Translate:
Latest SEO Articles: Follow Us:
Follow beanstalkseo on Twitter
Hear Us On:
Webmaster Radio
Blog Partner Of:
WebProNews Blog Partner
Helping Out:
Carbon balanced.
Archives
  • RSS

    XMLRSS

    Beanstalk's SEO News Blog

    At Beanstalk Search Engine Optimization we know that knowledge is power. That's the reason we started this SEO blog. We know that the better informed our visitors are, the better the decisions they will make for their websites and their online businesses. We hope you enjoy your stay and find the SEO news contained within this blog useful.


    February 2, 2012

    Google’s Arnaque Carte

    I was tempted to title this blog post ‘Why it’s cheaper to just block France‘ but that implied a lot and wasn’t as much fun as ‘Google’s Map Scam’ (translation).

    Ever since the days of Google suggest, there has been some serious merde tossed at Google by French businesses and organizations. I think we all remember the famous French victories search?

    Well apparently that algorithm has caused quite a stir for the French as they actually sued Google to get them to remove ‘Arnaque’ from showing in a suggest result for ‘cnfdi’ because it looked bad! Seriously, the French are complaining that the suggest results are too ‘honest’ and they took legal action to have Google give a fake result for that suggest query:

    Then again in late 2011 Google lost a French court case over a suggest result that added the French version of ‘crook/swindler’ to the end of a search string for a French insurance company. The sum of that settlement was almost $65,000 and again, the problem is that Google isn’t censoring it’s information enough.

    If that wasn’t bad enough, this week a French mapping company that offers similar services to Google Maps has won a settlement of over $660,000 against Google for providing it’s mapping services for free. Yep, once again, Google’s too honest/generous and France wants justice!

    From my personal perspective, if I was Google, I’d just give France the same treatment as China, setup some massive IP block restrictions, and then go get some freedom fries with my spare time and money.


    $7.50 for a tub of fries? Sweet!

    SEO news blog post by Ryan Morben @ 2:28 pm


     

    January 25, 2012

    Google’s New (lack of) Privacy Policy

    Google announced Tuesday that it will be combining more than 70 current privacy policies to make a blanket privacy canon that will allow Google to access and use a user’s information over any of the company’s platforms such as Gmail, Google+ and YouTube. Google users will not have the option of opting out of this new privacy policy.

    Google's Privacy Policy

    Google’s director of privacy, product, and engineering, Alma Whitten blogged to clarify the changes that will become effective March 1:

    What does this mean in practice? The main change is for users with Google Accounts. Our new Privacy Policy makes clear that, if you’re signed in, we may combine information you’ve provided from one service with information from other services. In short, we’ll treat you as a single user across all our products, which will mean a simpler, more intuitive Google experience.

    This is also part of an ongoing struggle between various search engines and social media sites that are directly competing with Google to collect user data. This information is like gold for advertising companies that target advertisements based upon consumer internet habits, trends and searches. Free speech advocates and analysts see this as a step towards users losing their anonymity.

    SEO news blog post by Kyle Krenbrink @ 12:19 pm


     

    January 19, 2012

    Leftover SOPA scum

    Congrats to everyone that participated in the SOPA/PIPA Jan 18th blackout, even if all you did was sit on Twitter and complain(some strong language was used), you did something to bring the topic into the foreground.

    The internet is unified

    Yesterday’s on-line unity was a clear message to the political parties backing these bills. Last I checked the opposition to PIPA was only 6 senators away from the required 41 “no” votes needed to keep PIPA stuck in the Senate for good. While I haven’t seen a public list of senator opposition to SOPA, it too needs 41 “no” votes to end the future of the bill.

    While this sounds great, it really just means that the entertainment industry, and fans of public censorship, now have to try even harder to keep their efforts out of the public eye. Make no mistake, there are people, wealthy and misguided, that will keep trying to find a way to sneak this sort of law through. Don’t think that’s a fair/optimistic assessment of the situation, well here’s the flip side (Very strong language/opinion warning) from Mr.Maddox.

    Just last night I was trying to get some programming done while watching a bunch of movies I’ve been backlogged on. One of the movies in the stack was ‘Kick-Ass‘ and I won’t spoil a decent film for you with too much info, but there’s a scene where they are streaming a web broadcast live on the news. As the live stream becomes ‘too violent’ for television the audience quickly switches to the web to watch the rest of the live stream on-line.

