam filters. The online petition has been signed by over 40,000 people so far.

Turning the situation into a complete PR fiasco, upon hearing the news, news site CNet sent out a test email to AOL with the DearAOL.com URL inside it and found it too came back undelivered. Well, that doesn't look good, does it?

When MoveOn.org realized their emails were not be delivered they sent out notices to everyone on its email list claiming that AOL was purposely censoring the protest emails. Taking full advantage, they pointed towards Wednesday's computer glitch as even more evidence that AOL does not have its customers' best interests in mind and should not be allowed to tax emails.

AOL says the blockage was due to a 'glitch' that incorrectly labeled several of the sites as being spammers. An AOL exec said there was 'absolutely no commonality' among the 50 or so sites that were affected. Well, except that a number of the affected emails contained the DearAOL URL. AOL execs pointed they have delivered 'millions and millions' of emails correctly. Yes, yes you have. But that doesn't seem to be the issue here.

And while I love conspiracy theories just as much as the next paranoid blogger, I just can't believe that AOL was purposely trying to censor emails. First, the petition being circulated has been making the rounds for two months now. It doesn't seem viable that AOL has all of sudden decided to start blocking it. Secondly, it's not as if the 'blocked' emails would go unnoticed. It would be ridiculous to think AOL purposely censored the protest-related emails and didn't think it would get traced back to them.

With the amount of email being sent over AOL, you're bound to have a few bouncebacks. Does it look bad that some of the bounced emails were related to MoveOn.org's campaign to stop AOL's CertifiedEmail program? Yes. But what about the emails that got bounced back that didn't have the nefarious URL inside? I think Wednesday's glitch was just that. A glitch. With some really bad timing.

Posted by Lisa Barone on 04/14/06 at 12:53 PM | TrackBack (0)
See more entries in AOL, Email, Rumors, Search Engine Optimization