Syncrony Blogs-Category-Googler (Anything About Google)

Online Behaviour Tracking Under Fire

howard@syncrony.com — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 11:47:00 GMT

Last year in March, Google released an update for AdSense, that promised to deliver Interest Based Advertising. Which is Googleze for Behavioural Targeting. This means is that as you move about on the web Google watches and learns about you, your habits, likes and disliked from your behaviour. For more you see my article Website 101: Google is Watching - Introducing Behavioural Targeting. Yahoo! also uses a similar techniques.

Thus there is a database somewhere that holds personal information about you. And guess what? Lots of people don’t like it!
Google of course holds that the data collection is optional and that one can opt out. It further holds that the implementation of the data will provide a better web experience for you.

However...

University of Pennsylvania/California (Berkely) report indicates that a sizeable majority of people can be expected to opt out of this kind of data collection, if given the opportunity.

The results showed that of the 1000 adult internet users surveyed about 66% did feel comfortable with the targeted ads. In fact the results showed that as the 1000 subjects became more educated in the methods that are used to collect the data, so they become more averse to the ads. Click here to read more about this on the New York Times website.

The lawmakers in the USA are also known to be gearing up to create legislation that will regulate this kind of data collection and utilization. Google has been largely out of the spotlight on this issue because its deals with search as opposed to data mining which is a key area lawmakers are looking to address. Of course privacy advocates in the US are pushing for legislation as they completely disagree with industry desire to be self regulating.

The Bottom Line

However you look at it there is going to be some kind of legal backlash that will tighten up on the collection of behaviorial data, which I think is a good thing in the long run.

Note: Matt Cutts of Google had some concerns about the report based on the history of one of its principal investigators. More info here

Sense to Google is Nonsense to Bing

howard@syncrony.com — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 21:22:00 GMT

As some will probably know I have a conviction that Bing search engine capabilities are not quite in the same league as Google's. In fact I believe that Bing is far behind in some areas.

One such area is the decoding of search phrases into meaningful words and somehow guessing the intent of the human searcher.

Google IS Search and it often does an uncanny job of decoding the intent of the searcher, while at the moment Bing does a good job of pretending to do search. I know (or hope) that this will change as the Bing engine gets better in the future, but at the moment, that is what my tests tell me. (You can see my original Bing vs Google article here: Bing Bong your Rankings Gone).

In the article, I said that Bing search sucks and maybe that was a bit harsh but looking at the example below makes me clench my jaw with frustration.

Sense to Google can be Nonsense to Bing

I was looking for a website with info on South African Sectional Title Law (a site that we built BTW). The website name is www.sectionaltitleact.co.za.
So I tried this search in Bing (the entire URL): www.sectionaltitleact.co.za

And this is what Bing sends back : Nothing!

Then I tried the same search in Google and Oh Joy! out comes the most perfectly useable set of results (see below).

The essential point I am making is that Google has the smarts to read and decode the text from the URL. It has intelligently split the word “sectionaltitleact” into meaningful pieces and has realized that the phrase "sectional title" means something to us humans. In software terms this results represents a huge amount of work that has gone into the recognition on the pattern in the phrase. This is work that Bing still has to bring to market before it can hope to match Google in anything other than marketing budget.

Google Gets Green Light to Sell Trademarked Keywords in EU

howard@syncrony.com — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 04:49:00 GMT

In the EU courts in Luxembourg, there is currently a court battle being waged between Google and Louis Vuitton over Google’s sale of trademarked keywords in its online AdWords search ads.

LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton SA maintains that Google has no right to “sell” keywords that are trademarked by the group. (The original case started in 2008 and was appealed by Google)

In the latest news about the case, the European Advocate General issued an opinion on Sept 22nd advising that its anticipated ruling will allow the continued sale of trademarked keywords by Google AdWords.

The main reason behind the finding in Google’s favour was the fact that the use of trademarked keywords in search does not constitute the sale of services or goods that complete with the original trademarked items. To quote:

“Since the use by Google does not involve identical or similar goods or services, in principle there can be no risk of confusion on the part of the consumers.”

