Central Perk

luni, 26 august 2013

From Keywords to Contexts: the New Query Model

Posted: 25 Aug 2013 04:11 PM PDT

As SEOs we talk a lot about "search queries" (or simply "searches"), yet I think search has outgrown our definition of what exactly a search query is. In this post I'm going to explain how I think the old definition is fast becoming less and less useful to us, and also how I believe this is going to mean we're going to talk about keywords less and less.

Traditional query model

I recently spoke at Kahenacon in Israel about the evolution of search (deck), where I discussed four trends I identified that were influencing the changes I expect to see in search over the next 3-4 years. I noticed that there was a common theme that kept coming up amongst them: Our understanding of what we mean when we say "query" has become too narrow.

The traditional query model is the one where a search query looks like this:

This is the keyword-focused model we have always used, and it has served us well for two decades. However, things are changing, and I think we are already at a point where thinking of a search query in this way is inadequate.

First, let's examine things from Google's perspective. They want to understand the users intent when they did this search: what the expectation of the user is, what they are looking for, and more specifically, what search results would best help answer their query. Some questions Google might ask about the "london tube stations" query:

Is this a schoolchild looking for a history of the tube stations for some homework?
Is this someone looking for a list of all the tube station names (we have a fair amount of drinking games in the UK based on these names)?
Is this someone looking for a tube station?
etc.

There are clearly lots more possible situations, and it is quite hard to determine what the user wants. However, the keyword(s) I type in are not the entire query; they are not everything Google has to go on in order to answer this query. It actually looks more like this to Google:

The query consists of the keywords that we explicitly typed in, but also the implicit portion of our request based on our context.

With this information, it suddenly becomes a lot easier to determine what the user is likely looking for and what types of response will best help them. Furthermore, my example above only gives me a 3-4 extra data points (location, device, potentially a guess at connection type from IP address and connection speed). However, Google are using a lot more signals than that (at least 57 if you aren't logged in), so I imagine the implicit aspect of the query probably contains a lot more.

New query model

I don't think there is a scenario where Google is not using an implicit aspect to a query â€" even if we put aside things such as language and which version of Google you are using. There are multiple facets to what is covered by this implicit search (see the next section on context), but the main takeaway is that the search results are always dependent on some implicit aspects.

Therefore, I think we need to adjust our understanding of what a query is. After some discussion in the Distilled office, our initial proposal is relatively simple:

If we accept my premise, then it is hard to move backwards from this realisation of what a query actually is.

However, a good question at this point might be: does it actually change anything? Before I try to answer that, let me first try to make sure we are all understanding what I mean when I say context.

Context: the source of the implicit query

We've talked a lot about â€˜mobile search' and â€˜personalised search' over the last few years in the SEO community. However, I believe both of these phrases are too narrow:

Mobile search: This has traditionally referred to the device that I'm using, but that is clearly misleading. More and more people are searching on their smartphones from their houses. People are using tablets and ultrabooks on the move. Mobile search should talk about the person and their state (staying still or on the move). However, it doesn't cover every aspect of their state (are they walking or driving, are they at work or play, etc.) â€" so we need something broader.
Personalised search: A couple of years ago we fought personalised search, doing things like manipulating the Google query string to try to disable it, as we wanted to know what the "real results" were. However, I think a wave of acceptance is washing over the community as we realise that concept is in our rear view mirror. However, personalised search is only partially responsible for that. When we talk about personalised search, the common understanding of it points to a user's preferences (determined by social connections, search history etc.). To me this causes confusion â€" if I run the same search at a different time of the day at a different location, I get different results. Both are personalised, but personalisation doesn't capture nearly every aspect of why my search results are different in each case.

Beyond these two examples I imagine there are a whole host of other facets that are responsible for the customisation of the search results. I've begun calling all of these various aspects "context." Context encapsulates both mobile and personalisation, and a whole host of other signals (including those that Google has yet to discover/begin using).

The implicit-aspect of queries comes from the users' context, so these two concepts are completely intertwined.

I expect that we are going to continue to see more and more context signals being used to drive richer and more detailed implicit-aspects to queries. Just a couple of months ago at Google's I/O conference they announced this new Android API:

It allows anyone writing an app for Android to ask the phone whether it believes the user is walking, cycling, or driving. I can certainly imagine this being part of the implicit query â€" a good example being a restaurant search, which might cover a larger radius if I'm in a car than if I am on foot.

