Posts Tagged ‘google’
January 17th, 2012
If you haven’t seen this before a Google a day is a great way to stimulate your brain first thing in the morning! It is basically a puzzle you have to solve via Google search, and there is a new puzzle every day to answer.
To make sure you cannot cheat, Google uses Deja Google – “A wormhole inspired time machine that enables you to solve today’s puzzle spoiler free by searching the Internet as it existed before A Google a Day launched“.
Today’s question is:
Who was the first American president known to have sworn his oath of office on a book other than the Bible?
To help you enhance your search understanding, use Google Inside Search, which is a Google site with the latest search features, tips and tricks.
If you’re really into a Google a day, there is a Chrome app available here, or I would also suggest you try out pokki, which is a desktop platform allowing you to install various apps to it, including one for ‘a Google a day’.
Wikipedia 24 hour black out – a protest against SOPA and PIPA
January 17th, 2012
Wikipedia has announced that it will be holding a 24 hour blackout for its English language site from 05.00 UTC on Wednesday, January 18. You can read the statement from the Wikimedia foundation here and press release here.
The statement confirms: “In an unprecedented decision, the Wikipedia community has chosen to blackout the English version of Wikipedia for 24 hours, in protest against proposed legislation in the United States - the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and PROTECTIP (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate. If passed, this legislation will harm the free and open Internet and bring about new tools for censorship of international websites inside the United States.”
This means that on Wednesday any visitors to Wikipedia (There are believed to be around 100 million English-speaking Wikipedia users) will only have access to an open letter encouraging them to contact the U.S. Congress (or local authority outside of the U.S.) in protest.
Some have said that the blackout is unnecessary because a major target of the protest, SOPA (the Stop Online Piracy Act), has already been halted by opposition from the White House, but Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia, said the blackout would go ahead anyway, by tweeting: “PIPA is still extremely dangerous,”
PIPA (or the Protect Intellectual Property Act), is still under consideration by the Senate, and has stirred many of the Web’s vocal commentators into action. Jimmy Wales also tweeted.
“This is going to be wow. I hope Wikipedia will melt phone systems in Washington on Wednesday. Tell everyone you know!”
“My goal is to melt switchboards!,”
“We have no indication that SOPA is fully off the table. We need to send Washington a BIG message.”
The user-generated news site Reddit and the blog Boing Boing have also said they will take part in the blackout.
So why such a response to the acts? Well, SOPA and PIPA plan to impose responsibilities on websites such as Wikipedia to check that no material they host infringes copyright. Under current laws if websites remove pirated content when they are notified by the copyright holder they are not liable for damages.
The proposed laws also make it easier for American copyright holders to cut off access to foreign websites hosting unlicensed copies of films, music and television programs, which has recently been evidenced by the case of an English student, Richard O’ Dwyer, who is accused of creating a website that provided links where people could illegally access film and documentary material.
He now faces 10 years in jail for operating a website that U.S. authorities say hosts links to copyrighted material after a judge ruled that the 23 year old can be extradited to the US.
He is arguing that under the so-called dual criminality rule, since he has not been charged for an offence in the UK, the US has no right to extradite him.
The U.S. SOPA and PIPA legislation has been backed by major media owners, including Rupert Murdoch, and opposed by the giants of Silicon Valley, including Google and Facebook.
On Friday the White House said it would not approve key parts of the SOPA bill, which means it will need to be re-written and proposed. A statement from the Whitehouse said the provisions for blocking foreign websites “pose a real risk to cyber security“. And later confirmed : “Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small,”
This brought a reaction from Rupert Murdoch over the weekend, who called Google a ‘piracy leader‘ and suggested ‘Barack Obama had thrown his lot in with Silicon Valley Paymasters’, to which Google replied:
“This is just nonsense. Last year we took down 5 million infringing web pages from our search results and invested more than $60 million in the fight against bad ads.
“Like many other tech companies, we believe that there are smart, targeted ways to shut down foreign rogue websites without asking US companies to censor the Internet.”
Further information on the Wall Blog.
Jimmy Wales has urged us to take action: “Today Wikipedians from around the world have spoken about their opposition to this destructive legislation.
“This is an extraordinary action for our community to take - and while we regret having to prevent the world from having access to Wikipedia for even a second, we simply cannot ignore the fact that SOPA and PIPA endanger free speech both in the United States and abroad, and set a frightening precedent of Internet censorship for the world.
“We urge Wikipedia readers to make your voices heard. If you live in the United States, find your elected representative in Washington (https://www.eff.org/sopacall). If you live outside the United States, contact your State Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs or similar branch of government. Tell them you oppose SOPA and PIPA, and want the internet to remain open and free.”
There is an argument to say Wikipedia should remain impartial, but this is very difficult when its core focus will be so badly affected by the proposed legislation, and I support its stand to raise awareness of the issues.
To get further detail, pleased read the Telegraph’s overview of the story:
Or the BBC has a good round-up.
Mashable also offers a good run down of the U.S. Government’s position.
