Central Perk

joi, 1 septembrie 2011

Watch This: We the People

Your Daily Snapshot for
Thursday, September 1, 2011

Watch This: We the People

Something exciting is coming to WhiteHouse.gov. It's called We the People and it will significantly change how the public -- you! -- engage with the White House online.

Learn more about it at WhiteHouse.gov/WeThePeople, and sign up to be the first to know when it's live here:

SEOptimise

Ethics and SEO

Posted: 31 Aug 2011 06:10 AM PDT

Anyone who attended Brighton SEO earlier in the year (and didn't succumb to the lure of the pub before the last session) would have sat and listened, with varying levels of interest, to the panel debate on 'is there such a thing as ethical SEO'. While I sat and took in the tennis-like back and forth discussion of a topic never likely to be fully covered in 45 minutes, I began to ponder my own views on both ethics and where they sit with SEO.

Ethics for SEO agencies

Working for an SEO agency, you end up working for a multitude of different clients, in a whole myriad of sectors, using an array of different techniques. By the very nature of doing so, you effectively become an extension of your client’s own company. So, as an agency, are you actually able to set your own ethics or do you end up adhering to those of your clients?

One of the main aspects of being an agency is that you commit to working in the best possible interests of your clients within the written or implied framework they provide. Do you have the right or obligation to enforce a different set of ethics upon them? Or are you just required to make sure they are aware of all the facts, leaving the overall ethical decisions to them?

Take, for instance, a situation where a client approaches you and asks you to buy a number links on leading newspaper sites (ignoring for now any discussion of the effectiveness of this tactic). For a start, is this unethical? It is certainly seen by most as a pretty shady area, but how far does this differ from paying for advertising? Is it merely the fact that it does not adhere to Google's guidelines that it is seen as bad?

Secondly, if you see this as an unethical tactic, should you then refuse or are you bound by the fact that you are being paid to carry out the wishes of another company? If that company is fully aware of the risks, and they are happy to accept them, are you really being unethical by buying the links?

Finally, if this is by far the best tactic to achieve the results that they desire, are you being unethical by refusing to use the best possible tactics available?

Some hard questions

This may seem like an odd question to most, but I'm sure the agency owners will have come across it on numerous occasions: what are your ethics worth? Upon being presented with a request from a client to engage in something ethically questionable, there are some pretty big questions to ask. The first is: what is your own ethical reputation worth? If you have built a company on the fact that you only engage in ethical practices, can you afford to be caught doing something unethical? And, if you were caught being unethical, would this reflect badly on the other clients that you work for? Finally, if you refuse to do it, are you going to lose the client to someone who will, and can you afford for that to happen?

Ethics are subjective

One of the main problems is that ethics are, by their very nature, subjective, and as a result it is impossible to have any ethical absolutes. Furthermore, what is seen as ethical evolves over time, meaning that what may be seen as ethical today may not necessarily be ethical tomorrow. It also becomes increasingly difficult when there are more factors than just tactics involved… would a completely ethical link building campaign, for a site seen by many as being unethical, be ethical and vice versa? I'm sure if you ask the guys at Bright Builders they would have some strong views (although that is more of a legal/illegal thing).

What can you do as an agency?

You'll probably have noticed that I have posed a lot of questions without really answering any of them. There are a couple of reasons for this, partially because I wanted to leave scope for discussion, but mainly because every agency and SEO will have their own opinions.

So as an agency, what can you do? To start with, I think you have to sit down as a team and discuss what approaches you are happy with and which you aren't. You will have to cover whether you have a ‘one size fits all’ ethical policy, or if it will be tailored to specific clients, and what you will do if any of your client ask you to step past the line.

Once this is done, you need to make sure you get it down in writing and make sure everyone is 100% clear about what it is and why it's there, and then make it part of your staff induction. There's no point in having a policy if even one person is going to ignore it.

Finally, you need to communicate that policy to both your existing and new clients so that you are both happy with where you stand.

Side points

There are a couple of points I consciously chose not really to discuss in the post, as they are slightly different applications.

The first is that, as an agency, you are both ethically and legally obliged to carry out the contracted work to the best of your ability. If you are knowingly employing tactics that you know won't be effective or you are billing for hours you're not working, then you can't really claim to be ethical. At the same time, if you have tried all the options available and you know the results your client is looking for aren't achievable, if you want to be considered ethical you need to be honest with them and let them know. This is something that as an agency we have done previously.