Furthermore, earlier this year Google acquired Behavio, the team behind funf, the "Social and Behavioural Sensing Framework." This framework basically tries to predict what a user will be doing next based on the current and past states of various sensors on their phone (which wifi networks they've connected to at what times, social proximity, etc.). Imagine a prediction of what you'll be doing next as part of the context of a search. It sounds crazy, yet in some aspects we are already there.

Implicit-only searches

When Google was founded, Sergey and Larry dreamed of a world where there was no search query at all:

He was talking about having no explicit query, and we are rapidly reaching a situation where such searches are a reality; many people report fantastic results from Google Now, where the query is entirely context-based:

What does this mean for keywords?

For as long as there has been web search engines, there has been SEO, and for as long as there has been SEO, there has been a focus on keywords. I believe we are at a transition point wherein the next 2-3 years is going to see a declining focus on keywords.

Imagine the absurdity a couple of years ago if a small-restaurant owner said he wanted to be in position 1 (or even page 1) for the terms "restaurant" or "breakfast." Sure, there are local results, but actually ranking in the "main" results is silly! Then along came the Venice update (post via Mike Ramsay) and suddenly that didn't seem so silly. (Will Critchlow recalls how a 'breakfast' search worked great for him in this Distilled Live video.) Now it is possible for small companies to rank for things like "restaurant," or the "divorce attorney" from Mike's post, but only within certain limited contexts.

There are a couple of other points of consideration around the future of keywords:

The move towards the knowledge graph, entity searches, and Google's associated shift from indexing to understanding.
The move from "web search" to "contextual search" (think Google Glass and Siri).
(not provided) is on the rise, and we're rapidly losing keyword data anyway.

I did cover some of this stuff in the deck, and it is outside of the scope of this post. However, I will likely be talking about this at SearchLove London in October, and likely writing more about it over the coming months, as I think think the combination of these things means we are going to look back on 2013 and 2014 as an inflection point for search.

So, you're saying keywords aren't important?

Not quite. As long as people are doing language-driven searches (be it text or spoken word) â€" which is going to be for some time to come â€" keywords are obviously going to be important. What the user explicitly enters as part of their search query is clearly always going to be important.

What I'm saying (in this post) is that we need to stop looking at keywords and starting looking at queries â€" which are nowadays so much more than just the keywords. A query will have explicit and implicit aspects, and the explicit aspect could be a chain of several keywords and additional metadata.

In addition, the move from indexing to understanding (not really covered in this post â€" see the Distilled Live video and my deck) means that even putting aside the above point, the link between the keywords that the user types in and the keyword(s) Google for which shows listings is no longer as direct as it once was. As Google comes to understand the entities involved, the link becomes far more complex; we'll see some benefits (stop worrying about synonyms and long tail) and some downsides (Google won't grasp all entities and relationships perfectly).

Finally, the keywords your users are typing in can be really insightful to understand what their intent is â€" what they really want. This is a point made by AJ Kohn in his recent post on keywords.

**So, then... what does this mean for doing SEO?**

That is an excellent question, and I'll start by saying I certainly don't have all of the answers to this. I'm mostly writing this post as this is something we've been talking about at Distilled, but I would really love to hear from the Moz community about your thoughts around this and what you guys think it could mean.

A few initial thoughts:

When you are looking at traffic in your analytics, broken down by keywords, you need to bear in mind that there was likely a variety of contexts involved (for any specific keyword, but also across keywords). Working out what contexts you are performing well in is going to be something that is going to be increasingly valuable.
We need to begin working out the "context personas" that we think we can serve with our pages; there are users in a variety of different situations and we need to identify how their intents differ and how we can best serve them. In the near future, this might include having landing pages targeting contexts (or intents) rather than keywords.
The way we report to our clients (or management) needs to begin to change in some instances. Reporting on raw keywords is going to potentially become less and less worthwhile, and we need to start educating our clients now such that they understand this shift.

Final words

I imagine there are potentially going to be some people who rise up to defend keywords, but please realise I'm not saying keywords are dead â€" just that they no longer give the full picture. I think that Google is going to increasingly consider context, and we should begin working out how we can work that into our understanding.

