According to YouTube, the newest site design reflects the transition from a video-based site to a channels-based site. These new design changes were also made to encourage more subscriptions, discovery, engagement, and social interaction. Quite simply, YouTube wants to learn what users like and provide them with a steady stream of personalized content. The most obvious recent changes follow the video recap.

Found Video Recap

The YouTube Guide

One major change YouTube made is adding the Guide section to every single page, not just the home page. This allows you to watch channel videos and recommended videos based on your subscriptions at any point, helping prevent the dreaded “How did I end up here?” feeling. For instance, I started out watching a video from Google Webmaster, which was definitely relevant to my job. Somehow, though, I ended up watching “M.E.T.H.O.D. Man” by Wu-Tang Clan, which was not actually that relevant. Lucky for me, I’ve subscribed to several work-related channels, so I easily clicked on my Guide and got back to GoogleBusiness. For video creators, this is good news, as subscribers will see their content more frequently, on every page.

Other December 2012 YouTube Changes

Other than adding the Guide to all pages, there are a few other updates. For instance, YouTube video pages no longer feature the title above the content, instead displaying it and social actions below the main video. Not necessarily the end of the world, since the title will still display in feeds and searches, but still a notable change. In my opinion, this change makes it more important to hook viewers right away with great-looking content, not just a catchy title.

Along with the title placement change, YouTube has also updated its mobile and tablet versions, so you can experience the new look and feel across multiple devices.

Summary

Ultimately, the new features that YouTube has implemented work together to provide a more predictive, personalized experience for users, and their ultimate goal is to get users to subscribe to specific channels and categories. Even though there were a few recommended videos and channels that missed the mark for Direct Online Marketing, there were also some that were right on target, and of course having access to our subscriptions’ content from any page was much more convenient than constantly navigating back to our home page feed. If you sometimes feel a little overwhelmed by all of the random, weird YouTube videos, check out the new features. They might help you discover more of the video content you actually want to watch.

Kristen Watson Perko

Kristen Watson Perko is a Digital Marketing Manager at Direct Online Marketing.

More Posts - Twitter

Bing now offers a new Webmaster function called Disavow Links that might help ease your pain and let you cut those binding, negative SEO ties. According to Bing, you can “use the Disavow links tool to submit page, folder, or domain URLs that may contain links to your site that seem “unnatural” or appear to be from spammy or low quality sites.” You can add shady domains, directories, and pages, letting Bing know that you don’t want to be associated with them.

Will it fix things?

Probably not completely. First of all, Bing’s Disavow Links tool doesn’t really have anything to do with Google, and you may have noticed that Google is a pretty big player when it comes to search. Second, while disavowing links will help Bing understand your intent, the official word is that it won’t drastically boost your rankings in Bing search results. So if you’re only concerned with search engine rank, this may not help you. In my opinion, though, it can’t hurt to identify and clean up bad links.

So?

Overall, I think it’s a pretty awesome concept and it’s a tool that I will definitely be exploring more in depth. It’ll be interesting to see if Google will offer something similar anytime soon, especially if their tool does have an effect on rank. After all, it may have been their idea in the first place…

Kristen Watson Perko

Kristen Watson Perko is a Digital Marketing Manager at Direct Online Marketing.

More Posts - Twitter

Dear Google Places,
This isn’t working out. You’re unpredictable, inflexible, and sneaky, but lately, I find myself spending more time with you than ever. I can’t stand that you’re such an important fixture in my life, but to be honest, I’d be lost without you. I wish that you would stop going behind my back and giving me false information, but what can I do? You’ve made it impossible for me to break things off, and we both know I’d be forced to come back to you eventually. So I’ll remain optimistic and keep waiting, GP, because in time, I know you’ll change.

Sincerely,
Kristen

Will Google Places Ever Shape Up?

Personally, I’ve never been the type to stick out a bad relationship, so it pains me that Google’s issues remain unresolved. In theory, Google Places should provide accurate information to make it easier for people to call, click, or visit a specific location. Since owners or reps are able to verify the business listing and make edits, users should be able to find the most correct, up-to-date information.

