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.
For those interested in what some of the top minds of SEO, SEM, Mobile Marketing and Social Media have to say about 2011 and maybe more importantly – what they see coming in 2012 then Thursday’s Webcology is a must listen. Hosted on WebmasterRadio.fm, Jim Hedger and I will be hosting 2 separate round-tables with 5 guests each over 2 hours covering everything from Panda to personalization; mobile growth to patent applications. It’s going to be a fast-paced show with something for everyone.
The show will be airing live from 2PM EST until 4PM EST on Thursday December 22nd. If you catch it live you’ll have a chance to join the chat room and ask questions of your own but if you miss it you still have an opportunity to download the podcast a couple days later. I don’t often focus this blog on promoting the radio show I co-host but with the lineup we have including SEOmoz’s Rand Fishkin, Search Engine Watch’s Jonathan Allen and Mike Grehan, search engine patent guru Bill Slawski and many more talented and entertaining Internet Marketing experts it’s definitely worth letting our valued blog visitors know about it. And if you’re worried it might just be a quiet discussion, Terry Van Horne is joining us to insure that doesn’t happen. Perhaps I’ll ask him a question or two about his feelings about Schema.org (if you listen to the show … you’ll quickly get why this is funny).
In a breaking new story that was first revelaed to us from Jim Hedger of WebmasterRadio, that Google has just announced that only a day after launching the implementation of the +1 Button that plans for the widespread implementation of the new feature would have to be scrapped indefinitely.
In a quickly press release from Google, Eric Schmidt stated that the new feature would be "far too easy to game as a ranking signal," and that "it has become abundantly clear that would have serious repercussions as far as rankings were concerned and that we cannot in good conscience, release this feature at this time."
The new +1 button was an attempt to allow users to upvote items of interest that they find on the web. The new button would appear on search results, on ads and sites across the web. Google did not go in to any specifics of the potential exploit but concluded that once they determine how to correct the problem, “we may consider continuing the development of the button.” What happens next is anobody’s guess.
For the past week the Internet world has been abuzz with the Google/Verizon deal and how it will affect Net Neutrality. For those of you who have heard me speak at conferences or listened to my radio show you’ll know that I’m not the biggest supporter of Net Neutrality legislation. I tend to take a pretty hard line in a debate (almost always against Jim Hedger) but so does he and it makes for an entertaining debate with him referring to me as a closed minded hater of equality and me accusing him of communist tendencies and wanting to implement policies and laws that counter the entire spirit of capitalism. It’s a fun debate.
But today we saw eye-to-eye Jim and I. While we may argue the reasons we agree – we both object to the way that Google is handling the current issue with their Verizon deal that would give their 1′s and 0′s a bit of preferential treatment. More on that in just a bit. First – let’s get some basic history on Google’s stand on net neutrality, the arguments of those who oppose net neutrality and go from there. But first -
What Is Net Neutrality?
Net Neutrality is, at it’s core, the idea that the Internet is a mandatory service and that complete equality is required in the way packets are treated as they flow across it. The idea that the Telco’s should have the ability to charge more for preferential treatment of certain packages (say … YouTube videos if Google slipped them a few extra bucks) violates this idea. Well who can argue that? Don’t I have the same rights to the Internet as everyone else?
The problem arises in that the Telco’s need to pay for the infrastructure and access to that network. They argue (and let’s remember – we’re all capitalists here) that they have the right to monetize their services in a way that maximized profits. The FTC (Federal Trade Commission) has opposed Net Neutrality legislation noting that there are consumer protection laws in place that provide the protection in productive ways and that bloating the law books with more jargon isn’t going to make the issue simpler, or solve any problems that aren’t being solved with current legislation as has been witnessed many times – including a decision again Comcast when they tried to restrict access to torrents on their network and were order to stop doing so. Basically – Net Neutrality is protected even for a file type that is used primarily for exchanging illegal material (yes torrents are used for legitimate purposes but …)
Initially there were two camps, those who opposed net neutrality and those who supported it. The line was drawn basically based on profit like so:
Against Legislation – the “greedy” Telcos who just want to make a buck. For Legislation – a bunch of people who stand to profit from it such as Google, Microsoft and others who claim that this will hinder innovation and growth in the technology industry. To ask them – it has nothing to do with the fact that it would cost them more.
In 2007 Google as on record as saying:
“The nation’s spectrum airwaves are not the birthright of any one company. They are a unique and valuable public resource that belong to all Americans. The FCC’s auction rules are designed to allow U.S. consumers — for the first time — to use their handsets with any network they desire, and download and use the lawful software applications of their choice.”
At the time they were bashing Verizon from taking the stand that the decision by the FCC (Federal Communications Commission), “that would require the eventual winner of the spectrum to offer open devices and applications.” claiming such a decision was, “arbitrary and capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence and otherwise contrary to law.” You can read more about this on Google’s Policy Blog here.