Whether you agree/disagree or have a slightly different idea of how we should model this, I'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments below.

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!

Seth's Blog : Great design = getting people to do what you want

Great design = getting people to do what you want

A copout: "Create a place or a site or a tool that helps the user do whatever the user wants to do."

I think that's just one small subset of what design is. There are only a few situations where what the designer (or her client) wants is for the user to do precisely whatever the user has in mind in the short run.

More often, designers find ourselves working to get the user to want what we want.

The goal is to create design that takes the user's long-term needs and desires into account, and helps him focus his attention and goals on accomplishing something worthwhile.

That well-designed prescription bottle, for example, is well-designed because it gets you to take your medicine even when you forget or don't feel like it. If that wasn't the goal, then a cheap Baggie would do the job.

And that well-designed web site doesn't encourage aimless clicking and eventual ennui. Instead, it pushes the user to come face to face with what's on offer and to decide (hopefully) to engage.

A good airport is designed to encourage travelers not to slow down the journey of their fellows, not to get aimless or distracted (what the traveler wants in the short run) and miss a plane.

A great book cover gets someone who isn't inclined to buy this book (if it had a plain paper wrapper) to pick it up and suddenly want what the author wants--for the reader to want to read it.

Good scissors for kids ought to be fabulous at cutting paper but not so good at cutting sisters, no matter how much little brother wants to.

Unethical design, then, is using the power of design to get the user to do something he regrets. Great design is pushing/focusing the user to do something that he'll thank you for later.

Designing for 'everyone to do anything' is difficult to do well and ultimately a cop out. It absolves the designer of responsibility, sure, but it is also design without intent or generosity.

Great designers can easily answer the question, "what do you want the user to do?"

• Email to a friend •

duminică, 25 august 2013

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Income Inequality Explained: Why Wages Don't, Won't, and Can't Keep Up With Productivity
Hurry! Only 121 Shopping Days Left Before Christmas; What to Expect This Holiday Season; Perpetual Christmas
Brazil Plans $60 Billion Currency Intervention Scheme; Indonesia Abandons Intervention, Adopts Other Measures

Income Inequality Explained: Why Wages Don't, Won't, and Can't Keep Up With Productivity

Posted: 25 Aug 2013 10:36 PM PDT

By now, everyone is well aware that real wages have not kept up worker productivity. But why is that?

The Fed, government bureaucrats, and economists are puzzled by the phenomenon as well as what to do about it.

I can explain easily, but first let's zero in on what is happening.

Workers Don't Share in Companies' Productivity Gains

In stark contrast to the great American dream, CNN notes Workers don't share in companies' productivity gains.

Companies are on a tear in terms of productivity and profits, but they aren't sharing much of the gains with their workers.

The gap between hourly compensation and productivity is the highest it's been since just after World War II. This divergence is one of the major drivers of the nation's growing income inequality.

"A bigger share of what businesses in the U.S. are producing is going to the owners of the firms and the people who lent money to the firm, and a smaller share is going to workers," said Gary Burtless, senior fellow in economic studies at The Brookings Institution.

Productivity, which measures the goods and services generated per hour worked, rose by 80.4% between 1973 and 2011, compared to a 10.7% growth in median hourly compensation, according to the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, which crunched the numbers last year.

Real Wages vs. Productivity

CNN states "Global competition and national deregulation have kept compensation down, while the decline of union power weakened workers' ability to bargain for higher pay."

Where Did the Productivity Go?

Is the demise of unions and deregulation really the story? The answer is "no", but first consider superficial analysis by Paul Krugman in Where The Productivity Went.

Where did the productivity go?

The answer is, it's two-thirds the inequality, stupid. One third of the difference is due to a technical issue involving price indexes. The rest, however, reflects a shift of income from labor to capital and, within that, a shift of labor income to the top and away from the middle.

Krugman offered no insight as to why this was happening, but he did accurately state "Income stagnation does not reflect overall economic stagnation; the incomes of typical workers would be 30 or 40 percent higher than they are if inequality hadn't soared."