The Found Video Recap

Unfortunately, Google doesn’t seem to care that many owners or reps actually take the time to find, verify, and edit their listings. Many of our clients have gone to great lengths to maintain their local listings, but then their information gets changed without warning. We often give the bad news: anyone can change listings, including Google, customers, and even competitors. This can result in listings that are completely, utterly wrong.

Example of how Google Places often fails:

Pretend you’re Bob, the owner of Bob’s Pizza Shop. This morning, you discovered that someone changed your shop’s name on Google Places to Frank’s Taco Stand. It wasn’t totally irrational…Frank’s went out of business 2 years ago, but you bought the building. It’s okay though, because you’ve claimed your listing.

So you log into your Places dashboard to change the name back to Bob’s Pizza Shop, but from your end the name is still correct. You can resubmit, but there’s no telling if that will matter. Cross your fingers and wait for a few days.

If that still doesn’t work, you might have to Report a Problem. Even if that does the trick, this won’t be the only time this happens. While you could ignore your listing, you may end up losing business.

There’s no denying that local search and Google Places have become much more important in recent months, but they also have a long way to go in terms of reliability and dependability. One step Google could take is to verify any 3rd party changes with the claimed listing’s owner. Or at least send “hey, we’re changing this” notifications so the setup doesn’t seem so secretive. After all, communication is key for any successful relationship.

We’ll keep you updated on future improvements, but are there any features you’d like to see for Google Places or local listing sites in general? Alternately, how about other bad blog post titles based on popular Journey songs?

View the video recap:

Kristen Watson Perko

Kristen Watson Perko is a Digital Marketing Manager at Direct Online Marketing.

More Posts - Twitter

The Found Video Recap

As you may have noticed, we’re adding video from the author to all our blog posts now that serve to give additional, related information or visually recap. We’re still playing around with everything, but we expect it to enhance your Found experience. So here’s me with my current favorite Google Store toy – the DOM Found team is up for any and all dodgeball challengers. Note there’s much more to this post beneath the video, so keep scrolling!

Google AdWords Trademark Policy (U.S., Search Network)

The case is all about trademark usage by non-trademark holders, which we’ve talked about before.*  In a nutshell, Google’s current policy – and it wasn’t always this way – for the U.S. allows advertisers to advertise on any keyword they’d like regardless of trademark.  What they cannot do in some instances is use that trademarked term in their ad copy, provided that a trademark complaint has been filed with and accepted by AdWords legal counsel.

* Trademark usage also came up regarding natural search engine results in a case where we brought in attorney and friend-of-DOM Chris Gardill to provide expert legal opinion.

Here’s Google AdWords’ official trademark policy.  You’ll note they have different trademark standards for different geographic regions.  In some places outside the United States, a trademark owner can actually prevent other advertisers from serving up ads on their trademark terms.

Also worth a read is their policy for resellers and informational sites.  It’s probably worthy of its own post, but what I’ll note here is that just because you meet all these requirements doesn’t mean Google will approve your ad even after a manual review.  We’d suggest requesting approval directly from the trademark owner if possible – Google will tell you whom to contact if you contact them.  Once you get that approval, it should cover you for future ads as well so you don’t have to get held up every time you write a new ad (and it covers you for display ads, which are not covered by the reseller policy).  Does Google do that as a CYA?  Probably, but following this recommendation may be the best way to get your ads up as quickly as possible.

Rosetta Stone LTD v. Google, Incorporated Summary

So, why exactly is this ruling from the Fourth Circuit important?  Google had previously won summary judgment against Rosetta Stone from a U.S. District Court in Virginia.  That’s pretty much what’s been happening for awhile now to the point where Google attorneys have won so often that often trademark owners have been just going after the advertisers infringing on their names, rather than trying to beat the G Machine.

Since no one actually calls Google counsel the G Machine, here's a picture of the Mean Machine. Any commenter who says I should have pulled from Adam Sandler's version is asking for an MP!

