Time Warner Cable: You Call That PR?

Time Warner is having some negotiation issues with channel providers. It's not new; it happens because everyone wants more for less. This round of cooperation turned into much less and led to a few channel blackouts. Okay, we understand.

But then I got this email from Time Warner. See if you can spot the terrible copywriting that stinks of an angst-ridden, petulant tween blogger:

On July 9, 2012 Hearst Television chose to black out their signals from Time Warner Cable customers rather than continue negotiations, and despite their CEO saying just two weeks earlier that broadcaster blackouts are unfair to consumers.

...

Q: Why is this happening again? It seems like this happens all the time.
A: Unfortunately, these kinds of disputes have become more common over the past few years. Cable TV prices are rising and one cause is higher fees being demanded by greedy broadcasters – as their advertising dollars decline, they want cable customers to make up the difference. And if we don't agree to their outrageous demands, they take away their programming. We don't think it's fair for TV stations to hold programming hostage for our customers, and we are working hard to keep the programming on our lineup while also trying to hold down the cost of TV.

Q: Why shouldn't I just go ahead and switch to DirecTV/Dish/FIOS/AT&T now?
A: Switching makes no sense; most of these contract blackouts are over within a matter of days. But switching isn't really the answer — any provider you switch to may eventually face the same kind of blackout threats. In fact, the American Television Alliance reports that broadcasters have blacked out signals in nearly 100 different cities since January 2011, with customers of DirecTV, Dish Network, AT&T U-Verse, Verizon FIOS and other major cable companies suffering actual or threatened blackouts. We think blackouts are unfair to viewers, which is why we continue to negotiate hard on your behalf to try to keep prices down.

Q: Will you be crediting me for the channel(s) that go dark?
A: Remember that customers do not pay for channels on an individual basis — they pay for a package of channels plus the technology and service required to deliver those channels. So we do not typically offer a credit for channels that have been blacked out.

This is considered Public Relations? This isn't even high-school level persuasive writing. "Greedy broadcasters?" "Outrageous demands?" So, being the gadfly I am, I went to Time Warner Cable's website and submitted a query along those lines: Was it really a good idea to take a serious issue with many facets and turn it childish and churlish in an open letter to all of your customers?

I even received a timely response. Tell me if this sounds familiar (emphasis mine):

On July 9, 2012 Hearst Television, the owner of several stations in our Midwest Market and one station in Hawaii, chose to black out their signals from our customers rather than continue negotiations - despite their CEO saying just two weeks earlier that broadcasters? blackouts are unfair to consumers.

Time Warner Cable is always negotiating new contracts with TV stations and networks. We've reached hundreds of agreements with other broadcasters without public dispute, and what Hearst is demanding is out of line.

We think it's wrong to put viewers in the middle of business negotiations. We know our customers are tired of these public contract disputes-and so are we.

Unfortunately, instead of continuing negotiations Hearst TV has chosen to black out there signals from our customers. They are demanding a 250% fee increase for the exact same programming, most of which is available for free over the air or online. We don't think that's fair.

There is more, but I think a rehash with spelling errors is enough to get the point across.

Time Warner has its issues (with cable and internet and customer service), but I've never seen both an angry PR letter and a customer service response that was so obviously ignorant of the original communication. They literally responded to a concerned message about an unprofessional communication with another unprofessional communication. When I posed this question to their Facebook page, my post was quickly deleted.

I'm not interested in an apology or creating a mess for them when they're already dealing with one. More than anything, this is a teaching moment:

1. If you're sending out a mass email to your customers that deals with a topic you are no happy with, argue your point with the facts, not name-calling invective. You will appear the petty fool and nothing more; you've already lost.
2. If you are offering to receive emails from customers and respond to their concerns, read their emails. Respond appropriately. And check your grammar.

Wendy's Fried Linguistics

You may have noticed that since November, Wendy's has been offering slimmer, skin-on fries called -- well, let the branding speak for itself:



At first glance, you notice the rustic/artisan patina print, "Natural" and "Sea Salt!?" OMG - Wendy's is going all natural, must be organic or something. Must have!

They did an amazing job on their branding for this because that was my first, subconscious reaction as well: Yay! Wendy's goes natural, go green! Ah, but it is not to be so.


