Internet Marketing, Search Engine Optimization, and Technology Blog

Home
Blog Home
 Evoba.com
Main Website
 About
About the Blog

Federal Court Rejects Viacom’s $1 Billion Lawsuit Against YouTube

June 24th, 2010 by Evoba

Viacom, one of the world’s most widely known media giants, recently attempted to file a $1 billion copyright infringement lawsuit against YouTube only to get rejected by the U.S. Federal Court.  Viacom, like many other similar companies including Disney, NBC Universal and Time Warner, are trying hard to prevent TV clips and movies from being available on the Internet for free.

Louis Stanton, a district court judge, said that YouTube cannot be held responsible for individuals who post videos from popular productions, including Viacom, without getting approval from YouTube itself.

Viacom’s argument was that YouTube makes it “easy” for users to post video clips and difficult for copyright owners to monitor those clips that get posted without approval.  Judge Stanton simply rejected this argument based on the fact that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act eliminates the responsibility for websites of having to check user-generated content before it gets posted on the site.

YouTube has a reputation of removing clips that in violation of copyright laws immediately after they are posted, a fact confirmed by the judge.  Two years ago, YouTube actually removed 100,000 videos that violated Viacom copyright laws.

Viacom agreed to appeal the ruling in that it goes against the Digital Millennium Copyright Act as well as the views of Congress and the Supreme Court.  According to the ruling, individuals post 24 hours’ worth of video every minute to YouTube.  For Google, this ruling was an important win considering the number of people who turn to the Internet for information, content and communication.

Google the Gaffe Engine

June 10th, 2010 by Evoba

Forced backgrounds? Really?

Google has been making some uncharacteristic mistakes that are driving users away.

The first blunder was last month when the Google logo was turned into a playable PacMan game. You might think this was not a bad idea at all, and it wasn’t—it was a wonderful surprise. The problem was that someone forgot to put an off button for the sound, and the game automatically would start (with sound) if a user loaded the Google home page, but didn’t navigate away (e.g. doing a search or logging into an account). They ended up correcting this problem later during the day, but the damage was done.

The second gaffe which went in effect yesterday was the forced background image for the Google home page. Initially it was an option, and was a welcome change; however, Google has decided that it’s better to force the picture on its visitors. What’s worse, there is no option to remove it, unless you are logged into your Google Account. Understandably, though apparently not to the decision-makers at Google, this forced change is at best irritating.

Hopefully Google will fix this problem soon, before it loses even more users to Bing.

For those of you who missed the PacMan logo, Google has kept it around: http://www.google.com/pacman/

Why Advice from Social Media Gurus or Famous People Only Benefits Them

May 3rd, 2010 by Evoba

Often people look to emulate successful individuals in order to hopefully replicate some if not all of the same type of success. Taking inspiration from such individuals may be invaluable; however, emulating them or trying to replicate their success in social media based on their insight of this new medium is mostly a wasted effort.

Let’s stick to twitter as the main example. If someone’s success on twitter depends mostly on their success in another line of work, then there is very little to be learned from this experience for the average user. There is a particular ‘guru’ (who shall remain nameless), who exploits his past success to frame himself as a person with a deep understanding of how to successfully use twitter to positively impact your business. His success on twitter is largely based on notoriety gained from his past success in business, and has very little, if anything, to do with his nuanced understanding of twitter (and social media in general). Because he is well known, by default he has amassed close to 230,000 followers, most of whom know him from his previous work. He frequently speaks about how social media and specially twitter can help businesses, and all this does is provide content for the websites who choose to publish his articles or webcast his interviews, and also gets him more followers. But his advice about twitter is largely without value for the average user.

So, the moral of the story is that if you want to learn about social media, ask someone who built their success on social media not someone who figured out how to port it over from their previous success. Unless, of course, that is what you are looking to do.

Google’s Most Significant Addition to the Webmaster Tools

April 16th, 2010 by Evoba

Google

A couple of days ago Google quietly added a new feature to the Webmaster Tools Dashboard. It is actually an improvement to an existing feature, the Top Search Queries table.

Previously, the Top Search Queries table listed keywords, and the average position in which the keyword appeared over a given period of time (selectable through a dropdown menu). With these new changes, there is now a wealth of information about those keywords:

- Impressions: The number of times your site appeared on a search page when a particular keyword search was conducted.
- Click-through: The click-through rate (CTR) for the keyword listed in the table.
- Position: The position in which a keyword appeared in the results. Note: if the result was beyond the first page listing, only the page number appears.
- Pages: The page which ranked for a particular keyword.

