vineri, 13 februarie 2015

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis


Senator Inhofe Sponsors Ukraine Military Weapons Bill Based on Images of Russian Soldiers in Georgia in 2008

Posted: 13 Feb 2015 11:59 AM PST

On February 11, US Senator Jim Inhofe authored a Bill to Arm Ukraine with Lethal Military Aid.
Mr. President I rise today to introduce my bill that authorizes the President to provide lethal weapons to the Government of Ukraine in order to defend itself against Russian-backed rebel separatists in eastern Ukraine.

On January 15, 2015, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg stated, "For several months we have seen the presence of Russian forces in eastern Ukraine, as well as a substantial increase in Russian heavy equipment such as tanks, artillery, and advanced air defense systems."

These photographs were given to me by Lt Col Semen Semenchenko, the commander of Donbas Volunteer Assault Battalion and newly elected member of the parliament of Ukraine, during our meeting on 13 Nov last year.

The first set of pictures show Russian troops in T-72 tanks, BTR armored personnel carriers, and BMP infantry fighting vehicles entering eastern Ukraine, waiving Russian flags.  This is not simply supporting separatists – it is an invasion of the Ukraine by Russia.

The second set of picture were taken by Ukrainian soldiers on the front line in eastern Ukraine.
Fake Pictures

According to Ukraine and NATO, there are 5,000 Russian troops swarming Ukraine with more coming in every day.

Thus one might expect Senator Inhofe to have a basket of images to use as justification for US warmongering.

Instead, it turns out the pictures were fake. They show Russian troops in Georgia in 2008.

Colonel Cassad Explains

Via translation from Colonel Cassad Photos that were the Basis of Preparation of the Law on the Supply of US Weapons to Ukraine Were Fake.
US Republican senator Jim Inhofe was furious to find out that Ukrainian parliament gave him fake pictures as evidence the presence of Russian troops in Ukraine. The senator gave these pictures to the Washington Free Beacon for publication. Readers immediately noticed something was wrong.

Later publication reported that the images "raised a number of issues," and this fact is being checked.

"Some of the photos of Russian military were made ​​in 2008 during the conflict in Georgia" admitted the journalists. Other photos were taken years before in other armed conflicts.  Be that as it may, these images were transferred to a reception Senator Jim Inhofe in December 2014 under the guise of photo chronicle of events in Ukraine.
Inhofe Tricked

No major western news site has picked up this story.

I did find this Free Beacon story Inhofe Criticizes Ukrainian Group for Providing Misleading Photos.


Following publication of this story, serious questions have been raised about the authenticity of some of the photographs provided by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R., Okla.). Several images of the Russian convoys appear to have been taken in 2008, during Russia's conflict with Georgia. Given the similarities between the earlier images and those provided by the senator's office, the Washington Free Beacon is investigating further and will update as necessary.

When asked about the discrepancies, Donelle Harder, Inhofe's communications director, said that the office is checking back with its sources.

"These were presented to the Armed Services Committee from a delegation from Ukraine in December," Harder said. "In December, we talked to them about publishing the photos and giving them the credit, and they were fine with that. We thoroughly checked our sources again prior to releasing the photos, and felt confident proceeding because the photos also match reporting. We are currently making calls to our sources."

UPDATE 7:10 P.M.: Sen. Inhofe said in a statement: "The Ukrainian parliament members who gave us these photos in print form as if it came directly from a camera really did themselves a disservice. We felt confident to release these photos because the images match the reporting of what is going on in the region. I was furious to learn one of the photos provided now appears to be falsified from an AP photo taken in 2008. This doesn't change the fact that there is plenty of evidence Russia has made advances into the country with T-72 tanks and that pro-Russian separatists have been killing Ukrainians in cold blood."

The Washington Free Beacon regrets the error.
Inhofe Tweets 

Tweet: What a f'ing joke. WFB runs photos from Inhofe as proof Russia arming Ukraine. At least 1 from Russo-Georgian War.