For a better and more detailed history of lawsuits, check out the excellent Technology & Marketing Law Blog from Eric Goldman.  Interestingly enough, Eric also served as a Limited Intervenor in this case. Those – I’m told – are folks that say they’re a party who has rights related to the suit.  Specifically in Eric’s case, he was doing it for freedom of press purposes as some of the court records were sealed.  I don’t know what was sealed, but it’s not hard to imagine it would have to do with Google’s technology behind its paid search platform.  If that’s the case and they would have to publicly release how, say, their auction actually works, that could be the most damaging part of the case to Google.  Again, that’s just pure speculation.

This time around, the Court of Appeals disagreed with the District Court (and Google) on several points and sent it back to them to hear the case on those specific points.  Let’s look at each of the points.

Just note that in sending back the case to be tried on these points the Court of Appeals is not saying that Google’s stance is wrong and that it has violated trademark rights.  What it is saying is that the District Court was wrong to have awarded Google summary judgment, which means that the District Court found Rosetta Stone’s arguments to be without any merit worthy of actually being tried.

With that, here we go.  Just be aware that I’m writing as a search engine marketer and not as an attorney, which I am not, although I did discuss parts of the ruling with attorneys to gain a clearer understanding.

Direct Infringement

Rosetta Stone made appeal on two separate counts regarding direct infringement, both of which were vacated by the Court of Appeals:

Likelihood of Confusion

A response to this count took up many pages of the ruling and it’s all worth reading.  The biggest part that jumped out to me was that Google itself had run internal studies in the past that indicated allowing advertisers to run ads on trademarked terms would be confusing to searchers.

The Court specifically notes that when Google AdWords changed its policy in 2004 to allow advertisers to run on trademarked terms (prior to this time, they were not), Google did not allow trademarked terms to appear in ad text from non-trademark owners under any circumstances specifically for that reason.  The policy for resellers and informational sites linked above is relatively new.  The first instance of advertisers being allowed to use the trademarked term in ad text in any circumstances did not happen until five years later in 2009.

This section also had a note about the sophistication of consumers and the common searcher knowing the difference between paid ads and natural listings.  Anecdotally – although from speaking with many, many people over the years – I don’t believe this is the case.  Many people don’t recognize the difference at all and that’s not to mention how Google keeps making the box shading lighter and lighter so that it barely appears on some resolutions.  Others do know there’s a difference, but don’t understand exactly what the difference is.

Functionality

In short, the Court of Appeals felt that the “functionality doctrine” did not apply to this case (which the District Court did).  Basically, the District Court believed that the trademarked terms made Google’s product (search results) more functional.  The Court of Appeals said that was not the standard and that the question is whether the trademarked term is functional specifically in how Rosetta Stone used it.

Basically, Rosetta Stone’s products would function no differently if it had a completely, unrelated name.  The most interesting part about this section of ruling is that it references a case between Playboy and Netscape.  I bring that up solely so I can add in this picture to increase page views:

What? You don't think the world's first modern Web browser is sexy?

Contributory Infringement

Another really interesting one in that it directly addresses Google’s involvement as a middleman.  The Court explains contributory infringement by referencing a Supreme Court case stating:

if a manufacturer or distributor intentionally induces another to infringe on a trademark, or if it continues to supply its product to one whom it knows or has reason to know is engaging in trademark infringement, the manufacturer or distributor is contributorily responsible for any harm done as a result of the deceit.

So what Rosetta Stone is claiming in this regard is that Google had to know that infringers and counterfeiters would bid on its trademarked name.  To support its claim, Rosetta Stone referenced nearly 200 examples over a 3-month period of fraudulent advertising on its name.  Beyond just arguing that because they kept popping up Google was responsible for more due diligence (which would be an interesting challenge in and of itself), Rosetta Stone argued that the same companies continued to advertise fraudulently on their name by doing different Web sites.

