Google Search: Evolution of Awesomeness.
As a self-proclaimed Google-holic, I was thrilled to find this article recently on the evolution of Google Search since it started in 1996 as a research project. There's a fascinating six minute video on the subject, which you can watch here:
(The evolution of Google Search since 1996.)
There's also a very useful timeline which, frankly, I totally love. (I'm all about chronology). I'm sure you'll agree that it's a fascinating look at the change not only in how we find data, but how we think.
Google Search Timeline: click for full image (2.2MB)
Over the past fifteen years I've developed a theory about how Google has changed the way we think and the way we know stuff. I'm sure I'm not unique in this. It goes something like this:
Around 15 - 20 years ago (less for some of us), we knew things. I can clearly recall having loads of useful (and sometimes useless) information in my head, available at a moment's notice. I could tell you things about history, geography, science, music, English, art, French (not maths!) ... even current events, politics, philosophy and many other things. It wasn't just that I was in school and needed the facts for my big test on Monday. They were readily available at any time. And the more interested I was in a subject, the more I knew. This spilled over into other areas of my life, as well. I knew where stuff was. I could tell you the location of any object I owned, or any place I had been to, with hardly a second's thought. (And not just because of vague OCD leanings).
Over the years I have noticed a distinct change. It was very subtle at first and in fact seemed more like the addition of extra features - an upgrade, if you will - than an actual change. I began to know how to find things. Where to look. What to ask. It sounds like simple growing up, doesn't it? Well, let me fast forward a decade or so to illustrate my point. Now, I know pathways to information. I don't know much at all (and that's not the result of double-porridge-brain delivered as a side order with two pregnancies). I have detailed pathways to information stored in my brain now. So I no longer remember the difference between dicotyledonous and monocotyledonous (okay, bad example because I do), but I know where to find out. And if you can't Google the information, it doesn't exist. Even axolotls are on there, and I really thought I was The Business when I knew what those were.
The point is, I look stuff up on a scale I would never have dreamed of before, despite my addiction to Encyclopaediae. In fact, my children (aged 6 & 9) even ask me too Google anything they don't know. This very weekend I was asked to Google "how artistic is Daddy", for genetic research purposes (I am assured).
I've veered off track somewhat, but I do have a point. We no longer store data. We store the location of the data. Our brains have become giant data maps, for want of a better word. We know which questions to ask Google to get the information we need, and we long for a similar search function for real life on those miserable days when we can't find the car keys or our favourite shirt.
It's happened at such lightning speed that one can't help but wonder what the final outcome is going to be. Will we know anything, or will be permanently linked to the Net, spouting Wikipediaisms rote, as if they reflected our own thoughts and opininons?
Black Tuesday
Yesterday marked a dark day for South Africa, and frankly it's taken me nearly 20 hours to cultivate the capacity to blog about it. Words like disappointment and astonished barely scrape the tip of the emotional iceberg. But atually, the biggest question is, "Haven't we been here before?"
If you remember the last Black Tuesday, or at least remember it from the history books, you'll know just why inhibiting freedom of speech is such a big deal.
Nandos. I don't *just* like them for their witty banter, but when it comes to their inspired ad campaigns, I'm lovin' it.
#BlackTuesday
However, I was pleased to see the online solidarity behind the event. It has been a true testament to the power of social media, and one that we ignore at our own peril. #BlackTuesday was a top Twitter trend yesterday, and is likely to stay there for the rest of the week, at least. Facebook was flooded with clever status updates like this one.
(Perhaps I'm easily impressed). And of course there's the brilliant team marketing Nandos. Ever quick on the draw (hur hur), the poster they released yesterday was nothing short of inspired, and quickly did the FB rounds.
On a serious note, what this means for our country only time will tell. How do you legislate free speech online? I guess we could just ask China that. Besides, wasn't I just blogging about the US doing something eerily similar?
My philosophically-gifted friend, Farren, had this to say about the matter on Facebook, which may provide some food for thought. Less delicious, perhaps, than the peri-peri chicken, but it leaves more of a sting.