Response 1: "One of them goes back to at least 2012:

Response 2: "Also from Russo-Georgian War. You can see structures in other photographs"

Response 3: "So @jiminhofe's 'new intel' on Ukraine armor consists, in part, of 2 photos from Ossetia, 1 AFP wire service photo"

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Obama Asks Congress for "Limited" War on ISIS; Explaining "Limited"; Republicans Seek "Robust" War

Posted: 13 Feb 2015 10:45 AM PST

On Wednesday, president Obama Asked Congress to Back War on Isis.
Six months after US planes began bombing Jihadi militants in Iraq and Syria, President Barack Obama is taking a political gamble by asking Congress to approve the military operation.

The White House on Wednesday sent to Congress a new war powers resolution to authorise a "limited" military campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (known as Isis) for the next three years.

In a statement at the White House, Mr Obama said the resolution was designed to give the "flexibility we need for unforeseen circumstances". He would consider using US forces in Iraq or Syria if, for instance, the US received information about a meeting of Isis leaders.

But he insisted that the US was not getting "dragged back into another prolonged ground war in the Middle East". The resolution was "not the authorisation of another ground war, like Afghanistan or Iraq".

Although operations against Isis so far have taken place only in Iraq and Syria, the resolution places no geographic limits on the fight against either Isis or what it calls "associated persons or forces" — a phrase that has been used in the past to justify counter-terrorism operations against a range of different groups.

However, at the same time the resolution calls on the next president to return to Congress in three years' time to either justify or change the military campaign and bars the US military from conducting what it calls "enduring offensive ground combat operations".
Explaining "Limited"

  • Don't worry. War will be "limited" just like Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, and other initially limited engagements.
  • It can't last longer than three years because of the "stringent requirement" that the next president would have to ask for an extension.
  • Besides, ground troops won't be used, unless of course they are.
  • And operations will be limited to Iraq and Syria except as needed to target "associated persons or forces" anywhere in the world.

In other words, Obama seeks approval to pretty much do whatever the hell he wants. Realistically, there are no limitations.

Republicans Seek "Robust" War

However, war hawks in Congress, don't want to deal with even theoretical limitations. For example, House Speaker John Boehner quipped "If we are going to defeat this enemy, we need a comprehensive military strategy and a robust authorization, not one that limits our options. The president's request did not give military commanders "the flexibility and authorities they need to succeed and protect our people".

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Damn Cool Pics

Damn Cool Pics


40 Tourist Scams to Avoid This Summer [Infographic]

Posted: 13 Feb 2015 11:37 AM PST

Tourist scams are an unfortunate part of life and reality for many holidaymakers. Everywhere in the world are people looking for unscrupulous ways to make money, all at someone else's expense, loss, and sometimes quite terrible suffering. Just The Flight have collated a list of the most common tourist scams from around the world, to help ensure that you don't get caught out on your holiday this summer.

Click on Image to Enlarge.


via justtheflight

This Mom Let Her 3 Year Old Dress Her For A Week

Posted: 13 Feb 2015 11:28 AM PST

Who says 3 year olds don't have good fashion sense? This kid knocked it out of the park.






















via reddit

Scarlett Johansson Just Bought A $4 Million Dollar House

Posted: 13 Feb 2015 11:19 AM PST

Fresh off a trip from France, Scarlett Johansson just bought a beautiful 1940s home for her and her family to the tune of $3.88 million dollars. From the looks of it this thing is worth every single penny.
















Wait, Paid Media Investments Can Yield SEO Value?! - Whiteboard Friday - Moz Blog

Wait, Paid Media Investments Can Yield SEO Value?! - Whiteboard Friday - Moz Blog
Subscribe to the feed


Wait, Paid Media Investments Can Yield SEO Value?! - Whiteboard Friday

Posted on: Friday 13 February 2015 — 01:17

Posted by randfish

Investing in advertising might feel like we're simply buying people's time and attention, but there's far more to it than that. Done right, advertising can show returns in many organic channels, including SEO. In today's Whiteboard Friday, Rand shows us how.