So Here We Are 3 Years Later …
So here we stand 3 years later and Google and Verizon are in bed together working out a deal to prioritize some traffic over others, basically pulling a reference from George Orwell’s Animal Farm that, “some animals are more equal than others.” They use the example of medical applications but left the door open to gaming, 3D, entertainment, and more. I’m sure none of us would have a problem with a heart monitor connected to a doctor’s office over the Internet getting a priority over an MSN chat but we all know that’s not where this is going or it wouldn’t even be a debate.
Now on the table is that mobile devices should be included in the list of exempt platforms and services. Alrighty – now we’re getting warmed up. So they’re OK with the standard old Internet getting Net Neutrality imposed (except for special applications and services as yet to be defined of course)…but mobile, the up-and-comer and largely increasing area of bandwidth consumption and connectivity – that area should be excluded from the legislation? Here’s where you lost me but not because I think it’s wrong to give preferential treatment but because I don’t like when people are trying to be sly.
Here’s the thing … “not all animals are equal”. I can’t tell Google that all the can change for a PPC click is $0.40 just to make sure that everyone can afford it. It’s just not that kind of a world (and I would argue further that it shouldn’t be).
What They Should Have Done …
Verizon has done exactly what they should have. The way the message was delivered puts any backlash squarely on Google. I have no advice for them, masterfully executed.
Google should have come forward and said:
“The world has changed in 3 years and we have a lot of great ideas about the direction of mobile that’s going to require that Net Neutrality legislation doesn’t apply. We need to be able to pay more for preferential bandwidth to insure that we can provide you with the services we know you’ll love at a price you’ll enjoy even more. We want to pay extra so you don’t have to.
We would have called them on going against the policies of earlier but really – there would have been a lot less rumors and conjecture about what was going on. They should have stood up for their actions, admitted they were contrary to their former statements and basically outlined what we all know, the Internet world moves fast and the rules have changed.
Sometimes it’s refreshing to just hear a spade called a spade. I don’t believe that Google has any huge secret plans to bring down the Internet – I think they just want to be more equal. At the end of the day I don’t even disagree with their right to be more equal – they just should have come out and said so. They should have stood up for themselves.
And Now For Some Fun…
And now that you’ve made it to the end of a post on Net Neutrality here’s a video done by “Ask A Ninja” on net Neutrality:
Today celebrates the 100th show of Webcology for Jim Hedger and I over on WebmasterRadio.fm. Aside from reflecting back on 100 great hours of *fun* Jim and I discussed the situation in Haiti covering the plea for donations, my personal plea to our governments to not forget about the situation there as soon as something new and shiny crosser our collective paths. They were already the poorest country in the western hemisphere with 80% poverty rate earning $2/day (and no – that’s NOT a typo … $2).
We then went on to discuss another light-hearted topic, Google threatening China to provide uncensored search results after attempts to hack information from Google’s Gmail system were detected. These efforts are reported to be Chinese government authorized efforts to secure information on humanitarian advocates. It ended up being an interesting debate (and Jim and I often have) with me arguing that Google has no right to provided uncensored results BUT they do have the right to pull out. Basically – while I’m a humanitarian – I wouldn’t let a company or government body impose their will on my country and thus, I cannot expect others to do the same. They may be able to run a marijuana cafe in Amsterdam but they can’t argue that since it’s OK there – they should be able to open on up in downtown Dallas.
I may not agree with what the Chinese government is doing however our actions are limited to UN, Amnesty International, etc. efforts. We can’t just disobey the law in a foreign country. And so the argument continued. Basically though we both agree – Google needs to just pull out to protect their data and interests.
After that fun discussion we went on to reflecting back on the highlights of the last 100 shows from our 10-part series with WebProNews on Internet Marketing (which we’ve decided to update) to the SEO trademark lunacy and much much more. It was a great show and I highly recommend downloading the podcast at http://www2.webmasterradio.fm/webcology/ when it’s available later today.
Today Jim Hedger and I hosted Webcology on WebmasterRadio.fm. Every week we have a great time covering the latest happenings in the search engine and search marketing world but today, rather than amicably discussing the issues – we battled it out over Net Neutrality.
Net Neutrality is a subject that both Jim and I have enjoyed debating over the years. We first did so in front of an audience back at SES San Jose 2008. Jim takes the pro-Net Neutrality side and I take the anti-net neutrality side of the debate. In truth – both of us fall somewhere in the middle but a debate is sure a lot more entertaining to watch than two fence sitters discussing their ambiguous feelings.
When I first entered the debate I was pro-Net Neutrality. Now I tend to lean towards an anti-Net Neutrality perspective but with an understanding of the need for consumer protection. The same consumer protection that exists currently and seems to be doing a fine job.