Quick review of the language

Natural-Cut: This is not "Natural, cut" but natural-cut, literally meaning cut naturally. Now I can imagine a few horrific scenarios where you might see potatoes being cut and exclaim "Oh, how unnatural!" but seriously: how do you cut things unnaturally. That's like advertising "Coherent-Reality Chips." When wouldn't they be? And if they went through such extensive pains NOT to call their fries natural, what are they exactly?

Fries: Lest you forget amongst all the magical potato language and graphics, these are french fries. They are fried taters. And while fried taters may be delicious and varied in taste and preparation, they are NEVER good for you.

Sea Salt: Yes, sea salt is different than table salt, especially the micron-powdered stuff they used to coat the fries with, but it's still salt. You ever hear a doctor tell his/her heart patient "The table salt is killing you, but if you can switch to sea salt, I think you'll be just fine."?


The Truth

Based on some preliminary articles, Wendy's missed the boat on this one. Despite appearing more appealing to foodies or naturalists, "the new fries will pack more sodium - a medium size fry goes from 350 milligrams to 500 milligrams ... and calories jumps 10 to 420."

Caveat emptor, my friends. If something looks too good to be true, ...well, you know.


(And on a personal note, I do think the new fries are pretty tasty.)

Do I Need to Adjust My SEO Every Month?

NO.




Sorry. Allow me to elucidate.

I get the question all the time and not everyone likes my answer. The question generally comes from a client or potential client who heard from someone something to the effect of: "Yeah, Google's always adjusting its algorithm, so you've got to mix up that SEO every single month to keep up."


The Plan

Say you or a service provider puts together an all-inclusive, rear-kickin' SEO plan and executes it perfectly. Every page has a definitive focus, reinforced by the page title - h1 - copy Holy Relevance Trinity. Your meta data is tuned (if not always used), alt and title attribute tags are playing some killer backup and your copy is sufficient but not overkill, readable but keyword-dense.

What then?

Well, assuming the necessary submissions, robots.txt, autodiscovery are in place and nothing is done to accidentally sabotage the outcome, you've got a pretty good chance Google et.al. will begin indexing your pages or raising your rankings. After a couple weeks to a couple months, that is.


The Someone Quote

"Yeah, Google's always adjusting its algorithm, so you've got to mix up that SEO every single month to keep up."

The first problem with that general idea is the timing. Yes, you can be certain that the good folks at Google don't take one day off making tiny changes to the algorithm. But as we just mentioned, it may take a couple months to get moving. So what were you tweaking?

The second problem with the quote is the absolute arrogance it encompasses. That Someone does not know a whole lot about the algorithm, let alone the little adjustments; if they did, they would be busy on a yacht.

The last problem is necessity. If you already have a clear focus on your pages and a solid search engine optimization setup, how much can you accurately make that better by small tweaks from month to month? The answer is: you can't.


The Con(clusion)

The person who tells you that you need SEO adjustments every month either does not understand search engine optimization or is lying in order to perpetuate that myth - and perhaps even rope you into an unnecessary, expensive 12+ month SEO contract. Their gain, your loss.

In a worst-case scenario, you're looking at a never-ending game of ghost cat-and-mouse: "Sorry about the lack of any measurable results, but we're doing everything we can and Google keeps switching it up."

(Can you guess which parties do not appreciate my answer?)


A Recommendation

Search engine optimization does change, but except for the HUGE revisions (hint: they have names), the little tweaks aren't going to drastically affect your rankings, and the little tweaks that would be done to your site monthly are something a small- or medium- sized business has absolutely no need for.

After I explain this to a client, I give them a realistic recommendation: Yes, Google does change, but your focus does not, not by much. So after 90 days we'll take a look at analytics, at rankings, (at no charge) and if we see something that could increase your rankings, at THAT time we'll put together suggestions with justification into a proposal for additional SEO work.

In my professional opinion, anything else is either ignorance or deception.


(Sidenote for another post: Be wary of anyone separating web design from SEO, e.g. "And this is our SEO Package." "SEO Friendly" is what you get if you don't choose that package, which generally means "If you want it later, we'll tear out the drywall in your house to add the electric. Until then? Nothing, and we'll wait for your call.")

MyCleanPC.com - Buyer Beware

Here's an edited version of the commercial with a humorous end, but the only bit I could come up with on short notice:



Now this has been around for a few years, and that tells me that someone's making a heap-load of money because it's become even more prevalent on television in the past few months. Or maybe I'm watching more late-night television.