The ruling in Google’s favour represents a major win for Google. The AdWords engine has been enforcing the use of trademarked keywords in advert copy. This has lead to frustrating delays for advertisers because any ads containing trademarked words had to be editorially cleared, before being flighted.

Domain Names

A question that arises from the descion is this: Can this ruling be applied to domain names that make use of trademarked keywords?

This commonly happens when a domain name containing a trademarked keyword is purchased by an entity other than the trademark owner. Suppose that the domain owner does not use the domain name to sell “involve identical or similar goods or services”, does this now mean that the trademark owners have no claim on the domain name?

Thus a domain name, which has high value as a keyword in Google’s search algorithm, is in fact doing the same function as an AdWords keyword? Is there in fact a difference selling a keyword that is part of a domain name as opposed to selling that same keyword as part of a searched advertising phrase?

Howard Rybko -Sep 23 2009

KEYWORDS Meta Tag is Dead!

howard@syncrony.com — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:16:00 GMT

Google today confirmed what has long been known to search engineers; the Keywords Meta Tag is dead.

In a short note to all Search Engine Optimization fans on its Official Webmaster Central BLOG, Matt Cutts pronounced Keywords DOA in clear an unequivocal terms.

Thus from a Google Search Engine perspective:

The Keywords meta tags are not used, considered or taken into account in any way for ranking of web pages
The Keywords meta tag will not be used by Google at any time in the foreseeable future

So from now on forget about keywords, save the bandwidth and leave the tag out of your pages in future.

Which begs the question – Does Google Ignore ALL Meta Tags?

To which the answer is a resounding NO! Google supports and actively uses some Meta Tags. Two good examples are Description, which is often used in parts of the returned search results and Title which has a big impact on page rankings (in my experience).

You can watch the movie and read the entire post by clicking on this link

Flip This Reader Is Fast

howard@syncrony.com — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 20:26:00 GMT

A Google Labs experiment called Fast Flip which is accessible at fastflip.googlelabs.com represents a move by Google to provide a news magazine like experience. This allows a reader to literally flip thru the news articles in a given category.

This allows you to quickly glance at a number of publications sequentially and to pick out content that interests you.

There is also a personalization element where Fast Flip will try to present content for you based on your previous selections. Fast Flip will try to guess your preferred content by topics, news sources as well as writers that you show a preference for.

Show Me The Money

Naturally for Google to do this kind of product there has to be some context based Ad revenue somewhere in the mix!

What happens is the Google partners with the publishers of the news feeds, in order to publish their content to the Fast Flip stream. In return the publishers receive a portion of the context based ads that get shown alongside the content. Publishers that are part of the experiment include New York Times, Washington Post and Newsweek.

Google theory holds that the more news pages a reader is exposed to, the more they will read. This will expose content to more readers and thus increase the number of ads that get shown.

Have a good look and see what you think.

Google Orders an Upsize Me!

howard@syncrony.com — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 00:31:00 GMT

Bigger is Better for Google Search Bar

In an update to the Google Search Bar, Google has enlarged the text size of the search items we type in as well as the sizes of the Search buttons.

So if you think that maybe you have sipped one too many, this time you can relax, because it really has grown bigger. In most cased the growing bigger part is an unwanted consequence of excess, appearing ny surprise in the batrhroom mirror, however according to Google, this upsize was intentional...

As Marissa Mayer Google’s Vice President of Search Product and User Experience says: "For us, search has always been our focus. And, starting today, you’ll notice on our homepage and on our search results pages, our search box is growing in size. Although this is a very simple idea and an even simpler change, we’re excited about it — because it symbolizes our focus on search and because it makes our clean, minimalist homepage even easier and more fun to use"

The grahic below shows the difference in sizes.

We Wanna be No 1 on Google (never!)

howard@syncrony.com — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 17:22:00 GMT

I often receive requests to diagnose and prescribe solutions to remedy the poor showing of a corporate website in search engine results.

The causes of below average rankings are usually easy to discern and appear deceptively simple to fix. As I explain the ‘how’, a row of bright-eyed executives lean forward in anticipation.

