Photo Credit: clydeorama
Farhad Manjoo of The New York Times published this thought-provoking article: Google’s Time At The Top May Be Nearing Its End. Manjoo discusses how Google’s current and past domination in desktop search advertising is leading to the source of its undoing as a technology leader. (more…)
Photo Credit: Anton Diaz
Brrrr! It’s cold in The Midwest (East/West Coaster Translation: The Flyover States). Please keep warm and enjoy these share-worthy links during your Sunday brunch. (more…)
Photo Credit: Anton Diaz
Happy 2015! Hard to believe a new year's already here?
I found many interesting and thought-provoking articles to share this week. Thank you for supporting the Social Media ReInvention Community. Enjoy your brunch!
1. Fast Company: 14 Tips to Make 2015 Your Most Productive Year Yet. How are you doing with your New Year’s Resolutions? I’ve already slipped up. Maybe, there’s a better way: Focus on Themes Not Goals. Let's focus our efforts on one thing at a time so these changes become productive, lifelong habits.
That’s a goal worth shooting for (yes, rah-rah puns intended)!
2. Seth’s Blog: The Meritocracy Trap. Seth Godin calls out the David Sacks quote discussed in Joe Nocera’s New York Times Op-Ed piece on personal success and meritocracy — "Silicon Valley’s Mirror Effect.” Seth’s post describes the perils in achieving ultra-phenomenal success: it can lead to self-serving cultures, attitudes, and mindsets.
Seth’s and Joe’s articles make me think what I can do as a proud dad and father to two young daughters. I want the best for them. I want them to have the same opportunities (and more) my parents created for me and my sister.
That’s how this next article comes into play …
3. WSJ Online – Digits Blog: The Year Silicon Valley Spilled Its Diversity Data. This interactive, diversity data website simply and visually explains the hiring data story behind Silicon Valley’s gender and diversity gap in The Valley’s most prestigious and successful companies:
Please let me know if you agree or disagree with my thoughts in the comments. If you disagree, I would love to hear from you. I’m also here to read, listen, and learn from YOUR PERSPECTIVE. Comments are open. So let’er rip!
Ideas that spread win. You can unsubscribe any time you like.
Please share my work with your friends. Many Thanks!
I started using and paying for Evernote when Yahoo signaled its intent to "sunset" its Delicious Bookmarking services in December 2010. Since then, I've curated roughly 1000 articles and other content items in Evernote. And, the number continues growing.
I often share this content on Google+ or Twitter. But, the real-time speed of these information streams makes locating content an oftentimes fleeting exercise.
The Premise / Goal / Timing of This New Weekly Feature
Premise. If you like the content in this blog, you may like the type of content I regularly read and study on the Web.
Goal. On a weekly basis, I'm going to publish links to three (3) articles I find interesting. I'll include a brief summary with some bullet points explaining why I think the content is worth consuming.
Timing. I'll publish this content every Wednesday / Thursday.
This Week's Three Evernoted Articles
1. (Bloomberg Businessweek) Amazon's Hit Man: Larry Kirshbaum was the ultimate book industry insider — until Amazon called: Describes how Amazon, Jeff Bezos, and Kindle-Nation are completely disrupting New York City's publishing dynasties. And, how Amazon recruited Larry Kirshbaum, a well-connected, influential, and veteran of the New York publishing machine.
2. (The New York Times) The Bookstore's Last Stand: The timing of this article's publication signals an ongoing public relations battle between Amazon and the New York City publishing dynasties. This piece positions Barnes & Noble as the last major ally the major publishing houses have against Amazon.
3. (TechCrunch) Why Every Entrepreneur Should Self-Publish a Book: A great article by James Altucher. Altucher goes into great detail about the many lessons he's learned both as a self-publisher and as an author who's worked directly with the aforementioned publishing houses.
The entire thesis of his article is "to pick yourself." His how-to commentary covers a lot of ground:
Your Feedback Please!
I'd like to experiment with this type of post for the next two to three months. Let me know what you think (especially if this idea sucks):
Link to Photo Credit by Andreas Cappell via Flickr
In February 2011, I wrote a post about how The New York Times exposed J.C. Penney's paid links scheme to improve its Google organic search rankings. Search engine optimization (SEO) experts refer to this gaming of Google rankings as "black hat SEO" practices. Google defines these practices in its Webmaster Central General Guidelines. And, Google looks unfavorably on these practices and describes them as:
The New York Times Reveals Major Florist Brands Paid for Links
Another Linking Scheme Exposed. The New York Times article, Trying to Game Google on Mother's Day Flowers,' says these major florist companies participated in linking buying schemes to improve their organic search rankings during the week of 2011 Mother's Day:
Teleflora's Organic Search Rankings Rose from 7th to 4th. According to the article, Searchmetrics, a seller of analytics software, conducted research showing Teleflora boosted its ranking for the search term "mothers day flowers" which translated into a significant increase in visitors per day to its website.
Teleflora's Site Traffic Per Day Improved 43% Increase. In March 2010, Teleflora received 20,000 to 25,000 visitors per day. The week of May 2nd – May 6th, 2011, the number of visitors improved to roughly 35,000 visitors per day.
Searchmetrics believes Teleflora started its link buying in February 2011. The New York Times quotes Searchmetrics CEO, Horst Joepen: "There is a possible correlation between the backlinks and the increased visibility of the site. But, without more research there is no way to be sure."
Floral Companies' Responses to Inquiries from The New York Times
Makes Me Wonder. Here are direct quotes from the article regarding the floral companies' respective responses:
* ProFlowers: "Did not respond to requests for comment."
* 1800Flowers.com: "A spokeswoman said the company would not discuss the links."
* FTD: "An FTD representative said that the vast majority of its links were on Web Sites owned by FTD, adding 'If any of our practices to have moved outside of Google's guidelines, we will certainly address them."
* Teleflora: "Corporate policy is not to pay for any links that would violate Google's guidelines. After closely reviewing the Teleflora links you provided, we believe are in compliance with Google."
Did Google Punish These Firms For Their Alleged Paid Links?
The Top 5 Organic Search Results for "mothers day flowers." As of Sunday morning, May 15th, the page-one Google search results for "mothers day flowers" are:
Look at Organic Search Result #10. It's the May 6th, New York Times article exposing the alleged paid links scheme for these companies. I'm surprised this story ranks below Google's organic search results for Teleflora, FTD, 1800Flowers.com, and ProFlowers.
Even though the article lands on Google's front page, you'd think the search results for the aforementioned firms would rank in pages where you can't find them (i.e., pages 6 through 10).
Conclusion
Why Isn't Google Penalizing These Firms? The New York Times sent Google representatives a list of 6,000 links to the floral companies that were built in the last month. Jake Hubert, a Google spokesman, replied with the following statement:
"None of the links shared by The New York Times had a significant impact on our rankings, due to automated systems we have in place to assess the relevance of links. As always, we investigate spam reports and take corrective action where appropriate."
Apparently, Google doesn't feel like it has to take any action in this particular case. And, I find their lack of action and consistency perplexing. Here are two other blogs commenting on the New York Times piece:
Is Google Thumbing Its Nose at The New York Times? The placement of the New York Times article as organic search result Number 10 with the offending firms ranking at slots 1, 2, 4, and 5 appears more than coincidental.
Along with the issued company statement, the article's current placement appears to be Google's way of saying, "Whatever."
Or, maybe they're dealing with more important priorities. And, those priorities rhyme with "How to Address the Facebook Threat."
Photo Credit by davidsonscott15 Via Flickr