My final point goes back to some of the actual discussions at BrightonSEO, where a couple of people implied, and in some case actually came out and said, that SEO as an industry was unethical and likened it to the banking industry. While I'm sure there are SEOs and agencies out there who are obviously and unashamedly unethical and may rip people off, the industry as a whole doesn't. Having worked previously in both the mobile phone retail market and insurance sales, I can say that the SEO industry holds itself to much higher standards and, unofficially at least, is proactive at self-regulation. Personally I am reassured by what I see on a daily basis and at conferences and networking events, as it is clear that the vast majority of the industry is ethical and most work hard to provide both the services and results that they sell.

*Image credit: That Dam Kat on Flickr.

Video: Something big

Good morning,

We're about to change the way Americans engage with President Obama and his Administration by launching a new way for you to join with fellow Americans to petition the federal government on a range of issues.

It's called We the People and you can learn more about it, and sign up to be the first to know when it's live here:

President Obama believes that government should be open and accountable to its citizens, and that's the goal of We the People. This online platform gives Americans a direct line to the White House on the issues and concerns that matter most to them.

Soon, anyone will be able to create or sign a petition at WhiteHouse.gov seeking action from the federal government on a range of issues. If a petition gathers enough signatures, the White House staff will review it, make sure it gets to Obama Administration policy experts, and issue an official response. President Obama will even answer a few himself.

While this is a big change for the White House's website, the idea is actually written into our founding documents. Throughout our history, Americans have used petitions to organize around issues they care about. We the People gives you a new way to join together with others to ask your government to address a problem, change a policy, or take action on a range of issues.

We the People will be launching very soon so start thinking about the issues that matter to you and the people you'll ask to join you.

We're looking forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

David Plouffe
Senior Advisor to the President

P.S. Help us spread the word about this new tool by forwarding this email to ten friends. And remember, if you want to learn more about We the People and be the first to know when it is live, head to http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/WeThePeople

This email was sent to e0nstar1.blog@gmail.com.
Unsubscribe e0nstar1.blog@gmail.com | Privacy Policy
Please do not reply to this email. Contact the White House

The White House • 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW • Washington, DC 20500 • 202-456-1111

Seth's Blog : Should the New Yorker change?

Should the New Yorker change?

For the first time in its history, the editors at The New Yorker know which articles are being read. And they know who's reading them.

They know if the cartoons are the only thing people are reading, or if the fiction really is a backwater. They know when people abandon articles, and they know that the last 3,000 words of a feature on the origin of sand is being widely ignored.

They also know, or should know, whether people are looking at the ads, and what the correlation is between ad lookers and article readers. The iPad app can keep track of all of this, of course.

The question then: should they change? Should the behavior of readers dictate what they publish?

Of course, this choice extends to what you publish as well, doesn't it?

• Email to a friend •

miercuri, 31 august 2011

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

State Takeover of Pennsylvania State Capital Harrisburg Likely Coming Up as City Council Rejects Mayor's Fiscal-Recovery Plan
Obama Spent $535 Million on Solyndra Solar Energy Firm in 2010; Firm Went Bankrupt Today; Pricetag $486,363 Per Job Saved for 18 Months
Illinois Loses Most Jobs in Nation Following Tax Hikes
Three in 10 Workers Worry Over Layoffs, Double the Level in August 2008

State Takeover of Pennsylvania State Capital Harrisburg Likely Coming Up as City Council Rejects Mayor's Fiscal-Recovery Plan

Posted: 31 Aug 2011 07:18 PM PDT

State Takeover of Pennsylvania State Capital Harrisburg Likely Coming Up as City Council Rejects Mayor's Fiscal-Recovery Plan

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania is bankrupt and has been for years. Instead of recognizing that simple fact, the mayor and most of the city council have been looking for miracles.

There are no miracles and there will be no miracles. Fortunately, and at long-last, the city council rejected Mayor Linda Thompson's scheme of selling city assets to deal with debt issues.

Harrisburg now faces a state takeover.

Please consider Harrisburg City Council Rejects Fiscal Plan to Rescue Pennsylvania Capital

Harrisburg's City Council rejected a fiscal-recovery plan proposed by Mayor Linda Thompson, putting state aid at risk and leaving Pennsylvania's capital in financial limbo.

