Tagged: search engines Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Profile photo of nmw

    nmw 10:16:04 on 2016/06/21 Permalink
    Tags: , , anti-social rationality, , , , , , , , , , , , , , offers, , , , , , search engine optimization, search engines, , spam, spammer, spammers, spamming, , target market, , , ,   

    Spam Index, Shopping Catalog & Co. – An Introduction to Anti-Social Rationality 

    Do you want to be the #1 top result on Google?

    No, thank you.

    To many people this reaction might seem odd.

    Let me backtrack a little. Yesterday I alerted yet another person of the fact that I can see they are using gmail.com as their email server (even though their email address shows merely their own domain name). I had initiated contact, and in the header information to their reply email – well, anyone can see this information, because it is in plain daylight, plain text, plain and simple – there was Google / Gmail. However, because most of the „users“ on the Internet are illiterate, many people think no one will ever notice that their correspondence is being shared with innumerable Fortune 500 companies and governments who are aligned with Google to harvest „insights“ from this data.

    My business contact was surprized, and broke off the contact. Of course Google knows who I am talking about, but I will nonethless respect this person’s privacy. If this information gets shared with other businesses (for example: competitors might pay money for such data, and simply add the cost to the price of their products and/or services), then it was not me, but rather the organization that is the world’s leading provider of industrial espionage software (aka Google).

    I am often disappointed and regret the widespread illiteracy. But at least I am not myself one of the suckers whose private information gets sold to the highest bidder.

    I think many people consider my complacency illusory and backwards. After all: If you want to show up on the Google website, wouldn’t you be happy to let them probe your interior, private and confidential business communications?

    No, not really – but thank you very much for the FREE OFFER! 😉

    I have many websites that rank very well (but no thanks to any sort of „special consideration“) on pretty much all search engines. Indeed, if there were a search engine they did not rank well on, then people would probably eventually avoid using it simply because the results on such a search engine would „suck“. Many years ago I sent Matt Cutts a „tweet“ showing him there was something wrong with Google and then they fixed it. You might be able to still find our exchange on twitter.com – but you would have to go back many years (I haven’t used twitter for… OMG, IDK how long).

    One thing you need to consider if you actually get a website to rank well on such so-called „search engines“ (BTW: many / most businesses which track „search engines“ are usually unable to define what is / isn’t a „search engine“), then you should be ready for spammers. If you are not ready, your site will be flooded with spam in a matter of minutes. Most of this spam is generated by robots, and robots work very fast. Being the top result on Google is an open invitation to having your inbox overflowing with love from a wide variety of „artificial intelligence“ machines. I, personally, have little or no interest in such robotic affection.

    I actually even have little interest in ranking highly on Google. In my opinion, the results are already so shoddy that I feel showing up on Google is sort of like showing up at a thug lineup. Most company websites where the company marketing team prides itself for its high ranking on Google are sending a very clear message to consumers: „We paid a lot of money to show up here, so if you buy from us you will probably need to pay a little more“. There is very little indication of quality or reliability from showing up on Google or Facebook or Youtube or whatever most people think of as a general „search engine“. At least Facebook seems to be honest about the need to pay money, but I really don’t think that would actually motivate me to waste it on reaching billions of people (and/or robots) with very limited literacy skills. Most such people (and/or computers) would probably not even understand (and/or act on) the most clearly written message anyways. They are usually primarily searching for a free lunch, flashing lights, bells and whistles – and I am not interested in offering anything like that. I am prepared to offer people and businesses affordable solutions, but I don’t want to be your slave.

     
  • Profile photo of nmw

    nmw 14:26:43 on 2016/05/15 Permalink
    Tags: agenda, agenda setting, agendas, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , rationalities, , , , , , search engines,   

    Rational Media, Alternative Media + Mainstream Agendas 

    One point about rational media that deserves particular attention is that they do not require only one standard type of rationality. I will save this point for a future date.

    Today, I would like to entertain another issue: Alternatives.

    This particular point is not about alternative rationalities, but rather the more general freedom of choice from a variety of alternatives. Whether or not a person is rational of type A (e.g. rationalising their point of view with A1, A2, A3, etc.) or rational type B (instead rationalising according to B1, B2, B3, etc.). they may both appreciate the freedom to choose from a diverse palette of products, services, etc. For example, people generally appreciate the freedom to chose among brands – for example they may have a favorite brand of beer, a favorite bicycle brand or a particular style of shoes from a particular brand name shoe designer.

    Likewise, pupils in schools may very well be encouraged to analyse arguments from different points of view. In free and democratic societies, people are encouraged to vote for candidates from a wide range of choices across the political spectrum.

