Admin wrote: Oybuzz is a company specializing in Search Engine Optimization. These days one cannot ignore the internet as a tool for marketing and advertising. It allows an organization to reach into a worldwide…
(Link)
Today,
The $5 billion price tag to create Sprint’s WiMAX service, Xohm, looked like a deal-killer when the former CEO was forced out. A spark of life exists.
At the not-a-typo >play Conference in Berkeley, a Sprint executive spoke what many telecom observers likely thought would be unlikely. Efforts to bring Xohm to market appeared in Jeopardy in early October.
But the Berkeley Digital Media blog said Sprint’s Rick Robinson categorically stated Xohm would tear down the wall to complete, wireless Internet access:
Sprint Nextel is clearly not afraid of being reduced to a bit-pipe (a reason most often attributed for the restricted Internet access from your phone). They are confident that a new content delivery model that is Ad supported, will let them earn from the Ad delivery and distribution.
As to the future of that ad support, one need look no further than Sprint’s Xohm portal partner, Google. Though Google has only been announced as the portal builder for Xohm, one has to believe Sprint would want to tap Google’s advertising expertise to monetize the service.
Sprint, Xohm, Wireless, Broadband, Internet, Google
Admin wrote:
(While there’s no shortage of coverage on this issue, many small business owners are finding themselves a bit bewildered by the whole paid links debate. This series is designed to help them understand the issues at play so they can make their own decisions about how to move forward in regards to buying, selling and nofollowing links.)
In the first article in this series I outlined the history of the nofollow tag. In the second article, I took a look at some of the complex issues in the “are paid links ok or are they evil?” argument. In part three I explored the options Google has in dealing with this problem and why I disagree with the route they’ve chosen. Today, I’m going to look at why I’m opposed to putting nofollow in place, why “opinions” are fair game for marketing and what I think Google may be after with this whole crusade.
What’s the Big Deal?
I’ve heard two points about this debate being tossed out time and time again by Google backers.
1.) You knew it was coming
2.) If you aren’t selling PageRank, why don’t you just nofollow your ad links?
I addressed the first point in part two of this series I also pointed out in part three that while those in the search industry may have known it was coming, the greatest majority of web site owners have no idea Google has a problem with them selling links that are not nofollowed.
When it comes to the second point, the answer is pretty simple. Why should I have to?
Google tells us time and time again not to do things specifically to impact our rank in their engine unless it also improves the value for the user. Descriptive title tags make sense for both search engines and users. Easy to follow navigation makes sense for search engine and users. Securing links from relevant sites makes sense for both search engines and users.
Implementing nofollow? Tell me again how this benefits my users?
Even apart from the fact that I shouldn’t have to take the time to nofollow every ad on my pages, there’s still the extremely important issue of webmasters who have no idea Google has laid down this decree.
Instead of announcing the new policy (refuse to nofollow paid links and risk being banished from our engine) on the official Google blog, they chose to let the word spread via an “unofficial” company blog and a leading industry site. Now, with all due respect to Matt Cutts and Danny Sullivan, how many site owners outside the industry actually know who they are and read them?
In other words, Google has not only decided to penalize site owners for something they have no idea they should be doing, but spread the word via two sites that aren’t even officially related to Google.
It’d be sort of like the school bully beating you up after school every day until you find the ONE random kid in the playground who tells you the bully just wants you to high five him on your way in the door.
In fact the the more I think about it, the more I’m left asking myself if Google’s crusade against the use of PageRank to value ad sales is out of line.
Opinions Have Been Used to Sell Things for Years
Personally, I’ve always come down on Google’s side in thinking they have the right to restrict the flow of PageRank if their algorithm detects something they don’t like. However, I’ve been doing some thinking on the issue in the last two weeks and I think I’m starting to change my opinion a bit.
While I do still believe Google has the full right to restrict the flow of PageRank to any site they choose, I’m starting to have more and more of a problem with their claim that they “own” PageRank and no one else can profit from it.