More Than 3 Seconds

So aside from the spokesman looking and sounding like he's nursing a nasty cold (purposeful? virus?), the line that always bugs me is "Does it take more than three seconds for your email to load?"

What exactly does that mean?

• Should I be clocking Outlook to see if the program opens in 3 seconds?
• Should I be clocking the email load once Outlook opens?
• Should I be clocking how long it takes to complete a send/receive request?
• Is it how long it takes my browser to open in the process of checking online email?
• Maybe the length of time it takes to bring up Gmail?
• Does typing time count?
• What's a jiffy?!
• I'm so confused!

That's just my off-the-cuff process. Many people watch that commercial and respond "Yeah, slow email: bad."

And then they've got you.

But here's a tip: the whole thing is meant to be vague, indirect, and misleading, especially to people who find computers to be a little complicated and confusing.


What's the Harm?

You're going to go to their website and you'll see the giant green button and the word FREE all over the place and OMG you computer's so slow *click* and you're downloading and installing the executable file which will scan your registry. And it will tell you that you have registry errors. Want to fix them?

Oh, that's easy. We just have to discuss the little issue of purchasing the activation for the software so it can fix your computer.

Ah, but you're savvy, so you looked ...all over ...two links? Why won't they tell me how much it is before I scan and then have to buy it?

Exactly.

MyCleanPC.com is shilling for a program called CyberDefender. I don't care if it's the best dang registry scanner in the fracking world: The deliberate misdirection and manipulation of people who very simply may not know better is a SHADY practice and something to be abhorred.

Feel free to contact them to let them know they're shady.


But What Can I DO?

I know. I understand. Your computer is still slow and the most obvious solution on the teevee is actually a potentially dangerous bogeyman. Why not take a look at my post on The FREE Way to Clean & Protect Your Computer. It is completely legit: It highlights truly free programs that I have found work quite well and I get absolutely nothing for telling you about them. This is about making you a more savvy consumer.


That's one down. What scams or shady practices have you run into recently or in the past? Hit me in the comments and don't be afraid of the sidebar - I'm always available in a variety of ways and happy to take the time to chat about your thoughts or questions.


P.S. Depending on the branch of science, jiffy has several definitions as a length of time.

Cincinnati Bell - Family & Technology FAIL

My wife and I have a 14 year old daughter. With having a 14 year old daughter comes some of the complications implicit in raising a teenage girl. Namely: goofy boys. They're mind-boggled, silly, and still growing up. Yes, even I was one once.

And boys will be boys. Prank calls will be made. But there is a line. And this is where technology comes in and Cincinnati Bell falls flat on its face in the protection of families.

Origins

Since there have been phones there have been prank calls. I'd bet after the famous "Mr. Watson come here I want you," when Watson was settled back in the other room the second call was "Watson, is the refrigerator running?" (anachronism noted - I can't even do Prince Albert in the Can!). So on occasion, if we get a prank call with some boys goofing off, I don't pay much mind and just hang up.

But about 2 months ago, the calls - though still rare - started to become more malicious. They started edging towards the middle of the night. And knowing my daughter was not allowed to talk on the phone that late, became targeted at myself and my wife with specific reference towards our daughter. Last Saturday night / Sunday morning was the last straw. Someone called our home and when I told them our daughter could not speak, they proceeded to become - let's just say sexually explicit. It was not nice. And as the father of the 14 year old girl, I was not happy.

The Research

I called Cincinnati Bell on two different occasions because the simple fact is that despite the caller(s) using *67 to block their identity, there's a server somewhere with that phone number on it. And living in a small community with responsive parents, the easiest way to deal with the situation would be to get the phone number and have a parent-to-parent talk. Not happening.

Harassing phone calls are a crime as soon as they're made, so Cincinnati Bell's policy for harassing - and even life-threating - phone calls is as follows:

No prior harassing calls made can be tracked (read: looked up). Period. It is my responsibility to talk to the police and file an official police report. It is the police department's responsibility to contact Cincinnati Bell and request a tap on the phone. At that time, Cincinnati Bell will place a tap on my phone (read: press a button or click a checkbox) for 21 days. It is my responsibility, when the next harassing call comes through, to myself make a phone call to a special voicemail box to log the time of the call as well as keep a written record. At the end of that 21 days, they will remove the tap and forward the list of phone numbers to the investigating officer. And then it becomes a legal matter.

