Sounds Good: Financial Firms Need Organic Search Strategies
March 26, 2021
ATM Marketplace draws our attention to a recent study from SEO firm Terakeet in, “Google Study Shows Companies Need to Tap Into Organic Search Strategies to Drive Greater Traffic.” Hmm, sounds like Google’s algorithm may be at odds with its goal of selling paid-search ads. We learn:
“The report, Google Market Share Report for Personal Finance, focuses on three primary areas of personal finance: consumer banking, credit cards and personal investing, along with nine underlying market sectors to reveal that non-bank websites are dominating Google across all sectors. For example, non-banks hold 90% of the market share for cash back credit cards and for rewards credit cards, with NerdWallet owning the large percentage of both categories at 19.62% and 24.92% respectively.”
The study observes that, though organic search drive more than five times the ROI than paid search in the financial market, most banks put little value on organic search. NerdWallet, of course, is a financial information and comparison site. It is a good illustration of the sort of site that is edging banks out of search results. The write-up continues:
“The competitive SEO landscape has evolved and encompasses more than just traditional offline competitors, including publishers, aggregators, comparison sites, government sites and others.
Many of the websites have long-form content clearly organized by topic areas. For example, Bankrate’s long-form content has helped it capture more than 29% of the organic search market share for keywords examined. The websites offer a range of free, interactive online tools and calculators (i.e. financial literacy scoring tools, free credit score tools, free credit reports, and free credit monitoring) that are not only helpful to site visitors, but offer backlinks to other websites to increase SEO visibility.”
Terakeet used its own proprietary search-engine market-share analysis tool, Carina, to crunch the data. Founded in 2001, the private SEO company is headquartered in Syracuse, New York.
Cynthia Murrell, March 26, 2021
The Google: Accused of Going Slow
March 25, 2021
I love the automated emails which inform me that one of my WordPress posts has violated Google AMP requirements. We use an automated system to post. We don’t make changes on the fly to our posts. Yet Google wants us to stop everything and fix an AMP issue. The only problem is that we did not create the AMP issue, and the GOOG does not bother to explain what the issue is. We are, however, are supposed to hop to it.
However, those expectations of snappy reaction to order from authorities do not apply to the Google. (Does that surprise you?)
“U.S. DOJ Accuses Google of Dragging Its Feet in Antitrust Trial” makes it clear that there is Google’s definition of “snappy” and the US legal system’s definition. The write up reports:
…the Justice Department said that Alphabet’s Google had balked at some search terms that the government wanted it to use to locate relevant documents.
Google is quoted as telling US legal authorities:
“The DOJ Plaintiffs’ proposal is unreasonable and not proportional to the needs of this case,” Google said in the filing.
Beyond Search thinks that it understands the Google’s position; to wit:
- Google has more money and lawyers and time than the US Department of Justice.
- Google has a wealth of delaying tactics to use; for example, the firm can explain that it cannot locate documents. This worked when Google was asked to provide salary data which the mom and pop ad shop could not gin up. Imagine that.
- Churn among lawyers in the US Department of Justice is a constant. Perhaps the idea is, “Let’s wait and see if more friendly lawyers get assigned to the case.”
Logical, right? That’s why I have to react immediately to an AMP message caused by Google’s onw system. Absolutely.
Stephen E Arnold, March 26, 2021
High Tech Tension: Sparks Visible, Escalation Likely
March 25, 2021
I read Google’s “Our Ongoing Commitment to Supporting Journalism.” The write up is interesting because it seems to be a dig at a couple of other technology giants. The bone of contention is news, specifically, indexing and displaying it.
The write up begins with a remarkable statement:Google has always been committed to providing high-quality and relevant information, and to supporting the news publishers who help create it.
This is a sentence pregnant with baby Googzillas. Note the word “always.” I am not certain that Google is in the “always” business nor am I sure that the company had much commitment. As I recall, when Google News went live, it created some modest conversation. Then Google News was fenced out of the nuclear ad machinery. Over time, Google negotiated and kept on doing what feisty, mom and pop Silicon Valley companies do; namely, keep doing what they want and then ask for forgiveness.
