Fake Reviews a Growing and Tenacious Problem in Social Media
April 20, 2012
Ah, sentiment and lies. Next Gen Market Research blogger Tom H. C. Anderson interviewed data mining expert Bing Liu in anticipation of his day-before workshop for the Sentiment Analysis Symposium in New York City early next month. He has titled his interview, “Practical Sentiment Analysis and Lies.” Interesting.
Professor Liu teaches at the University of Illinois at Chicago, in the Computer Science Department. His work on text analytics and detecting online ratings fraud was recently featured in the New York Times. Anderson posed Liu with questions on the upcoming workshop as well as on his work in general.
The words that caught my eye were in Liu’s response to the issue of detecting fake reviews:
“Social media is here to stay. Its content is also being used more and more in applications.
Something has to be done to ensure the integrity of this valuable source of information before it becomes full of fake opinions, lies and deceptive information. After all, there are strong motivations for businesses and individuals to post fake reviews for profit and fame. It is also easy and cheap to do so. Writing fake reviews has already become a very cheap way of marketing and product promotion.”
Important though the issue might be, Liu admits that ratting out fake reviews is a huge challenge. Almost impossible to identify simply by reading them, misleading missives must be discovered through secondary information, like aggregate reviewer behavior and the physical origins of a post. Apparently, a reliable method has yet to be developed.
So, let this be a reminder of something my Dad used to tell me: now, perhaps more than ever, you can’t believe everything you read.
Cynthia Murrell, April 20, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Search Asserts its Place
April 17, 2012
Is SEO is relevant? We admire the SEO folks’ creativity, as demonstrated in Search Engine Watch’s “Integrated Marketing: Why Search Needs a Large Seat at the Table.” In the write up, writer Eric Enge discusses a panel on Integrated Marketing he attended at this year’s SES New York conference. The article asserts:
“Yes, we’re in the business of harvesting demand, but search should have a large seat at the table for the following reasons:
- As our culture becomes increasingly digital, search represents one of the largest channels for harvesting demand created by traditional marketing.
- Search can harvest demand that traditional marketing didn’t even try to create. This may the single most important benefit of search.
- SEO deserves a large seat at the table because it may provide the most profit in the long run, which creates cash flow to fuel future programs and growth.
- Ranking in top positions on generic search terms has a large brand impact.”
Hmm. I see a bit of supposition in there, and some points that might simply become outdated soon.
Enge laments the perception outsiders have that the search marketing industry is all about harvesting. Well. . . yeah. See one and two, above.
Cynthia Murrell, April 17, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Google and Its Stock Split
April 16, 2012
I pointed out that the big news from the Google quarterly report was the erosion of revenue from Google’s core business.
Other addled geese, poobahs, and mavens found the stock split more troubling. A good example of the reaction is this Reuters real news story: “Google’s Evil Stock Split.” The idea is that Google seems to be perilously close to violating guidelines put in place 90 years ago. Here’s the key point in my opinion:
Google has, now, clearly violated the spirit of the NYSE rules, if not their letter. It took 15 months for the independent directors on the board to be persuaded of this, in long and secret deliberations.
Well, the independent directors * were * convinced.
I also enjoyed this comment in the Reuters real news story:
This move, then, is basically a way for Google to try to retreat back into its pre-IPO shell as much as possible. It never really wanted to go public in the first place — it was forced into that by the 500-shareholder rule — but at this point, Google is far too entrenched in the corporate landscape to be able to turn back the clock. It’s too big, and too important, and has been public for too long. That’s the thing about going public: it might suck, but once you’ve done it, you’ve done it. And at that point, if you try to pull a stunt like this, you risk looking all too much like Rupert Murdoch.
Okay, real Silicon Valley is starting to look like the real news paragon, Rupert Murdoch.
Wow.
My take is very simple.
The Googlers know that revenue softening can no longer be swept under the rug or surrounded with big band music and fancy dancing. The numbers are too big. The declines are double digits. The grousing about Panda and the push to get people to buy AdWords to visible to some Web site operators.
Therefore, the stock play is designed to leave the existing management team in charge as the financial news get increasingly dodgey. The Google senior management team does not want to be looking at a start up to fund without the Google ID card in their pocket.