However, if the calls become more threatening or more graphic or more frequent, nothing still happens for those 3 weeks. If the pranking trolls don't call in those 3 weeks? Nothing. I'll have to wait for another harassing call, file another police report, rinse and repeat.


The Conclusion

This is both lazy and unacceptable on the part of Cincinnati Bell. It would be like if your house was robbed and you had the license plate of the getaway car and the police said "Here's our policy: I know you've been violated, so we're going to install a camera across the street. If they come back, leave us a voicemail so we can timecode the rough time of the crime, and after three weeks we'll take a look. If they don't come back in that window, nothing we can do. But we'll come back to put up that camera if they come back after that."

They have that number on file somewhere that can easily be referenced with knowing the time of the call(s). Once there is (reluctantly) police involvement, there should be no issue of digging backwards. Unfortunately for all of their customers, with Cincinnati Bell, an efficient method of family protection is not anywhere on their agenda.


So what are your thoughts? Should retrieval of a phone number be available to civilians? To police upon request? Is the 21-day tap reasonable? Is Cincinnati Bell protecting privacy or being lazy? What if it was your child?

Lots of issues here - can't wait to hear your thoughts!

Not-so-Useful Tech Gadget: Pasta n More

Hey kids! It's Pasta N More, your microwave, no-muss, no-fuss pasta-cookin' machine!

We got one as a gift a while back and just opened it yesterday.

But only if you've got the time. I don't know about you, but I can have a pot of water boiling in about 10 minutes or less (salt it, cover it, set on high) and pasta will cook in about 5-7 minutes. That's on the stove. In a pot of water.

Looking at the instructions of Pasta N More, I find it strange that towards the higher end of servings, the time to pop the pasta in the microwave is equal to or greater than 18 minutes, my estimated stove time. Actually, all the way up to 27 minutes for some pastas!

Isn't the microwave built for convenience? This seems like the opposite of that.

Second problem: You're going to get not-so-great pasta. Why? Cooking 8 servings of pasta only calls for 4 cups of water. 4 cups? Alton Brown would smack you silly! That's not nearly enough for all the starches to properly release, to give the pasta that swimmy goodness that it loves, that water breathing room!

So, in summary, stay away from Pasta N More. You're going to get poorer quality pasta in a longer cooking time than just tossing a pot on the stove.

Twitter Headlines: Obama, Palin Accounts, Credit, and Sharia Law

Usually I'm scraping the bottom of the barrel of Twitter headlines after picking out the super-celeb and sports stories about someone famous tweeting something their manager or coach disapproves of, but this week is rife with tasty tidbits!

Obama Hacker says "Excusez-moi!"

A 25-year old French man has been apprehended as a hacker who got into Barack Obama's Twitter account. Great: another reason for Americans to baselessly hate refined wine and delicious cheeses. Of course, all the blame doesn't go to the man himself; when your password is "pelosi" it's not rocket science to hack.


Palin Takes Aim

Sarah Palin's healthcare tweet:

Commonsense Conservatives & lovers of America: "Don’t Retreat Instead – RELOAD!" Pls see my Facebook page.

Oopsie! I get it. I understand the figurative language. Unfortunately, I suspect it will take less than 2 weeks for someone somewhere to take that literally and act upon it. When you're famous, social media also contains an aspect of responsibility.

(Note: She's also getting a show on Discovery)


Social Media & Your Credit?

Seriously, are we shocked by this? Years ago, I had a credit card company I'd been with for years run a credit check and - without notice - raised my rate by over 10% because they didn't like my debt-to-income ratio. Colleges and employers readily use social media checks as often as they do background checks. And now companies are checking out Twitter and Facebook for excuses to increase rates or deny you credit? I've got 3 words for you:




Amputation Chatter Cut Off in Nigeria

A Nigerian court has ordered no more chatting about a guy who was punished with amputation for stealing a cow.

An order is hereby given restraining the respondents either by themselves or their agents from opening a chat forum on Facebook, Twitter, or any blog for the purpose of the debate on the amputation of Malam Buba Bello Jangebe.

Bwa-ha-ha! A chat forum on Twitter. They must be really good at the internets.

Slightly more disturbing:

You would think that social media sites are not particularly popular with Sharia Law proponents. Wrong. After a British guy ended his marriage on Facebook last year, a couple of Sharia lawyers claimed that, rather like SMS, divorce on Facebook or Twitter would be acceptable.

Wha-what?

Not that I agree with it, but as opposed to our own courts, it's interesting to see that Sharia law has someone paying attention to emerging technology and social media.


