Copyright © 2010 Internet 2010-07-30T07:37:40+0100 2010-07-30T07:37:40+0100 http://www.i-com.net/blog/ Leading Manchester SEO, SEM and web design agency blog. http://www.i-com.net/blog/ http://i-com.net/images/icom-net.gif http://www.i-com.net/blog/ Leading Manchester SEO, SEM and web design agency blog. I-COM International blogmaster at i-com dot net Internet Internet en SEO, SEM, Web Design, Web Development 1440 http://www.i-com.net/blog/googles-new-look-a-step-too-far-351/ The old mantra "If it isnt broke, dont fix it" is an aphorism the folks at Google would do well to remember. Like any good business Google is always looking to improve its offering to its customers, but has Google gone too far? In 1997, Google set out two goals for their search engine: to provide a better quality of search to present search results in a clean and simple manner Their latest look incorporates several new features into their search results pages with the most prominent being a filter on the left hand side which enables users to choose what vertical they want to search, for example, Google News or Social Media; it also enables users to define a time period for the results. For example If you wanted to compare what was written before the first election debate to after you could specify web pages found in the first two weeks of April. Now these features are nothing new, but they had been contained in a side bar which was only accessible from a simple link until recently. With their universal inclusion and the addition of social, video, image and real-time results into search engine results pages it quickly becomes a case of information overload, which is an issue we are visiting all too often recently. The above example search result for Election 2010 is about as blended as its going to get because the election is a current talking point which makes it a good example of the potential for over-complicating the look and feel of a Google SERP. This particular search page includes feeds from news websites, Twitter and YouTube which pushes all but 3 organic results down the page which means that if youre not in the top 3, people probably wont see you and even if you are they may struggle to notice you amongst all the other potential links on the page. Compare the complexity of the new SERPs with the SERPs at competing search engines such as Bing.com: Google has to find some way to include the vast amount of information generated on social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter, but if it continues to add more and more information to its results pages it runs the risk of obscuring their own USP: helping people find websites simply and without fuss. The easy answer to these problems is to add 'basic' search filter and to offer a way to simplify the interface, but whether Google implements this or something similar only time will tell. If they dont resolve these issues, Google could all too easily become what they set out to differentiate themselves from causing their users to abandon the overly-complicated Google results in favour of Googles competitors. Internet 2010-05-21 09:02:37 http://www.i-com.net/blog/googles-new-look-a-step-too-far-351/ http://www.i-com.net/blog/separated-at-birth-338/ Tim Westwood is one of my favourite twitters. Most of the time I have no idea what he's talking about. He gets excited about waffles, rants about trainers and overfaces himself at Nandos. However today he's excelled himself. In what appears to be a bizarre tribute to Boing Boing's Cory Doctorow, (or rather xkcd's representation of Cory Doctorow) he posted a picture of himself in a mask and red cape. There's no related SEO story here but worlds have collided and I thought it ought to be noted. In the words of the great man "Your cheese game is strong." Internet 2010-04-19 16:52:51 http://www.i-com.net/blog/separated-at-birth-338/ http://www.i-com.net/blog/i-dare-you-to-invoke-the-copyright-provisions-of-debill-on-this-blog-post-332/ In honour of the UK Government rushing through the Digital Economy Bill despite mass online protest about the provisions regarding copyright infringement online, we're republishing a selection of responses. Naturally, as our own ISP we are now legally required to monitor ourselves and report ourselves for copyright infringment to the copyright owners. I'm sure they'll all be very upset by the free publicity and links and as a result we'll be required to shut off our own internet access, but hey ho. Such is life in 2010 when laws about the internet are made by the people who understand it the least.The contentious clause in the Bill begins by saying: "Power to make provision about injunctions preventing access to locations on  the internet      (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the granting by a court of a blocking injunction in respect of a location on the internet which the court is satisfied has been, is being or is likely to be used for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright.      (2)  Blocking injunction means an injunction that requires a service provider to prevent its service being used to gain access to the location." You can read the debate for yourselves (or watch it) at http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2010-04-06b.836.0 I'm sure reproducing that transcript is somehow illegal under the bill.The Guardian explains the problem by asserting, "As altered, the bill now allows for ISPs to be required to block access to sites that allow "substantial" infringement. One of Lord Mandelson's principal targets here urged on by the BPI and Federation Against Copyright Theft and Federation Against Software Theft is "cyberlocker" sites that let people store files, or move them between two people easily, which, lobbyists argue, allows widespread copyright infringement. The argument then becomes how you tell whether a cyberlocker is being used for substantial infringement. But as they don't publicise their contents (they are like safe deposit boxes for the web), how can it be determined whether they are substantially infringing?One site that would immediately be trapped by this provision is Wikileaks which exists solely to republish leaked, and hence copyrighted, work. Would a Trafigura-like company in the future use the DEB to shut off UK access to the site if something embarrassing appeared there?The bill allows for the "temporary suspension" of internet connections for those deemed to have allowed multiple copyright infringement after warnings from their ISPs (who are required to maintain "copyright infringement reports" on users, anonymously). Hotels and businesses that offer free or paid-for Wi-Fi have expressed serious concerns that they would have to shut such services down." Skeptobot published a well-thought out attack on the bill, relating that,"During the minuscule 2 hours the 2nd reading took one man mashed up the #DEBill twitter feed with the parliament feed onto his TV to avoid having to multitask so much. He published his work so others could do the same." This is an activity which will be illegal under the new bill.  Skeptobot continues, "The true hero was Tom Watson (Labour MP) who quickly came to be the people's champion. His criticism of the bill didn't stop with the preposterous technical issues (ip address are not fingerprints) or the equally preposterous human rights violations (guilty till proven innocent, child downloads musics - dad loses the internet he needs for his job).He went on to point out that remixing copyrighted works is part of culture now." @solobasssteve, a professional musician, published an open letter to the Musician's Union on his blog explaining his dissatisfaction with the bill, "To shut down sites and services on suspicion of illegal activity is a civil liberties travesty. To have my internet traffic monitored in case I do anything bad is like the royal mail reading my post, in case my letters contain naughty words. While threatening to brick up my front door if they find them, or think they might have found them." One Flickr user reprinted the following exchange on Twitter, courtesy of the Director of Communications of the BPI, "A conversation on twitter on the day the Digital Economy Bill was passed between Adam Liversage (Director of Communications for the BPI, the BPI that supports/wrote some of the DEBill) and Janet Liversage.Janet: "Great. Bought a card but forgot the envelope - doh."Adam: "There's some in my study on the shelf."Janet: "yes but not necessarily ones that will fit the card I have bought"Adam: "Crop the card using scissors - job done. Or scan the card, shrink it and re-print it."Where Adam suggest stealing and repurposing a bought card.Wait, I don't mean stealing I mean making a copy leaving the original intact, and then adjusting the second copy to better suit a purpose.When you've shrunk it and sent it, the original will still exist. I assume you can just then use the original for something else, sell it on, or perhaps scan it again and again and again that's a money saving tip right there. Shame the copyright owner wont get the benefit of all those copies.Just saying; copyright, it's a bit complicated." As another blog pointed out, "1  Digital Economy Bill24545 Tweets20000 Letters written7152 Twitterers643 Members of Parliament227 Voted189 Said yes" There's some good YouTube content as well:The third reading and ensuing debate took place over 2 hours during which only 40 MPs participated and 50 clauses were discussed.  Not even half the total number of MPs bothered to vote.There is no way that a bill this controversial which affects so many people was considered at the level of detail it should have been by the people elected to Parliament and the British Government and the people elected to run that Government - both in power and in opposition - should be ashamed.If you feel that Parliament rushed the Digital Economy Bill through without due consideration, add your voice by republishing your favourite editorial in our comments (make sure you credit your source). Internet 2010-04-08 14:54:00 http://www.i-com.net/blog/i-dare-you-to-invoke-the-copyright-provisions-of-debill-on-this-blog-post-332/ http://www.i-com.net/blog/rumours-of-the-death-of-google-have-been-greatly-exaggerated-319/ Last night's talk at MMU by James Hanson of MediaVest raised a number of interesting questions. Using IBM and Yahoo as examples of once all-powerful corporations who now have a vastly reduced market share, he presented a list of possible scenarios that might bring about the demise of the world's favourite search engine.Political Opposition kills Google China has already shut Google out but this will not kill them. Although China is widely regarded as next world superpower and Google has given up on them, they have not