The Wedge Between Productivity and Wages

Mark Thoma commented on Krugman's post in his Economist's View take on The Wedge Between Productivity and Wages

Inequality has reverted to levels unseen since the Gilded Age, financial regulation has waned, monopoly power has increased, union power has been lost, and much of the disgust with the political process revolves around the feeling that politicians are out of touch with the interests of the working class.

We need a serious discussion of this issue, followed by changes that shift political power toward the working class. But who will start the conversation?

Who Will Start The Conversation?

Thoma asks "Who will start the conversation?"

I am more than happy to start the conversation (and indeed already have on numerous occasions). Nonetheless, let's try once again, starting with a link a close friend sent just today: "A Peek Inside Tesla's Robotic Factory"

I invite you to read the article, but please watch the video.

Technology Overtakes Demographics

Watching that video should explain many things. The key point that should be easy to spot is technology has surpassed demographics.

Krugman's Mea Culpa

Paul Krugman was let to the recognition party as evidenced by his article Is Growth Over?

"Smart machines may make higher GDP possible, but also reduce the demand for people — including smart people. So we could be looking at a society that grows ever richer, but in which all the gains in wealth accrue to whoever owns the robots."

Robots, Demographics, the Fed

Amusingly, Krugman admitted in December of 2012 that he did not understand what was happening (let alone what to do about it).

In Human Versus Physical Capital Krugman stated ...

So the story has totally shifted; if you want to understand what's happening to income distribution in the 21st century economy, you need to stop talking so much about skills, and start talking much more about profits and who owns the capital. Mea culpa: I myself didn't grasp this until recently. But it's really crucial.

Robots, Demographics, the Fed

Not only was Krugman was late to the problem, he also missed the central cause of the problem, who is to blame, and what to do about it.

As noted above, technology has overtaken demographics. Before that happened, the Fed (central banks in general) could inflate at will, waiting for wages to rise with inflation.

However, the natural state of affairs as a result of productivity increases is falling prices (not rising nominal wages). One look at computer prices (where there is no government or union interference) should suffice to prove the point.

Yet the Fed is hell bent on preventing price deflation. The Fed succeeded but it has been a Pyrrhic victory.

Prices are going up, but wages have not kept up. It is as simple as that.

In the absence of Fed policies, wages would be stable to declining, but prices would fall more, and thus real wages would rise.

Instead, and as a direct result of Fed inflationary policies, profits have gone to those with first access to money, notably banks and the already wealthy.

The solution is to get rid of the Fed and fractional reserve lending, not tax robots or increase inflation as Krugman and others hypothesize.

Unfortunately, we see all sorts of preposterous proposals by various inflation proponents stating that more inflation is the key to success.

For example, Noah Smith, economist author of the "Not Quite Noahpinion" blog, recently proposed 5% inflation stating "Inflation makes you richer ... to the benefit of the young and the poor ... which is why conservatives don't like inflation"!

For details of Noah's Alice in Wonderland economic thesis, please see Ivory Tower Academics, Inflation, and Kindness.

Bottom Line

The Fed and its inflationary policies are directly responsible for the massive rise in income inequality, yet numerous economists promote more inflation and taxation of robots as the solution.

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

Hurry! Only 121 Shopping Days Left Before Christmas; What to Expect This Holiday Season; Perpetual Christmas

Posted: 25 Aug 2013 01:53 PM PDT

Better hurry. There's "only" 121 shopping days left before Christmas.

If you think that sounds ridiculous so do I. But all it takes is for one major retailer to start Christmas promotions a few days earlier than last year, and all the lemming fall in line.

Thus, retailers en masses started bombarding customers with Christmas promotions three days sooner this year than last.

What to Expect This Holiday Season

MarketWatch says Wal-Mart's free layaway launch foreshadows a competitive holiday to come.

Many top retailers have cut their full-year earnings outlooks, a clear indication they see a rough holiday season ahead.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. WMT , cognizant of the climate, is wasting no time getting a jump on the competition.

Merchandising and marketing chief Duncan Mac Naughton, speaking Wednesday before 6,000 employees at Wal-Mart's annual holiday meeting, said the company for the first time will introduce free layaway with no opening fee and no gift-card reimbursements. Last year, Wal-Mart layaways carried a $5 fee. It's also adding infant toys, car stereos and other automotive electronics to the list of categories available for layaway. The program starts Sept. 13, three days earlier this year, and lasts through Dec. 13.

