·:[ GreenEye Wire ]:·
• • • • •

I’m sure you’ve heard about Google refusing to give up search data that the Bush Administration has subpoenaed.

The Mountain View-based search and advertising giant opposes releasing the information on a variety of grounds, saying it would violate the privacy rights of its users and reveal company trade secrets, according to court documents.

While everyone has latched onto the idea that Google is protecting its user’s privacy, I think people forgot to read the rest of the reason: “reveal company trade secrets”. The privacy part is a ruse used for publicity. Google is a corporation who takes care of itself, not a caring individual who wants to protect others.

I admit, when I read about Google or Microsoft or any other large company, I always think “OK. What in this action that they are doing behooves them?” Sure. Microsoft gives to many charities around the world to end diseases in third world countries. But would they do it if there was no tax benefit? I doubt it.

If you think about how much intellectual property Google houses, it is a marketer’s dream. Many marketers would give their left arm for such information. Google holds the keys to the castle and they know it. If this information is given to the government, at some point, it will be public domain. Suddenly, Google’s strategic information belongs to everyone else. Google was founded by geeks, who know how to use the web metrics they collect to their advantage. And, they are not about to hand those over.

However, Google may not have a choice. At some point they may have to hand over their data. But you can bet that they will drag their feet through the court system as long as possible.

If you have not already purchased and read Steve Krug’s Usability book Don’t Make Me Think, run right out and buy it. It explains in plain detail how to do your own usability studies and in plain simple language, what design mistakes to avoid.

Marketing Sherpa has an interview with Steve, and he goes over many of the common mistakes that happen on blogs and how to deal with a boss or client who want to make a huge design mistake — like asking for too much information on a form or using a flash splash page. This is a great interview to read if you have not read his book, because you get a good taste of many of the concepts in the book.

If you want to make it in this business as an affiliate marketer or as a consultant, you need to learn one thing about SEO: diversification is vital.

I’ve learned that to be profitable, I need to not only have a game plan in mind for short term, but long term as well. Currently I’m working on a site I hope to be a major hub on the web, but I’m also working on web sites that may only make me money for a few months.

Most people I know only go for the short term quick buck sites. That was a difficult thing for me to decide to do, as I am a ‘long-term’ type of person. It wasn’t until recently that I understood the value of making throw away, quick buck sites. The short term sites are not only for making me a quick money, but also for market research; the learnings I get from building those sites will help me understand new changes in algorithms that may affect my long term sites in the future. It keeps me learning all the time. And, I can take the money from my short term sites and build better long term sites.

I think the thing that took me the longest to learn in this business is that there are no rules. Sure, Matt Cutts can go on and on about what you should and shouldn’t do, but in the end, until you completely understand the tools you are working with — and I see search engines as TOOLS not friends — you cannot make full use of them.

I just finished reading Jakob Nielson’s article ‘Search Engines as Leeches on the Web’.

First he says that search takes too much away from sites — which indicates to me he doesn’t get search at all. He states

Paid search confiscates too much of a website’s value.

Mr. Nielson, have you seen how much it costs to do other offline advertising promotions such as tradeshows, billboards, magazine ads and tv ads? PPC is a drop in the bucket comparitively. I can always bring leads in the door using web search for far far less than any of those, usually for about half the price per lead as any one of those other mediums combined. And that’s just with paid search. That says nothing about organic search positions, which can bring in hundreds or thousands of leads for next to nothing.

When you’re in web usability, you watch how people use the web and make your web sites work within people’s set behavior. You don’t try to change how people use the web because that is futile.

Nielson says nothing about the fact that people use search to find web sites and they probably will for some time. He says nothing about the fact that it is a defacto standard in many people’s minds. Instead of working with how people use the web, he seems to want to want businesses to get away from it to do other things.

Now, I’ve always thought of Search Engine Optimization and Search Engine Marketing as part of the “marketing” bucket. It is *part* of a bigger picture. Obviously Jakob believes that most people in the world don’t understand that concept, and that he needs to inform them of it. He states — and this just makes me laugh:

In the long run, every time companies increase the value of their online businesses, they end up handing over all that added value to the search engines. Any gain is temporary; once competing sites improve their profit-per-visitor enough to increase their search bids, they’ll drive up everybody’s cost of traffic.

Obviously Neilson doesn’t understand how to budget your money in a campaign in a way to best optimize your ROI. That may mean you bid on a top spot. It may mean you don’t bid on a top spot. All of advertising is like this from newspaper ads to tv spots. It is part of the game, and search is no different.

And if you just inprove your web site enough to ‘hand over value to a search engine”, you didn’t improve your site at all. The name of the game has *always* been to make a web site people want to come back to, and if you’re just realizing that, Mr. Neilson, you’ve been paid too much.

I admit I am posting just to show people I am not dead.

My mother actually called me the other day. She said “You know Heather. There were parts of 2005 that were just the sh*ts. I think 2006 just feels better.”

I have to agree. I see this year as a grand new beginning for me. For one, I am out of a depressed funk I have been in for a couple of years. I feel wonderful. I have a lot of goals this year for my work and my websites:

1. Write something every day. Preferably two or three articles.

2. Less work on other people’s web sites (like my forum addiction.)

3. Forcing myself to a schedule for each day. I’ll have down time and up time. I won’t do work during my down time and I won’t screw around on my up time.

4. It is better to get something done than to try to get something done perfectly.

5. I am going to give to myself first before I give to others. This is a biggee for me. Sound selfish? Well, I’ve come to realize it is really selfish not to give to myself first because if you have nothing to give, you are just doing it for show. Huge Huge lesson for me.

So, I plan to have some decent articles to read by next week. I am still getting organized so I can work efficiently. Take care you guys. And Happy New Year!