The government's position is that the bill has a clause making the classification of information as state secrets in order to hide fraud and corruption a criminal offence. Thus, they say, the bill does acknowledge public concerns. Obviously the problem with this is that without a complimentary public interest clause, someone could theoretically still be criminally prosecuted for revealing information that was thus classified, even if the act of classifying the information was itself a criminal act.
I'm not a consitutional expert, but whether it passes muster in the Constitutional Court will obviously relies to the reach of these stipulations in the bill of rights:
16. Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes
a. freedom of the press and other media;
b. freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;
c. freedom of artistic creativity; and
d. academic freedom and freedom of scientific research....
32. Access to information
1. Everyone has the right of access to
a. any information held by the state; and
b. any information that is held by another person and that is required for the exercise or protection of any rights....
36. Limitation of rights
1. The rights in the Bill of Rights may be limited only in terms of law of general application to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors, including
a. the nature of the right;
b. the importance of the purpose of the limitation;
c. the nature and extent of the limitation;
d. the relation between the limitation and its purpose; and
e. less restrictive means to achieve the purpose.The last stipulation (36) interests me. ... It seems obvious to me some substantive argument must be provided when invoking (36) to limit other stipulated rights, but the wording of the bill itself seems awfully vague.
The US Internet Security Bill – what does it MEAN
One of the myriad newsletters I subscribe to in an ongoing attempt to overwhelm my inbox into submission is WebProNews. I don't often read these letters all the way to the end (or even at all) but this one caught my attention. I'm just going to put the whole thing here for you, and I invite comments:
|
Thursday, November 17, 2011 |
The backlash finally begins
The Stop Online Piracy Act, or any of its many variations, something WebProNews has discussed before, is finally meeting a great deal of resistance as various online movements, and the long-awaited push back from entities like Google, Facebook, and Mozilla have (finally?) decided to throw their own weight around.
Where do you stand concerning the Stop Online Piracy Act? Do you side with the web giants or the government? Does the power SOPA give to stop piracy go too far? Let us know what you think in the comments.
It looks like the American public is also getting wise about the consequences of such a bill to pass, as the SOPA acronym is currently the top Google Trend. One hopes this isn't a case of too little, too late. The resistance that's getting the most coverage has to do with the rebellious responses of a consortium of well-known -- and powerful -- web companies, all of which banded together to create the following letter as their opening means of disagreement.
The letter, found under the Protect Innovation TLD, is signed by the following entities:
AOL
eBay
Yahoo
Zynga
MozillaThe stance of this group is one of disapproval concerning SOPA, and the crux of their position is here, with our own emphasis added:
We support the bills' stated goals -- providing additional enforcement tools to combat foreign "rogue" websites that are dedicated to copyright infringement or counterfeiting. Unfortunately, the bills as drafted would expose law-abiding U.S. Internet and technology companies to new uncertain liabilities, private rights of action, and technology mandates that would require monitoring of web sites. We are concerned that these measures pose a serious risk to our industry's continued track record of innovation and job-creation, as well as to our Nation's cybersecurity. We cannot support these bills as written and ask that you consider more targeted ways to combat foreign "rogue" websites dedicated to copyright infringement and trademark counterfeiting, while preserving the innovation and dynamism that has made the Internet such an important driver of economic growth and job creation.
Essentially, these companies would like to stop piracy as well, they just don't want it to be under the guise of "The Great Firewall of America," which is what some entities have started calling SOPA.
The push back doesn't stop there, however. With Mozilla, besides co-signing the letter, they also created a page that clearly states their position in relation to SOPA in its current form. The page links to an Electronic Frontier Foundation page that, in part, generates letters of opposition to whatever state representatives are applicable. The page also features valuable information about the potential harm SOPA can cause.
An example:
As drafted, the legislation would grant the government and private parties unprecedented power to interfere with the Internet's domain name system (DNS). The government would be able to force ISPs and search engines to redirect or dump users' attempts to reach certain websites' URLs. In response, third parties will woo average users to alternative servers that offer access to the entire Internet (not just the newly censored U.S. version), which will create new computer security vulnerabilities as the reliability and universality of the DNS evaporates.
I urge you to continue reading.
