Google and Local Business: Understanding an Issue?
July 30, 2019
Google My Business (GMB) is a boon to many organizations, allowing them to be easily found online. However, not all businesses fit neatly into the platform’s algorithm. Search Engine Land asks, “What Do You Do if Google My Business Doesn’t Understand Your Business?” Writer Adam Dorfman observes:
“According to the most recent Moz Local Search Ranking Factors report, your GMB page is the biggest local ranking factor. It also functions as a website now, with rich content, visuals and customer ratings/reviews that make it possible for people to learn more about you without leaving Google’s search results. At the same time, Google My Business is not a perfect service. It often struggles with businesses that don’t fall into the two most common business types: storefronts where customers come to a permanent business location and service area businesses, where the business comes to the customer.”
The primary example here is the increasingly common pop-up shop—a type of business that does not maintain a permanent address. Since GMB relies on snail-mail postcards to verify listings, these entities may be unable to establish one in the first place. If they do, the app may show them as “permanently closed” when they move on to another location, implying they have gone out of business altogether. Not good for reeling in customers. Dorfman writes:
“Because of this quirk in Google’s approach, pop-up stores are generally beyond the reach of GMB. Their customers need to find them via word of mouth or via social sites such as Facebook, where they may operate pages without a verified location. In the above scenario, everyone loses. The store loses potential customers. Google loses traffic to social sites such as Facebook. And customers lose because it becomes harder to find a store that might interest them. Because Google Maps and Waze draw data from GMB listings, those popular apps cannot offer users accurate directions to these types of stores.”
Verification is important, but GMB must be able to adapt to shifting business trends. The company seems willing, but it remains to be seen how it will address this growing issue. The August 13, 2019, DarkCyber references the ease with which a person can create a fake business in Google’s online system. A plus or a minus? The answer depends on one’s point of view.
Cynthia Murrell, July 30, 2019
Google: Being Responsible
July 29, 2019
Individual states have been legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana left and right, but the federal government still considers it an illegal substance. That is why, according to 9to5Google, “Google Immediately Bars All Marijuana Delivery Apps from the Play Store.” Google wouldn’t want to run afoul of the Feds, now would it? Reporter Damien Wilde writes:
“The updated policy now states that applications that help users buy or allow users to order marijuana products will now be removed. Here is the updated marijuana policy, as per the Play Store developer guidelines:
‘Here are some examples of common violations:
‘Allowing users to order marijuana through an in-app shopping cart feature.
‘Assisting users in arranging delivery or pick up of marijuana.
‘Facilitating the sale of products containing THC.’
“In a statement to Android Police, Google stated that applications like the popular Eaze and Weedmaps will only need to remove the shopping cart flow from within their applications to comply with the new rules. These apps simply need to move the shopping cart flow outside of the app itself to be compliant with this new policy. We’ve been in contact with many of the developers and are working with them to answer any technical questions and help them implement the changes without customer disruption.”
An update to the article reports Eaze has complied, requiring users to navigate to its own website to make a purchase. We imagine Weedmaps will soon follow, reducing both apps to window-shopping platforms. What, then, is the point? Perhaps they anticipate a time when federal law catches up to states’ decisions.
Cynthia Murrell, July 29, 2019
The Googler Who May Become the First Xoogler of Algorithmic Bias
July 27, 2019
I read Project Veritas’ article “Current Sr. Google Engineer Goes Public on Camera: Tech Is “Dangerous,” “Taking sides.”
This is an interesting assertion. Why would a person who allegedly works at Google make such a statement? DarkCyber does not know. The person who made the alleged assertion is now kicking back, watching YouTube, and contemplating what “administrative leave” means we assume.
Real info or fake info?
Google haters will say, “Real info, by golly.”
Google lovers will say, “Not my Google.”
DarkCyber is neutral. Let’s look at some of the statements made by the Googler who is, it seems, unable to chow down in a Google cafeteria. Here are three of the PhD’s “real” assertions:
Point 1: Bias. Tech is taking sides in a political content. DarkCyber believes that it is very easy to shape the content displayed in response to a query. It is also easy to filter out Web sites or specific content. If the statements made by a PhD Googler (moving toward official Xoogler status) are accurate, those with access to lists of prohibited words or sites, algorithm threshold settings, or algorithm weighting controls — injecting some subjectivity into how the plumbing works is easy. Therefore, it is just possible that an individual or a couple of people with appropriate access, could make the content and ads displayed do a Zumba routine, not a waltz. Just a hypothesis, of course, of course.