really dented the Google Empire. EU lawsuits over content hosting in Italy and France's ongoing struggle with Google Books show that there is not much political love from our continent either. However, this is still a long way from effectively killing Google. Services may be withdrawn but this will not affect the userbase.Social Media kills Google Twitter has real time search; Facebook has several million users. However, in my opinion both are limited in scope and Twitter is limited by the quality of its content. While they both have an enormous user-base, you only have to look at Friends Reunited, Friendster and Myspace to see how fickle the social media scene is. I would be surprised if Twitter and Facebook are notable platforms in 2 years time.Large Technology Firms kill Google Microsoft is still a massive power and a company with diverse interests but they seen to have come to a grudging acceptance of Google. This might change with the launch of Chrome OS although Chrome OS has more in common with Linux than Windows so Microsoft may not feel that it is a true challenger. Apple now occupies the helm of mobile internet devices and blocking Google's access to the iPhone could affect Google eventually. I consider this unlikely because although the companies have an uneasy relationship, Apple does not seem so blinkered as to shut off such an integral part of the Internet.Google kills Google Google currently has over 200 products online and has declared that they will buy at least one company per month throughout 2010. This suggests that they could spread themselves too thin. However, Google do not have a history of flogging dead horses. If a product is failing, they are unsentimental about resigning it, for example Google Answers. Google could alternatively make a massive misstep and launch a product that people hate. Buzz is an example of such a product. However, Google was quick to react and resolve the privacy issues. Also at this stage, Google do not seem out of touch with the products they are launching; compare any recent Google offering with Microsoft Songsmith. There is always the possibility that a new killer app will arrive and will cut out the need for Google Search and so undercut Google's largest revenue stream. However, with other offerings such as Google Apps, the corporation would still be able to operate without search. Additionally, Google would surely spot any killer search app and buy the company at an early stage. Conclusions After the presentation, Hanson took questions from the audience and revealed that he personally expected Google to be in an even stronger position in 10 years time. Sadly, although the talk presented a controversial title it was unable to provide any controversial opinions. I look forward to re-reading it with 2020 vision. Internet 2010-03-05 14:30:18 http://www.i-com.net/blog/rumours-of-the-death-of-google-have-been-greatly-exaggerated-319/ http://www.i-com.net/blog/the-slow-death-of-internet-explorer-311/ For many years and for many users the browser of choice has been Microsofts Internet Explorer (IE), as evidenced by the fact that it currently has 62.1% share of the browser market. Its popularity can be partly attributed to the fact that IE is packaged with Microsofts Windows operating system. In the last year, various issues relating to IE have become public, centred around various security flaws in the program, although most of the problems relate to older versions of IE still running on many older Windows-based computers. The extent and scale of these issues has even led some European governments to warn against using the browser. These highly publicised problems have resulted in Microsoft losing over 6% of their market share in the last year, with Googles Chrome browser gaining a 5% foothold in the same time period. Although the browser market is changing, the alternatives to Microsofts IE are still little known so I thought I would give a quick rundown on whats out there. Mozilla Firefox: Firefox is now in its 3rd generation and was one of the first browsers to offer tabbed web browsing. Firefox is popular among web developers and search marketers as its highly customisable, but the widgets and add-ons which make it so popular are not just limited to web designers and marketers. For example, there are many social media widgets such as Echofons Twitter add-on that allows you to manage multiple Twitter feeds at one time. Download Firefox if you want a personalised and customisable experience. Google Chrome: As mentioned earlier, Google Chrome has gained market share in the last year but not without good reason. Chrome attempts to do the same for internet browsers what Google.com did for search engines in that it offers users a stripped-down and simplified experience. Chrome is in essence Internet Explorer with unnecessary features stripped out to create a minimalist interface. For example, the address bar is combined with the search box in order to provide a cleaner look. If you looking for back-to-basics internet browsing, then Google Chrome could be the right browser for you.  