- Bing Updates to Social Sidebar and Search Results Screen!
 Bing has announced some updates to social sidebar and search results screen. The new social sidebar is clean and white that blends well with Bing screen. The streamlined design makes it easier to find people relevant to your search based on their input in social media andndash; blogs, tweets or sharing.
The sidebar is off to the right of search results which are now clearly labeled. Search results are left-justified so there is less blank space on the page. If you want to see additional social results, there is ‘+ see all’ icon which lets you access more information.
What do you think of new look and features? Do you find social sidebar results helpful in searches? Share your feedback with us.
Old Bing Screen:
New Bing Screen:
Comments
- Panda Refreshed on 21 November; 0.8% Queries Impacted!
 It is official. Google refreshed Panda algorithm on 21 November. Latest Panda update has impacted 0.8% of queries in English. It would make for 22 Panda updates now. The 21st was done on the 5th November and it affected about 1.1% of English queries.
SEO/Webmaster chatter expected Panda update by November end, but it came earlier. That is well for sooner is better.
Releases so far for Panda:
- Panda Update 1, Feb. 24, 2011 (11.8% of queries; English in US only)
- Panda Update 2, April 11, 2011 (2% of queries; English internationally)
- Panda Update 3, May 10, 2011 (no change given)
- Panda Update 4, June 16, 2011 (no change given)
- Panda Update 5, July 23, 2011 (no change given)
- Panda Update 6, Aug. 12, 2011 (6-9% of queries in several non-English languages)
- Panda Update 7, Sept. 28, 2011 (no change given)
- Panda Update 8, Oct. 19, 2011 (about 2% of queries)
- Panda Update 9, Nov. 18, 2011: (less than 1% of queries)
- Panda Update 10, Jan. 18, 2012 (no change given)
- Panda Update 11, Feb. 27, 2012 (no change given)
- Panda Update 12, March 23, 2012 (about 1.6% of queries impacted)
- Panda Update 13, April 19, 2012 (no change given)
- Panda Update 14, April 27, 2012: (no change given)
- Panda Update 15, June 9, 2012: (1% of queries)
- Panda Update 16, June 25, 2012: (about 1% of queries)
- Panda Update 17, July 24, 2012:(about 1% of queries)
- Panda Update 18, Aug. 20, 2012: (about 1% of queries)
- Panda Update 19, Sept. 18, 2012: (less than 0.7% of queries)
- Panda Update 20 , Sep. 27, 2012 (2.4% English queries)
- Panda Update 21, Nov. 5, 2012 (1.1% of English-language queries in US; 0.4% worldwide)
- Panda Update 22, Nov. 21, 2012 (0.8% of English queries were affected; 0.4% worldwide)
Comments
- Does Google's Linking Strategy Make It A Publisher?
 Is Google a publisher? Or is Google simply a displayer of links? Are these two things the same?
Those questions are at the heart of a Australian case that just tipped against Google, and are likely at the heart of many cases to come. An Australian high court has found Google liable for libelous content tying a man to organized crime. Of course, Google didn't create the article that made the references, it simply provided a link to it within its search results.
The man's name is Milorad Trkulja, and he claimed that Google defamed him by associating his name and image with (untrue) claims of ties to organized crime, both in regular search results and in Google Image search. The jury in the case found Google guilty and therefore responsible for the content that they link to. They've been fined $200,000, but are in the process of appealing the ruling (as you would expect).
Is Google responsible for the content that is found using their search engine? Or is this a ridiculous claim to make? Let us know in the comments.
Here's what the Judge in the case had to say:
The question of whether or not Google Inc was a publisher is a matter of mixed fact and law. In my view, it was open to the jury to find the facts in this proceeding in such a way as to entitle the jury to conclude that Google Inc was a publisher even before it had any notice from anybody acting on behalf of the plaintiff. The jury were entitled to conclude that Google Inc intended to publish the material that its automated systems produced, because that was what they were designed to do upon a search request being typed into one of Google Incs search products. In that sense, Google Inc is like the newsagent that sells a newspaper containing a defamatory article. While there might be no specific intention to publish defamatory material, there is a relevant intention by the newsagent to publish the newspaper for the purposes of the law of defamation.
Basically, Google may not want to publish it, but they are publishing the publishers. And since Google's algorithms are tooled to find said content, they are responsible. Or at least it is plausible that a jury could see it that way. The Judge is clearly unconvinced that this stance is set in stone.
The Judge also differentiated search results pages from Google Image searches. The plaintiff also complained of images tying him to crime figures. The Judge notes that a Google Image search is a more-sophisticated version of cut-and-paste from magazines, and importantly a Google-created page:
As was pointed out by counsel for the plaintiff in his address to the jury, the first page of the images matter (containing the photographs I have referred to and each named Michael Trkulja and each with a caption melbournecrime) was a page not published by any person other than Google Inc. It was a page of Google Incs creation " put together as a result of the Google Inc search engine working as it was intended to work by those who wrote the relevant computer programs. It was a cut and paste creation (if somewhat more sophisticated than one involving cutting word or phrases from a newspaper and gluing them onto a piece of paper). If Google Incs submission was to be accepted then, while this page might on one view be the natural and probable consequence of the material published on the source page from which it is derived, there would be no actual original publisher of this page.