Flash forward to Australia. That country wanted to get money in exchange for Australian news. Google made some growling noises, but in the end the company agreed to pay some money.
Facebook on the other hand resisted, turned off its service, and returned to the Australian negotiating table.
Where was Microsoft in this technical square dance?
Microsoft was a cheerleader for the forces of truth, justice, and the Microsoft way. This Google blog post strikes me as Google’s reminding Microsoft that Google wants to be the new Microsoft. Microsoft has not done itself any favors because the battle lines between these two giants is swathed in the cloud of business war.
Google has mobile devices. Microsoft has the enterprise. Google has the Chromebook. Microsoft has the Surface. And on it goes.
Now Microsoft is on the ropes: SolarWinds, the Exchange glitch, and wonky updates which have required the invention of KIR (an update to remove bad updates).
Microsoft may be a JEDI warrior with the feature-burdened Teams and the military’s go to software PowerPoint. Google knows that every bump and scrape slows the reflexes of the Redmond giant.
Both mom and pop outfits are looking after each firm’s self interests. Fancy words and big ideas are window dressing.
Stephen E Arnold, March 25, 2021
Insights into Google AMP: A Glimpse Inside the Walled Garden
March 25, 2021
Google is talking privacy. Google is pushing accelerated Web pages. Google is doing what it can to stifle third party cookies. The datasphere will be a better, more tidy place, right?
Navigate to “Google AMP. A 70% Drop in Our Conversion Rate.” Notice these points:
- A technical adept tried to follow the Google rules and experienced a decline in conversion rates
- The procedure outlined in the write up will be a challenge for many online publishers to follow
- The write up does not explain why these positive initiatives of the Google have turned out to have a couple of negatives.
Google is moving access to content produced by certain third parties into its walled garden. The goal is to obtain control and extract maximum information. The silliness about relevance and consistency should be placed in the wooden shed in the corner of the walled garden behind the statue of Googzilla.
For many Facebook is the Internet. That Facebook content is what users generate, others want, and Facebook monetizes.
Google wants this set up too. Get amped up on that, gentle reader. Plus, with increased legal scrutiny, the mom and pop online ad company has to hustle along.
Stephen E Arnold, March 25, 2021
Google and Obfuscation: Who Cares?
March 24, 2021
Google began the process of obfuscating the source of Web pages years ago. There were services which would convert a weird Google version of a PDF’s url into something one could use in a footnote. I have one tool which performs this function now, but I am reluctant to identify it. Why? Google will kill it.
I noted the GitHub item “Addon Unavailable on Google Chrome” which explains that ClearURLs were blocked by Google seven hours ago. The short item explains:
ClearURLs has made it to its mission to prevent tracking via URLs and that’s how Google makes money.
Yep, this is a good statement.
However, let me add several observations:
- Google, like Facebook, IS the Internet for many people. Both companies want to keep users within the sheep pen. The reasons include tracking, monetization, and, oh, did I mention, tracking?
- Looking up search results adds computational cost; therefore, serving Google identified as relevant content from caches near a user makes economic sense. How does one know the “provenance” of a Google item? Well, it’s from Google, so it has to be good.
- The walled garden has been part of the Google system and method for many years. I wrote about this years ago in the Google Legacy and expanded on some of the ideas in Google Version 2.0.
Net net: Thumbtypers, seniors in a haze, and most online “users” are blissfully unaware of the power of obfuscation. In the good old days, one had a url which provided the source domain and a mostly human readable string pointing to the page.
Hasta la vista. The corral is a clean, well lighted place for those who own the ranch. Who cares? Hey, visit a sheep ranch and let me know how many out of flock sheep there are. What happens to those sheep? Sheep dogs chase them back to the flock or wolves just eat the recalcitrant.