    While most folks watching the film were probably totally distracted by the context of the scene, I was immediately thinking about all the conservative types watching this unfold and thinking to themselves:

    ‘This should never be possible, we should have the ability to censor a live stream that is so disturbing! If it can’t be shown on TV it shouldn’t be viewable on the Internet! Just think of all the things the internet could broadcast un-censored! We need something like this SOPA/PIPA thing we can abuse!’

    I’m not sure if the big players in Hollywood actually intended that sort of reaction to the scene, I’m not saying the film is a brain-wash attempt by the industry, but the thought did cross my very ‘open’ mind, so it stands to reason I wouldn’t be the only one.

    In fact if you haven’t looked at ACTA, you might want to check it out. This is a more international version of PIPA/SOPA with the same issues surrounding loose definitions and loopholes that could be exploited while doing little to actually stop piracy. ACTA has been bouncing around since 2006 with a bunch of countries already signed on to the current version.

    The closure date for signing onto ACTA isn’t until 2013 but it looks like there may be some difficulties getting all signing countries to agree on a final version (yay for diversity!). A notably large issue of ACTA, especially in the eyes of the EFF, is that it has been drafted in secret, hidden from public eyes by participating governments around the world. So if you haven’t poked your nose into it, you really should.

    Speaking of closure, I think Chia Bart’s pretty much grown all that he will and I’m cheating now to try and get the top of his head to sprout.

    Chia Bart # 6 - Looking leafyLeaf me alone! The kid is not my sun!

    SEO news blog post by Ryan Morben @ 12:25 pm


     

    January 13, 2012

    EPIC FTC Madness

    Happy Friday the 13th!

    You know that look your pets give you when you are vacuuming?

    No not this look:

    Scared dog

    More like the ‘I will eat you if you get any closer’ look.. ?

    That was the look on my face as I read reports today that the Electronic Privacy Information Center has formally requested that the FTC investigate Google’s new social search features for anti-competitive nature and privacy violations.

    So what this did is prove? In my personal opinion it proves that someone at EPIC is either a complete fool or funded by Facebook. Here’s why it’s so amazing:

    If I want to ‘violate privacy’ in the eyes of EPIC I’d do an image search (on any search engine) for ‘teen mirror facebook’ and I’d get a slew of images teens have taken of themselves in front of a mirror and posted to Facebook. That’s all I’d have to do, and by EPIC’s standards I’ve ‘violated privacy rights’ by getting access to these pictures which are marked ‘public’ on Facebook. This would be no different from me choosing to see search results from my Google+ interests.

    If I wanted to make my browser anti-competitive in the eyes of EPIC I’d go into my search settings and I’d add a modifier for my search engine URLs that would add ‘facebook’ as a verbatim keyword that must be in every search result. By clicking those options I’ve now set my browser up for a big fall and stern letters should be written to the FTC immediately to urge them to spend millions of dollars investigating these horrible anti-competitive atrocities. Again, this is no different from me deciding to specifically look at Google+ results when searching.

    Heck now that I’ve pointed out that browser software has pre-meditated options to allow anti-competitive behaviour, I guess EPIC will be writing letters to the FTC demanding to have the browser manufacturers investigated to put a stop to people having access to features which allow them to choose a particular service over another.

    If my hair wasn’t so short I think I’d be pulling it all out right now in dismay over such examples of non-thought. Perhaps I’ll go trim Chia Bart instead, he’s almost getting ‘shaggy’ now.

    If I took even more pictures we could animate Bart!

    SEO news blog post by Ryan Morben @ 12:39 pm


     

    December 15, 2011

    We’d feel dirty not posting about SOPA today..

    This is the day folks, the bill is in Congress as I type and here’s some good spots to follow the proceedings closely:
    Dirty Bar of Soap
    EFF Twitter Feed
    Video Webcast
    Justin.tv re-broadcast of the live feed

    Wondering what all the fuss is about?
    Here’s a great read:
    Wikipedia -> Stop Online Piracy Act

    Who supports SOPA?
    Domino Project’s SOPA Supporter List

    What sort of organizations are opposed to SOPA?. It was such a bad move that Wikipedia was publicly contemplating a blackout of the service just to make it clear how bad the bill is!

    There’s also a few very active/current discussions over on Reddit in the r/technology section that give a good ‘nerds eye view’ of the bill reading.

    Wonder why Google was opposed to the bill? Here’s a humorous take on the essence of their fears:
    Mockery of SOPAs effect on Google in 2012

    If I had to personally sum everything up into a TL;DR I would have to go with:

    “Artist and labour groups who don’t have a nerdy understanding of how the internet works and how to approach piracy are joining with other anti-piracy groups to fast-track an ill-considered and potentially dangerous bill.