That's it this week. Cheers!

Wednesday Twitter Headlines: Security, XLIV, Space, Teens

No! No celebrity news this week! Not one blip about Fall Out Boy or Lady Gaga. Not one!

Unsecured Twitter?

But this week Twitter did say: "I's been haxed!

"A red flag was first raised on Twitter's end when it noticed an abnormally high number of followers for certain accounts. This prompted the company to investigate and eventually reset the passwords for anyone following those suspicious accounts. Twitter noted that although torrent sites have been around a while, this is the first time it's seen an attack using this angle."

It was a custom-built, torrent site back door, password reset phishing scam. W00t! As always, Twitter kinda has it under control.


Beer! I Mean Super Bowl XLIV

And if you've been waiting with baited breath to see what's going on with tweeting and Super Bowl XLIV, your wait is over: Super Bowl XLIV Earns an Official Twitter Hashtag: #SB44. I'd give you a blockquote on this one but that's the whole story. Not that this is actually news. I went to a conference this past December where a half dozen of us tweeted the event. We had a hashtag too.

Note to media: A hashtag is not earned. You don't have to file with the IRS or anything. You just make it up, let people know, and start using it.


Um, Teens and, um, Twitter

And I also noticed an abnormally large number of stories covering the fact that teens still aren't showing Twitter the love that they show Facebook. Also, this is not news, just like it wasn't news last August when I talked about it.

Maybe I need to start a blog on Twitter headlines that aren't news.


Not Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation

And this one's a little older than a week, but: Tweets From Spaaaaaaace!

NASA has set up an impressive wireless connection that provides astronauts on International Space Station with Internet access so they can surf the Web, e-mail their friends and family back home, and even send Twitter messages.

Flight Engineer T.J. Creamer started using the connection this morning by sending the first tweet originating from the space station.

Sweet. Question: Is a tweet that you're going to the bathroom more interesting if you're going in a suction-powered space toilet on the ISS?

Answer: Yeah!


So what did you learn from Twitter this week? I'm always happy to read your feeback!

Google Shuts Down IE6? Hope hope?

Every developer's plea* of "Dear MS: Make IE6 die pls. k thx." was brought one more giant step towards fruition. In my inbox this morning was the following from Google:

In order to continue to improve our products and deliver more sophisticated features and performance, we are harnessing some of the latest improvements in web browser technology. This includes faster JavaScript processing and new standards like HTML5. As a result, over the course of 2010, we will be phasing out support for Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 as well as other older browsers that are not supported by their own manufacturers.

We plan to begin phasing out support of these older browsers on the Google Docs suite and the Google Sites editor on March 1, 2010. After that point, certain functionality within these applications may have higher latency and may not work correctly in these older browsers. Later in 2010, we will start to phase out support for these browsers for Google Mail and Google Calendar.

Google Apps will continue to support Internet Explorer 7.0 and above, Firefox 3.0 and above, Google Chrome 4.0 and above, and Safari 3.0 and above.

Yes, this is where you smile and sigh and possibly float a little. It's okay. I'll wait.

But maybe you're saying "Wait a second, IE6 is just a little older. What's the big hubbub?

The Big Hubbub about IE6

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is an international group that works to develop a set of standards for how websites should be coded. And if browsers followed their recommendations, all would be well: A website viewed in IE6 would look the same as IE7 and 8 and Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Opera...

But all has never been well in the world of internet browsers. As a matter of fact, until Firefox 3 and IE7, the land of web development was a sad and desolate place full of angry programmers yelling at their computers at how a website would show up in a particular version of a particular browser because that version didn't follow a W3C spec.

All is not milk and honey quite yet, but it's getting better. Word on the street is Opera is the most compliant, but if you develop in Firefox and fix for IE bugs, you'll probably be fine - just check it in all of them to be sure.

The IE6 Scent Lingers

The souring of development continues. Why? IE6 is still alive and remains the biggest W3C compliance mess out there. Based on the January 2009 numbers, the browser still has a little over 10% of the market share.

But there is hope with the note from Google. There is hope that IE6 will just die, will go away forever. How practical that hope is, only time will tell. All we can do is educate people and spread the word.


So what's your favorite browser? Do you stick with a version of Internet Explorer, shun all but Safari, give Google love on Chrome, or something else? I'd love to hear from you.