I was emailing with a blogging friend about the issue this week who is new to the world of search marketing. When she mentioned potential lawsuits, I tried to give her some background and insight into the Search King lawsuit that happened back in 2003. (Read background on the Search King lawsuit.) I explained the court had found PageRank to be a protected form of free speech which meant Google had every right to change it whenever they liked.
The more I thought about it though, it seemed like if Google had the right to change their opinion, other people had the right to capitalize on it. (Whatever “it” was at the moment.)
One of Google’s primary arguments in the paid link war is that PageRank is “theirs” and no one has the right to profit from it. The problem with this assertion is that Google chooses to make PageRank public. Companies have been using opinions as a way to sell products (and advertising) for as long as opinions have existed.
Consumer Reports, Motor Trends and Zagat are just a few companies that spring to mind when I think of companies whose opinions are used to sell products. Think about it for a minute and see if you can recall how many television commercials or newspaper ads you’ve seen by Toyota touting the Camry as the “Motor Trends 2007 Car of the Year.”
The same holds true with consumer opinions. Four out of five dentists use Crest. 9 out of 10 Geico customers would recommend them to their friends. This blog is ranked in the AdAge Power 150. Google has assigned a PageRank of 7 to Entrepreneur.
If Toyota can sell their car by citing their win as Motor Trends car of the year, or Search Engine Guide can promote ad sales by pointing out we’re part of the AdAge Power 150, why is it so wrong for Entrepreneur (or any other site) to capitalize on that public PageRank to increase ad sales?
Google doesn’t want anyone to sell ads based on Google’s opinion of a site? Fine. Call up the relevant programmer and say “Take the friggin’ green line out of the toolbar!” After all, the fastest and easiest way to put a damper on the practice of buying and selling links in the hopes of passing PageRank is to quit telling people what their PageRank is.
Of course if Google did that, how many site owners would either remove the Google toolbar, or simply stop using it? That wouldn’t be very good for Google, now would it? Then again, with more and more people using personalized search, Google has plenty of other opportunities to gather data on users.
The solution seems so simple, but Google has chosen to push nofollow so hard. Honestly, it makes me wonder if there’s another issue at play here.
Is NoFollow the Key to Making Google’s Life Easier?
Part one of this article series covered the history of the nofollow tag and it’s rapid progression from comment spam fighter to paid link qualifier. I have to wonder if paid link fighting is the final destination for nofollow or if Google has quite a bit more in mind for that simple little tag.
Search engine marketers began experimenting with using the nofollow tag to channel the flow of PageRank almost as soon as it was announced. Of course it’s only been in the last few months that Google has not only acknowledged this practice, but began endorsing it.
In fact, Matt Cutts posted the following comment to Google Groups just this week:
What are some appropriate ways to use the nofollow tag? One good example is the home page of expedia.com. If you visit that page, you’ll see that the “Sign in” link is nofollow’ed. That’s a great use of the tag: Googlebot isn’t going to know how to sign into expedia.com, so why waste that PageRank on a page that wouldn’t benefit users or convert any new visitors? Likewise, the “My itineraries” link on expedia.com is nofollow’ed as well. That’s another page that wouldn’t really convert well or have any use except for signed in users, so the nofollow on Expedia’s home page means that Google won’t crawl those specific links.
I’ve seen some folks point to this quote and shout “hypocrite.” After all, the team at Google is telling us we can’t manipulate PageRank by buying or selling links, but they’re also telling us it’s just fine to manipulate PageRank by using nofollow within our own sites or to screen the link juice to sites we don’t like. To many, these two points make it sound as if Google is talking out of both sides of their mouths.
I’ll take it a step further.
Perhaps it’s not that Google doesn’t mind site owners trying to manipulate PageRank. Perhaps it’s that they see nofollow as the perfect band aid to Google’s algorithm problem.
Having trouble dealing with comment spam? Get all the major blog companies to join forces to make nofollow the standard link type for blog comments.
