Watsonville Stop Using Mobile Sites! There’s simply not enough good reasons left to have a mobile version of your website. I know, I know, I’m guilty of this too, but we need to stop.
There’s nothing more annoying than when I’m sitting on the toilet reading Google reader on my iPhone and click a link to an article only to be re-directed away from the article I want and onto their mobile version.
It’s like the web server is saying “let’s see, he wants an article, but he’s on an iPhone, I know, let’s send him to this page that looks great on the iPhone but makes it impossible to find the article he wants to read. Brilliant!” In which developer’s mind does this logic make sense, and how many pints of Guinness did they drink when coming up with it?
I mean, look, most of today’s smart phones have browsers on them. If you’re still using web enabled phone from 2000, you don’t deserve to access web pages on it anyway. Upgrade your site with help from experts you will find at this Web design Manchester company or give up.
I know that many sites use flash, silverlight, and other technologies that don’t work well on phones, but why not create a simple .html version instead of a mobile version? In fact, do your SEO department (and users) a favor and just design the site in HTML and CSS to begin with. The trick is to make the HTML version offer the same information as the rest of the site though – so when I’m looking for an article and have to use some alternate version of the site, I can actually find what I’m looking for.
Mobile versions of sites served their purpose in the 90’s and early 00’s, but with today’s browser enabled phones they’re really just more of a hindrance.
If you really must create a mobile version of your site, don’t include iPhones as “mobile browsers.” Most iPhone users would rather just see the real web page. At the very least though, you should at least include a link on the mobile site that will send me back to the original page I had surfed to.
Part of me always cringes when I read stories or hear reports about identity theft. Sure I worked at a company whose goal was to try and help consumers protect their identity, but that’s not why I cringe. I cringe because I’ve always had a problem with the term “identity theft.” It seems like an impossibility. An Identity can’t be stolen, can it?
Before I go into my rant, let’s look at exactly what an identity is. Princeton defines identity as such:
the individual characteristics by which a thing or person is recognized or known.
‘
That’s a pretty good definition so we’ll stick with that.
If I’m a “victim” of identity theft, does that mean somebody stole my characteristics? That doesn’t seem possible. In fact, it’s all more likely that somebody else just did a piss poor job of verifying my identity or defining those characteristics.
Techdirt points to a british comedy routine that can explain it much better than I can. Please listen to the following audio – it’s quite funny in that special British way.
(look, I just resisted linking to my british translator. Crap, no I didn’t.)
The comedy routine above hits the nail right on the head: the whole concept of identity theft is merely a piss poor attempt for companies to shift the blame from themselves onto their customers. It’s all so clear now.
The problem here isn’t that somebody actually had there identity stolen, it’s simply that the company did a terrible job of verifying the characteristics of that person’s identity.
Your identity online should consist of more than just a username and password. Requiring only a password is the offline equivalent of only listing hair color on a drivers license. It’s just not sufficient anymore.
Think about those old TV shows (get smart comes to mind) where there’s 2 people both pretending to be one. They look exactly alike and hilarity ensues, but what do they always do to solve the problem? they ask them questions that only the real person would know.
And, since we programmers love to re use as much as possible, that’s why you’re seeing so many of those “security questions” show up on all your favorite websites. Sadly, most websites fail at security questions. They’ve got the right idea, but they just choose crappy questions that aren’t really “secret”. If the answer can be found on a Facebook page, it’s not a good security question.
There’s other things that can be done too. Give users an option of 5 or 6 images on the login page and ask them to choose one. A picture is easy to remember for logging in (and instantly pops back into your mind when doing so.) Not only that, but the user isn’t very likely to write it down either and it’s not something likely to be shared with another website or found in the public domain.
Since most “identity thieves” simply brute force passwords, steal passwords with key loggers, or try passwords from other accounts, any creative login requirements can easily stop them dead in their tracks. It doesn’t really matter what extra step you take, so long as you help the user define their identity with something non-public that consists of more than just their hair color password.
