Archive for GRRRR!!!

James Belvoir – get yourself a new agent :-)

If you’re going to fake testimonials, at least try to make them stand up to 10 seconds of Googling..

I really dislike Facebook and its advertisers.  Facebook ads are generally exploitative and very often fall apart with the slightest critical inspection.

Occasionally I click one just to remind myself just how much I dislike them.  This one made me chuckle this evening – featuring a ‘testimonial’ from a rather miserable-looking young male model.

A quick Google search shows no-one by that name, anywhere.  Either James Belvoir has a really rubbish agent or this is an example of yet another FB advertiser faking testimonials.

Call me old-fashioned, but I find the cynicism of a business that fakes testimonials to sell junk to youngsters struggling with hair loss revolting.

Non-existent Ecademy profile gets #1 Google spot

And what the hell is ‘unwired-ecademy’?

I deleted my Ecademy account about two months ago since I wasn’t using it and didn’t really like the way Ecademy was developing.

First thing I noticed when I came to close it down was… that I couldn’t.  No instructions anywhere.  I emailed a couple of times to Ecademy tech support, but got no answer.

I blogged a couple of times; nobody picked it up.

Finally, I found a link (via an angry ex-Ecademist’s blog) to an option that seemed to offer the possibility of deleting my account.

Amusing, then to see this strange Ecademy listing (above) appear at #1 in Google for a search on my own name just now.  It leads to this page.

Firstly what the hell is ‘unwired-Ecademy’??  Secondly, why is it connected with my name?  And why does my name keep turning up in Ecademy’s foreign databases?  Seems to me that they’re holding on to my information.  What else am I supposed to think? Surely the Spiders From Google would have updated the indexes by now if I had successfully deleted my details from their system?

Worse, I just discovered something else. I’ve created an Ecademy account for a client and have just noticed that I can’t log out from my client’s account.  For some reason, Firefox (or Ecademy) just won’t let me.

What is going on here? And what exactly is ‘unwired-ecademy’?

Rule #1 for retaining your credibility in business…

At least be good at what you’re supposed to be good at! :-)

I’ve lost count of the number of ‘web design / internet marketing’ agency sites I’ve visited only to be astonished to find that they seem to have overlooked the absolute basics of search engine optimisation.

Let’s get something clear here: we’re not talking about clever, complicated nerdy stuff.  We’re talking about the absolute basics you need to be doing if you’re to stand even the slightest chance of being found in Google by your prospects.

How can you tell a when a web design company won’t give you that?  Well, you don’t have to be an expert. It’s easy to spot when you know what you’re looking for and it’s a fun, if slightly depressing, game you can play right here and right now from the comfort of your own browser.

Here are the rules:

  1. Go find a web design / internet marketing company online
  2. Look at the page titles that appear at the top of your browser window when you click on different parts of their site.  Do they have the same title on every page? What are the keywords? Does it look like they will help their services get found by their prospects using Google? (Hint: things like “MyCompanyName: Our portfolio” are practically useless)

You’ll be amazed – and eventually bloody annoyed.  I only wish more people played this game before they went ahead and contracted someone to develop their website.  All too often people end up playing this game after – when it’s too late.

Here’s one I found today.  Click on the thumbnail (above right) to zoom in.

“We design online strategy and build software” says the title on every page.  Absolutely useless as far as Google is concerned – except in the highly unlikely (frankly bizarre) eventuality that someone out there types the exact words “we design online strategy and build software” into Google in the hope of finding a web designer in their area.

Rather depressingly, this company has also broken Rule # 2 which is if you’re going to showcase something, at least showcase someting YOU’VE made, not someone else – doh!?!)

If you’ve already paid for a website that Google can’t find because the page titles are all something like “We design online strategy and build software” or “Pickled Onion Designs: My portfolio” then all I can say is I hope you won’t make that mistake again.  Basic SEO is an elementary part of a basic site – not some exotic luxury!

If on the other hand, you’re still looking around for a company to make your site I hope you’ll play this little game before you hand over your hard-earned money.

Google and China. Stop and think about it

I have to confess I haven’t really stopped to give this any thought – until now

Clare and I were discussing the relationship between Google, Twitter and Facebook when the conversation turned to China.  It occurred to me I didn’t really know what the situation was with Google and China and decided to dedicate at least half an hour to find out.

I knew that Google had cut some kind of deal in which it colluded with the Chinese government to provide a part-censored search engine and it made me feel uneasy – particularly with Google’s ‘do no evil’ corporate slogan ringing in my ears.

“I guarantee this will be far dirtier and more complex than it looks” I said to Clare and sat down to shed some light on my ignorance.

The first thing I learned was that Google and other US companies have recently been attacked by Chinese hackers. Second, that these attacks were aimed at the accounts of Chinese human rights activists.  Third, that the Google accounts of a number of non-Chinese critics of China’s human rights record have also been hacked.

Ok. Pause. Think.