Trademark Dilution

A major difference between trademark infringement and dilution is that dilution doesn’t deal with marketplace confusion or protecting consumers – just the company.  The trademark dilution claim is going back to District Court for trial for a couple reasons.  An important one is that Rosetta Stone doesn’t have to show that Google was using the trademark to promote its own products.  Google’s policies – the Court of Appeals argues – can cause trademark dilution that it could be liable for regardless of whether Google is using Rosetta Stone’s name to promote itself.

Something else discussed could matter for advertisers that have been around awhile: namely the question of when Rosetta Stone’s marks became “famous.”  So, if you’ve had a “famous” trademark prior to 2004 (when Google changed its trademark policy to allow advertisers to bid on them), the outcome of the trial on appeal could be very important to you.  There also remains the question of dates as Google’s other significant trademark policy change in 2009 where trademarks could be used in ad text in limited circumstances could be used as a dividing line for trademark fame.

Upheld Claims: Vicarious Infringement & Unjust Enrichment

Finally, in case you’re interested – and if you’ve made it this far through the post you must – the Court of Appeals upheld the District Court’s award of summary judgment regarding vicarious infringement and unjust enrichment.  These will not be tried when the case goes back to be tried at the district level.

Vicarious infringement basically means that Google would have to be in cahoots directly with the advertisers, for which Rosetta Stone had no evidence and frankly, I can’t imagine happening.  For unjust enrichment, Rosetta Stone makes an argument that Google knows it’s making money off of Rosetta Stone”s name unfairly.  However, to argue this feature (which is Virginia law), they would have to show that Google “should reasonably have expected” to have to pay Rosetta Stone for such, which they did not claim and would have a hard time proving one would imagine.

Takeaways

Other than just general thoughts on trademark usage for advertisers, the biggest outcome at the moment is really left hanging in the air like a “Stay tuned for the next exciting episode” message at the end of a show.  So check back in soon – same Bat Time (when it gets placed on the docket), Same Bat Channel (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia).  You know Google will be on pins and needles for the outcome.

NB – I’m biased, but I just want to add that it’s hard not to come away impressed with our court systems when reading through these cases.  Cases are seriously considered by intelligent women and men trying their best to get the answers right.  Just as important, there’s a checks and balances system where incorrect (whether perceived or real) rulings can be appealed through several layers providing there is some merit to the appeal.

Justin Seibert

Justin Seibert is the President of Direct Online Marketing. He regularly speaks on search engine marketing, social media optimization, and online reputation management and was named a 2012 Top 25 Most Influential Pay Per Click Expert by Hanapin. Follow him on twitter. Why not check out the company on facebook while you're at it?

More Posts - Twitter - LinkedIn - Google Plus

What is Astroturfing?

Astroturfing - not just for the Brady Bunch's backyard anymore. Image courtesy BleacherReport.com.

If you’re not familiar, astroturfing is when you write fake reviews for a company – either positive reviews for your own, or negative ones for a competitor.  The term came about because you’re faking a grass roots effort.  It can expand to beyond just review sites, such as with this old, but classic example of Wal-marting Across America.

* And it’s  not just because when I was single I made an astroturf table that proudly centerpieced in our bachelor pad.  As you can guess, this table did not make the trip with me upon moving in with my wife.  While I accept that it was tacky and that many people – particularly of the female persuasion who have “taste” – did not like it,  man, I still miss that thing.

How do Review Sites Detect Astroturfing?

So, we can all agree astroturfing is bad, right?  I mean, save for its use on home furnishings.  If the reviews aren’t real – and lots of times you can spot fake ones immediately – you lose faith in the reviews for that business on that review site.  Happen too often and users will stop trusting and using those sites altogether.

Review sites like Google Places, Yelp, Cars.com, and TripAdvisor all have different systems, but one of the big ways they automatically guard against astroturfing is by checking the ip address the reviewer is using to connect to the internet while leaving the review.

Virtually all of them have their own proprietary formula to detect other patterns of regularity as well.  They don’t give this out to anyone.  About the worst thing that could happen is that the spammers know exactly how to beat the system, so you don’t want to give them the blueprint for doing so.