So the erosion of online ad efficiency is causing the control push. Because this has been going on among the independent directors, I have concluded that the revenue erosion was noticeable in 2010, maybe earlier.
Will control reverse the online advertising money machine’s functioning. Nah, but the days of the “Google can do no wrong” are either over or drawing to a close. Google has these issues with which to contend:
- Legal hassles. Big disc brake applied to some activities.
- Amazon, Apple, and Facebook. Each of these companies has learned from Google. This is The Google Legacy I wrote about back in 2004 or 2005. You might want to check it out because Amazon, Apple, and Facebook have out Googled Google and seem to be gaining strength as Google does the fancy dancing.
- Costs from brute force solutions. Google spends a lot of dough to keep its brute force indexing system up and running. Facebook, on the other hand, can just spider Web urls which its members have posted. No brute force required to get started with an interesting search solution. Amazon has slapped A9 in the AWS plumbing and can move into search niches where Google has not gotten significant traction. Apple, which Google really wants to emulate, keep chugging along with a walled garden and customers’ religious fervor. Do you know anyone with religious fervor toward the Google. Well, I know one company. Oracle. See item one above.
Net net: Blekko/Yandex and Facebook could put the squeeze on the Google with a little luck and some good timing. How will Google respond? No clue. Google is not accustomed to playing defense. Ego is a potent concept. As the Greek tragedian said:
Cleverness is not wisdom. Bacchæ l. 395
Stephen E Arnold, April 18, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Google and Revenue
April 13, 2012
The real news publications and the poobahs have been covering the Google quarterly report like termites in my walls here in rural Kentucky. I found one comment in “Google Earnings: Lower Cost per Click Does Not Reflect Health of Our Business” really fascinating—the headline.
Here’s the passage I noted for my quote file:
Amid an otherwise strong earnings report, Google for the second consecutive quarter announced CPC prices were down, by 12 percent year over year for the quarter.
Are there implications? Absolutely. Think those free ride, SEO manipulations for organic search will work as well tomorrow as they do today? Well, you may want to think again and start to get with the AdWords program.
Just our opinion, of course.
Stephen E Arnold, April 13, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Google Is Your Friend
April 13, 2012
Search Engine Watch recently reported on more search engine optimization paranoia in the article, “SEO & Google: The Ugly Truth.”
The article argues that we’re all paranoid that Google is trying to use its substantial search engine optimization power to screw us over, when in reality, the search giant could care less about us little guys.
The article states:
“Then of course there is the whole problem of the SEO inferiority complex; the need to be special. Maybe it’s because we have been marketing whipping posts. Could have been an accident when it was a child. I’m unsure. I do know that each time Google shuffles to scratch its backside my brethren far and wide start to pronounce how it was somehow just to combat, mislead or piss them off.”
This article did an excellent job of making my search efforts even less important than I thought they were. The SEO experts are trying to find a way to keep their revenues soaring at a time when Google appears to be making an effort to improve its relevance.
Jasmine Ashton, April 13, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
SEO: Heading for a Change
April 12, 2012
This year is likely to bring about consolidation in the search engine optimization industry, according to the article, “Search Marketers Should Brace For Industry Consolidation.”
Modern corporations want functionality without the inconvenience of dealing with multiple providers. This is a common complaint in the business world. In most cases companies must utilize more than one provider in order to meet all their needs.
A good example is BoostCTR which is a performance driven and optimization firm. They offered an enterprise business that will focus on improving click through rates and return investments for an anonymous search engine that can control the algorithms around search results. However they cannot monitor the profit rate and would have to depend on another provider to do so.
According to IgnitionOne’s president Roger Barnette:
“The stakes are high right now, Marketers are suffering. They are trying to sell stuff, and there are too many different companies offering services and industry jargon to get the job done correctly. You have 15 different companies. Enterprises want companies that can support all their needs.”
There is an old saying ‘One for all, and all for one.’ That is an ideal phrase that covers the current desires of today’s entrepreneur. Thus, in order to cater to modern businesses, the search engine optimization industry is likely to undergo some significant change. Long time coming to the outfits who undermined relevance for free Web search.