Stopping “identity theft” starts with re-defining a user’s online identity, and ends with shifting responsibility back onto the companies who don’t do an adequate job of verifying that you’re really you.
If you’re like me and bought Madden 2010 for the Wii, you probably anxiously fired it up only to be severely disappointed when you weren’t able to find your beloved franchise mode. It’s not there! But don’t panic – franchise mode is there, but it’s hidden. When looking for other fun games to try, go to the next link and play the new aloha christmas slot game.
To unlock franchise mode, you have to go to the extras option and enter the cheat code: TEAMPLAYER
After that, you’ll see the franchise mode back where it belongs – on the menu.
I’m not sure why EA decided that Wii fans only like mini games (perhaps it has to do with the Wii play marketing mistake but either way it was a bad decision. It’s just going to turn Wii fans away from the Madden franchise.
Hopefully, one day the video game companies will learn that we care more about game play than how the graphics look. Hopefully that day comes soon.
I always laugh when I hear SEOs talk about so called “black hat” techniques. It’s amazing what some people consider “black hat” and “spammy” and what others consider “white hat” and perfectly fine. When it comes down to it there are tons of black hat type tricks out there, but they’re not the ones you’re thinking of. I had one of these style conversations earlier, so I figured I’d rant for a little bit about what is and isn’t black hat SEO.
You can’t be a great SEO and only wear a white hat. Part of what makes SEOs good at what we do is our constant desire to tinker and test things. Occasionally, testing stuff involves crossing the line and seeing how much we can get away with. The big difference though is that good, ethical SEOs don’t do this type of tinkering and testing with client accounts. We create small test sites (that may or may not be monetized or contain affiliate links) to do our tinkering on. It’s only by knowing what works and what doesn’t can we truly offer best in class advice to clients while still maintaining our in-depth knowledge of the search landscape.
Black Hats don’t talk about their techniques. There’s a whole industry cropping up in SEO blogging – SEOs who travel the country speaking about SEO and blogging about it, but who don’t actually have a personal stake in the game. Sure, they may take on some clients or have had clients in the past, but they don’t have any personal gains or losses on their own sites at stake. The black hat SEO tricks these people talk about aren’t really black hat – by the time they get blogged about they’re old hat.
Let me give an example. Last week there was a blog post talking about how you could get do-follow links from Twitter by creating your own application using their OAuth and a fake Twitter appilcation. Basically it let you get a nice link with whatever text you wanted at the bottom of every tweet. The day after this blog post got mentioned in the SEO blogs Twitter slapped a rel=nofollow tag on those links. That’s the difference between real black hat SEOs and people who just blog about SEO. Real black hats use the tricks to their advantage without feeling the desire to share them on a blog. Many of us were using that technique long before it was announced. In fact, a few of us had even forgotten about the tactic because it didn’t really work that well. Most Twitter profiles didn’t pass enough link juice for it to be worthwhile, and we figured it wouldn’t be long before Twitter got out their link condoms.
The same holds true for the stuff like hidden keywords, text way off the scrollable part of a page, noscripts, cloaking, etc. These things aren’t black hat, they’re old hat. Sure a lot of people are still using them, but not many actual SEOs. Google has long learned to protect against this stuff and we’ve long stopped testing it. Only idiots still do this stuff.
The black hat mentality isn’t just about search. The black hat mentality is about doing whatever you can to drive revenue. That could mean getting temporary rankings in Google or stuffing cookies to gain extra affiliate program revenues. The goal of a black hat isn’t to rank well, it’s to sell well. In fact, most black hat SEOs know they’re going to get banned for what they do – and that’s fine. The goal is to get the ranking (even for 1 day) and then sign those people up for affiliate programs or mailing lists (where we can continue to market to them.) Which brings me to my next point
Many black hat techniques aren’t applicable to legit businesses. Since black hats go into their project knowing they’re going to get banned, they don’t care what they do. The goal is to drive as much short term sales as possible and move on to something else. Minimum work, maximum payout. That’s not the model your brick and mortar business is in, so applying these techniques is akin to shooting yourself in the leg at a nightclub during football season. It’s not something you want to do.