By a vote of 4-3, the council turned down the mayor's blueprint, which called for asset sales. The proposal wouldn't provide a guaranteed fix of the city's debt problems and, by selling off assets, raised the possibility of higher taxes later, said Councilman Brad Koplinski.

"It is a plan, yes, but it's an unreliable one," Koplinski said. "It's making sure that Wall Street gets paid and Main Street gets the shaft."

The decision means the city has no procedure to deal with more than $300 million of debt, or five times its general-fund budget. Harrisburg helped finance improvements to a municipal incinerator that hasn't generated enough revenue to pay its costs. The city of about 49,500, where a third live below the poverty level, may skip a $3.3 million payment next month.

The move may hasten a state takeover, Councilwoman Patty Kim said last week.

Inquiring minds note that the Patriot-News Editorial board says Harrisburg should approve flawed Act 47 plan because a state takeover will be even worse

The real question for Harrisburg City Council tonight when it votes to accept or reject Mayor Linda Thompson's fiscal recovery plan is whether local control or a state takeover is better for city residents.

A yes vote on the plan means local officials will lead with help from the state and county. A no vote means that what happens in Harrisburg will be left to either a state-appointed panel or the courts.

There is certainly plenty to dislike in Mayor Linda Thompson's plan. It is horrendously written with many grammatical errors. The mayor also added new initiatives that are not fully vetted or clearly funded, such as the blight program.

Perhaps the biggest concern to most taxpayers is the property tax increase. It is likely to be higher than $50 a year for the average homeowner. That is a best-case scenario if assets are sold, union contracts renegotiated and hundreds of little changes made.

But despite this plan's flaws, what is the alternative?

The city's creditors are pursuing lawsuits that would force Harrisburg to pay immediately.

Bankruptcy is off the table. The state is forbidding it for at least a year, and it's almost certain the Legislature and governor would extend that ban.

The editorial board lacks common sense. Regardless of what anyone says, Harrisburg is bankrupt.

The citizens of Harrisburg certainly do not need higher taxes, and the city needs to get rid of a mayor who cannot type English sentences properly.

There simply is no alternative to bankruptcy and now the courts can and will deal with bondholders who refused to take proper haircuts and also deal with untenable public union contracts as well.

Moreover, one nice bankruptcy will lead to another, and another, exactly the relief cities need. Public unions will get what they have coming to them: slashed benefits and contracts tossed out by the courts.

What can possibly be better than that? Certainly not higher taxes.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Obama Spent $535 Million on Solyndra Solar Energy Firm in 2010; Firm Went Bankrupt Today; Pricetag $486,363 Per Job Saved for 18 Months

Posted: 31 Aug 2011 01:12 PM PDT

The federal government should get out of the business of picking technology and "green" winners. Government backing of alternate energy companies has been nothing short of disastrous.

A solar energy firm touted by the administration in 2010 as a as a "gleaming example of green technology" today announced bankruptcy. 1,100+ employees will be fired.

Please consider Solyndra Filing a Disaster for Obama

President Obama faces political catastrophe in the form of Solyndra -- a San Francisco Bay area solar company that he touted as a gleaming example of green technology. It has announced it will declare Chapter 11 bankruptcy. More than 1,100 people will lose their jobs.

During a visit to the Fremont facility in spring of 2010, the President said the factory "is just a testament to American ingenuity and dynamism and the fact that we continue to have the best universities in the world, the best technology in the world, and most importantly the best workers in the world. "

It's not his statements the administration will regret; it's the loan guarantees. The President was celebrating $535 million in federal promises from the Department of Energy to the solar startup. The administration didn't do its due diligence, says the Government Accountability Office. "There's a consequence if you don't follow a rigorous process that's transparent," Franklin Rusco of GAO told the website iWatch News.

Seen and Unseen

The "seen" math is simple enough. $535 million divided by 1,100 is roughly $486,363 per job saved, now job lost.

That is just the "seen" consequence. The "unseen" consequences are not directly calculable but by giving Solyndra money, other companies that the free market would have preferred have been harmed, perhaps permanently harmed.

Although Obama clearly rushed this pathetic company for a nice photo-op, this is not a simple case of the president failing to do his homework as the GAO implies. The government has no business promoting this kind of crap in the first place.

In this case, it is rather amazing how fast Solyndra wasted over half a billion US taxpayer dollars, so fast I suspect fraud.