* I am personally aware that there are multi-million dollar corporations with active web apps that will not function properly in any browser except IE6. For those developers we weep, say a little prayer, and hope corporate gets on the stick with that, our small exception.

Know Your Partners: A Cautionary Tale

When you own your own business, you can work the social networks, you can imbue every part of your work and practice with integrity and you can view the entire world as your growing oyster.

But people will take advantage. If someone can - or has for a while - gamed the system, turned things slightly unethical to get a buck into his/her pocket, they will always be that person.

Allow me an example: I got into business with a friend and her business partner. The parameters were pretty straightforward: Nice niche, I build the site, they handle the logistics, and I get a cut of the profit after a down payment. Pretty normal. She seemed to trust this guy, so I was fine with it.

Business dramatics aside, I got a call from my friend yesterday. She had received a text from her business partner: "Tell Eric we sold the business and get the passwords so I can have this guy in India work on it." Luckily I have a friend first and a business partner second. We'll be making our own move soon.

Logistics of selling a business aside, who does that? Who thinks that kind of business practice is even reasonable?

Answer: No one you want to deal with.

Lesson learned: Spend time - hours and hours if necessary - before getting into business with anyone. People have the potential for anything. Hope for the best, but get to know them. And even then, prepare for the worst. Always have something in iron-clad writing.

I wasn't burned this time, but I have been before. And fool me once...


What are your experiences in business? Do you have any horror stories? Magnificent stories? What advice can you give based on your business or life experiences?

Rupert Murdoch Doesn't Get the Internet

From Sky

News Corp chairman Rupert Murdoch has suggested the company's online newspaper pages will be invisible to Google users when it launches its new paid content strategy.

He claimed that readers who randomly reach a page via an internet search hold little value to advertisers.

When asked by Sky News Australia's political editor David Speers why News Corp has not stopped Google from finding its content, Mr Murdoch replied: "I think we will."

(feel free to watch it)

This is quite possibly the most naive thing I've heard about content on the internet - or the internet in general - in a long while. I remember the moment, actually. Perhaps Mr. Murdoch and Ex-Senator Ted Stevens should get coffee. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you may want to review Stevens' Senate floor terribly inaccurate diatribe about how the internet works while arguing against net neutrality. "Series of tubes" ring a bell?



But back to Murdoch. First off, many national news websites publish their news as re-extruded wire news, so the idea that anyone is "stealing" content by reading it is absurd. Secondly, what does Mr. Murdoch see as the reality of the situation, if he really intends to block all content from Google?

For example, let's say this ludicrous plan gains some legs and Fox News gets blocked. Okay. Then you've got to block all Fox affiliates. That's right, that means that Fox19 here in Cincinnati and every other local Fox station would need to be blocked as well. And because local television station URLs are not standardized, unless you've got it bookmarked or memorized, you can't exactly Google it. And then once you get there you have to pay to read the content.

People have, for much too long, come to expect free news on the internet with little hassle. Attention spans are measured by portions of seconds. Taking an entire news enterprise and hiding it from content aggregators and search engines is a death sentence for that enterprise. If someone cannot find your content or has to work harder for that content, especially if most of that content can be found elsewhere for free, that someone will go elsewhere and you and your business will wilt.

I'm not even sure if I can put into words how silly this idea is. Or if I already did.

This is why you hire experts to educate and speak when you do not know how something - especially something as ubiquitous as the internet - works.

And what's the take-home? I'm not just poking at Murdoch for the lulz (and there are many), but all too often I see people making decisions about websites and businesses that are represented by them that are not informed decisions. We are an internet culture, and anything less than a polished, comprehensive web presence does not cut it anymore. If you don't know if you're where you need to be, talk to somebody who does. If you don't know somebody, call us. It's free.

Now have a great day!


Bonus insight: "News Corporation is a major shareholder in BSkyB, which owns Sky News," meaning that if Mr. Murdoch had already had his way, I probably wouldn't have known about it or posted this because Sky would've already been strong-armed into hiding their own content.

Bonus question: When I say Murdoch, what do you think of first: a news mogul, MacGyver's nemesis, or the crazy one on The A-Team?

How Much Does a Domain Name Cost?

$10 or less.

Back after the internet transitioned from military to civilian and Network Solutions set up a fee schedule and was the only way to register, it was $100. Now it has been decentralized so much that you can get domain names for $7 - $10 at places like GoDaddy, NameCheap, and many more sites.