Most SEOs don’t understand black hat vs white hat.At least once a month I talk to somebody who brags about having some “secret black hat seo success formula” that turns out to be nothing more than an actual best practice or good recommendation. They bring up things like alt and title tags, or using noscript tags to show text versions of javascript content. These are things most good SEOs suggest to do anyway. Of course, you also get the ones who say stuff like “use the keyword in the first sentence, last word of first paragraph, first word of 3rd paragraph, and 4th word from the end.” These people are just idiots. So is anybody who talks about keyword density.
Most black hats use their own tools. Sure, there’s a ton of tools out there that claim they’re for black hat SEO. You’ll see things like SEOnuke and Xrumer out there, but they’re not as effective as you’d think. Since most black hats don’t discuss their methods, they certainly don’t make tools for other black hats to use. In my experiments, I’ve always made my own custom tools to do what I want – or I’ve abused other tools out there in ways they weren’t meant to be used. Sure, you can buy stuff like Bookmark Demon and AutoPligg, but these tools really aren’t worth any money. The sites they submit to offer little to no value in links.
Black hat SEO isn’t just about search engines. Huh? How can it be SEO if it doesn’t involve search engines? That’s because black hat isn’t just SEO, it’s about making money. In many cases the black hat can be more successful by spamming Twitter or Myspace than he can by trying to rank high on search engines. Sending tweets and bulletins to idiots who’ve auto re-followed you takes a lot less work and is often times more profitable than trying to game the search engines.
I know this sounds like a rant, but I hope it helps people understand the world of black hat SEO as compared to what people think of it as. There’s really no true distinction between the color of any SEO’s hat – I like to think that we all wear a shade of gray. There certainly are some black hat techniques out there in use, but I wouldn’t recommend doing them for any clients or actual businesses that want to sustain long term viability on the web. I would, however, recommend grabbing a few domain names and testing your own hunches and theories. While some of them may be “black hat” or unethical, they can certainly be valuable in helping you understand how the search engines work and think.
When it comes to your business though, you should probably worry more about what your customers think and what they find useful. If you let that principle guide you, you really can’t go wrong – no matter what color hat you’re wearing.
I was talking with Brett the other day about marketing and web analytics and we got to the topic of correlation and causation among data and trends. Any web analyst can tell you that the data always tells a story. The good analysts can tell you whether or not that story makes sense, or if there’s some other underlying reason that the data says what it says.
The example I gave to Brett in this conversation was that of Wii Play and the mistake that many video game manufacturers made when looking at its sales data. For those of you who aren’t familiar with Wii Play, it was a series of mini games similar to Wii Sports. When Wii Play came out, 2 things were happening in the market. The Wii was at the peak of its popularity – but more importantly, retailers were finally just starting to get Wiis back in stock and be able to keep up with the demand.
Anyway, Wii Play flew off the shelves. Retailers had a hard time keeping it in stock, and almost everybody who bought a Wii also purchased Wii Play. Video game manufacturers looked at the sales numbers and started screaming “MOAR MINI GAMES” at the top of their lungs. All of a sudden most of the new games were all in the style of Wii Play – but they didn’t sell. Go into your local GameStop and you’ll see the shelves fully stocked with used copies of mini games.
Was Wil Play just that much better than the rest of the mini games? Did the market suddenly shift? NO!
What the sales numbers didn’t show is that Wii Play also included an extra Wii controller, and only cost around $10 more than buying the controller by itself. Add in the fact that this was a high sales time for the Wii system and the story becomes clear: People had just bought Wiis and needed an extra controller. Seeing that they could spend $10 more and get a game as well, many of them opted to get Wii Play instead of a controller by itself.