Point 2: Data Are Used. Services like Google Assistant don’t have a bias. DarkCyber thinks that the PhD Googler (on the path to Xooglerdom) is naive. Data gathered by any Google log will feed into the “system” and be available for assorted processes. Armed with trivial data points, the Google system may be more robust and capable; for example, an action sent to Google Assistant could have an impact on outputs to that Google user. Stateful is as stateful does.
Point 3. Transparency. Google is not transparent. What a surprise! Even for those who work at Google, information seems to be compartmentalized. Google seems to function in the manner of a government agency in Eastern Europe in the 1940s. There’s a hierarchy, and it mostly works. If not, who is going to complain? Not DarkCyber. Who wants to be a serfs not allowed to serve food at the barons’ banquet?
The interview and video are interesting. Are they true and real? DarkCyber is on the fence, not at home wishing for a cube, a Foosball game, and a trip to the Google cafeteria.
Stephen E Arnold, July 27, 2019
Toronto Questions Google and Its Smart City
July 26, 2019
We heard a rumor that Google wanted a piece of the tax money to push forward with its Toronto Smart City project. That may have been a rumor. Nevertheless, the project continues and is attracting attention.
Sidewalk Labs, a division of Alphabet (Google’s parent company), is eager to get into the smart-city business, beginning with Toronto. Perhaps too eager, some say, relegating important privacy considerations to afterthoughts. IT Business Canada reports, “Sidewalk Labs Decision to Offload Tough Decisions on Privacy to Third Party is Wrong, Says Its Former Consultant.” Now we know why Ann Cavoukian is their former consultant—she left the advisory role when Sidewalk Labs refused to follow her advice. Reporter Alex Coop writes:
“After over two years of controversy, Sidewalk Labs finally presented a 1,500-page draft master smart city plan for a government-owned stretch of Toronto’s eastern waterfront, but critics immediately pointed out how it doesn’t include an independent group overseeing all digital innovations or strict guidelines that force proposed projects to de-identify personally identifiable data when collected. Alphabet Inc.’s subsidiary has gotten an earful in recent months about privacy concerns surrounding the proposed facelift to the waterfront property. … Sidewalk Labs is proposing a non-profit data trust, but those details, the company said in the NIDP, will be determined based on input from government, the community, and researchers.”
After Sidewalk made the plan public, Cavoukian spoke out, insisting the company take more responsibility for privacy protections. We learn:
“Cavoukian resigned from her advisory role with Sidewalk Labs last October amid rising concerns that the organization wasn’t going to force companies to de-identify collected personal information at the source. This process is used to prevent a person’s identity from being connected with information gathered by the smart city’s chattering devices. Sidewalk Labs encourages this philosophy throughout the MIDP and said it will push the yet-to-be created data trust to abide by it as well. But Cavoukian said this actually leaves the door open, even if it’s a tiny bit, for incoming companies to potentially sidestep the rules.”
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association is also concerned, and urged government officials to hit the brakes in an open letter. Currently, Toronto has placed more than 11,000 digital devices, like Wi-Fi access points, cellular nodes, environmental sensors, and traffic cams, around the city. Of course, the idea is to make life easier for the city residents, but we all know what they say about good intentions.
Did Google select the wrong city for its project? Would Scarberia been a wiser choice?
Cynthia Murrell, July 26, 2019
YouTube: Keep on Clicking
July 25, 2019
YouTube wants you to watch videos. The more videos you watch, the more advertising space it can sell. In order to keep you engrossed, YouTube recommends videos that its algorithms think will appeal to you based on your viewing history. Sometimes the recommendations score, other times they sink faster than a flash in the pan viral video. Make Use Of explains how you can take control of your YouTube recommendations so they score every time: “YouTube Gives Viewers More Control Over Content.”
YouTube wants to give viewers more control over curating their video experience and they debuted brand new features to put viewers in “the driver’s seat.” YouTube wants to “help viewers find new interests and passions” and this comes from understanding what viewers like. In order for YouTube to know what to recommend, viewers need to tell YouTube so its content algorithms can do their magic. Here is how YouTube is “placing viewers in the driver’s seat” (although it’s really the illusion of control):
“Explore Topics on the Homepage and Up Next: YouTube is making it easier to explore topics and related videos. You’ll see these topics both at the top of your homepage (when you scroll up) and on the Up Next section below the video you’re currently watching.
Stop Certain Channels Being Recommended: On the flipside, you can now tell YouTube to stop recommending videos from particular channels. Just tap the three-dot menu next to a video and select “Don’t recommend channel” from the dropdown menu.
Discover Why YouTube Is Recommending Videos: YouTube is also explaining why it’s recommending particular content. When YouTube recommends videos based on what other viewers have watched, you’ll see an information box underneath the video.”