The reason I mention this is that I've had experiences with clients (see my post on Portability) who were not aware of their options and I even received a letter from a company today - a company with whom I did not register my domain names to begin with, but who wanted me to transfer to them at $30 per year.

These companies are not just trying to stretch their profit margin, they are preying on people who simply do not know better. This is bad business and unethical by its very nature

To be clear:

Under no circumstances should you ever pay more than $10 per year on .com, .net, or .org domain names.

Be wise. Shop around. And always have someone you can talk to (for free) if you have a question about web stuff. It'll keep more money in your pocket.

And if you don't have that person, my number is in the sidebar ;)

Another Note on Drudgery

Earlier this week, I caught another praise for traffic over at The Drudge Report that went like this, captured in all-caps glory with bonus ellipsis:

A TRILLION THANKS FOR MAKING AUGUST 2009 THE TOP AUGUST IN DRUDGEREPORT'S 14 YEAR HISTORY! VIEWERS FROM ALL CORNERS HIT THE PAGE 669,392,126 TIMES, UP 8% OVER AUGUST 2008 [614,577,960]...

I'm rehashing this because I am not a fan of cheaters and I've covered this from a web programmer's standpoint. Please check out my post on how Matt Drudge is gaming the system and why the numbers are misleading. Both interesting and informative.

Friday YouTube: Alien Elephants, Star Wars Odd Couple, Miley Cyrus, Bus Ride Fail

Couple things you may not have seen on YouTube lately.

Alien Elephants
Specifically, bungee jumping alien elephants.



Han and Chewie: The Odd Couple
I just don't know how those two can live with each other.



Miley Cyrus performs "Party in The U.S.A. live on Teen Choice Awards 2009
At 1:08 the something way to akin to a stripper pole comes out. Yes, she is only 16 and this was the Teen Choice Awards.



Bus Ride Fail




So what are your thoughts on YouTube Friday? Anything specific you'd like to see?

Everyone's Got One

Spotted on Craigslist for Columbus, OH:

I have multiple ideas for Iphone apps, but need a developer to turn my dreams in to a reality. Split profit will be offered.

I can respect an eager attitude about new technology, but you really need to do the research on:
- What apps are out there and being developed
- What it takes to build an app

I can imagine a conversation with this poster:

"So I got this awesome app idea for iPhone. You do all the work and I'll give you half."

"Goodbye."

The morals of this story are:

1. Even if you are brilliant, if you do not compose posts in an authoritative and intelligent manner, you will look silly.

2. Craigslist is endlessly entertaining.

Reasons Bing Will not Dominate Google

It looks like Bing is here to stay. For those of you that have somehow made it to this blog post without encountering Bing online or through the media blitz, Bing is Microsoft's new pet search engine - I'm sorry; they call it a decision engine. They also call it a Google Killer.

And while I have been tweaking this post for a few days now, and today a deal was sealed between Yahoo and Microsoft, I believe the argument still stands. Here are a couple reasons that Bing/Yahoo will not overrun Google.

The Raw Numbers
The last Neilsen Online numbers for search engine usage (May 2009), Google was over 63%. Yahoo and MSN/Live together were less than 27%. And while Google and Yahoo (and even AOL and Ask) total users had increased from last year, MSN dropped by almost 15%.

Familiarity
We all know Google. The simplicity of its home page is a beautiful thing and a psychological comfort to many of us. People are creatures of habit and while novelty may lead some to seek out Bing, most will go back to what they're used to.

Mystery Meat Home Page



What the hell?

One of the reasons that Google is successful is the simplicity of it: one box, two buttons. The Bing home page is variable. There is an image of some sort littered with invisible boxes with information mildly relevant to the image. (note the one on the American Flag in the image above.)

This is mystery meat in the worst way: not only do you have to mouse over the boxes to see information that may or may not relate to the piece of the picture you are mousing over, you actually have to hunt for the boxes because they do not appear until you mouse over (or near) them.

Why is this bad? A large part of good design is abundant clarity that allows visitors to intuitively navigate to or use your page to gain the information they are looking for. Without distraction. On the contrary, Microsoft is employing design elements that are tried and true examples of worst practice.

Microsoft's MSN/Live Debacle History
First it was MSN. Then it was Live, but MSN was still there, bumming around with its hands in its pockets. Then MSN was still there but running the Live engine. And now it's calling itself Bing. Oh, MSN is still there, just running the Bing engine. And Live is still there linking you to Hotmail and Spaces (hehe, yes the MySpace wannabe is still extant).