Paid links messing up the accuracy of your algorithm? Tell people they need to nofollow those links or you’ll toss them out of the index.
The Internet getting big enough that indexing all those “useless” pages (TOS, logins, itineraries) are weighing your servers down? Convince webmasters to implement nofollow on all those pages to lighten your load.
We already know that site owners are tossing nofollow tags into links to sites they don’t like. In fact, Scoble shouted his praise from the rooftop over the idea he could now link to a site without giving it a boost in the Google rankings.
Perhaps Google’s next crusade will be to force all of us into nofollowing the links to those “useless” pages on our sites to make their lives easier?
Coming Up
In part five of this series, I’ll wrap things up by taking a look at what’s going to happen to the Internet if Google continues with their paid link crusade.
Today,
I’ve written quite a few articles about companies who have trouble dealing with the way social media has changed conversation. Big, old school companies and organizations who are used to “controlling the message” tend to have a hard time letting go of that control. Unfortunately for them, social media is pushing the conversation forward whether they want it to or not. That’s why I was surprised, but really not surprised at the NCAA’s new blogging policies.
Earlier this month, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) released it’s new policies for how and when credentialed journalists may blog about their sporting events.
The NCAA Blogging Policy actually made me laugh out loud. It honestly reminded me of the sites that used to try and make up rules about how you could link to them, as if they had any ability to force you to follow those rules.
Take a gander at some of the “requirements” for credentialed journalists who wants to live blog a sporting event.
Any blog representing an NCAA championship must submit the appropriate link to ncaasports.com Blog Central. In return, all media entities entering a blog must post the ncaasports.com logo/link on their site.
They even break down how many blog posts are “permitted” during each time period of a sport. For example:
Football: 3 times per quarter, once at half time
Soccer: 5 times per half, once at half time
Wrestling: 10 times per session
I had to laugh when I saw that my own NCAA sport of Rifle even made the list. Apparently, a credentialed journalist can blog up to ten times during the course of a single rifle match. (That’s generous if you realize there are only four “sets” of targets, but skimpy when you realize a rifle match runs six hours.) I’ve competed in dozens of NCAA rifle events. Believe me, no one wants to live blog them.
I make that last point because it’s important to realize just how silly all of this is. It’s true that the NCAA has every right to set the policies they want credentialed press to follow. Of course they’ll likely shoot themselves in the foot if they do it. All someone has to do is buy a ticket to the game, enter as a private citizen and do their blogging that way.
It’s a perfect example of companies trying desperately to retain control of “the message” as it spreads through social media sites. What the NCAA is really doing is handicapping the folks with the best access. They’re really not going to stop people from live blogging.
Mike Masnick at TechDirt points out the lack of thought in this decision:
Limiting live blogging only hurts the sport. The people who follow live blogs are the really passionate fans — the ones who love the game the most. They follow the live blogs not as a substitute for watching the game on TV or attending in person — but because they cannot view the games that way and/or they want to feel the camaraderie of discussing the event with other passionate fans. Cutting off the ability of a reporter to feed info to these fans simply makes no sense. It’s hurting your most passionate fans for no good reason whatsoever.
Masnick is spot on. No sports fan in their right mind is going to skip the game on TV and read about it on a blog instead. On the other hand, fans who aren’t able to pick the game up on TV because they live in another coverage zone or aren’t near a TV set can keep up with the action via a blog. Let’s also not discount the really hard core fans who will join the conversation of a live blog while watching the game on TV.
In fact, a commenter on the TechDirt post points to a live blog of a Yankee’s game that has amassed more than 1800 responses.
While I understand what the NCAA is trying to do here, they’re going about it the wrong way. Live blogging can only help the NCAA gain more coverage of their sporting events. It can only serve to make passionate fans even more passionate.
Social media is about conversation. It’s going to happen whether you want it to or not, so why not empower people in a positive way to help make sure the conversation focuses on your offerings instead of your lame and outdated policies?