In general, if companies cannot survive without government subsidies then they should not survive at all.

Solyndra could not survive even with massive government subsidies. The same happened to many ethanol companies as well. Speaking of which, taxpayers pay though the nose for ethanol subsidies and tariffs both at the pump and in the price of corn, in turn, the price of beef as well.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Illinois Loses Most Jobs in Nation Following Tax Hikes

Posted: 31 Aug 2011 09:35 AM PDT

Thanks to Illinois governor Pat Quinn and the Illinois legislature Illinois Loses Most Jobs in the Nation

In a trend that continues to worsen, more Illinoisans found themselves unemployed in the month of July.

Illinois lost more jobs during the month of July than any other state in the nation, according to the most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics report. After losing 7,200 jobs in June, Illinois lost an additional 24,900 non-farm payroll jobs in July. The report also said Illinois's unemployment rate climbed to 9.5 percent. This marks the third consecutive month of increases in the unemployment rate.

Illinois started to create jobs as the national economy began to recover. But just when Illinois's economy seemed to be turning around, lawmakers passed record tax increases in January of this year. Since then, Illinois's employment numbers have done nothing but decline.

When it comes to putting people back to work, Illinois is going backwards. Since January, Illinois has dropped 89,000 people from its employment rolls.

A combination of high taxes, overspending and red tape do nothing but chase away job creators and leave too many citizens without jobs. Springfield needs to act now and reverse course.

Inquiring minds may also wish to check out the foreclosure pipeline in Illinois, 7th worst in the nation at 128 months (over 10 years).

See First Time Foreclosure Starts Near 3-Year Lows, However Bad News Overwhelms; Foreclosure Pipeline in NY is 693 months and 621 Months in NJ for more details on the mortgage mess everywhere.

Illinois Unemployment Rises from 9.1% to 9.5% after Tax Hike

Please listen to CEO of the Illinois Policy Institute John Tillman on WLS AM on the Fiasco in Illinois. It is an excellent interview that gets much better as it progresses.

A tip of the hat to John Tillman for an excellent, must-hear interview.

I have little to add to this miserable report other than to emphasize Pat Quinn is the worst governor in the nation. He will not be re-elected. Unfortunately, taxpayers will suffer the consequences of his stupidity for the full length of his term.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Three in 10 Workers Worry Over Layoffs, Double the Level in August 2008

Posted: 31 Aug 2011 08:23 AM PDT

If you are looking for the reason Consumer Confidence Plunged to 44.5, Lowest Since April 2009 the answer can be found in a recent Gallup poll regarding fear of being laid off.

Please consider In U.S., Worries About Job Cutbacks Return to Record Highs

American workers' concerns about various job-related cutbacks have returned to the record highs seen in 2009, after improving slightly in 2010. In terms of the most significant employment risk measured, 3 in 10 workers currently say they are worried they could soon be laid off, similar to the 31% seen in August 2009 but double the level recorded in August 2008 and for several years prior.

Separately, 30% of workers say they are worried their hours will soon be cut back, and 33% worry their wages will be reduced. An even larger number, 44%, worry their benefits will be reduced, making this the most prevalent job-related concern.

Workers are least likely to be concerned that their company will move jobs overseas; however, at 13%, this is by one percentage point the highest level of concern since Gallup began measuring it in 2003. Most of the five items tested are at or near record highs this year.

Why Only 13% Worry About Jobs Leaving Overseas?

Some may be wondering why so few worry about jobs leaving for overseas.

The answers are straight-forward.

So many have already lost their jobs overseas so they are no longer worried about it
Those working in government positions have no such fear
Those working at retail stores such as Pizza Hut, Nail Salons, Home Depot, the corner bar, and Walmart have no such fear
Those working in most healthcare positions, especially doctors and nurses have little fear for now even with medical tourism
Those working in education have little fear for now even though online education will someday instill that fear
Some simply do not understand the risks

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

joi, 1 septembrie 2011

Watch This: We the People

SEOptimise

SEOptimise

Video: Something big

Seth's Blog : Should the New Yorker change?

Should the New Yorker change?

More Recent Articles

miercuri, 31 august 2011

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Pagini

Persoane interesate

Arhivă blog

joi, 1 septembrie 2011

More Recent Articles

miercuri, 31 august 2011

Pagini

Persoane interesate

Arhivă blog

Subscribe to