    What about when we turn to search for information? Do we choose among a plethora of search engines? In the past week, how many different search engines do you remember using?

     
  • Profile photo of nmw

    nmw 21:01:07 on 2015/02/18 Permalink
    Tags: , , , , , optimization, , , search engines, , , ,   

    Language is a Communications Technology, not some SEO Tactic 

    When I first wrote about the Wisdom of the Language almost a decade ago, I realized that many people would probably think the idea was odd, and perhaps even revolutionary. I think perhaps I was also too much involved with rather “technical” details — and therefore many people didn’t seem to “get it” right off the bat. It’s really a very simple idea: A site named “X” is about “X”.

    I named the concept the Wisdom of the Language in order to contrast it with the Wisdom of the Crowds, a book that was very popular at the time (and which is sort of the basis for algorithmic search methods like those employed by Google). As I wrote back then, crowds are a sign of significance (and perhaps also something like credibility), but they are not a measure of relevance.

    Although this technology is quite simple and straightforward, language is also a very complex phenomenon. People who are not well-versed in how language works may not see the forest for the trees — and therefore they may easily get lost. This is especially the case for people who do not have much experience in comparing and evaluating a plethora of media and information sources. Many people have rather limited media literacy skills, and really do need the guidance of a trained information specialist (which had for over a century been the role of professional librarians).

    Starting about a decade ago, people began to think they no longer needed trained professionals to help and guide them. Now they felt ready, willing and able to discover facts by themselves — or rather with the help of an algorithm that would spit out objective “results”. Some people still to this day think the results this program returns are objective facts. They naively believe Google much like earlier generations blindly followed a Pope or presented their questions to some oracle or other magical power. They still do not realize that the primary purpose of Google is for the company to maximize its profits.

    Now as most people use Google to type in the name of the website they want to visit (for example: Amazon), there is a common and also a reasonable misconception that the name of a site can be used as a way to “optimize” it for search engines (such that when someone types in “hotels” or “weather”, the top results in a search engine might very well be a site like hotels.com or weather.com).

    While that may be true, that is actually not the main reason why the Wisdom of the Language works better than the Wisdom of the Crowds. Using the Wisdom of the Language, a brand-name website like Google will actually ultimately become superfluous. As people become aware of the fact that weather.com has reliable information about weather, and that hotels.com has reliable information about hotels, they will no longer need to search for “weather” or “hotels” at the Google website. Instead, they can skip that detour and go directly to the information source.

    Most people still do not have the media literacy skills to be able to reliably evaluate the quality of information different websites provide — but it is getting better, slowly but surely (and many Wisdom of the Language websites are helping to pave the way).

     
  • Profile photo of feedwordpress

    feedwordpress 07:22:18 on 2013/02/24 Permalink
    Tags: , , , , , , , , end justify the means, ends, Enlish, , , , , , , means, , , , , , , search engines, transaction, transactional,   

    Search: What is it Good for? 

    Questions — what are they good for? Answers — what are they good for? Talk: What is it good for?

    We need to pay attention here: Does the end justify the means?

    Is your end goal the same end goal as your business partner’s? If your partner’s end goal is to get you to click on a link, then you need to ask yourself: How satisfying is it for me to click on a link? If you can’t get enough satisfaction out of that transaction, then why are you doing it? Why do you consider someone whose end goal is to get you to click on a link your partner, if clicking on links doesn’t even make you happy in the short run? Do you think you will ultimately — in the long run — get more satisfaction out of it? Will you halt Global Warming? Is clicking on links a way that you hope to get into Heaven? If the answers to these questions are “no”, then maybe Google is in fact not your ideal partner.

    If you have learned how to use the Internet, then all you need to succeed is to realize that the World Wide Web is all about disintermediation: there is no need to learn how to speak English if you already know how to speak it. Since more and more people know how to speak English, the question “do you speak English?” is becoming more and more superfluous. You can simply assume that others know how to speak the same language as you — although you may be wrong occasionally, you will usually be right… and you will know for certain within a matter of seconds.

    Let me use a concrete example: When you visit books.com, then your partner at books.com will present you a commercial website which has this end goal: trading books. If you don’t want to trade books, then don’t visit books.com. If you don’t want to visit a commercial website, then don’t visit a .com address (but in that case, you are advised to be very careful — because there are many people out there whose end goal is nothing more than to take as much cash out of your pocket as possible without providing anything in return for it; Historically, the reason why .com addresses were developed first is simple: commercial businesses were the first to expand their business activity into incorporating use of the world-wide web). The meaning / significance of domain names (and in particular: top-level domains) is still not very well understood by many on a conscious level, but most people do have an intuitive understanding that is by and large based on the Wisdom of the Language.

     
c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel
Skip to toolbar