The last feature about “discovering why YouTube recommends a video” is a real show of AI intelligence, unless the algorithm is similar to what Amazon Prime, Netflix, and Hulu use to make similar recommendations. It is neat at first, then becomes passé unless there is flashy cover art. These updates were made, because YouTube’s old algorithms sent viewers down endless rabbit holes. For example, if a viewer watches a single anti-vaccination video, suddenly all of their recommendations were about anti-vaccinations. The only way to wipe out the recommendation was to clear the viewing history or watch a bunch of videos on another topic.
YouTube wants to retain ands gain viewers. Giving its viewers more control and understanding what they like with smarter AI will keep the video platform relevant.
Whitney Grace, July 25, 2019
Google in Space: A Sling, Not a Loon Balloon
July 22, 2019
I read “Alphabet-Backed Space Launch Company Wins Pentagon Contract.” The write up explained that Google, Airbus, and a venture capital company are backing a company called Spinlaunch. Good name for an outfit which proposes to throw small satellites into orbit. None of the messy rocket fuel needed upon which are fixated Messrs. Bezos and Musk. Spinning is allegedly better than blasting.
Here’s the approach:
SpinLaunch emphasizes a “ground-based kinetic energy” approach. Specifically, it proposes to use a centrifuge-like device to spin a rocket round and round like a slingshot, building up momentum, and then hurtling it into the sky at hypersonic speed.
I assume the Loon balloons cannot get sufficient altitude to provide a platform from which to place tiny satellites in orbit. Hence, a new approach which seems similar to David’s use of a sling and stone to slay Goliath. Or, in the case of the Bezos and Musk “Goliaths” a centrifuge repurposed. Worth watching out for. Slings can be tough to control and David’s toss at the metaphorical Goliath may have been due to chance, not satellite worthy accuracy. Throwing a tiny satellite into the space junk orbiting the earth might score a chance hit. Interesting to consider how a satellite owner would react to a Spinlaunch stone knocking out a very expensive satellite.
Stephen E Arnold, July 22, 2019
Google and Privacy: Quote to Note
July 21, 2019
Google and privacy. Sounds good. Like ham and cheese, bacon and eggs, cyber and space. “Google Is Stopping Websites From Tracking Users in Incognito” revealed “Google said it will stop websites from being able to identify whether you’re browsing using its private incognito mode in a forthcoming browser update.”
Allegedly Google said:
‘People choose to browse the web privately for many reasons. Some wish to protect their privacy on shared or borrowed devices, or to exclude certain activities from their browsing histories,’ said Google in a statement. ‘We want you to be able to access the web privately, with the assurance that your choice to do so is private as well.’
Why wouldn’t everyone believe Google after its brilliant, unflustered testimony in which the company’s spokes human refused to commit to a third party audit. See “Google Executive Refuses to Commit to Independent Audit During Senate Hearing.”
Are you a doubter? DarkCyber believes everything it reads on the Internet, including Facebook, Google, and IBM content. Google just revealed that it is going to achieve quantum supremacy this year.
Oh, one minor question: Does that apply to Google’s tracking of its users?
Believe it.
Stephen E Arnold, July 21, 2019
Is Google Aiding the Chinese Government?
July 17, 2019
DarkCyber does not know if Google is aiding the Chinese government. Axios published this story — “Peter Thiel says FBI, CIA should probe Google” — which seems to suggest that the fun loving Googlers are up to something. Here’s the segment of the write up which we circled in red:
“Number one, how many foreign intelligence agencies have infiltrated your Manhattan Project for AI?
“Number two, does Google’s senior management consider itself to have been thoroughly infiltrated by Chinese intelligence?
“Number three, is it because they consider themselves to be so thoroughly infiltrated that they have engaged in the seemingly treasonous decision to work with the Chinese military and not with the US military… because they are making the sort of bad, short-term rationalistic [decision] that if the technology doesn’t go out the front door, it gets stolen out the backdoor anyway?”
These appear to be allegations wrapped in a question bundle. Who can get upset with a few questions?
One thing is certain: Google needs big, new revenue to keep the system rolling. With costs of infrastructure skyrocketing, Google has to generate revenue or face the unpleasant task of curtailing spending. Add to the mix the Bezos bulldozer; that is, the system which gets people to pay for the Amazon plumbing as the company expands its online advertising, policeware, and services businesses. Facebook — despite its self inflicted wounds — continues to push forward. Libra, the proposed digital currency for the country of Facebook, seems more innovative than Google’s new social media meet up service.
Who can answer the Peter Thiel questions? Perhaps Palantir Gotham armed with the “right” data? Will Google trip on its shoelaces?