Executive responses are usually punctuated by exclamations of enthusiasm and promises of buy-in. Article marketing! Blogging on a daily basis! Tweeting like crazy! Yeah, where can we start!! Let’s go!!

Go where? Nowhere that’s where.

The Cost Is Work

Today the task of raising awareness of a Website within a competitive niche is significant and comes with a high cost in terms of both labour and time.

Sadly the Web/search/marketing consultant can no longer manage the entire workload responsibilities alone.

The relatively simple task of directory submissions and plugging in of keywords to optimise web pages can no longer suffice.

The real results come from consistent hard work, from completing non-repetitive tasks that require considerable brain power, from concentration and long term endurance.

This commitment involves drafting press release outlines, crafting expert articles, meaningful blogging and concerted credible tweeting. There is a need for a great deal of time spent reading.

In addition there is Facebook, which also requires a substantial investment in time and ongoing attention.

Put simply, this type of stuff needs two main ingredients – time and expertise – in healthy doses.

Two halves don’t make a whole

By dint of being paid for time, the Internet Marketer is semi-qualified, while the busy executives who have the expertise do not have the time!

The end result is that nothing gets done.

Single Tweet Twits

For every wildly popular blogger out there, there are a million ghost blogs, initiated with an upbeat post or two ... and then silence. There are millions of Twitter profiles that stand forlorn with a single tweet to their name, abandoned by their eager executive owners who have moved on to more exciting places.

This makes it hard for an honest Internet Marketing person to do a good job.

You can of course tell them the truth. Tell them about the hard work that is required of them. Explain the long term dedication and endurance that is required. Then the chances are that you will lose the deal.

On the other hand, one has the option to gloss over the difficulties to get the work. This will doom the campaign to lukewarm results because of the almost inevitable lack of commitment from the very eager beavers who gave you the go-ahead in the first place.

People Commitment

The bottom line is that companies who want to make a difference to their online presence and reputations need to commit to having staff on board who are capable of producing the required output.

They need staff who will be comfortable with spending time replying sensibly to customer/prospect comments. They need people on board who are capable of creating content that will serve to differentiate the organisation from the many posers who pretend to ‘get’ the Internet marketing thing.

Once we secure this level of commitment, we may even reach a point when corporates will send out job descriptions that specify “Facebook Social Engineer with tweeting experience” and, maybe then, they might order their ‘IT Gestapo’ to open their firewalls for FaceBook traffic!

Why? Because the fact is that having a top ten ranking in a Google search for your industry’s keywords can lead to substantial financial reward.

Google Doodle 14 Aug 2009 - Orsteds Birthday

howard@syncrony.com — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 15:12:00 GMT

I wonder how many Google users wonder about the occasional changes that happen in the sparse graphic world encompassed by the Google Search landing page?

Most observers would have noticed the strange wiring apparatus that appeared on Google's page on the 14 of Aug 2009. This looked something like a science experiment:

The aim was to celebrate the 232nd birthday of the 19th-century Danish physicist Hans Christian Ørsted . In 1820 he linked electricty and maganetic fields and opened up the road to all the modern electical devices we use today. He showed that when an electrical current runs through a wire it creates a magnetic field that can deflect a compass needle.

I think that it is pretty cool that Google takes the time to educate us and at the same time honour the not so famous, but massively deserving (in this case), people who have contrinuted so much to our lives.

Pity is that most people just carry on and ignore this kind of tribute. But that is life and that is also how Google makes in excess of 1 billion dollars a quarter from all those unnoticing viewers!

The Trouble With Bing in South Africa

howard@syncrony.com — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 16:35:00 GMT

Bing is doing a poor job of indexing South African web content. Fact! and I can prove it.

As a good SEO person, with a deep interest in the workings of Google, I embarked on some tinkering with the Bing engine, in order to make sure that I have some understanding of how it works. I was especially interested in the local search capabilities of Bing and how these would affect the local search market.

I fully understand that Bing may have a limited impact on local search simplt because of its small market penetration, relative to Google, but that is now, who know how this will change in the future.

Bottom Line: Bing sucks.