For reference, here's a still of this week's whiteboard!

Advertisement Investments That Can Yield ROI for Organic Channels Whiteboard

Video transcription

Howdy, Moz fans, and welcome to another edition of Whiteboard Friday. This week we're going to chat about advertising investments and how paying for advertising can actually yield positive results for SEO, for links, for social shares, for content investments, for email marketing, for all of these organic channels.

I know this seems weird, but it actually can work. Google has some guidelines around this. They say, "Look, if you're over here and you're saying like, "Hey, man, I'll give you 500 bucks for a link on your site, a live, followed back link directly,' that is not okay." Even if the person on the other side says, "Sure, I'll take your 500 bucks and add that link."

Google doesn't want to count those links. They treat those as web spam. They're going to find ways to avoid that type of manipulation. They can, in fact, penalize you for it, and lots of times they do.

However, Google is totally fine with and they even support, endorse, and run systems, a whole advertising network around this to say, "Hey, I'd love to buy some ad spots from this website." Sure. My sidebar ads are no followed, and they cost $150 a month. This is totally 100% okay by Google.

In fact, this is okay by any form of things. So social networks are fine with this. Email things are fine with this. The FCC, the Federal Communications folks here in the U.S. are totally fine with this. The EU is fine with this. It's totally okay. As long as it's disclosed that this is an advertising relationship on the website, you're in the clear. In fact, very often it's the case that there's a correlation, a strong correlation between advertising and organic types of relationships and returns.

Tactics that are worth trying (depending on your business goals)

Blogs, forums, niche websites, or news/media sites

So a lot of times you'll see an ad buy is the first step to a deeper relationship between a website or a blogger or a media source and an advertiser, and that will lead to some forms of content sharing. Maybe some of the content will be promoted on the advertiser's site or the other way around. That might lead to some business development of some kind. That could lead to guest contributions of content or guest posting of some kind. It can lead to social sharing where the advertiser shares something that they've sponsored on the media sites or the other way around. It can lead to email inclusions and email sponsorships.

It can even lead directly to links and brand mentions. People will say, "Hey, I want to thank my advertiser," or "Hey, one of my advertisers came out with this cool product that, in fact, they didn't pay me to endorse, but I am organically endorsing it because I really like it. By the way, they happen to be top of mind for me because they're an advertiser." Sometimes you don't even realize those relationships are happening, but they do.

This is why often there is a very strong connection between advertising dollars and those kinds of more organic forms of relationships. While Google certainly is smart enough to realize that those relationships exist, they don't say, "No, it's not okay that you bought an advertising format from this person, and that eventually led to a more organic kind of relationship and now they're endorsing you without a followed link, without payment in an editorial kind of way." That's actually totally fine.

This is why advertising can be so powerful, not just for search and for links, although that's certainly a big one. So I've actually got a few suggestions, some places where we've seen over the course of time, and I've seen certainly in some of the companies that I occasionally help out informally, where they've benefited from these types of things. On the other side, I've seen from bloggers, journalists, and media sites and niche websites and forums, how they have also benefited from these forms of advertising.

Some of these tactics may be worth trying. It's really going to depend on your business goals and who your audience is. But the first and most obvious one is really what's reflected over here, and that is reaching out to these bloggers, forums, niche websites, news and media sites. They often offer direct forms of sponsorship or display or text ads on their site. They are going to be no followed, or they're going to use some sort of JavaScript redirect.

What you want to do, though, is you want to go direct. So I want to buy from NicheBloggerABC.com, not from Google Ads or Federated Media, which happens to power advertising on their site. So you want those direct advertising inquiries, where you have the relationship personally, and that's what you're building. Don't use that generic ad provider.

By the way, if you're going direct, make sure those links are no followed. You don't want to buy followed links, or you'll get into the problem that we had over here. You're trying to build a relationship, not a followed link. Hopefully, all those other positive organic things, those will come later if you buy these no followed links, if you start that relationship with advertising.