We also discussed the hacking of Jim’s Twitter account and how to safeguard your information. Seriously – if it can happen to Jim, a 13 year veteran on the Internet, then it can happen to anyone.
For those of you who head over to the show – enjoy and be sure to listen next Thursday at 2PM EST (11AM Pacific) for another great show. We might even have a great guest or two.
Today Jim Hedger and I hosted Webcology on WebmasterRadio.fm. Every week we have a great time covering the latest happenings in the search engine and search marketing world but today, rather than amicably discussing the issues – we battled it out over Net Neutrality.
Net Neutrality is a subject that both Jim and I have enjoyed debating over the years. We first did so in front of an audience back at SES San Jose 2008. Jim takes the pro-Net Neutrality side and I take the anti-net neutrality side of the debate. In truth – both of us fall somewhere in the middle but a debate is sure a lot more entertaining to watch than two fence sitters discussing their ambiguous feelings.
When I first entered the debate I was pro-Net Neutrality. Now I tend to lean towards an anti-Net Neutrality perspective but with an understanding of the need for consumer protection. The same consumer protection that exists currently and seems to be doing a fine job.
We also discussed the hacking of Jim’s Twitter account and how to safeguard your information. Seriously – if it can happen to Jim, a 13 year veteran on the Internet, then it can happen to anyone.
For those of you who head over to the show – enjoy and be sure to listen next Thursday at 2PM EST (11AM Pacific) for another great show. We might even have a great guest or two.
Today on Webcology (a show hosted by Jim Hedger and myself on WebmasterRadio.fm every Thursday at 2PM EST) Jim and I discussed the issue of net neutrality legislation with SaveTheInternet’s Timothy Carr.
Jim and I had the pleasure of having Timothy on our show previously and it was great to have him on again. When we first had hom on the show both Jim and I were solidly in the net neutrality camp. When I was invited to speak at SES San Jose last week Jim and I took opposing sides in what turned into a debate on the issue. After doing a ton of research into it I found my leaning towards the anti-net neutrality side and so it was a great show with some tough questions and some enlightening info from Tim.
Of course, a lot of you reading this are wondering what a ton of people at the conference were wondering … What In The World Is Net Neutrality ?!!?
To answer this questions I spent a few days and wrote an article answering just that.
The article, titled “What In The World Is Net Neutrality?” is (in my opinion at least) a good read to understand the core of the issue but I would highly recommend to educate yourself further. There are links in the article to some great resources and of course, you can listen to the Webmaster Radio podcast here.
Once again I’ve been given the great opportunity to speak at SES San Jose. This SES is by far my favorite. New York is great, don’t get me wrong but there’s something about being a geek in Silicon Valley that’s just awesome.
This year I’ll be speaking on an extremely important topic and that’s Net Neutrality. And best of all, I’ll be on stage with my WebmasterRadio.fm co-host Jim Hedger from Metamend and being moderated by the lovely Cindy Krum from Blue Moon Works. You can read more about the session here (Note: link removed as the page no longer exists).
On top of that I’ll be meeting up with two very interesting clients and having a meeting with Richard Stokes from AdGooroo. Hopefully I can sneak an interview with him in there.
I hope to see many of you there. If you are – feel free to say hi. if I’m at the Google Dance – you might have to say “hi” again the next day.
Google has just started showing the estimated monthly search numbers in their keyword suggestion tool. For the first time in a long while we’re now able to see the estimated search numbers on the engine who’s results we most want to see the results of.
As a word of warning, after using it and comparing the numbers with the click through volume for a number of phrases, the number appear to be a bit high – that’s because it defaults to Broad Match but you can select Exact Match from the drop-down and get the the numbers you’re looking for.
You’ll find this new feature added to the Google tool here.
A Test Of Links
Also, there was an interesting test run by Johannes Beusand published on the MarketingFan.com site regarding the value of multiple links to a single page on residing on a single page of a website. He basically strives to answer the question, if there are two or more links on a single page of a site and they point to a single page on another site – how are they treated?
I’m not going to be mean and note everything from the site here and steal their traffic. You’ll find the link to this interesting test here.
Webmaster Radio
And today on Webmaster Radio Jim Hedger and I had the pleasure of interviewing Kevin Ryan – the man behind SES. Kevin discussed the show, the organizing of it, and some of the great sessions that’ll be held in San Jose.
After that (and some ranting by both Jim and myself about the stupid fees we Canadians are charged for cell phones and specifically web usage on them) we had on Dave Szetela from Clix Marketing discussing the recent changes Google has made to the quality scores for it’s AdWords advertisers.
Again, I could repeat the discussion but it was based on a couple posts covered elsewhere here and here.