Google, which also signed the letter of opposition, has also posted about their intentions over at their public policy blog, which includes Google copyright policy counsel Katherine Oyama testifying before the House Judiciary Committee. Oyama was scheduled to testify earlier today, and the post has a link to her written and oral testimony.
An example from the written portion explains Google's position quite well:
We support SOPA's stated goal of providing additional enforcement tools to combat foreign rogue websites that are dedicated to copyright infringement and counterfeiting. Unfortunately, we cannot support the bill as written, as it would expose law-abiding U.S. Internet and technology companies to new uncertain liabilities, private rights of action, and technology mandates that could require monitoring of web sites and social media. Moreover, we are concerned that the bill sets a precedent in favor of Internet censorship and could jeopardize our nation's cybersecurity. In short, we believe the bill, as introduced, poses a serious threat to our industry's continued track record of innovation and job-creation.
These more well-known companies are not the only voices of dissension concerning SOPA. Even Vice President Joe Biden spoke out against the spirit of the act, and although the White House clearly supports the reduction of online piracy, at least one component of the United States Government disagrees with how SOPA goes about its prevention ...
There's more available here.
Google’s new algorithm and what it means for search
Greetings, fellow web searchers
I’ve just read a very interesting article about the way Google now indexes sites, and how it assigns value. Google (and many other search engines) use a variety of measurements to determine what makes one site more valuable, more search-worthy than another. These include keywords, page titles and descriptions, headings, and well-written content, to name a few.
As you know by now, I always believe a blog is the one of best ways to garner search rankings. You create current, relevant content that people want to read. The traffic alone keeps your rankings high, and of course high rankings should ultimately turn into sales, which is what we all want.
Well, it seems Google agrees with me. The new algorithm assigns much higher value to recent content than it does to static content. Two effective ways to ensure your content is current are to have a blog updated weekly at the very least, preferably daily; and to create “news” that is syndicated to news sites, especially Google News.
It certainly provides food for thought, fodder for research, and focus for our SEO efforts.
Happy searching,
Vanessa
Read the original article here: http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2011/11/7-content-marketing-tactics-to-rank-higher-in-googles-new-fresh-results.html
Hmm … we seem to have a little bit of a gap over here …
Had you noticed? Yes, of course you have. Well, the thing is that after Day 6, things got a little - well, insanely busy. Which is a GOOD thing. I started home schooling (which you can read all about over here). I also became a trainee nutritional consultant and business builder, which you can read all about over here.
As you will see, these are also works in progress.
But in between all of that I am still a very busy and happy online marketer and I really sincerely intend to get a lot more organised and up to date.
So, if you have the patience, please watch this space, and I'll fill you in on the last few months and the development of my personal journey into successful online marketing.
Thanks for stopping by!
Day 6 – Vision Team workshop
The first thing we had to do today was decide what the website should achieve. www.bestofnature.co.za, their current site, tells a little about the world-leading GNLD supplements sold by the Vision Team, and offers the opportunity to buy them online by linking to their GNLD-hosted web presence: thevisiongroup.gnld.net. However, the content is light, the SEO is non-existent, and the only real value offered on the site is the rich bank of testimonies of GNLD users and distributors whose health and wealth have been changed by GNLD.
This morning I met with the team - Rory and Noela McDermid and their son, Drew, to discuss and start to implement the best way forward for taking the company online. We decided that the website should be a centralised hub covering every aspect of the business - health care, skin care, home care, herbals and the business plan. We chose the company motto, We Create Success as the name of the website and the focus of our energies.
We started by ordering the domain and setting up hosting. Next, I set up WordPress on the server. WordPress is easily configurable, simple to update, and great for SEO. I updated the client's Facebook profile and then I created a Facebook page on that profile. I set up a Twitter account with the same information, followed by a LinkedIn Profile.
Next, I enabled Facebook and LinkedIn to update Twitter every time an update was made.
Finally, I chose a WordPress them and created a header image.
Believe it or not, that took all day. The client gave me a stack of content to use as source material for the site, which I will start working on tomorrow. By the end of the day we had a site skeleton: www.wecreatesuccess.net, with a presence on Facebook and on Twitter.