Conference and event sponsorships

Especially, in particular, more creative and more audience relevant forms of advertising can create much greater engagement. So if you buy a booth at a conference, well that can help. Maybe you've got a trade show booth and people come by and that kind of thing, and that does work for some folks, especially if they're looking for leads.

We've done a few things with conference and events, even here at Moz, where we've done forms of sponsorship that are more creative. We give out swag. We share some content. We do something that's very special for the audience, that happens to be relevant to their interests, usually along the lines of SEO stuff. That works much better. That often will get pickup and coverage by press and media, by bloggers who attend events, by people on social media who go to these events.

Weirdly, almost ironically, the less promotional you are in your advertising, which seems counterintuitive, the better this works for all of the organic kinds of things you're seeking. It might not work quite as well for that direct lead capture or sales capture. But by saying, "Hey, we're going to provide free Wi-Fi to the entire conference, and all you have to do is enter a repetition of our brand name three times as the password." Well, guess what? That builds a lot of brand equity, and it is much more appreciated than, "Hey, we're going to need you to take this free demo" or "You need to give us your email address and be promoted to," and these kinds of things. That less promotional can often have greater returns.

Outdoor/TV/radio/print advertising

Then the last one I'll mention here, even though this list could go on and on and you can use your imagination, is outdoor TV, radio, print, those old school forms of advertising. I think one of the most interesting studies I saw was a couple of years ago showing the correlation between these forms of advertising and search volume. The team from SEER Interactive put up a case study about some outdoor advertising.

Now, it could have been SEER. It might have been Distilled. I'm going to make sure, and I'm going to put it in the blog post itself. I'll link over to that study for you guys, showing that when one of their clients had invested in these forms of advertising, they saw a direct bump in search traffic.

Editor's note: Rand offered up a couple of other relevant links for more information about the relationship between offline ads and search traffic:
Mercedes-Benz: Quantifying how online and offline marketing work together to drive sales volume
Can TV Advertising Really Impact Search Performance?

Essentially more people were searching for their brand name, for their products, and those people went to their website. Now that's a beautiful thing, especially if you are trying to increase search demand and search click-through rate.

So if you perceive that you have a weakness in terms of, "Hey, we're just not getting as much branded search. We're not getting as high a click-through rate. Our brand recognition is low. That's hurting us in search results. People are getting better engagement than us, and as a result they are getting higher rankings and better links and all this other kind of stuff." This is a great way to potentially combat this.

With any form of tactic that you're trying like this, you're going to want to think really carefully about audience makeup. So many of the times when you're doing more traditional kinds of advertising, what you're seeking is an audience that's made up of people who are going to buy your product, people who have a high potential to be a customer.

That's actually not necessarily what you're seeking when you do these forms of advertising. You are really seeking, yes, people who might become customers, but also people who might influence customers. Customer influencers is often a very different group than direct customers themselves. It might be that you're reaching a much smaller audience, but it is more targeted to that flow.

For conferences and events, you really want those press and media types of people. For these blog, forums, and niche websites, you might be targeting influencers and journalists and other bloggers and social media mavens and that kind of stuff, who consume this type of content online far more than your regular customers do.

So you want to be careful about that when you're choosing advertising that is supposed to be helping you with organic channels. This is a really interesting topic. It's one of the newer kinds of forms and ways that people are leveraging paid advertising. It can run the risk, if you get too aggressive with it, that you actually step on some of these FCC guidelines or Google's guidelines. So you've got to be very careful. But if you walk this line well, you can experience great benefit to your SEO, your social, your content, your email, your brand by paying for it and getting those indirect benefits as a second order effect.

All right, everyone. Hope you've enjoyed this edition of Whiteboard Friday. I look forward to some great comments. Hopefully, you all have some stories to share about this, and we'll see you again next week. Take care.