    While most folks don’t understand the internet enough to argue the bill as experts the general reaction today has been “we are rushing something we don’t understand and we can’t proceed”.

    With any luck that’ exactly how bill H.R.3261 will end, some potential, but not ready. *fingers crossed*

    SEO news blog post by Ryan Morben @ 10:42 am


     

    October 26, 2011

    The Google, The FTC, and The News headlines

    If anyone’s been looking at the tech headlines today, particularly the really big sites with very political writers, you may have read something about the FTC having Google in chains over outrageous privacy violations.

    Some of that info is based on fact but most of what I’ve read is personal takes on the news with a heavy spin to sidetrack the facts and make a story.

    Google behind bars

    First, lets just get the elephant in the room to step into the light so we’re all looking at it:

    Google’s bread and butter is handling trust and privacy properly.
    If users can’t trust Google, we can’t use them.

    This is why Google has repeatedly been it’s own whistle blower.

    • The web was programmed by humans..
    • Humans make mistakes..
    • The real measure of things is dealing with the mistakes!

    When Google’s engineers came up with a shockingly brilliant method of ‘fingerprinting’ WiFi access points by sampling the data coming to/from the devices it wasn’t anyone outside the company that complained.

    The fact is that many homes (and some businesses) have zero wireless security, so what was a brilliant plan to get a ‘fingerprint’ ended up becoming a nightmare of un-encrypted data that had to be destroyed properly.

    Plus Google had to figure out what it could do to prevent this from happening again, so as part of the punishment Google helped devise for themselves, they setup a fund to create a privacy resource/knowledge base.

    At the time many sites tried to make news from the issue and imply that Google was a privacy nightmare, stealing data from unsuspecting users, etc.., etc.., totally overlooking the fact that anyone could (and probably does) roam around in a vehicle and collect the exact same data Google collected.

    The majority of the media coverage was almost insulting to the intellect of the readers, but I saw smart people drinking the cool-aid so don’t feel bad if you saw the headlines and got the wrong idea too.

    This latest issue is no different at all in terms of Google acting responsibly and the news makers trying to generate headlines.

    So here’s a factual take on the actual settlement, not some poorly considered opinion that I’m hoping will make this a headline:

    “Google Inc. has agreed to settle an FTC complaint that it used deceptive tactics and violated its own privacy policy when it launched the Google Buzz social network last year. In addition to alleged FTC privacy violations, this is the first time the FTC has alleged violations of the substantive privacy requirements of the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework, a method for U.S. companies to transfer personal data lawfully from the European Union to the United States.

    The settlement agreement bars the Google from future privacy misrepresentations, requires it to implement a comprehensive privacy program and includes regular, independent privacy audits for the next 20 years. This is the first time an FTC settlement order has required a company to implement a comprehensive privacy program to protect the privacy of consumers’ information.

    According to the FTC complaint, on the day Buzz was launched through the Gmail service, users got a message announcing the new service and were given two options: “Sweet! Check out Buzz,” and “Nah, go to my inbox.” However, some Gmail users who clicked on “Nah…” were enrolled in certain features of the Google Buzz social network anyway. For those Gmail users who clicked on “Sweet!,” the FTC alleges that they were not adequately informed that the identity of individuals they emailed most frequently would be made public by default. Google also offered a “Turn Off Buzz” option that did not fully remove the user from the social network.

    When Google launched Buzz, its privacy policy stated that “When you sign up for a particular service that requires registration, we ask you to provide personal information. If we use this information in a manner different than the purpose for which it was collected, then we will ask for your consent prior to such use.” The FTC complaint charges that Google violated its privacy policies by using information provided for Gmail for another purpose – social networking – without obtaining consumers’ permission in advance.

    The agency also alleges that by offering options like “Nah, go to my inbox,” and “Turn Off Buzz,” Google misrepresented that consumers who clicked on these options would not be enrolled in Buzz. In fact, they were enrolled in certain features of Buzz.

    The complaint further alleges that a screen that asked consumers enrolling in Buzz, “How do you want to appear to others?” indicated that consumers could exercise control over what personal information would be made public. The FTC charged that Google failed to disclose adequately that consumers’ frequent email contacts would become public by default.