Citigroup analyst Deborah Weinswig said Wal-Mart's layaway-tied sales last holiday season rose about 10%. "We have a cautious view on the consumer," she said, adding Wal-Mart's no-fee program will resonate with shoppers given the challenging economic environment.

Christmas in August

As goes Wal-Mart, so goes the rest of retail. On Thursday CNBC stated Retailers start Xmas deals.

Even before the school bells are ringing for many families, retailers are sounding sleigh bells.

Yes, that's right. With 120-plus shopping days left, stores are already talking up their holiday offers.

Toys R Us announced Wednesday that it would expand its price-match guarantee to include online retailers including Amazon.com, Walmart.com, Target.com and BestBuy.com, among others. The aim, according to the release, "Removing any doubt before holiday shopping begins in earnest that customers are receiving the best available prices."

"Retailers are determined not to be left on the sidelines," said Dave Cheatham, managing principal of Velocity Retail Group. "They're reinventing the rules on how to do holiday shopping."

And there is some basis for the Christmas-in-August approach. "We do know that 40 percent of holiday shoppers say they begin shopping before Halloween," said Kathy Grannis, spokeswoman for the National Retail Federation. If it draws in even a few extra customers, early action can be a big advantage in a competitive season, she said.

"Perpetual Christmas"

So when does Christmas in July start? Heck, why not perpetual Christmas?

And I have just the slogan: "It's always Christmas at Wal-Mart". And if it's "Always Christmas", there's never any shopping days left - so you really better hurry with that shopping!

Wal-Mart better grab this slogan before Amazon does.

Retailers seem to be worried. But if consumers behave rationally for a change, it will be a good thing.

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

Brazil Plans $60 Billion Currency Intervention Scheme; Indonesia Abandons Intervention, Adopts Other Measures

Posted: 25 Aug 2013 10:59 AM PDT

The Financial Times reports Brazil, Indonesia launch measures to shore up their currencies.

Brazil and Indonesia have moved to stem the declines in their currencies and shore up confidence at the end of a torrid week for emerging markets where local borrowing costs hit a two-year high.

The central bank of Latin America's largest economy said late on Thursday that it would launch a currency intervention programme worth about $60bn to ensure liquidity and reduce volatility in the nation's foreign exchange market.

On Friday, Indonesia's chief economic minister Hatta Rajasa told reporters that the government would increase import taxes on luxury cars, introduce tax incentives for companies investing in agriculture and metals industries and aim to reduce oil imports.

Brazil's huge programme, which will be conducted through currency swap and repurchase agreements, follows a more than 15 per cent depreciation in the real against the dollar this year to its weakest levels in more than four years.

Brazil's central bank said in its statement that it would on Monday to Thursday offer $500m a day in currency swaps to support the real, while on Fridays it would sell $1bn on the spot market through repurchase agreements.

"If judged appropriate, the central bank will take additional measures," the bank said in the statement. The programme, which will last until December, follows intervention this year by the bank through derivative markets and other means worth about $45bn.

Brazil's Currency War

These moves by Brazil are rather amusing since Brazil launched a "currency war" while complaining bitterly over the past two years that its currency was too strong.

Flashback March 3, 2012: Brazil Declares New Currency War on US and Europe; Japan Losing Balance of Trade Battle

Brazil has declared a fresh "currency war" on the US and Europe, extending a tax on foreign borrowings and threatening further capital controls in an effort to protect the country's struggling manufacturers.

Guido Mantega, the finance minister who was the first to use the controversial term in 2010, said the government would not "sit by passively" as developed nations continue to pursue expansionary monetary policies at the expense of Brazil.

"When the real appreciates, it reduces our competitiveness. Exports are more expensive, imports are cheaper and it creates unfair competition for businesses in Brazil," he said on Thursday after announcing changes to the so-called IOF tax.

Be Careful of What You Ask

Countries need to be careful of what they ask as they just might get it. Brazil got what it asked and now does not want it.

OK Guido, what happened to the increased competitiveness you thought you were going to get?

Brazil's currency madness should provide a lesson for Japan, but it won't.

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

Seth's Blog : "When I grow up..."

"When I grow up..."

No kid sets out to make Doritos commercials. No one grows up saying, "I want to go into marketing."