You can see just how much of a charlie-foxtrot this is. Which pages are Google's creation, and which are simply the "consequence of the material published on the source page from which it is derived?"
The jury concluded that Google was a publisher, and was liable for the defamatory content even if they weren't notified of it yet. Although Google contended that it doesn't matter if they were notified of the content of not - they're not responsible - the Judge rejected that notion as well.
It follows that, in my view, it was open to the jury to conclude that Google Inc was a publisher " even if it did not have notice of the content of the material about which complaint was made. Google Incs submission to the contrary must be rejected. However, Google Inc goes further and asserts that even with notice, it is not capable of being liable as a publisher because no proper inference about Google Inc adopting or accepting responsibility complained of can ever be drawn from Google Incs conduct in operating a search engine.
This submission must also be rejected. The question is whether, after relevant notice, the failure of an entity with the power to stop publication and which fails to stop publication after a reasonable time, is capable of leading to an inference that that entity consents to the publication. Such an inference is clearly capable of being drawn in the right circumstances (including the circumstances of this case). Further, if that inference is drawn then the trier of fact is entitled (but not bound) to conclude that the relevant entity is a publisher.-42- Google Incs submission on this issue must be rejected for a number of reasons, the least of which is that it understates the ways in which a person may be held liable as a publisher.
Of course, $200,000 to Google is basically nothing. The appeal really has nothing to do with the monetary damages. Google knows that this kind of decision sets an unsettling precedent for their future defenses in similar cases. Google as "automated news agent that's responsible for what their algorithms pull out of the depths" is a view of Google that the company can't afford to have stick.
We've seen this story play out numerous times over the past couple of years with Google's autocomplete feature. In August of 2011, Google lost a case in Italy and was forced to remove autocomplete suggestion in its search box that tied a man to the word "truffatore," meaning con man. A few month later, Google was fined $65,000 because one of its autocomplete suggestions labeled a French man "esroc," meaning crook.
And this year, Google made an out-of-court settlement with French anti-discrimination groups over a "Jewish" autocomplete suggestion.
Google's argument in these cases is similar to the argument in the Australian case. We're not suggesting anything. We're not defaming anyone. Google's autocomplete suggestions are based on popularity of terms. That means that if anything, Google users are the ones linking people's names with unsavory terms. Google's search results are also based on an algorithm. Just ask Rick Santorum about how much responsibility Google claims in what people find using its search engine.
So, is Google a publisher? If not, what are they, exactly? How much responsibility do you think Google has for what people find using their search engine? Tell us what you think in the comments.
Comments
- Should SEO Have A Different Name?
 Google put out a new Webmaster Help video today. This time, Matt talks about whether or not "search engine optimization" should be renamed.
"A lot of the times when you hear SEO, people get this very narrow blinder on, and they start thinking link building, and I think that limits the field and limits your imagination a little bit," says Cutts. "It's almost like anything you're doing is making a great site - making sure it is accessible and crawlable, and then, almost marketing it - letting the world know about it."
"So it's a shame that search engine marketing historically refers to paid things like AdWords because otherwise, I think that would be a great way to view it," he says. "You could also think about not search engine optimization, but search experience optimization. Would users like to see the snippet on the page? Do they land? Do they convert well? Are they happy? Do they want to bookmark it, tell their friends about it, come back to it? All those kinds of questions."
"Unfortunately, SEO does have this kind of connotation for a lot of people, and we've seen it in media, like CSI type shows where somebody says they're an SEO and people have this 'worthless shady criminals' kind of view - somebody called SEOs that, and I don't know how to escape that, because there are a few people who are black hats, who hack sites and give the whole field a bad name, and there are a few people who sell snake oil, who give the field a bad name. And unless people drive those guys out of our midst, we're gonna have this somewhat bad, shaky reputation for SEO," he says.
"At the same time, if you change the name to something else, all the people will just come along, and a few of those will be bad actors as well," says Cutts. "If you have a few bad apples then that will sort of change the reputation of whatever new name you pick, so in my personal opinion, the best way to tackle it would be, you know, think about it in broad terms, or maybe think about how can we differentiate the great stuff that people do making their site faster, more accessible, helping people with keyword research, all that sort of stuff - marketing in different ways."
Do you think SEO should get a new name? What would you call it?
Comments
- Google On Interpreting Links to URLs Ending with Campaign Tag: Video!
 Want to know the Google view on interpreting links to URLs that end with a campaign tab? And what does Google have to say about the SEO impact of inbound links- see here in this video posted by head of Googleandrsquo;s webspam team- Matt Cutts:
Do you find this info useful? Do share your views.
Comments
|