And once you get detected – falsely or not – you’ll typically get punished.  If you’re lucky, you’ll get notified.

How TripAdvisor Notifies Businesses of Astroturfing Violations

If you run afoul of TripAdvisor, here’s an email you might get from contentintegrity@tripadvisor.com:

Subject: Official Notification from TripAdvisor

To Whom It May Concern at [redacted],

TripAdvisor serves as an important source of travel information, which users rely on to be the unbiased opinions of travelers. The reliability of our content is integral to our business, and we take attempts to undermine it very seriously. This letter has been sent due to patterns of activity on your listing which raise our concern. In light of this anomaly in review activity, we are encouraging you to familiarize yourself with our content integrity policies, which can be found here: http://www.tripadvisor.com/help/what_is_considered_fraud

Please note that your property has not been penalized for the activity which prompted this letter, and that our intent is simply to raise your overall awareness about TripAdvisor’s guidelines and policies.In the event that you discover that anyone in your organization— including owners, staff, and third-party vendors (marketing companies, web developers, etc.) — are participating in any of these activities, please see that they discontinue these actions immediately.

If an attempt is made to subvert our system, TripAdvisor may take one or more of the following actions on your property listing:

• Drop it by several pages in the TripAdvisor popularity index
• Post a large red penalty notice, explaining that the reviews are suspicious
• Exclude it from TripAdvisor’s Travelers Choice awards, Top 10 lists, press releases, etc.

We understand that you may have a few questions after receiving this notice, such as:

“I don’t understand why I received this letter. We haven’t submitted reviews for our own property or others.”

We suggest familiarizing yourself with our review moderation and fraud detection policies. Then, speak with your staff, as well as third-party vendors (webmaster, marketing companies, etc.) and remind them of these policies. Subversive activity on TripAdvisor can result in long-lasting penalties for your business.

“What action should I take to rectify this situation?”

TripAdvisor’s privacy policy prohibits us from sharing the details of our findings, so we will not be able to furnish you with any information regarding the nature of the violation we’ve detected. However, if you or a member of your staff has violated our guidelines, please feel to contact us by replying to this email.

For information on how to solicit reviews, manage and promote your listing, please visit your Owners’ Center: http://www.tripadvisor.com/Owners

For more information on review moderation and fraud detection, please visit our Help Center:http://www.tripadvisor.com/help/postingandediting#c0

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

The TripAdvisor Support Team, Content Integrity

They then go on to repeat the same message in Italian and German, or at least did in this one email to a US-based former client.

It’s pretty awesome that they notify you of the potential violations and allow you a direct forum to respond, particularly if you found out that you were doing something wrong.  Hey – it happens.  A lot of times employees or other stakeholders will see an issue with some negative reviews and take matters into their own hands – not knowing they are likely to cause more harm than good.

And while the potential penalties are harsh, they let you know what they can be and that they might happen to you…unlike certain search engines we won’t mention.

Justin Seibert

Justin Seibert is the President of Direct Online Marketing. He regularly speaks on search engine marketing, social media optimization, and online reputation management and was named a 2012 Top 25 Most Influential Pay Per Click Expert by Hanapin. Follow him on twitter. Why not check out the company on facebook while you're at it?

More Posts - Twitter - LinkedIn - Google Plus

It’s a great concept, really. In case you didn’t know, you have 10 “Best Ever” medals to award to your most beloved places, from your favorite coffee shop to your cable company. You may be able to go around handing out 5 star reviews to hundreds of businesses, but not so with medals. However, if you find a new place you love even more than the last, don’t worry—you can remove and reassign your medals. If your business receives—and keeps—a “Best Ever” medal, consider it an achievement.

If you’ve made it a point to follow all of Google’s frequent product updates, you might already be using medal ratings, or you at least know where to find them. Most of you who are familiar with Google Places probably recognize the reviews section. When you visit a business’s Google Places listing, you can leave a review if you’re signed into your Google account and have created a Google Places profile for leaving ratings. You can leave star ratings from 1-5 and you can also include longer reviews if you feel like it.