Jennifer Shockley, April 12, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
We Are Not Surprised: AdWords Work
April 8, 2012
Google Study Says it Pays to Use AdWords
SEO is one hot buzzword, but more and more people are starting to realize that, what they thought was a web traffic miracle, is really just a quick fix that fails to deliver lasting results. In the recent Search Engine Land article, “Google Research: Even With a #1 Organic Ranking, Paid Ads Provide 50% Incremental Clicks,” one of the poobahs of SEO points out that now that SEO does not work as advertised, if you have a Web site, you have to buy AdWords.
According to the report, Google’s research on paid versus organic found that cutting out paid ads would result in an 89 percent drop in clicks, regardless of whether or not your site is the number one search result.
The article asserts:
“Surprisingly, even when advertisers show up in the number one organic search result position, 50% of clicks they get on ads are not replaced by clicks on organic search results when the ads don’t appear. The study found that 82% of ad clicks are incremental when the associated organic result is ranked between 2 and 4, and 96% of clicks are incremental when the brand’s organic result was 5 or below.”
Gee, what a surprise that Google finds that paying them boosts search rankings. Now search engine optimization experts have an opportunity to explain how their services have helped their clients again.
Jasmine Ashton, April 8, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
An Innovation for the SEO Industry
April 6, 2012
Short honk: Navigate to “We Got Hacked for SEO, As Did Other Major Technology Sites.” If accurate, the story is that quasi SEO folks gained access to certain “major” information services and put in “juicy links and an occasional canonical tag.” The idea is to generate traffic for a site unknown to the operators of the “major” sites. SEO has broken new ground. Fascinating. Is there a conference for this yet? Another question I am considering is, “If a major technology site is vulnerable, how secure are these “major” outfits’ Web sites?”
Stephen E Arnold, April 6, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
SEO Mavens at Ontoprise Win a Prize
April 6, 2012
Germany’s Ontoprise GmbH, maker of SemanticGuide, is a Cyber Champion, Wachstumsphase reveals in “CyberChampions Award 2008 Preisträger ontoprise (CyberForum).” Ontoprise was granted the prestigious award from The Hightech.Unternehmer.Netzwerk Cyber ??Forum in 2008. Plus, there’s a movie embedded in this article. Get popcorn from a vendor without hepatitis, please.
The write up’s description of the award states that it is:
“. . .aimed at young and growing companies from the advanced technology region of Karlsruhe. The focus is on the degree of innovation, market opportunity and the entrepreneurial personality. CyberChampions is not a traditional business plan competition. The challenge here is to convince the jurors with a three-to four-sided questionnaire. Categories: Newcomers (foundation or new product – about 1 to 2 years) with high potential (growth – more than 2 years).”
We wonder, were there extra points for search engine optimization?
Founded in 1715, Karlsruh, Germany is a comparatively new city which styles itself as “a vibrant center of intellectual life.” It also happens to host the country’s high courts of law.
Ontoprise is, as implied by the award, headquartered in Karlsruhe. Founded in 1999, the company insists it is a leader in semantic technologies. We know the outfit can wrangle a top listing when one searches for one of our blogs. We are impressed with the SEO skills. With semantics, our jury is still out in the marsh with the dogs. The headlines do stop our spelling checker too.
Cynthia Murrell, April 6, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Alleged Google Plus Search Bias, Illustrated
April 4, 2012
It seems that the SEO experts now realize that relevance is sort of an issue. Wow, great insight. Search Engine Land details “Real-Life Examples of How Google’s ‘Search Plus’ Pushes Google+ Over Relevancy.”
Writer Danny Sullivan uses a few Google searches, complete with screenshots, to illustrate how Google+ is unfairly favored over Facebook and other sites. He even Googled “Mark Zuckerman” with intriguing results. Sullivan’s explanation is detailed and well thought out, and is a good read for anyone following the Google+ Search affair.
The article asserts:
Those results are supposed to be showing what are the most relevant things for searchers out there. That’s how Google wins. That’s how Google sticks it to competitors, by not trying to play favorites in those results, nor by trying to punish people through them. The Google+ suggestions are indeed search results, to me. Right now, they’re search results on who to follow on Google+. I think they could be better search results if they were who to follow on any social network, anywhere.
Good point, but . . . it is kind of rich, considering the source. Is it now time for a conference session titled, “How SEO Killed Web Search Relevance”?
Cynthia Murrell, April 4, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