    Finally, the agency alleges that Google misrepresented that it was treating personal information from the European Union in accordance with the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor privacy framework. The framework is a voluntary program administered by the U.S. Department of Commerce in consultation with the European Commission. To participate, a company must self-certify annually to the Department of Commerce that it complies with a defined set of privacy principles. The complaint alleges that Google’s assertion that it adhered to the Safe Harbor principles was false because the company failed to give consumers notice and choice before using their information for a purpose different from that for which it was collected.”

    SEO news blog post by Ryan Morben @ 1:46 pm


     

    October 20, 2011

    Secure search service stirs SEOs slightly

    Every once in a while there’s an announcement that makes a huge kerfuffle online only to be yesterdays news the next week. Yesterday’s news is that Google made the move towards secure searches for Google account holders that are logged in while searching. It was actually announced on the 18th, and I didn’t see anything until Kyle mentioned it on the afternoon of the 19th, so it’s actually worse than yesterday’s news!

    Google secure search

    Anyone following search engine news would be perfectly normal to feel a bit of déjà vu since Google’s had secure search options way back in early 2010. The latest announcement that is stirring up responses is the fact that they are now dropping header info that would normally be passed along to the destination site which could then be tracked and analyzed for SEO purposes.

    Google has plenty of good reasons to make this move and only a few reasons against it. Here’s a quick breakdown of the pros/cons:

    • Most searchers are not logged in and won’t be effected
    • Estimates fall between %3-%7 of current search traffic is logged in
    • Tracking the “not provided” searches in Google Analytics will show the missing traffic
    • Mobile users connecting from public WiFi networks can search securely
    • Users of free internet services will have additional privacy
    • HTTPS Everywhere is crucial and backed by Google
    • Webmaster Central still provides search terms to registered owners

    Cons:

    • Mobile searchers tend to be logged in
    • Traffic projections for mobile search are growing
    • Google has to make the data accessible to it’s paid users
    • SSL is now becoming a much larger ranking factor

    Amy Chang over on the Google Analytics blog had the following point to make:

    “When a signed in user visits your site from an organic Google search, all web analytics services, including Google Analytics, will continue to recognize the visit as Google ‘organic’ search, but will no longer report the query terms that the user searched on to reach your site..”
    “Keep in mind that the change will affect only a minority of your traffic. You will continue to see aggregate query data with no change, including visits from users who aren’t signed in and visits from Google ‘cpc’.”

    Thom Craver, Web and Database specialist for the Saunders College at Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) was quoted on Search Engine Watch as noting:

    “Analytics can already run over https if you tell it to in the JavaScript Code … There’s no reason why Google couldn’t make this work, if the site owners cooperated by offering their entire site via HTTPS.”

    Personally, as you can tell from my lead-in, I feel like this is much ado about nothing. Unless competing search engines are willing to risk user privacy/safety to cater to SEOs in a short term bid for popularity, this isn’t going to be repealed. I don’t like to see the trend of money = access, but in this case I don’t see much choice and I’ll stand behind Google’s move for now.

    SEO news blog post by Ryan Morben @ 12:12 pm


     

    August 23, 2011

    Google+ starts Name Verification

    There are some really famous people reaching out to fans on-line, but if you just got a notification today that someone famous has added you to some circles what can you do to see if they are who they say they are?

    Imposters everywhere

    Until recently, there wasn’t much you could do since Google+ has been busy growing and tackling other issues. Now you can start looking for the verified check mark to confirm that the person you’re looking at has been verified by Google+.

    Fake Ted Danson Google+ profile

    This is also very handy for people who have taken on names that may seem ‘fake’ but are legal names. I’m not sure if the artist formerly known as ‘Prince’ has found a way to express his name with traditional characters, but my guess is that he’d be detected as having a ‘fake’ name if he did.

    Google even released a video from Google staff member Wen-Ai Yu that explains the new feature a bit more:

    She does a great job of introducing the new feature, and some motivations, without going much deeper. Sadly there’s no mention of how to apply for the verification status in the video or the posts I’ve found so far. I’ll be watching for the info on getting verified and will update the blog when I find it.

    Wen-Ai Yu did however give us a link to the real Dolly Parton’s Google+ profile. Yeehaw!

    SEO news blog post by Ryan Morben @ 11:05 am


     

    August 9, 2011

    Google+ Free For All

    If you’ve been able to get on-line with all the outages this morning (EAST-1 was down for a bit) then you may have seen a number of links showing up for ‘free invites’ to Google+.