Safari: Loved by many a Mac user, Apples Safari is similar to Google Chrome in many ways and in some ways offers a slicker feel than many other browsers. Safari is not wholly restricted to the Mac though and is available to download for Microsoft Windows users. Other Browser Options There are of course other options such as Opera and if youre still not looking for an alternative to Internet Explorer I suggest  version 8 which is the most secure. Internet 2010-02-09 09:26:12 http://www.i-com.net/blog/the-slow-death-of-internet-explorer-311/ http://www.i-com.net/blog/googlebye-to-china-295/ Google could be preparing to exit China following attacks on the Gmail accounts of several human-rights activists. When Google.cn launched in January 2006, they bowed to Chinese law and allowed their index to be censored. China has been blocking sites and monitoring internet use since November 2003 under the Golden Shield Project - jokingly dubbed the Great Firewall of China. The censored content included media sites with unregulated content with social and political commentary as well as sites connected to the Taiwanese media and the Tibet Independence Movement. The restrictions also include thousands of sites containing material considered obscene or pornographic. However as of today, you can once again see pictures of tanks in Tiananmen Square in Google.cn image search. Google Market Share Google has never had a strong market position in China where it only accounts for 29% of searches. The Chinese-based Baidu.com is far more successful with 62% of the share. Beyond moderating results, Google.cn has created an online music service in conjunction with major record labels in response to Baidu providing easy access to download pages of unlicensed music. Cloud Security The attack on Gmail is also an attack on the security of so-called cloud computing where potentially sensitive data is stored in centralised servers remote from end-user machines. The uptake of the cloud way of thinking is dependent on users feeling comfortable with the security of their data; a state-sponsored attack on the cloud clearly undermines this plan. The news broke on the Google blog and the follow up statement from U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shows how seriously these attacks have been taken. Pre-emptive Wake Following the announcement, tech-savy Chinese users have gathered on Twitter (despite it being officially blocked) to pay tribute to Google's bold gesture. Flowers and messages of appreciation have been left outside the Beijing offices of the search giant which has sent is staff home for the day. Some Web users in Beijing have agreed to meet in front of Google's office this evening to show support to the company. A Twitter user posted: "Let's use the slogan 'GoogleBye' for tonight's gathering. See you at half past five or six oclock!" Internet 2010-01-13 16:58:09 http://www.i-com.net/blog/googlebye-to-china-295/ http://www.i-com.net/blog/an-insight-into-online-personal-reputation-services-288/ We have all typed our name into Google once or twice to confirm our internet fame, obliterate our name exclusivity and see how much information about us is really out there . But have you ever considered paying to have results removed or promoted in light of other people searching for you? In todays ever expanding world of online information, personal name results are being scrutinised and picked through daily to back up offline knowledge. With real time search launched on Google recently, social media postings are being added into the monitored information equation. This raises the question, at what point does our personal responsibility for our own online reputation end? Its no surprise then that one of the most popular web 2.0 businesses in 2010 will be companies paid to make it their responsibility to defend personal reputations. Over the pond in the US these online services are already thriving while drenching their websites in a mixture of cheesy sales patter and over-enthusiastic stats. Promoting Your Online Personal Brand The lowered guards brought on by the anonymity of the web have been raised as people realise their education prospects, work future and even dating chances are affected by web information. Hiring a personal branding site to become your own online PR agent is the newest solution. PlaceYourName.com is one of these businesses, with a website overflowing with enthusiasm which claims it "creates a positive online image and gives you a solid Internet presence when someone searches your name." These businesses tend to use a mixture of SEO techniques, web development and public relations to achieve this. Eliminating Your Online Personal Dirt Whats the point in promoting positive online presence if you have negative postings and results that are going to drag it down? Enter services like DefendMyName.com who have a "team of engineers that is not only ready but also excited about the opportunity" to remove your negative information because of "the cool yet frightening revelation that people trust opinions they find on the internet more than those from newspapers, TV, radio and magazines." Childrens Online Reputation With kids now contently exposing every facet of their personal life on sites like Bebo and MySpace its no surprise that these services are now being targeted at parents. A mixture of paranoia, popularity and future education/career prospects are pushing parents to hire companies such as ReputationDefender for their 'MyChild' service. This service produces a monthly report detailing references to your child's name, images, screen name and social network profiles that is meant to encourage the parent to