Google changes the rules and upsets Twitter, among others
January 12th, 2012
Earlier this week Google announced a number of changes, which apply to the U.S. only at this stage, and are designed to accelerate personal search, and move towards social search.
The three changes fall under the following categories:
First: Personal results, aimed at helping you to find more relevant to…well…you.
Second: Profiles in search, meaning you can more easily identify people you’re close to or want to follow.
Third: People and pages, which focuses on helping you to find profiles and Google+ pages related to memes or topics of interest.
The additions offer more meaningful ways to connect with people around you, straight from the search results.
This all sounds well and good, and personalising and or customising results to be more relevant can only be more positive, can’t it?
Many commentators such as the Guardian and BBC have picked up on the other side effect of these changes which is to make Google+ much more relevant. For example, when you search for information, particularly about individuals, results from the social network will be prominently displayed on the first page of results, assuming you are a member.
That makes Google+ a much more attractive social network, as users will see fewer results from outside it when they search for information.
As you might expect, Twitter has offered its opinion on the issue, as it has perhaps the most to lose. Twitter’s lead lawyer, Alex Macgillivray, called it a “bad day for the internet“, and suggested - as a former Google employee - that there would have been dissent internally “at search being warped this way“.
Twitter later made a formal statement: “For years, people have relied on Google to deliver the most relevant results any time they wanted to find something on the internet.
“As we’ve seen time and time again, news breaks first on Twitter, as a result, Twitter accounts and tweets are often the most relevant results. We’re concerned that as a result of Google’s changes, finding this information will be much harder for everyone. We think that’s bad for people, publishers, news organisations and Twitter users.”
Others have also criticised the change, Danny Sullivan of Search Engine Land commented: “Search engines are supposed to send you away to the best information, even if they don’t have their own in stock. Google has previously been excellent at providing links to the most suitable information.
“Today’s change is one of the few times where I’m thinking ‘What the hell are you doing, Google?’”
Getting to the heart of the matter, Google was always going to find a way to move its social network, which is so far behind the game, to the front. Its best strategy to achieve this is to link its social network more closely to its search engine, which is after all the most popular in the U.S and Europe. But is that fair?
Google’s decision to favour Google+ posts which would not rank highly by its normal criteria (defined by the number of “authoritative” pages on the web linking to it) could suggest that it is favouring its own product in order to grow it more quickly. That in turn could breach antitrust (or competition) laws.
Twitter and Facebook content does not generally appear in Google search results because neither site provides Google with unlimited access to their content.
Twitter formerly had an agreement in which Google paid for access to index its database directly, but Twitter chose not to renew the agreement, according to a statement placed on Google+ by an official Google account, which said it was “a bit surprised by Twitter’s comments” because “they chose not to renew their agreement with us last summer“.
Although these changes are likely to head to Europe eventually, the Guardian piece suggests Google may have to think twice about introducing the changes over here because it has a greater share of search in European countries, meaning a ruling on it affecting the market is more likely, and also if the changes extend to results on Android phones, then it may face more urgent calls for an antitrust investigation.
This wouldn’t be the first time that there has been a call for Google to be investigated on such grounds, but if these changes do come to Europe as expected, we could be on the verge of a few interesting legal actions.
January 3rd, 2012
Google has recently announced google.com/elections, an election hub where citizens can study, watch, discuss, learn about, participate in and perhaps even make an impact on the digital campaign trail as it blazes forward to Tuesday, November 6, 2012.
The hub is similar to Google News, and offers a wealth of information on candidates, issues and links to related G+ accounts, YouTube politics pages, 2012 politics calendars and election tool kits.
As the race hots up so will this site, I’m sure!
Why take the Google+ page plunge?
November 18th, 2011
Google+ launched Google+ pages last week, in direct competition with Facebook, and the evidence shows that many brands have set up a page over the first week of activity, at least according to research by SEO firm BrightEdge, who confirmed ‘61 percent of world’s top 100 brands have already created Google+ pages‘, which is pretty impressive considering the time frame.
The question that keeps coming up is: ‘Why do I need a Facebook page and a Google+ page?’ Many of those brands that have taken the plunge already will have grabbed their Google+ page, simply to secure it, which is reason enough at least in the short term. Some may be surprised to hear though that it’s easy to set up fake pages so look for the verified badge when you visit the site.
So why does a brand need a Google+ page? Well, there are many reasons, 18.5 of which are defined in Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp’s piece on the Drum last week, and as he suggested, the integration of Analytics, YouTube, Adwords, Picassa offers an advantage over Facebook, and perhaps an insight into the longer term strategy.
Obviously Facebook is the prime motivation for the Google+ launch, and many feel Google+ is too far behind to mount an effective challenge, but the issue here is not so much about the stand alone effectiveness of Google+ vs Facebook, but the sheer scale of Google products that Google + already integrates, and will undoubtedly increase in the future. Let’s also not forget Google’s strength, its search engine, which has led to its Google+ pages already out ranking Facebook brand pages, which is reason enough for some brands to get involved.