But you can’t leave a “Best Ever” review from the main listing page (or on your iPhone app). You also can’t leave “Best Ever” reviews by clicking on Google Places in your list of products, because it takes you here:

Because you are trying to leave ratings, not create your own business listing, the best way to access the Google Places dashboard where you can leave “Best Ever” reviews is by going directly to http://www.google.com/places/.  I mean, I could go into using the now technically defunct Google Hotpot, but to keep it simple, just take my advice and memorize the Google Places URL. Or bookmark it.

You should see this screen after going to the main Places URL. Click on the blue “Start rating” button on the left.

After you hit the blue button, you should see this screen. Once you’re here, you can finally start awarding those coveted “Best Ever” medals.

So, the next time you’re getting ready to leave yet another 5 star review for a place that you feel actually deserves a little bit more, remember the medals. And businesses, take note…it’s not quite as easy for someone to leave a “Best Ever” rating, and to make the top 10, services and products should be great, not just good.

Kristen Watson Perko

Kristen Watson Perko is a Digital Marketing Manager at Direct Online Marketing.

More Posts - Twitter

What Is Retargeting?

Before we get into some of the neat ways people are using retargeting for extended reach and conversion, let’s start with the basics.  Skip to the next headline if you’re already familiar.

I like to refer to retargeting as a second bite of the apple.  Some other people call it ‘cyberstalking,’ while still others call it ‘creepy.’  Some online marketers just call it “effective.”  Here’s how traditional retargeting works:

Friendly Visitor (or FV as she will now be known) visits your site.  FV has a cookie uploaded to their browser.  FV leaves your site.  As FV goes along her merry way, she visits other Web sites who sell remnant ad space through a third party network.  Utilizing this third party network for retargeting, your ads continue to follow FV across a variety of Web sites.  You have control over a variety of factors.  Depending on who you’re using for retargeting, these include:

• Bid
• Bid type (CPC, CPM, CPA)
• Ad type (image, text, video, dynamic) and variation
• Length of time the cookie remains on the browser, assuming FV doesn’t wipe it clean.  Varies from instantly up to 30 days.
• Different messaging based on what page was visited
• Different messaging depending on whether the person has converted or not
• Which sites and types of sites are eligible to show your ad (brand protection).

How Well Does Retargeting Work?

Like with all forms of internet marketing – and really, life – your mileage may vary.  But all things being equal, advertisers typically see a ton of ad impressions at a very low cost.  Often times we see that they pick up a number of conversions at a good conversion rate and low cost per conversion, though the scale often isn’t there unless the site has huge traffic volume.

Retargeting or Remarketing: What’s the Difference?

One of the platforms offering retargeting, Google AdWords refers to it as remarketing?  Why?  I have no idea – ask whoever is in charge of their branding.  There’s no difference.  It’s kind of like if Pittsburgh were a company that produced rubber bands and they called them ‘gum bands’ while the rest of the world just kept calling them rubber bands.   But, what is really nice is the ability to run retargeting campaigns directly out of your paid search account with Google.

Creative Uses of Retargeting

With the basics out of the way, let’s talk about some interesting ways retargeting is being used today:

• Rectifying shopping cart abandonment. Lose people during the shopping cart process?  Target just the people that added items to their cart (or made it to a specific page), but didn’t complete their order.  Offer them a coupon or free shipping or however you want to entice them to finish their purchase.
• Saving the lead. Similar to shopping cart abandonment, but for lead gen.  Encourage persons who made it to one of your offer pages, but didn’t sign up.  Just be aware that the person may have chosen to give you a call instead of filling out a form.
• New ad offering for publishers. One of our truck dealer clients forwarded us an email from a publisher in their industry offering their own retargeting.  Randall Reilly is offering their advertisers and truck dealers whom they’d like to become clients a pretty cool deal.  They will serve up an advertiser’s ads to people who have visited their site.  I don’t know any specifics so I can’t endorse it, but love the idea.  Kudos to Randall Reilly!
• Search retargeting. Here’s a really fun one.  As mentioned above, traditional retargeting when someone has visited your site.  How else would they get the cookie on there?  If you have a strong click through rate, maybe you’ve captured 5% of the people who have searched. The other 95% is lost forever – or are they?Well, some enterprising platforms have come up with a solution and allow you to retarget people who have searched for a particular term, but not visited your site.  I’m pretty sure it’s done with magic cookies – which one would assume are different from magic brownies – but the possibilities are endless here.  We especially love retargeting folks who have searched for your competitors.The three search retargeting industry leaders  – Chango, Magnetic, and Simpli.fi – offer key differences from one another.  Their minimums range from $5k to $30k per month.  As of right now, Simpli.fi is the only one offering a self-service platform, although Magnetic has one in beta that is supposed to launch Q1 2012.
• (Update) Cross Channel.  Standard retargeting is not limited to just your Web site.  You can drop cookies anywhere where people are using the internet to reach you, including email and social media properties like facebook.  Hat tip to Caroline at Retargeter, a self-service retargeting platform, who mentioned these in the comments.

Update 2: Chango reached out to provide a nice graphic called the 7 Types of Retargeting. You can click on that link to download, or read more from their blog post on the same subject.

Update 3: Facebook opened up its ad exchange (FBX) to facebook retargeting in December.  Now you can site retarget to visitors when they’re on facebook.

Hope this recap is helpful.  As with most of the topics about which we blog, if you want a firm to handle your retargeting efforts, let us know – we’d love to help!

Justin Seibert

Justin Seibert is the President of Direct Online Marketing. He regularly speaks on search engine marketing, social media optimization, and online reputation management and was named a 2012 Top 25 Most Influential Pay Per Click Expert by Hanapin. Follow him on twitter. Why not check out the company on facebook while you're at it?

More Posts - Twitter - LinkedIn - Google Plus

Actually, I meant Pittsburgh Pirates, but we do celebrate International Talk Like a Pirate Day around these seas.

If you’ve been reading this blog for awhile or have spoken to me ever, you probably know one thing about me: I’m obsessed (cursed?) with the Pirates.

If you know a second thing, it’s how strongly I feel all businesses need to understand how their online reputation can either help them get more business or have money snatched out of their tills.

Last week we updated you on a sea change for how Google now handles outside reviews.  Namely: it no longer lists them on the Places pages themselves.  Google said it’s because of recent feedback; others say it’s to deal with long-standing complaints from review sites like Yelp; others are speculating it’s due to a recent FTC probe into their business practices (including specifically about how it handles 3rd party reviews in Places).

Likely it’s a combination of all three and other reasons.  Ironically about the FTC probe, if Google’s successful with building the community of artists formerly known as Hotpot and continuing to grow reviews, I think they’ll gain a bigger monopoly than if it continued to show reviews from sites like TripAdvisor.

Any way, Google’s stance is that it has taken down third party reviews from Places Pages, which it has done.  You won’t see ratings or reviews on individual Places Pages.

However – outside third party reviews are still appearing in some snippets for Places listings within Maps results.  Here’s one example of what is clearly identified as an InsiderPages review:

It appears (I’ve done a little digging, but wouldn’t call the research exhaustive by any stretch) that this is happening when Google Places previously displayed a review from an outside source and there are no current Google account reviews.

I can see how that would happen from a technical standpoint, but just think it’s kind of weird – or an oversight – that you’re seeing that information in the snippets.

As a business owner, you need to be aware these 3rd party reviews could still be haunting or helping you in this way.  However, you’ve already been focusing on increasing reviews on Google Places, so it shouldn’t be affecting you, right?

Justin Seibert

Justin Seibert is the President of Direct Online Marketing. He regularly speaks on search engine marketing, social media optimization, and online reputation management and was named a 2012 Top 25 Most Influential Pay Per Click Expert by Hanapin. Follow him on twitter. Why not check out the company on facebook while you're at it?