request changes, deletions and promotion of positive results. ReputationDefender.com claims: "Teens have always cared about their reputations - the Internet defines the reputation of a person." Besides, do teens really want their parents seeing everything they do or say online? Surely this infringes on a teenager's right to be a kid in favour of building a parent-controlled online persona for future success? Surely even online, teenagers need to build their own online persona and learn from their mistakes. Then again with 'enthusiastic' customer quotes like the one below how can anyone dispute such a service? Limitations There are clearly a lot of legal issues with removing online information when you dont own the rights to that post or article. An FAQ on ReputationDefender.com site highlights these issues when asked "Can you remove absolutely anything?" The site responded stating "No. Newspaper articles and court records are difficult to impossible to remove" but goes on to state "we typically focus on content that is slanderous, private, defamatory, invasive and/or outdated." Surely two of the most slanderous and private sources of information online are newspaper articles and court records. This is one of many fairly substantial limitations for online reputation services. At the end of the day if you're that worried about your online reputation and you want to keep it respectable then behave as though your mum or nan is looking over your online shoulder. For more information on this topic visit Personal Branding Blog. Internet 2009-12-18 15:24:24 http://www.i-com.net/blog/an-insight-into-online-personal-reputation-services-288/ http://www.i-com.net/blog/charging-for-online-content-what-a-man-con-281/ Whilst the internet is an ever-expanding and eclectic resource, it would seem that one particular area is shrinking day by day the world of free, good quality online content. This is an issue rarely out of the papers (on and off line) at the moment, thanks to big names like Rupert Murdoch weighing in and, closer to home, founder of Manchester Confidential Mark Garner. The news that Manchester Confidential are set to begin charging for their online restaurant reviews, articles and offers, as reported in How Do, has caused widespread outrage amongst its readership, yet ManCons top brass seem confident that we're at a stage where the size, loyalty and quality of our readership is such that a significant number will be prepared to pay for the service we provide." Further news today, reported on the BBC website, reveals that Google have struck a deal that will see them limit the number of free news resources appearing in their search results, Users who click on more than five articles in a day may be routed to payment or registration pages.Falling Circulation; Falling Advertising Revenue These are the two main reasons given for the current push to start charging for online content, with ManCon arguing that they are no longer able to survive by relying solely on advertising revenue, and newspapers suggesting that of course, as people stop buying their hard copy newspapers their revenues will fall; not only will they lose the money generated from the sale price, they will also lose advertisers if no-ones reading the thing then why advertise in it. Thus, as newspapers lose money they will no longer be able to pay good journalists and we will end up with newspapers of a quality resembling the Metro, a hellish dystopian vision if ever Ive heard one.To Charge or not to Charge On the surface the arguments for charging seem sound, at least for big name newspapers like the Guardian and the Telegraph, who already have massive readerships willing to pay every day for their newspaper. ManCon on the other hand, who have a reported readership of 260,000 weekly readers, will no doubt lose a massive proportion of that number the more casual visitor. Samscam, writing in the How Do comments section, suggests that the majority of the content (should be) free but the extra benefits and services cost a little cash - say the best of the offers. What is it really that ManCon offers that a simple blog couldnt? The only thing is the offers anyone can write a review of a restaurant and post that review online, and it doesn't have to be bad quality, look at Taste of Manchester.com. Thus it seems a sound idea that if they are intending to charge for anything it should be for access to the offers and that alone.An Alternative to Paying for Content The internet is free by definition. If you attempt to charge for your content your readers will migrate elsewhere and youll be left with no readers, no money and no advertisers. You see, there are plenty of alternatives out there to both ManCon and the big name newspapers Manchester has a thriving blogging culture, spearheaded by the likes of the Manchizzle and the Creative Tourist, and the internet is also home to a wealth of independent news sources like Media Lens, who have artfully shrugged off the constraints of advertising in favour of a balanced, independent and unbiased take on newsworthy events. These sources priority is quality, nothing else, and it is perhaps in their favour that more and more online readers are desperately seeking high quality alternatives to the commercial and corporate media. Internet 2009-12-02 11:12:57 http://www.i-com.net/blog/charging-for-online-content-what-a-man-con-281/