This is truly an amazing amount of information that Google had decided to provide through the Webmaster Tools. Not only does this provide useful information as to rankings and the activity happening on the search engine result pages (SERPs), it also gives some insight into how the Google algorithm works.

Google Tries to Help Those Contemplating Suicide

April 5th, 2010 by Evoba

Someone is watching

In an interesting addition to its search results, Google has introduced a new addition to queries which may indicate that someone is considering committing suicide. The new feature ads an entry at the top of the search results which provides information the 800 number for the US National Suicide Prevention Lifeline.

It’s times like this makes people realize what an important role technology plays in their lives, and how a little ingenuity can impact fragile lives in a deep and profound way.

There is a good Karma point in this for Google.

Google Experiments with Hotel Pricing on Google Maps

March 24th, 2010 by Evoba

Google announced on Monday, March 22nd, that Google Maps will be experimenting with displaying hotel rates in its local business listings.

With this feature, users will be able to enter a date and the number of nights the user plans to stay at a particular hotel property and see actual prices on selected listings. The price-list will also include other websites who have provided pricing information for that particular hotel.

“This new feature will not change the way that hotels are ranked in Google Maps. Google Maps ranks business listings based on their relevance to the search terms entered, along with geographic distance (where indicated) and other factors, regardless of whether there is an associated price.

While we’re experimenting with this feature, we’re currently working with a limited number of advertisers and it will only be visible to a small portion of users . As always, we’ll evaluate the usefulness and effectiveness of this new feature based on both data and feedback, and hope to make it available to more users and offer prices from more partners over time.”

Read the complete post on the Google Lat Long Blog

Los Angeles Tops the List of Most Energy Star Labeled Buildings

March 24th, 2010 by Evoba

Los Angeles is the most ‘Energy Starred’ major metropolis in the United States for the second year in a row.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on Tuesday, March 23rd, that Los Angeles has more Energy Star rated buildings than any other city in the United States. Other cities making up the top five include Washington, D.C., San Francisco, Denver, and Chicago.

From the EPA press release:

“These cities see the importance of taking action on climate change,” said Gina McCarthy, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation. “Communities from Los Angeles to Louisville are reducing greenhouse gases and cutting energy bills with buildings that have earned EPA’s Energy Star.”

It is good to know that we are doing some things right in Los Angeles (and California).

» List of Top 25 Cities with the Most Energy Star Labeled Buildings In 2009 (PDF / 168k)

Who Needs SEO When You Can Do Directory Submissions?

March 1st, 2010 by Evoba

The above headline is sure to make some people very upset, especially those SEO professionals who are dedicated to delivering ethical services. Luckily, the headline is just a ruse.

As with most things worth having, high search engine rankings do not come easily or quickly (there are exceptions, but your site is most likely not going to be one of them); however, there are countless services (new ones appear on a regular basis) that claim quick, painless, and most importantly cheaply achieved improvements in search engine ranking results. A good portion of these snake-oil services are built around directory submissions.

Before we move on, let us clarify that directory submissions in and of themselves are not a fruitless activity. The type of directory submission, however, is important. If the directories being evaluated for submission have been well researched and are on-topic or at least offer relevant categories for a listing, then they do have some value to bring to a well-balanced (i.e. directory links are not the only links) link-profile. The directory submissions which are the real problem are the ones that claim (or vaguely suggest) that submission to thousands of unknown directories will help improve your search engine rankings. Sadly, this practice is also present in some of the most well known search engine optimization firms—we won’t name any names but you can find them on the first page of Google for relevant industry terms.

With that said, let’s take a look at what these directory submissions promise compared to the real work many SEO companies offer. Here is a list of claims made by one of the major SEO companies that also offers directory/search engine submission services:

Claim: Your site will be submitted to thousands of search engines and directories
Problem: There aren’t thousands of search engines; and there aren’t thousands of worthwhile directories.

Claim: You can opt-in to have your site also submitted to ‘Free-For-All’ directories (read about Google’s view on Free-For-All links – scroll down to midway on the page)
Problem: A service that even offers an option such as ‘free-for-all’ directory submissions is providing a service in direct opposition to what Google states as being unwholesome and detrimental to your rankings.

But that is not all! You also get free SEO advice as part of your directory submission purchase. What a deal! Here is what you get:

Claim: They will verify that your page uses the correct design and HTML tags.
Problem: This statement is so vague that it means virtually nothing.