More Posts - Twitter - LinkedIn - Google Plus

It’s personalized results, yknow. Just have a look at the following video if you’re a bit bemused by what I’m talking about:

It’s one of those things that still confuses certain elements as they’re not always aware of the changes in their own personal search results and are deliriously happy that their own site ranks in the top three for gold bars or something.

But, I get Google’s thinking – if it means something to you personally then it makes more sense for it to display more prominently for you than for everybody.

After all, one man’s #1 SERP is another man’s spam.

But, we’re interested to find out what the general feeling is about personalized searches since they’ve been in operation for a while.

Do you prefer them? Did you know they existed? Do you even have a Google account?

Or are you happy you’ve finally been able to work out why your search results pop around all over the place dependent on which computer you’re on?

Answers in the comments please.

Paul Woodhouse

Paul looks after the SEO side of things here at Direct Online Marketing as well as trying to work out the best social media strategies for our clients.

More Posts

There’s only one thing worse than you thinking your kid is super special, and that’s somebody else vicariously thinking the same and you liking it on facebook.

As much as Simon Cowell must be stopped in his pursuit of destroying music, his ability to destroy a parent/child axis of delusion without flinching is worthy of a knighthood.

Or, maybe that’s the botox.

Only one other group fails the critical faculty test as regularly as parents (sports fans don’t count as they know their team is crap but love them anyway) and that’s an entrepreneur.

One only has to watch Dragon’s Den/Shark Tank to appreciate that.

There’s nothing like the Simon Cowell of search engines – Google – to raise the hackles of the online entrepreneur when they feel they’ve been wronged.

Take the case of ShopCity – a local shopping/business portal that serves thousands of locations across the US.

They’re in the process of “publicly challenging the fairness of the search giant.” I’ve no idea whether this means they’d like to take Google to court or are drumming up a bit of publicity for their recently banished sites.

ShopCity, the parent company of local sites such as ShopPaloAlto.com, ShopMountainView.com and ShopPleasanton.com, says Google provides it an unfairly low ranking, especially since those sites have the backing of groups such as the city of Menlo Park, the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce and the Palo Alto Weekly newspaper. A search for “Palo Alto restaurants” on Google this week didn’t reveal a ShopPaloAlto.com result until the seventh page of results, while the site ranks at the top for identical searches on Yahoo or Microsoft’s Bing.

[…] ShopCity also says Google is taking its content and displaying it in Google Places, which like ShopCity displays business information such as location, operating hours and customer reviews. The practice is called “scraping,” and companies like Yelp and TripAdvisor.com also have complained about the practice.

Google spits back:

Google says its low ranking of ShopCity sites is fair because the vast majority of its more than 8,100 local sites across the U.S. and Canada do not feature original content. ShopCity acknowledges that all but 44 of its sites do not yet have original content, and the company says it has asked the search giant not to crawl and rank those sites. But Google says it must consider the collective authority of the company’s Internet properties, just as someone wouldn’t judge a supermarket tabloid as superior to a national daily newspaper based on the accuracy of one story.

“We’re committed to returning high-quality sites to our users,” said Gabriel Stricker, a Google spokesman. “In the case of ShopCity, this is a network of thousands of sites that appear lower in Google’s rankings because nearly 100 percent of the sites violate our quality guidelines. For years, these sites have contained little original content, substantial duplicate content, along with cookie-cutter templates. Our users frequently complain to us about these kinds of sites.”

I have quite a bit of sympathy with site owners who have followed Google guidelines over the years only for them to shift the goal posts when they make an update. But, if you’re running an online business that piggybacks on Google rankings then you’re in for a whole heap of pain should those rankings ever evaporate.

Personally, I’d be asking if all those keyword domains that are now a reduced ranking factor with cross-linking from the cookie cutter areas of the template and no original content were/are factors.

Then, I’d ask you one SEO question: Have you ever seen Simon Cowell change his mind?

Paul Woodhouse

Paul looks after the SEO side of things here at Direct Online Marketing as well as trying to work out the best social media strategies for our clients.

More Posts