Stephen E Arnold, July 17, 2019
Google Is a Curious Outfit: Who, How, Why, Where, Buy, and Build?
July 16, 2019
Ah, the familiar Silicon Valley question: Buy or build?
Reuters, a “real news” outfit, published “Google Accused of Ripping Off Digital Ad Technology in U.S. Lawsuit.” DarkCyber has no idea if the alleged lawsuit is valid or if Google “ripped off” a company called Impact Engine.
According to the “real news” story:
Impact Engine Inc filed the complaint in federal court in San Diego, California, alleging various Google online advertising platforms, including Google Ads and Google AdSense, infringed on six patents.
DarkCyber believes that Impact Engine is convinced that Googlers took technology developed by the smaller firm. Google’s present senior management is probably unaware of the actions of young at heart Googlers.
Based on DarkCyber’s experience interacting with large, successful corporations, Google-type outfits ask a lot of questions. But these are predictable and probably should not be answered without prior thought. Scripting answers is a reasonable way to prepare for a lunch with a predator.
Now what about the basic questions. Here are a few I have experienced:
- Who are you?
- Who developed the innovation?
- Why was it developed?
- Why is it better than existing innovations?
- When did you develop the innovation?
- Did you patent the innovation and receive a patent?
- Where can this innovation be implemented?
- How much of a revenue boost does the innovation represent?
- How much did you spend in cash to create the innovation?
- How long did it take to create the innovation?
- How many people worked on the innovation in [a] its preliminary phase, [b] its testing phase, and [c] its commercialization phase?
- What is the programming language used?
- Does the innovation run from the cloud or on premises?
- What are the next series of enhancements you plan to add to your innovation?
- How long will those take?
- How much money do you need to implement the enhancements in half your time estimate?
- Who are your competitors?
- What are the gotchas in your innovation?
- Who is your nightmare competitor?
- What do you worry about relative to this innovation when you go to bed at night?
- If you had a magic wand, what changes would you make in the innovation as it exists at this time?
- Would you rough out a block diagram of the major components of the innovation?
- Would you walk us through your basic slide deck?
There are other questions, of course.
Now a company talking with a Google-type firm is likely to be darned excited to be in proximity to a deep pocket power center. Consequently the visitors are probably going to say too much, be too specific, and reveal more than the visiting team thought was possible.
Yep, well, there’s the fact that power and potential money loosens lips.
What happens when the small outfit leaves with booth leftovers in hand, a reasonable vegan lunch, and worshipful praise from the big company’s “team players”?
Let me boil down the gist of the debriefs in which I have participated:
- Is this innovation any good?
- Can we duplicate it quickly and easily? (Build?)
- If not, how much do you think the innovation is worth?
- Can we just license the innovation? (Semi-buy?)
- Should we forget this outfit and go to the competitors named in the meeting?
- Don’t we already have this functionality?
- Does anybody remember meeting with this company or anyone who works there before?
- Should we buy this outfit?
There are other considerations, of course.
In short, when big Google type outfits meet with small innovative outfits, the expectations of the small company are likely to be different from those at the big company.
Therefore, the legal dust up. Worth monitoring this particular action. But the matter of patents, prior art, and the patents which the big company may have tucked in their cloud storage device are likely to have some bearing on the matter.
One thing is certain: The lawyers involved will get paid a lot of money. And the money people? Sure. Money people.
Stephen E Arnold, July 16, 2019
Google Takes Another Run at Social Media
July 12, 2019
The Google wants to be a winner in social media. “Google Is Testing a New Social Network for Offline Meetups” describes the Shoelace social network. Shoelaces keep footwear together. The metaphor is … interesting.
The write up states:
The aim behind coming up with this innovative social networking app is to let people find like-minded people around with whom they can meet and share things between each other. The interests could be related to social activities, hobbies, events etc.
The idea of finding people seems innocuous enough. But what if one or more bad actors use the new Google social network in unanticipated ways?
The write up reports:
It will focus more on providing a platform to meet and expand businesses and building communities with real people.
The Google social play has “loops.” What’s a loop? DarkCyber learned:
This is a new name for Events. You can make use of this feature to create an event where people can see your listings and try to join the event as per their interests.
What an innovative idea? No other service — including Meetup.com, Facebook, and similar plays — have this capability.
Like YouTube’s “new” monetization methods which seem similar to Twitch.tv’s, Google is innovating again.
Mobile. Find people. Meet up.
Maybe Google’s rich, bold, proud experiences with Orkut, Google Buzz, and Google+ were useful? Effort does spark true innovation … maybe.
Stephen E Arnold, July 12, 2019
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