    Free for all tomato fight

    I know we did an article about the rumor that Google+ was going to accept new sign-ons without invitations on July 31st, but this came from the ‘official Facebook group’ which was a rather poor source. To my knowledge, the rumour never panned out and we still have an invite only system in place where Google can track how each person is related to the next. It’s not hard to get into Google+, it’s only difficult to do it anonymously.

    Almost all the links are valid, point to a “ngemlink” path, and seem to work, even though the final section appears to be totally random:

    Random invite example #1
    Random invite example #2
    Random invite example #3

    This would mean that advertisers, groups, and other technically ‘unwanted’ new users should be hitting the system for the first time without a legitimate connection to the accounts that are letting them join? If that’s the case, where’s the response? The only thing I found related to spamming on Google threads today was this little thank you picture:

    Google Voice anti-spam

    Perhaps I am in a quite circle of the web and I haven’t got the exposure to such things, but my Google+ profile has been entirely spam free. Indeed, the worst offender for spamming are associates in the SEO business that like to push out a few posts per day due to the wide range of stuff they tackle. Most of that content is related to topics that I’m interested in both professionally and personally, so it’s not really spam per se, just an excess of content that dwarfs the smaller feeds.

    It’s quiet, almost too quiet..

    SEO news blog post by Ryan Morben @ 11:43 am


     

    July 26, 2011

    Google+ Name Game

    Google+ isn’t playing games with abusers of it’s policies and is cracking down on Google+ profiles that aren’t using legitimate names, odd characters, or contain misleading information.

    Hello my name is

    I personally know what it’s like to visit sites like Facebook or MySpace where you’re looking for an old friend and you just can’t seem to locate them. Some time goes by and you wonder who this odd fellow is that’s chatting with all your friends. You dig into the profile and find a ton of funny images, culture references, and other stuff, but nothing that tells you why this person is chatting with all your friends. Finally you give up and send a message, yep, it’s that old friend you couldn’t find, he’s just using his on-line name because he’s unemployed and looking for jobs.

    What a situation! Why does this fellow not have more control over his info so he can use honest information without worry? Technically, at this stage, users of FB/MySpace have the control, but when the companies are selling your info off to the highest bidders, would you blame anyone for feeling a bit shy? On top of that, making the changes needed isn’t clear or easy so can you blame people for trying to sign into Google+ with the same attitudes?

    Google+ is trying to understand, they are avoiding outright bans on accounts with ‘nick names’ and issuing warnings well ahead of taking any actions. If an account is a clear violation of Google+ policy, spamming, etc., it’s closed instantly to prevent abuse of the system. They are also taking the time to clearly outline the policy, why you no longer need to hide behind an anonymous identity, and adding methods to include enough info to be found by maiden names, pseudonymous, alternate languages, etc.. should you choose to make any of that info ‘public’ and searchable.

    For people who were derailed during the Google+ signup process, you’ll be glad to note that the signup process has been improved to explain your choices more clearly to prevent users from accidentally signing up under a pseudonym.

    I have a friend that got fancy with the signup process in my circles, and it’s a bit odd watching his name morph as I interact with him and Google+ is picking between his profile name, his real name, and his GMail/GChat choices.

    Unique profile on Google+

    He’s expecting to get a warning letter soon asking him to unify his name selections with real info, but at the same time he should have the option under ‘other names’ to share his personality a bit.

    Some folks on-line think Google+ is ‘missing the boat‘ on what users want, claiming that they won’t bend to Google’s rules to use the service. Personally, if I wanted to chat with a bunch of strangers, never giving up my info, I can name off countless places where that’s possible. Google+ is where I want to connect with real people, have real discussions, and skip all the nonsense that’s typically associated with the trust issues of the past.

    If you have a Google+ account, this post even tries to challenge the legality of requiring a real name within the EU. While the fellow making the post does not seem to have fully read the user agreement when he joined Google+, missing the part where he opted to accept the rules, he may still have some merit in pushing Google+ to be as flexible as possible.

    For what it’s worth, on the topic of trust, I didn’t share an image of my face publicly on Google+. To me that’s a private option because nobody is going to search for me by face, not anyone I’d like to have find me at least. If you’re in the right circles on my profile, you can gaze at my ugly mug all day if you want, just don’t be a creep and take pictures of me sleeping!
    Nice sssssssettingssss you have there..

    SEO news blog post by Ryan Morben @ 2:59 pm


     

    Older Posts »
    Level Triple-A conformance icon, W3C-WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
    Copyright© 2004-2012
    Beanstalk Search Engine Optimization, Inc.
    All rights reserved.