Claim: They will check whether your keywords are being used correctly and in the proper density.
Problem: There is no ‘proper density’. Even though good content is of utmost importance, keyword density is not. The sites ranking in top 10 for any keyword will have a wide range of keyword densities.

The final claim is that in order to achieve the best results, it is recommended that customers submit their website once per month. Apparently this will help keep your site in the search engines, since some of them tend to drop your listing after a few weeks.

No search engine worth being in will drop any site after an arbitrary period of time. In fact, major search engines consider repeated submissions to be spam.

The discussion about directory submissions is as old as search engine optimization, and is not likely to go away any time soon. The thing to keep in mind is that there is no easy way to the top of the rankings, and any service promising such results at a cheap price is most likely a scam. You are more likely to hurt your rankings (or future ranking potential) by using these types of snake-oil services.

Another Google Lawsuit – What a Shock!

February 24th, 2010 by Evoba

Three Google executives have been criminally convicted, of breaking privacy laws, in an Italian court.

The decision was about a case of a video, uploaded to and available on YouTube, showing an autistic teenager being bullied.

This guilty verdict is being lauded by some as what Google had coming, and as a dangerous precedent by others. There are vigorous discussions going on in the media and among the webmaster community (see references below), and there are supporters on both sides of the argument.

Those concerned about the chilling effect of this ruling are citing the crippling impact the process of approving every user-generated post will have on the websites that rely on such material. For example, if digg.com was to be forced to approve every submission and comment manually, it might become overwhelming for the organization and eventually result in its demise.

At the same time, YouTube, Digg, and other similar services should not be above the law; however, they should also not be singled out simply because they have deep pockets or are prominent enough to make a good example.

As always, good laws and regulations strike a good balance between providing protection and not stifling business and creativity. With this in mind, the laws should not only target the corporations, hosts, or service providers but also the individuals who use the service and upload material that offends a law. This does not mean that the corporations should not be held responsible, but it also does not mean that they should be forced to manually review and approve every piece of user-generated content that is posted on their site.

Regardless of the different positions being taken about this ruling, it is generating a healthy debate about privacy laws and the responsibility of individuals and corporations when it comes to user-generated content.

Other Sources & Discussions:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8533695.stm
http://www.webmasterworld.com/goog/4086264.htm
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/02/italian-verdict-on-google-privacy-sets-dangerous-precedent.ars

Google Buzz – A Missed Opportunity

February 19th, 2010 by Evoba

Before Google Buzz became available, it was a promising new way of communicating with family, friends, and colleagues; however, the way it was launched and the lack of control it gave to users resulted in it becoming nuisance at best, and a violation of trust and privacy at worst.

The Mistakes

1. Google did not make Buzz an opt-in service

With so much concern about privacy, Google made a big misstep in automatically activating buzz in every Gmail account. Even without the privacy concerns, this was a horribly flawed decision on Google’s part.

Every other Google service, up to this point, had been something that users had actively pursued and used, but with Buzz, it was simply forced on the users.

2. Lack of an easy-to-use control interface for privacy and settings

With Google’s renown for user-friendly design and controls, this was a shocking shortfall for Buzz. After an outcry from the online community, Google scrambled adding a Buzz tab to the settings menu in Gmail; however, the lack of control and customization is embarrassing.

3. Integration option with Twitter but not Facebook

This blatant move in a brewing war among technology giants is inexcusable to a company like Google. With Buzz, Google have moved away from concentrating on the benefits for the user to the benefits for themselves.

Give the public something like Gmail and watch them flock to it; don’t create a cheap tool to fight a new opponent.

 

What Could Have Been (And Still Can)

1. A new way of communicating with contacts who do not have social media accounts (nor have the desire to sign up for them).

This would have been a brilliant way of capturing the segment of the population who does not feel the need to sign up for yet another website to keep in touch with friends and family. Buzz provided the perfect platform to bring this type of user into the world of social media.

2. Buzz could not only have been a new communication tool, but also a hub for all other social media activity.

Arguably, many Gmail users have accounts on Facebook, Twitter, Digg, and many other social media and bookmarking sites; why not provide these users the tools to control all their activities through Buzz? Instead of trying to get them away from services they love, by giving them half-baked imitation, why not provide your users with tools to integrate their online activities into Gmail?

Alas, Google has made a mess of this opportunity, but hopefully it will be able to course-correct and make Buzz into a useful tool, or have the decency to slowly put it to ‘rest’.