That’s a story that the numbers alone didn’t tell, and it’s a mistake that many internet marketers and analysts tend to make.
The way to avoid this is to un-silo yourself from one discipline and start looking at the bigger picture. If your company sells cell phones, then all of your marketers, analysts, SEOs, PMs, etc should not only be sharing data with each other, but they should be reading the cell phone blogs and magazines out there. They should take trips to the store and shop the cell phone departments. In other words, it pays to think like a customer and get the whole picture of what’s happening in the marketplace. Then, combined with the data, you can make a very well educated business decision.
I can’t take credit for the following, as it came my way through a chain email. I’ve tried searching for it on the web, but can’t find an original author. All the results I can find reference finding it through email or from a reader. Anyway, it’s a good description of how the government today works. Enjoy:
It is the month of August, a resort town sits next to the shores of a lake. It is raining, and the little town looks totally deserted. It is tough times, everybody is in debt, and everybody lives on credit.
Suddenly, a rich tourist comes to town. He enters the only hotel, lays a 100 dollar bill on the reception counter, and goes to inspect the rooms upstairs in order to pick one.
The hotel proprietor takes the 100 dollar bill and runs to pay his debt to the butcher.
The Butcher takes the 100 dollar bill, and runs to pay his debt to the pig raiser.
The pig raiser takes the 100 dollar bill, and runs to pay his debt to the supplier of his feed and fuel.
The supplier of feed and fuel takes the 100 dollar bill and runs to pay his debt to the town’s prostitute that in these hard times, gave her “services” on credit.
The hooker runs to the hotel, and pays off her debt with the 100 dollar bill to the hotel proprietor to pay for the rooms that she rented when she brought her clients there.
The hotel proprietor then lays the 100 dollar bill back on the Counter so that the rich tourist will not suspect anything.
At that moment, the rich tourist comes down after inspecting the rooms, and takes his 100 dollar bill, after saying that he did not like any of the rooms, and leaves town.
No one earned anything. However, the whole town is now without debt, and looks to the future with a lot of optimism.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how the United States Government is doing business today.
There’s an interesting article in the New York Times claiming that Wikipedia is de-valuing the Rorschach test by including the 10 ink blot images and their most common associated terms as part of its article.
The controversy started on June 29th when Dr. James Heilman decided to include all the images and research about common terms in the wikipedia page. The images still remain, but the terms were taken down later amid protest from those in the scientific community. Of course, due to how Wikipedia works, those terms are still available in the history page.
Just in case that somehow gets removed, here’s a screen shot:
click for larger image
Personally, I understand where the scientific community is coming from, but their anger is many years too late. My college psych class included most of this information in the textbook – and that was printed sometime in the 80s. Anybody could have walked into the store and purchased the book and gotten way more “potential bias” information from there than they could find on Wikipedia. Why wasn’t there outrage over textbooks?
My personal view as a computer scientist who only took the required 3 psychology classes in college is that the Rorschach test is pretty useless. It’s a good measure of how well somebody conforms to the status quo, but that’s about it.
One standard test that never changes questions is generally a bad idea in a lot of fields. Eye charts are one that comes to mind – with no doubt thousands of people having memorized “E FP TOZ LPED PECFD…” (That’s all I remember off the top of my head.) How many of you have cheated at the eye dr when they ask you to read the same line with your left eye that you just read with your right eye? It’s not a very valid test.
Rorschach is one of those tests. Anybody seriously trying to cheat the test is going to be able to do so whether or not the images and terms appear on Wikipedia. Once the data is out there anywhere (even textbooks!) it’s out there and will be found out by those wanting to abuse it.
On a side note though, if (and I doubt it) the publication of this data will really have an impact on the test, that means we can make it have the opposite impact too. It might be fun to alter the “normal terms” and see how many people confidently walk into their psychologist’s office and proudly proclaim that the butterfly image is really “a man hang gliding over the city with an ak47 raining a deadly hail of bullets onto those below him.”