More than ever, though, folks grow up saying, "I want to change the world." More than ever, that means telling stories, changing minds and building a tribe.

You know, marketing.

At least if you want it to be.

• Email to a friend •

sâmbătă, 24 august 2013

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Diversion from Down Under

Posted: 24 Aug 2013 07:01 PM PDT

Here is an extremely well done video by reader Peter Sonners who lives in Australia. I offer this as a weekend diversion from economic news, war news, political news, etc.

Link if video does not play: King Tide on Tallebudgera Creek.

"Just once or twice a year, the mangrove forest next to Tallebudgera Creek floods deep enough to paddle all the way through to the other side"

Enjoy.

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

Prepare for War: Pentagon Crafts "Limited Strike Plans" for Syria; U.S. Forces Ready to Act With "Wide Range of Options"; Lose-Lose Situation For US; A Sensible Option

Posted: 24 Aug 2013 01:52 PM PDT

Flashback May 17, 2013: Foreign Policy magazine reports Obama rules out unilateral action in Syria as Russia ships advanced missiles to Assad

Top News: U.S. President Barack Obama again ruled out unilateral U.S. military action in Syria at a press conference with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan yesterday. "It's not going to be something that the United States does by itself. And I don't think anybody in the region would think that U.S. unilateral actions … would bring about a better outcome," the president said, promising to "keep increasing the pressure on the Assad regime and working with the Syrian opposition."

Pentagon Crafts Limited Strike Plans for Syria

Today's "Top News" looks remarkably different: Pentagon Crafts Limited Strike Plans for Syria

A U.S. official said the Pentagon has crafted military options for limited U.S. air strikes in Syria that would send a message to the regime of President Bashar al Assad not to continue using chemical weapons against its civilians. There has been no presidential decision to use the military options, and U.S. intelligence continues to investigate an apparent large-scale chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime this week that may have killed as many as 1,000 civilians.

The official said the military options developed for consideration by the White House are limited in scope and would be intended to "deter or prevent" the Assad regime from the further use of chemical weapons.The options are not intended to remove the Syrian president, who has tenaciously hung on to power as Syria's two-year civil war has raged on.

Traveling on a plane to Malaysia, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel confirmed to reporters that Obama had asked the Pentagon to provide military options in Syria in light of the reported use of chemical weapons against civilians by the civilian government.

Ready to Act

Bloomberg reports U.S. Forces Are Ready to Act on Syria as UN Envoy Arrives.

"The Defense Department has a responsibility to provide the president with options for all contingencies," Hagel told reporters yesterday while en route to Kuala Lumpur, where he starts a week-long visit to the region. "That requires positioning our forces, positioning our assets to be able to carry out different options, whatever option the president may choose."

Military options include the repositioning of personnel and assets including ships, so as to be ready if the president chooses a military intervention, a senior U.S. defense official told reporters, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss internal planning.

Obama is under increased pressure to intervene in Syria amid allegations that President Bashar al-Assad's government used chemical arms in an Aug. 21 attack in a Damascus suburb that opposition groups say killed 1,300 people.

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius called on the world to respond "with force" to any use of chemical weapons.

Iran's foreign ministry warned against any international military action in Syria today, saying that intervention would heighten tensions in the Middle East.

"There are no international authorizations for a military intervention in Syria," foreign ministry spokesman Abbas Araghchi was quoted as saying by the state-run Iranian Students' News Agency. "We warn against any moves or announcements that would result in further tensions in the region."

"Wide Range of Options"

Liberty Radio reports Obama To Meet National Security Team To Discuss Syria

The White House says President Barack Obama is meeting with his national security advisers to discuss possible next steps in Syria.

The meeting comes amid reports that the Syrian government has carried out a toxic-gas attack near Damascus on August 21.

A White House official said in a statement Washington had "a wide range of options available."

Hagel said Obama had asked the Pentagon to prepare military options for Syria, and that some of these options "require positioning our forces."

Lose-Lose Proposition

Edward N. Luttwak, in a New York Times Op-Ed says In Syria, America Loses if Either Side Wins

The Obama administration should resist the temptation to intervene more forcefully in Syria's civil war. A victory by either side would be equally undesirable for the United States.

At this point, a prolonged stalemate is the only outcome that would not be damaging to American interests.