Over to Google’s blog. According to Google, these attacks have led Google to review the “feasibility of our business operations in China”. In a post, revealingly titled “A new approach to China”, Google justifies its collusion with the Chinese government so far like this:

“We launched Google.cn in January 2006 in the belief that the benefits of increased access to information for people in China and a more open Internet outweighed our discomfort in agreeing to censor some results. At the time we made clear that “we will carefully monitor conditions in China, including new laws and other restrictions on our services. If we determine that we are unable to achieve the objectives outlined we will not hesitate to reconsider our approach to China.”

So – we can only capitalise this market if we collude with the Chinese government to censor what its citizens can access. But that’s ok, because some information for the people is better than none, right?  Now, with the Chinese hacks, the ‘do no evil’ mega Corp is lining up to throw away that whole market in a noble stand in defense of human rights, right?  Well, that’s how Google wants it to appear, certainly.

But hold on.

Closer inspection reveals that Google’s market share of web search is far lower in China than it is in India – with whose government it also colludes to censor the content that its citizens can access.  Whoa-aa.

Let that sink in.  No longer one, but two,  major boom economies where Google colludes to censor in return for access to the market.  ‘Do no evil’ starts to wear thin.

Add to this the astonishing claim in the last week that these hacks were achieved via an architecture specifically designed by Google to enable the US Governments (among others?) a means to monitor its own dissidents… and the story begins to smell of hypocrisy.

So let’s review the story so far.  Google agrees to help the Chinese government censor its citizens’ access to information in return for a share of the market. Google defends this by arguing that some information is better than none and by the deception that this has a role in opening up freedom of information in China.  Meantime, Google does the same in India with more profitable and less controversial results since the Indian government isn’t under the microscope for human rights violations in the same way China is.

Then Google gets embarrassed as Chinese hackers access the accounts of Chinese human rights activists, doing so by means of an architecture created by Google to allow the US to do the same to its own dissidents.

Response?  Make a big show of taking a stand against ‘evil’.  This from and excellent piece in the online Asia Times:

“Google took an important and inflammatory step of escalating its conflict with China by using the e-mail hack against democracy advocates to wrap itself in a human-rights flag. As a result, its threat to stop censoring its Google.cn search engine in retaliation for the hacks has become a cause celebre for free speech and Internet-rights activists.

This cause has been taken up by the US government”

It’s a win-win for Google: if they ‘win’, the Chinese market is fully open for their exploitation.  If they ‘lose’ and withdraw from China in protest, they lose that market but win a priceless ‘moral’ victory which will may help people overlook the idea that censorship only really matters to Google when it limits the scale of the opportunity open to it.

One thing’s for certain – I know more than I did an hour ago :-)

ADE651 Dowsing Bomb Detector – unbe-f****g-lievable

How can it be possible that Governments spend millions on the ADE651 – an empty plastic toy that doesn’t work?

I’ve just watched the Newsnight report exposing the ADE651 ‘bomb detector’ which has earned a British man £50m  in sales to the Iraqi Government. Experts took apart the device and revealed it as a ludicrous scam; an empty case with nothing in it that could possibly detect anything – let alone explosives.

It is unbelievable that this device has been sold in some 20 countries - making the ‘inventor’ something like £80 million.

Scams are everywhere and they seem to be on the increase.  But it almost beggars belief that the ADE651 could be developed, marketed, sold and exported without someone pointing out the bleedin’ obvious: that it’s nothing more than a toy gun that wouldn’t look out of place on a Scientology table in your local market.

Unbe-f****g-lievable.

Companies Communications: stop with the spam please

Sorry Companies Communications, but it’s the only option you leave me

I keep getting bloody spam from these people and of course, there’s no ‘unsubscribe’ link in their emails.

So here they are in my ‘Spam Hall of Shame’ complete with highly Google-visible title so that the next time they (or some other spam recipient like me) searches on their name, they’ll get this polite reminder:

PLEASE TAKE ME OFF YOUR EMAIL LIST (you know, the one I never asked to be on in the first place?)

YouTube porn: Zip It, Flag It, Block It why don’t you?

People uploading porn to YouTube? What, honestly, did you expect?

I wish people would stop getting on all shocked and horrified to find porn on YouTube pretending to be videos of kiddies’ favourite artists.

Does that mean I think it’s right, or good or healthy?  Of course not.

What it means is I wish people would wake up and understand that there IS no way to control the internet and its content (short of being China).  That means our precious kiddies have, do and will be accidentally, occasionally and often deliberately watching porn.  Of the hardest, nastiest kind.

The problem we have in society today is that it’s too unpleasant to even look at truth of that sentence long enough to digest what it really implies (far less the actual material out there that our kids are watching).

Yes, mums and dads.  Hardcore, abusive, nasty, dirty, depraved, degrading and soul destroying stuff that our under 10s are finding every day on YouTube – even before this ‘newsworthy’ attack.  I watched that nice child psychologist, Professor Tanya Byron, on BBC Breakfast tv a couple of months ago talking about going into schools to teach children a new ‘Green Cross Code’ for internet safety; Zip It, Flag It, Block It.  It’s utter nonsense.

