One limiter of the study is that it seems to focus purely on PPC spend. I find some of what various candidates are doing from an organic perspective to be far more interesting. They’re all on [...]]]> Rolling into the three-decade long primary race, we have studies evaluating the search effectiveness of various US presidential candidates already.

One limiter of the study is that it seems to focus purely on PPC spend. I find some of what various candidates are doing from an organic perspective to be far more interesting. They’re all on all the social networks, YouTube, and Flickr, for instance, and then each candidate seems to have their own spins:

• Mitt Romney has a blog, ostensibly by his brothers, on a subdomain. He’s also been using his domain since 2002, and hasn’t done anything limiting like add office or year to the domain — smart.
• John Edwards has a freaking SPLASH PAGE. Ugh! But he uses wacky code to avoid having it indexed. Again, he’s using his ‘name’ domain, no wacky offices or years. Again, a blog. And nice rollover menu code.
• Barack Obama is more of the same, only he’s added a UGC section over at my.barackobama.com. Nice.
• Hillary Clinton, like John Edwards, has a dumb splash page with wacky code. Once in, it looks like she has a UGC section… but wait! DEAD LINK!!!! I’m also underwhelmed by her meta-description on a SERP.
• Meanwhile, Rudy Giuliani is on a dumb domain (JoinRudy2008.com, registered 2006, and not reusable if he doesn’t get it this round, or if he DOES and needs to be re-elected later). He’s got some nice ‘add these widgets to your blog!’ for quick link-building.
• Sam Brownback officially makes me ask: WHAT IS WITH SPLASH PAGES THIS SEASON. Especially for a guy without a metric ton of name recognition. Interestingly, once you make it in, he’s got one of the cleaner designs and a text-driven home page — which most of the others just don’t.

Looking at bad political sites makes my head ache. I may go research nice places to go during the Republican Convention in 2008, happening right here in my home town of Minneapolis-St. Paul. I am SO going to be out of town, after having lived through the 1996 Democratic Convention in Chicago. I’ve had a full lifetime worth of Secret Service Agents preventing me from getting a coffee, thankyouverymuch.

There’s a Salon blog post today on the reliability of online reviews. Here’s a choice bit:

Online ratings are beset by one main flaw, something pollsters call “response bias.” Because people are more likely to rate products that have moved them in some way — either positively [...]]]> This one’s for the Funk King of Minneapolis, Paul Jahn.

There’s a Salon blog post today on the reliability of online reviews. Here’s a choice bit:

Online ratings are beset by one main flaw, something pollsters call “response bias.” Because people are more likely to rate products that have moved them in some way — either positively or negatively — ratings for most items brim with extreme opinions. On Yelp everyone is above average; company CEO Jeremy Stoppelman told me that 85 percent of local businesses on the site get a three-star or better average rating.

The article is pretty good, so I won’t rehash it here. One thing that notably isn’t mentioned is ‘business owners posting wretchedly fake reviews in some mad faux-SEO urge.’ I’ve seen some awful, awful fake reviews — no real human writes like these reviews, or would say these things about a business such as that reviewed.

The visual range depictions discussed in this article won’t do much about those written reviews, although they’ll show the bias in the starred reviews a little more strongly. On the other hand, Paul and I have discussed that if a reasonable person found these fake reviews, they’d make a sane reader less likely to go to a business. Even though there’s massive response bias in even real reviews, at least they’re real.

The first isn’t truly a privacy concern, but it crosses [...]]]> The latest round of privacy (and other) concerns of various types are now hitting Google Earth:

1. Salon discusses how the alleged plot against JFK airport was being plotted with the images on Google Earth.
2. CNN discusses the ick factor of finding nosepickers in action on Google Earth imagery.

The first isn’t truly a privacy concern, but it crosses over into the concepts of how reliable GPS is set up to be, and government oversight (or wish to borrow) the data streams collected by a search engine.

The second does get into privacy. CNN itself covers it. If a picture is at the wrong time, we can identify people getting medical treatment, etc. Now, sure, they’re walking into a public door. But there’s still a sense of that being a moment, and not captured in an image to be searchable for a long time. There’s a lot to be said for people’s sense of moment vs. memory — I did entire papers on such subjects as an undergrad lit major, and the reason it’s so thematic in literature is because it’s a truism of the human condition.

It’s interesting to see how more broad-market publications are starting to look at these issues. It makes me wonder when they’ll hit more of personalized search.

I know Notebook launched in April 2006, but I can’t recall having seen this show up like this prior to now:

Is this another collaborative filter-Web 2.0-data collection manuever? Or is it just a ‘hey, [...]]]> Maybe I just haven’t been paying attention, but when did Google start showing ‘Note This?’ links in search results for signed-in users?

I know Notebook launched in April 2006, but I can’t recall having seen this show up like this prior to now:

Is this another collaborative filter-Web 2.0-data collection manuever? Or is it just a ‘hey, no one knows this exists?’ moment? And why can’t I find people saying anything about this?

Need more coffee now.