My early research attempts lead me to believe that the Bing algorithm used for indexing SA websites (local search) has some serious flaws.
It is not easy to determine how Bing evaluates and rates content that local searchers will deem to be valuable. All we can do to assess this with any credibility is by looking at what pages appear as a result of a search.

The current state of Bing’s local indexes represent a heady mix of well past sell-by-date content spiced with a good dollop of fresh, poorly selected links.

I acknowledge that my tests targeted a miniscule portion of the possible search indexes and results available in Bing. I am also sure that these results will improve with time, but at the moment, despite a fresh new look, Bing has a lot of homework to do before it can match the skills of Google.
I did a few quick tests using the search term “web design” to test how a Bing search compares to a similar Google search. My scenario was to suppose that Company X planned to build a web site and was searching for a suitable web design company. I wanted to compare the results a web user would get by using either a Google or a Bing search.
A Google Search for “Web Design” (South Africa) on 9 June 2009, produced a top five listing that looked like this:

		No. Of Pages	Inbound Links
1	www.web-design.co.za	56	1269
2	www.tm4y.co.za	422	7744
3	www.intoweb.co.za	1156	11657
4	www.o5webdesign.com	1194	2589
5	www.coza-web.co.za		40	1010

The first address points to a portal targeted at web designers & web design companies, not the web design company we were looking for. The other four suggested sites belong to serious web design organisations.
These companies no doubt expend significant effort ensuring that they attain and retain their high Google ranking. Their efforts probably include ensuring Web pages are Google optimised, creating original content on a regular basis, posting original content Blogs and news articles. All this hard work also ensures that they steadily accumulate inbound links.

Bing?

What if Company X carries out the same search in Bing? Do the results look similar? Not even close:

		No. of Pages	Inbound Links
1	www.branchmedia.co.za	30	219
2	www.starwebdesign.co.za	11	200
3	www.webdesignsa.co.za	8	21
4	www.getwebdesign.co.za	10	318
5	www.web-design.co.za/blog/?p=18	1	8

One similarity - the www.web-design.co.za link appears in both listings. The content on the site is certainly relevant to our test searches, but look carefully and one sees that Bing seems to be doing something that is not very clever.

I can see no reason why a search engine should point first to a deeper link in preference to a home page that has at least the same relevance to the search term. To make matter worse, the link points to an OLD blog entry from August 2008.
I used an outside party, namely Yahoo!, to report on the number of inbound links and indexed pages for each of the top five pages returned in the above lists.

Inbound links are an important indication of online reputation. A link pointing from one site to another web site (especially without a reciprocal back link) represents a recommendation and is in effect a thumbs-up for that site’s reputation. The number of unique and relevant content pages a site has is an indicator of a site’s value and shows how much effort has gone into creating and providing content.

It does not take a rocket scientist to realise that there is a significant order of magnitude in disparity between the two results. And yes, I realise that there are many other ways to gauge the value of a page when calculating a ranking, but these results make no sense to me at all.
Please do not get the idea that I am in any way disparaging the intent and content of any of the sites above. I am sure that all the above sites represent hard work and effort. These examples were used only to demonstrate the differences and deficiencies that appear to exist in the current implementation of Bing in South Africa.

By the way, my look at blogs and blog indexing seem to show that there is a major issue with the frequency and method that Bing uses to index blog entries in South Africa, but that is for another discussion.

Google's Schmidt Resigns Apple As Predicted On This Blog

howard@syncrony.com — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 17:28:00 GMT

As predicted by this writer and some other industry observers, Eric Schmidt CEO of Google has officially agreed to step down as an Apple Board Director.

Schmidt was taking increasing flak from both sides of the fence as Google steers for a head on course with Apple on products such as Andriod and Chrome OS.

Steve Jobs made the annoucement today. Part of his announcement said "Unfortunately, as Google enters more of Apple’s core businesses, with Android and now Chrome OS, Eric’s effectiveness as an Apple Board member will be significantly diminished, since he will have to recuse himself from even larger portions of our meetings due to potential conflicts of interest"

Let the war begin.