Why?  Because Government and well-meaning professionals seem to have no idea about the scale or true nature of this problem.  Don’t believe me?  Then ask yourself this: what’s the first thing an internet-savvy person would do after creating an ‘internet safety campaign’ aimed at kids?  That’s right – grab that keyphrase.  But if you Google ‘Zip It, Flag It, Block It‘ you’ll see that Prof Byron has failed to do that.

What does this mean? Well, for starters it suggests that the people behind this initiative don’t really understand how the world of search and online marketing works.  That, in turn, makes me question how they can possibly have an realistic grasp of the scale or the nature of the problem.

And on a practical level, it delivers children, parents and educators searching for ‘Zip It, Flag It, Block It’ to commentators like me, newspapers and other indirect sources.  And if I can get on to the first page of Google (and I could have got higher on P1 if I’d put the phrase ‘Zip It, Flag It, Block It’ at the start of my post title and repeated in the headers but I chose not to) you can see how easy it is for a pornographer to hi-jack this search phrase to put his/her wares in front of kids. That’s a real world demonstration of how easy it is.

I don’t mean to be unsupportive, Tanya. I respect your intentions and in principle we should try to equip our children to deal with what they find online.  But until we’re honest about the world we’ve created online, about how much unhealthy stuff we – and they – are already consuming and until we are able to have a more enlightened debate about why it’s unhealthy in the first place, I really don’t think it will make much difference.

Like drug and alcohol use, the situation is worse so long as we’re in denial about what’s really going on – even if it’s only because we really don’t know.  Personally, I think the growing effect of the consumption of online content is more damaging than anyone is prepared to admit or is willing to discuss openly.

Remember, there’s no point reaching for solutions until we’ve learned to be honest about the problem.

Climate Change talks in Copenhagen: row over targets

rocketman

This picture is one of an ongoing series called ‘The Elephant Under The Table’ representing the things that people in organisations (and our wider culture) just can’t – or won’t – say.

You can follow the series on Twitter or by visiting Delta7’s website.

You’re welcome to print or re-use any of these images providing you leave the copyright attribution in the image.

If you want to crop or edit that’s fine – but remember to add the copyright notice again please.

OysterCard max fare: somebody needs to make it clearer to the ‘out of towner’

Have you been had by the OysterCard ‘max fare’? I bleedin’ well ‘ave

Seems like to avoid getting hit by max fare charges, I would need to have used my ticket to exit the overground rail system and then come back in with my Oyster.  I’m not a Londoner; how the bleedin’ ‘ell would I know that?

Somehow I’ve missed that information.  Don’t you get caught out.

OysterCard taking me for a ride?

oyster

Is Oystercard profiting from ‘out of towners’ like me?

Last week, I was surprised – and inconvenienced – to find my OysterCard had run out of credit.  Again.  I went to the ticket window and asked the woman to put £5 on it.

“You’ve got a negative balance” she said after swiping the card.

“What’s that?” I asked. ‘Look” she said showing me her little screen “It says -£2.20’ “

“How the hell did I get a negative balance?”  I asked.  She printed a list of my journeys over the last couple of days.  The first thing that struck me was how many of them were £4.00 journeys, not the usual £1.60.

“Why was I charged £4.00 for travelling two stops between Richmond and Gunnersbury?” I asked, confused.

The lady printed out my ‘Oyster Usage Statement’ for the last two days:

19/11 08:00 – Gunnersbury No Route Data £4.00
19/11 16:47  Pre Pay entry Gunnersbury £4.00
19/11 16.47 Add Pre Pay Gunnersbury £10.00
20/11 10.41 – Gunnersbury  No Route Data £4.00
20/11 13.52 Pre Pay Entry Gunnersbury £4.00

ending up, of course, with the attempt to get through gate with a negative balance

20/11 18.21 Rejected Exit (Code 36)

She explained that the reason this had happened was that somehow I hadn’t registered the start of my journey.  Her explanation was that often, the card doesn’t register properly – but still opens the gates.

Eh? Hang on a minute.

It failed to register my card properly yet still let me through?  And given the gates opened to let me through, how was I supposed to know I was being charged £4.00 each time for a £1.60 fare?

I was, as you can imagine, outraged, thinking “I’ve been overcharged by nearly £10 by a system that’s programmed to let me through a gate and then secretly charge me more than double the fare!!”

Well, apparently, it’s much simpler than that.  I found out today that if you take a train (main line) to Richmond – as I did – you either have to exit the train station with your mainline ticket and come back in with your OysterCard or find a machine to ‘touch in’ to start your journey.

Apologies to TfL.  I got it wrong.  I’ve obviously had to learn the hard (expensive) way :-) . But what the lady at the ticket office said worries me. Does the system really allow people in through the gates without properly registering the start point of their journey?