I’m hearing a lot of talk about the Government’s new Cash for Clunkers program right now. Almost every radio show is talking about it and car dealers are hurrying to educate customers about it, but listening to the radio today I heard tons of confusion about the program. The radio hosts didn’t know the specifics, and some of the callers had misguided information.
If you’re trying to find out about the cash for clunkers program, there’s a great flowchart out there that can help you decide.
Basically, cash for clunkers is a rebate program. It’s money taken off the sticker price of a car and given directly to the car dealer when you purchase a new car.
If your car meets all of these qualifications, it’s eligible to trade in under the program. Then, your rebate amount depends upon the new car you are purchasing. If your new car gets 22mpg or more, you will be elgible for a $3,500 rebate applied to your new car. As a bonus, if the new car gets 10 miles per gallon more than the one you’re trading in, you’ll get a $4,500 rebate.
It’s no secret that personal branding has become huge lately. In today’s society, brands are everything. Don’t believe me? Just look at the logo on your t-shirt or shoes.
In the field of SEO and marketing, it’s just as important to market yourself as a brand as it is for larger companies like Nike and Coke. When it comes down to it, anybody selling consulting services is really just selling themselves. Willy Loman knew it, but it took a long time for it to finally become prominent on the web.
dotCULT does a great job for me, but it’s more of my blog and less about selling me as a professional. So, I’ve downloaded the latest version of WordPress and this cool new Ipseity theme and got to work. It’s a pretty simple theme and I had it up and running in no time. Check it out on my new personal site: Ryan Jones.
I haven’t fully decided between RyanMJones.com, RyanJones.ws, or RyanJones.info – however I may just use it to do some 301/302 style testing on search results in the future. Let me know which domain name you like better and why.
The only issue I had with the Ipseity theme is that it doesn’t work without Javascript, so it would be pretty hard for search engines to find the 2nd and 3rd page data. I fixed that by switching WordPress over to custom URLS, and adding in links to each post individually that only show up if a user has JavaScript disabled. You’ll notice it also removes the arrow links for users without JavaScript, as they wouldn’t work anyway.
It’s a pretty clever technique that makes the site useful and “cool” for users, while still showing links to the content to search engines. It’s still not perfect from an SEO perspective, but the folks at Ipseity have gotten off to a good start and I’m going to keep tweaking at the theme.
Update: My snarky post has been mentioned on TechDirt
This is a response to one of the most asinine posts I’ve ever seen on Techcrunch calling for transparency and disclosure of search engine algorithms.
The following post was written by a semi-well known blogger. The author has purposely posted his name on the article because he stands behind what he says and isn’t afraid of criticism.
He is starting a discussion on the need for government regulation of Techcrunch due to their extremely asinine views somehow getting picked up and ran with across the blogosphere. There is clearly growing frustration on the constantly deteriorating quality of content being posted to the site.
Imagine if you will all of the world’s venture capitalists were girls in a night club, and that the only way to get into this night club was to get passed the bouncer at the gate. The bouncer is named Techcrunch and he decides who’s “cool” and who isn’t – only his standards of cool are way off and often are just based on who you know. The bouncer knows nothing of actually succeeding in the market, but relies on his friends to tell him what works best and what doesn’t.
In a world like this, friends of the bouncer would have an unfair advantage getting the girls. Sure, you could hope to meet a girl at work, but that’s not very likely – they’ve all already met girls at the club. That’s how today’s tech startup world is. Those lucky enough to have contacts and get talked about on Techcrunch have an unfair advantage. We need government regulation so that every startup and business receives equal coverage on Techcrunch.
Do companies pay to get coverage on Techcrunch? It needs to be disclosed. What about those who donate crap in order to get mentions. We need transparency here. Do anonymous posters and guest contributors get paid? How much? What companies do these contributors work for? What do they stand to gain by posting their articles?
Alright, enough of this crap, let’s look at the actual post and why the author is an idiot.