Why not think in terms of a digital delicacy?
Stephen E Arnold, March 24, 2021
Google: Its Feedback Loop Explained
March 23, 2021
I read “Google Profits from Spreading Fake News — Here’s How.” Google’s been leveraging its “inspiration” from Yahoo-GoTo-Overture ad innovations for decades. Imagine my surprise when the “truth” of feedback was finally revealed. (Yep, it took decades for whiz kids to crack the somewhat high-school auditorium sound system concept.)
Here’s a passage I found revelatory about how little awareness “expert” Google watchers know about the systems and methods of the online ad giant:
When you click on a search result, the search algorithm learns that the link you clicked is relevant for your search query. This is called relevance feedback. This feedback helps the search engine give higher weight to that link for that query in the future. If enough people click on that link enough times, thus giving strong relevance feedback, that website starts coming up higher in search results for that and related queries. People are more likely to click on links shown up higher on the search results list. This creates a positive feedback loop – the higher a website shows up, the more the clicks, and that in turn makes that website move higher or keep it higher.
What other Google magic awaits discovery?
Remarkable. That feedback has baffled for so long.
Stephen E Arnold, March 23, 2021
Google and Cookies: Crafting Quite Tasty Bait
March 19, 2021
I read “Alphabet: Five Things We Know about Google’s Ad Changes after Cookies.” I approached the write up with some interest. Cookies have been around for a long time. The reason? They allowed a number of interesting functions, including tracking, cross correlation of user actions, and a covert existence.
Now, no more Google cookies.
The write up explains what Google wants keen observers, real journalists, and thumbtypers to know; to wit:
- Privacy is really, really important to Google—now. Therefore, the GOOG won’t support third party cookies. Oh, shucks, what about cross site tracking? Yeah, what about it?
- Individuals can be targeted. Those with a rifle shot orientation have to provide data to the Google and use the Google software system called “customer match.” Yeah, ad narrowcasting lives.
- Google will draw some boundaries about its data leveraging for advertisers. But what about “publishers”? Hey, Google has some special rules. Yeah, a permeable membrane for certain folks.
- FLOC makes non-personalized ad targeting possible. I want to write, “You’ve been FLOC’ed” but I shall not. Yeah, FLOC. But you can always try FLEDGE. So “You’ve been FLEDGED” is a possibility.
How’s this work? The write up does not shed any light. Here’s a question for a “real news” outfit to tackle:
How many data points does a disambiguation system require to identify a name, location, and other personal details of a single individual?
Give up. Better not. Oh, the bait, pivoted cookies. Great for catching prospects I think.
Stephen E Arnold, March 19, 2021
Eschewing the Google: Career Suicide or Ethical Savvy?
March 19, 2021
I spotted an interested quote in Wired’s “The Departure of 2 Google AI Researchers Spurs More Fallout.” Here’s the quote:
“Google has shown an astounding lack of leadership and commitment to open science, ethics, and diversity in their treatment of the Ethical AI team.”
It’s been several months since the Google engaged in Gebru-gibberish; that is, the firm’s explanations about the departure of a PhD who wrote a research paper suggesting that the Google’s methods may not be a-okay.
The Google is pressing forward with smart software, which is, the future of the company. I thought online advertising was, but what do I know.
The article also mentions that a high profile AI researcher would not attend a Google AI event. The reason? Here’s what Wired reports:
Friday morning, Kress-Gazit emailed the event’s organizers to say she would not attend because she didn’t wish to be associated with Google research in any way. “Not only is the research process and integrity of Google tainted, but it is clear, by the way these women were treated, that all the diversity talk of the company is performative,” she wrote. Kress-Gazit says she didn’t expect her action to have much effect on Google, or her own future work, but she wanted to show solidarity with Gebru and Mitchell, their team, and their research agenda.
A few years ago, professionals would covet a Google tchotchke like a mouse pad or a flashing Google LED pin. (My tarnished and went dead years ago.) Now high profile academics are unfriending Messrs. Brin and Page online ad machine.