The BrightEdge analysis showed Google+ pages on average appeared in the top 12 Google search results for the corresponding brand, while the brand’s Facebook pages on average appeared in the top 13 or 14 listed results.
The flexibility in connectedness, and search, gives Google the long term edge in terms of synching with its full range of services. Of course many services also synch with Facebook, but Google’s vision seems to take this to another level. We’re not talking about beating Facebook, Google is simply building around it and making it less relevant.
The reality is we’re a long way away from that today as 94 percent of the Top 100 brands analysed by BrightEdge have a presence on Facebook, and in terms of the big brands, like Coke, McDonalds and Verizon each only has dozens of fans on Google+, but millions of Facebook fans. The review of Facebook and Google+ properties for the top 100 brands showed a collective total of almost 300 million Facebook fans, compared to approximately 148,000 Google+ followers for these same brands.
Looking at the figures today, the task ahead of Google+ seems insurmountable, but i suspect the gulf between Facebook and Google+ will fall as the connected battle gets into second gear, and Google has already announced a pilot program that will allow businesses and brands to manage their Google+ Pages using a number of third-party applications, including Buddy Media, Context Optional, Hearsay Social, HootSuite, Involver, and Vitrue.
The issue is not so much about Google+ catching Facebook, but about offering a viable and useful reason to have a Google+ page as well. We may see different verticals opting for different networks based on reach and audience in the future, but with these options brands have ever more increasing routes to listening and engaging with their communities.
Google+ enforces real names rule but is it really necessary?
July 28th, 2011
Great article by BBC journalist Alex Hudson on why Google + insists on users giving their real names when they set up their account. The beta service has been hit hard this week because it suspended accounts that did not reveal users’ real names with many people questioning the “do no evil” company’s action.
As Alex says, Google+ took only 24 days to reach 20 million users but their decision to delete accounts without real names attached has caused anger and he asks a relevant question – “So why do social networks insist on your real name?”
Google has been upfront and says that for Google + to work effectively people should be able to search for friends and family quickly, easily, which demands that account holders use their real names. It also points out that its guidelines mirror those of other social networks.
Here’s the thing, though. The culture of the web has always had space and time for anonymity. I’d argue that the early growth of the web was in some part fuelled by this anonymity, allowing for role play and creation of alternative personas.
Google + is currently moving web culture towards a prosaic, potentially ossifying mode. To me, the suspension actions have a whiff of corporatism and control, not to say the potential for data harvesting that could have unacceptable consequences although Google argues that the ‘real names’ imperative will combat spam.
There is no shortage of views on this, as the 200+ comments on Alex’s article demonstrate. Join in!
July 21st, 2011
In just three weeks Google + has exploded onto the scene with an estimated 18 million users according to CNET news.
The statistics were compiled by Ancestry.com co-founder Paul Allen.
According to the same post this could have been a lot more if Google had actively been promoting it via it’s other channels and services, which I assume it will start doing soon. Add this to the reported fact that Google is trying to lure more celebrities to the site in an attempt to generate buzz should undoubtedly help.
Another factor that should help Google + is the iOS app, which launched on Tuesday, it’s already the top free app in the app store, unfortunately it’s only for iPhone and the iPod touch.
July 6th, 2011
Want to check out Google + but don’t have an invite? Well here is the next best thing. It’s called Circle Hack and has been designed to copy the circles feature on Google +. It is simply a way to organise friends into lists that can then be interacted with directly. Once a circle is organised via drag and drop the user clicks on the “Create list” link in the centre of the new circle to name it, and it is created.
Circle Hack is defined as “a one-night experiment with Javascript”, and is not affiliated with Facebook.
Tiny URL for your Google+ profile
July 5th, 2011
As one of the lucky few to get an invite to Google + so far, I’m always on the look out for the next wave of associated tools. I’ve not yet had a proper play with Google +, but first impressions are positive. To find out more I can recommend this post: Chris Brogan’s The Google Plus 50
One of the first tools you probably want to look at is http://gplus.to/ which is essentially a link shortening tool, which is useful for adding a Google + account in your email signature or similar. I imagine Google will create some sort of official app soon, but in the meantime this is very simple to use, so why not give it a go!
Swiffy gets overshadowed by Google+
June 29th, 2011
Google+ has just been announced and has been the talk of the town ever since, and rightly so, but we are no nearer to actually finding out if it’s any good. We just hope it won’t follow in the footsteps of Google’s complex Wave application which is no longer in development.
However, something else has also been launched by Google, which could be just as important. Swiffy from Google labs, converts Flash SWF files to HTML5, allowing you to reuse Flash content on devices without a Flash player. Read the FAQ here.
According to Marcel Gordon, Swiffy’s product manager, the project was started by an engineering intern named Pieter Senster, who wanted to explore how to display Flash ads on devices like the iPhone and iPad, which don’t support Flash. “Pieter made such great progress that Google hired him full time and formed a team to work on the project.”