Let’s ignore the glaring fact that an anonymous writer is calling for transparency and disclosure for a minute. Let’s also ignore that Mr Anonymous probably works for a company that has a lot to gain of Google were forced to reveal its algorithm. Let’s get to the heart of his argument.
Before I dig deeper into your article, I’d simply like to remind you that being listed in, or ranked well on Google isn’t a right.
Also remember, thanks to Pagerank, Google isn’t really ranking websites. WE ALL ARE – whenever we link to another site in our blog posts.
Based on how Google actually works, your LA analogy couldn’t be more off. Search engines don’t “gate access” to anything. From what Google has shared about their algorithm, and how it’s based on links from other sites, they’re simply presenting the websites that are most talked about. A better analogy for you to use would be “imagine if you could only shop at the stores in LA that everybody was talking about.” That wouldn’t be so bad at all. In fact, it would be favorable. Imagine if you could only listen to the songs that everybody else wanted to listen to – you’d have a popular radio station. Do it with websites and you’d have a popular search engine. That’s what Google did. Shame on them for giving users what they want.
You then jump strangely into a rant about “arbitrary accounts” yet fail to provide even one example of an account that was arbitrarily shut down or a website that was arbitrarily removed. The fact is, Google doesn’t arbitrarily shut down accounts or websites. There’s no incentive for them to do so, nor is there a reason. Now, don’t confuse that with shutting down accounts for violating trademark and copyright reasons, posting ads to viruses and trojans, or doing other evil things. It’s also important not to consider sites removed for spamming, or forcing users to download malware. In both of these cases, it’s not in a searcher’s best interest to be shown these sites. If Google returned spammy or malware sites for searches, users would get pissed off. The same is true for misleading trademark ads. If an ad says “microsoft office” and I click it and am shown “open office” I’d be pissed off. It’s not about “arbitrarily banning sites” at all. It’s simply about giving users what they want.
Regulation, is not something users want. I’m not sure how old you are because you didn’t share your information with us, but you clearly don’t remember the past. If you were around in 1995 you would have noticed that search engines like AltaVista were the top dogs – and their algorithms were pretty clear. They simply looked at META tags and the amount of times a keyword appeared on a page. What you may not remember from back then though is how irrelevant many competitive keywords were. Search for a popular musician and all you saw was porn. Search for a new car, and you got porn.
Once spammers knew how the search engines worked they were able to easily rank for highly searched terms. In fact, the main reason Google became number 1 is because it was harder to manipulate its algorithm and rank well. Searchers quickly saw that they were getting better results and jumped ship.
Making algorithms public would actually be a step backwards in terms of progress. I suggest you go read up on the history of search and search engines before pretending to spout off on a topic you clearly know nothing about.
The worst part though, is that many SEOs can tell you The Algorithm Doesn’t Matter. Honestly when it comes to performing effective SEO, it doesn’t matter if H1 is weighted .75 times more than <b> and that the first word in a title is 1.35 times more important than the 3rd word.
You want an algorithm, here it is:
1.) Sites that are useful to visitors will rank high.
2.) Popular sites that are useful to visitors will rank higher.
3.) Sites that don’t offer any value to the web or are irrelevant to the query won’t rank well.
4.) Sites that are harmful or spammy won’t be included in the i ndex.
Seriously, that’s Google’s algorithm in plain English. There’s your disclosure. The weighting factors and code behind it don’t matter – these principles are all you really need to know.
If anything needs to be regulated, it’s news sites who don’t disclose their sources. This type of shit would never fly in the New York Times, WSJ, or any other reputable publication. They surely wouldn’t allow an anonymous article written by a non expert who clearly has something to gain if his position is adopted – and they’d at least take the time to research their claims and provide examples.
I was talking with Brett the other day about marketing and web analytics and we got to the topic of correlation and causation among data and trends. Any web analyst can tell you that the data always tells a story. The good analysts can tell you whether or not that story makes sense, or if there’s some other underlying reason that the data says what it says.