Interesting shift in attitude toward the high school science club company in a few pulses of Internet time.
Stephen E Arnold, March 19, 2021
Google Road Kill: Legal Eagles Circle Data Incognita
March 17, 2021
I read “Google Must Face Suit over Snooping on Incognito Browsing.” Google created the “incognito” mode to give users of Chrome a way to browse privately. The write up states:
Google failed to kill a lawsuit alleging that it secretly scoops up troves of internet data even if users browse in “Incognito” mode to keep their search activity private.
What happens when marketing to stimulate more useful clicks collides with the reality of constant data collection?
This type of legal position it seems:
“The court concludes that Google did not notify users that Google engages in the alleged data collection while the user is in private browsing mode,” U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California, wrote in her ruling.
Google, according to the article, took this position:
Incognito mode in Chrome gives you the choice to browse the internet without your activity being saved to your browser or device. As we clearly state each time you open a new incognito tab, websites might be able to collect information about your browsing activity during your session.
But Google users have to agree to Google policies. These policies seems to give the friendly, mom and pop online ad company license to capture user information. Incognito, logically, does not mean invisible. Ergo, user activity is, logically, visible.
If you are Googley, you will understand the line of reasoning.
Several observations:
- The explanation is rhetorically similar to the Gibru-gibberish output with regard to a former Googler’s research paper about “ethics”
- The use of incognito mode provides a useful item of metadata which may of use to some analytic routines used by the mom and pop online ad company, its partners, and its developers
- The involvement of the courts is part of the mom and pop, online ad company’s strategy of do, deflect, and delay via marketing and legal activities.
The hitch in the git along is that users and regulators are starting to look at the mom and pop online ad agency as a less friendly entity today than it was in the years after the company’s initial public offering.
This perception shift is incorrect. Google has been consistent in its game plan, methods, and embrace of do, deflect, and delay.
What worked in the past, however, seems to be manifesting stress fractures; for example, the interesting criticism of Microsoft and the giving in to a mere country like Australia for news content.
Litigation is expensive, and Google has the motivation and the means to wear down opponents in costly, time consuming, and complex legal engagements. Not every Google opponent has the grit of Oracle to joust about Java. In the absence of meaningful regulation, Google’s logic is likely to keep those legal eagles circling in the hopes of digital road kill upon which to fatten themselves.
Stephen E Arnold, March 17, 2021
Alphabet Google: Just Helping the Public
March 17, 2021
I usually don’t read insurance industry trade publications. Decades ago I brushed into the world of “real” insurance, and I have a deep aversion for this industry. Betting on death is not my thing, but those big insurers are a jolly group.
I read “Alphabet’s Waymo Says Its Tech Would Avoid Fatal Human Crashes.” For convenience, I will refer to Alphabet Waymo with its “real” name: The Google.
The write up explains:
The autonomous-car artificial intelligence from Alphabet Inc.’s Waymo avoided or mitigated crashes in most of a set of virtually recreated fatal accidents, according to a white paper the company published Monday.
This is lingo for a model, just like the ones “real” MBAs and alleged “data scientists” run using Excel or a facsimile on steroids. The model ingests assumptions and data. The wizard at the keyboard pretty much plugs in threshold values and checks the output. Need a little more oomph; change the threshold. Once the numbers flow. Bingo. Good to go.
What I found interesting was this passage in the insurance industry centric PR piece of marketing collateral:
Waymo says it published the study for the benefit of the public, rather than regulators specifically.
But can you die riding in a smart EV from The Google?
Absolutely. The write up reports:
The Driver system failed to avoid or mitigate simulated accidents only when the autonomous car was struck from behind, according to the study.
No problems. Adjust those actuarial tables accordingly. Come to think of it, “Why use human actuaries?” Take the output from The Google’s model and pump it into a smart analytics program and let ‘er rip.
Stephen E Arnold, March 17, 2021
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