Video transcription by Speechpad.com


Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!

You are subscribed to the newsletter of Moz Blog sent from 1100 Second Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101 United States
To stop receiving those e-mails, you can unsubscribe now.
Newsletter powered by FeedPress
FeedPress is a service edited by Beta&Cie, www.betacie.com

Seth's Blog : Is Google making the web stupid?

Is Google making the web stupid?

Jazz became popular because an opera-loving engineer developed radio, which opened the door for an ignored art form to spread.

And rock and roll was enabled by the transistor radio and the FM band.

More subtly, consider the fact that real estate developers lobbied for suburban train lines to build their stations in hamlets where they owned a lot of land. A station, particularly an express stop, would lead to more residents, then more businesses, then more investment in schools, then a bigger station, an entire ecosystem based on one early choice.

The internet is no different. Decisions at the center change everything around the edges, for all of us.

Aaron Wall has been blogging about Google's power for years, and his latest post makes an insightful connection:

Some of the more hated aspects of online publishing (headline bait, idiotic correlations out of context, pagination, slideshows, popups, fly in ad units, auto play videos, ... etc.) are not done because online publishers want to be jackasses, but because it is hard to make the numbers work in a competitive environment.

Ever since the first commercial website (GNN) was launched by Tim, Dale and Lisa, the model has been the same: earn free traffic and monetize it with ads. 

There are two parts to this equation: traffic and ads. 

Google (the source of so much traffic) is under huge pressure from Wall Street to deliver increased profits, and until self-driving cars kick in, the largest share of those earnings is going to come from the ads they sell. To maximize their profit, Google has spent the last nine years aggressively working to increase the share of ads on each page in their search results, as well as working hard to keep as many clicks as they can within the Google ecosystem. 

If you want traffic, Google's arc makes clear to publishers, you're going to have to pay for it.

Which is their right, of course, but that means that the ad tactics on every other site have to get ever more aggressive, because search traffic is harder to earn with good content. And even more germane to my headline, it means that content publishers are moving toward social and viral traffic, because they can no longer count on search to work for them. It's this addiction to social that makes the web dumber. If you want tonnage, lower your standards.

Google's original breakthrough model for indexing the web was realizing the power of the link. Great content earned more links, more links got a higher ranking, and there was an incentive to create more great content. This was an extraordinary virtuous cycle, the one that opened the door for quality content online.

It was Google's decision to send people away from the site (compared to Yahoo, which decided to keep people on the site) that led Google's growth. People came to Google hoping to leave Google to find something worth clicking on, and media companies eagerly worked to make content that would give them something to read. We've always counted on a media arbiter to raise the bar of our culture.

The gaming of the SEO system combined with the power of first page results (virtually all search clicks come to those on the first page of results) combined with Google's shift to controlling as much as possible of the unpaid clickstream means that this paradigm is no longer what it was.

That means that a thoughtful, well-written online magazine has a harder time being discovered by someone who might be searching for it, which makes it harder to scale.

If you're a content provider, the shift to mobile, and to social and the shift in Google's priorities mean that it's worth a very hard look at how you'll monetize and the value of permission (i.e. the subscribers to this blog are its backbone). And if you're Google, it's worth comparing the short-term upside of strangling the best (thoughtful, personal, informed) content to the long-term benefit of creating a healthy ecosystem.

Here's the key question: Are the people who are making great content online doing it despite the search regime, or enabled by it?

For the first ten years of the web, the answer was obvious. I'm not sure it is any longer.

And if you're still reading this long post, if you're one of the billions of people who rely on the free content that's shared widely, it's worth thinking hard about whether the center of that content universe is pushing the library you rely on to get dumb, fast.

       

More Recent Articles

[You're getting this note because you subscribed to Seth Godin's blog.]

Don't want to get this email anymore? Click the link below to unsubscribe.



Email subscriptions powered by FeedBlitz, LLC, 365 Boston Post Rd, Suite 123, Sudbury, MA 01776, USA.