Microsoft is already a target for being The Evil Empire. Toss in a history of confusion and failure as the basis of continuing confusion in branding and that's just untrustworthy business.


I'm guessing Bing will be around for a while - at least until MS takes a different tack. And I will work with it as a web developer because that's just good business practice. But even with this new Yahoo/Microsoft marriage of internet nobility, they are going to have a hard time getting their numbers to stabilize, let alone rise, let alone creep up on Google as a search engine.

But there's also that: Bing will always be the #1 decision engine.

Wired: Weird

I subscribe to Wired, the manic magazine full of all things web, tech, gadget, and everything else that is on the cool cutting edge. It's sometimes even referred to as elitist.

So when it was time to renew, I got an email asking me to pay online with links that sent me here:



How exactly does a magazine that lives at the ever-changing pinnacle of technology send me to a page, not on their server, that looks like a 13-year-old's phishing experiment?

Boo, Wired. We expect better.

I'll be renewing over the phone. Maybe tomorrow.

Why Quick Template Websites Are a Bad Idea

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The Vendor Client relationship - in real world situations

Brilliant video. Very funny in a sad, truthful way.



Thanks @chrisbergman RT'ing @davidbean

The Techno-Drudge Myth-Fraud

I'm not purporting to be staging a coup, though if I were I would do it upon a humongous ottoman as it would be more comfortable. I'm not making a political issue over Matt Drudge's site content. Very simply, I have seen what I would call fraud and need to pull the aside the curtain for a moment of clarity on what numbers you may run across actually mean.

And yes, this is important. Because it's news media and because it's technology (or technology hacked). This is deceptive practice on the main stage.

What's the issue?
Every so often, Matt Drudge's The Drudge Report reports on how much traffic he's received, generally with some tasty braggadocio. The latest report (PDF) puts him just under Google News, CNN, and the Weather Channel.

The first clue that something's rotten in Denmark would be that Drudge's 1+ (sometimes a secondary "developing") page is pulling 2.14% traffic compared to CNN's many, many pages taking in only 3.15%. (NOTE: These percentages may not appear large, but it is market share of ALL news and Media websites that exist.)

This is relatively preposterous when you look at the number of potential visitable pages: 1 vs. hundreds. Is the single page site really that popular?

In a word: NO.

What's a Visit?
The report that's being touted is from Hitwise, and they state in the first paragraph: "Note - the Hitwise data featured is based on US market share of visits..."

A visit is defined as every time someone accesses the site. Sometimes it is separated into new (or unique) visitors and return visitors. In this case, every time someone accesses www.drudgereport.com, it is counted as a visit.

So what's so hinkey?
If you've ever visited The Drudge Report, if you were there for more than 3 minutes, you may have noticed that the page will reload by itself. Every time it does that, it should hold to reason that, because you are again accessing the site without clicking on another link on the site, it tags another visit. Leave it open in a tab for a couple hours while you mean to get to it? You get the picture.

(As a comparison, every time you visit CNN.com, if you click 50 different links to read those stories, it still counts as a single visit.)

Why does Drudge's site refresh automatically like that? It's a simple bit of JavaScript that goes like this:

var timer = setInterval("autoRefresh()", 1000 * 60 * 3);
function autoRefresh(){self.location.reload(true);}

This means that if you're carefully reading through the headlines and it takes you 15 minutes, you are registering 5 visits even though you've only visited the site once.

What else?
The Drudge Report website is a single page with dozens of links, almost all of which link to stories on other sites. None of the link text uses the target="_blank" anchor attribute, meaning when you click a story link, it takes you to another site. But you would like to see what other stories they have on the site, so when you are done reading that story, you click the back button. You've just logged another visit.

Conclusion
It is impossible to calculate the actual number of people accessing The Drudge Report in any given month without more data, like unique visitors. But the data that is being pushed as proof of popularity is deviously misleading as the pairing of the site structure auto-reload and necessity of the Back button lead to an enormous number of Visits by its very nature. Caveat Emptor.

Again, this is not a political opinion, but information based on web analytics knowledge and source code research. I visit The Drudge Report several times a week. But I know what's going on behind the scenes. I generally take a quick scan, CTRL-click the stories to open them in separate tabs, and close out of the main one.

And I just thought you should know.

Any ideas or thoughts are always welcome in the comments.