Indeed, it would be disastrous if President Bashar al-Assad's regime were to emerge victorious after fully suppressing the rebellion and restoring its control over the entire country. Iranian money, weapons and operatives and Hezbollah troops have become key factors in the fighting, and Mr. Assad's triumph would dramatically affirm the power and prestige of Shiite Iran and Hezbollah, its Lebanon-based proxy — posing a direct threat both to the Sunni Arab states and to Israel.

But a rebel victory would also be extremely dangerous for the United States and for many of its allies in Europe and the Middle East. That's because extremist groups, some identified with Al Qaeda, have become the most effective fighting force in Syria. If those rebel groups manage to win, they would almost certainly try to form a government hostile to the United States. Moreover, Israel could not expect tranquility on its northern border if the jihadis were to triumph in Syria.

The war is now being waged by petty warlords and dangerous extremists of every sort: Taliban-style Salafist fanatics who beat and kill even devout Sunnis because they fail to ape their alien ways; Sunni extremists who have been murdering innocent Alawites and Christians merely because of their religion; and jihadis from Iraq and all over the world who have advertised their intention to turn Syria into a base for global jihad aimed at Europe and the United States.

Given this depressing state of affairs, a decisive outcome for either side would be unacceptable for the United States.

There is only one outcome that the United States can possibly favor: an indefinite draw.

By tying down Mr. Assad's army and its Iranian and Hezbollah allies in a war against Al Qaeda-aligned extremist fighters, four of Washington's enemies will be engaged in war among themselves and prevented from attacking Americans or America's allies.

That this is now the best option is unfortunate, indeed tragic, but favoring it is not a cruel imposition on the people of Syria, because a great majority of them are facing exactly the same predicament.

Maintain Stalemate Says Luttwak

Luttwak continues with a hugely controversial set of statements "Maintaining a stalemate should be America's objective. And the only possible method for achieving this is to arm the rebels when it seems that Mr. Assad's forces are ascendant and to stop supplying the rebels if they actually seem to be winning."

Stalemate Option Foolhardy

Up until his "maintain stalemate" position, Luttwak was on track. The point being the US receives no particular benefit regardless of who wins.

Yet, by alternating support depending on who was winning, both sides would resent US tactics. And sooner or later one side is going to win by some US miscalculation somewhere, intervention by Russia, or intervention by other Mideast countries.

In the meantime, the hot-cold practice of on-again off-again backing of both sides would be 100% guaranteed to inflame tensions in Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia (all of which would resent US policy).

Better if Assad Won?

One might even argue it would be better if Assad won than a group of belligerent Al Qaeda rebels guaranteed to stir up more problems in the region if they win.

Yet backing Assad is hardly an option.

Sensible Option

I suggest the sensible option is to condemn chemicals, condemn bloodshed, and otherwise stay out of the mess.

Unfortunately, I strongly suspect the US will not choose the sensible option. Preparing a wide range of military options and sending forces to the area is hardly encouraging. So mentally prepare for the US to engage in another senseless, unwinnable war, that we cannot afford in the first place.

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

A Better Bargain for Responsible, Middle Class Homeowners

Featured

A Better Bargain for Responsible, Middle Class Homeowners

In his weekly address, President Obama notes that while college education has never been more important, it has also never been more expensive -- which is why he proposed major new reforms this week to make college more affordable for middle class families and those fighting to get into the middle class.

Click here to watch this week's Weekly Address.

Seth's Blog : Misunderstanding quality

Misunderstanding quality

Kodak, of course, ruled their world. They were as close to a monopoly as they could get for generations.

Along the way, though, the company made the mistake of misdefining quality. They thought that what would ensure their future was better fidelity film. And without a doubt, they delivered on the promise of ever better film stock, with all the things a professional photographer could hope for.

Polaroid, for a while a disruptive competitor of Kodak's, fell into precisely the same trap. As they gained market share, they doubled down on image quality, raising their prices to support cameras and film that would compete with Kodak's leadership in fidelity.

It turns out that what people actually wanted was the ability to take and share billions of photos at vanishingly small cost. The 'quality' that most of the customer base wanted was cheap and easy, not museum quality.

This confusion happens all the time. Quality is not an absolute measure. It doesn't mean 'deluxeness' or 'perfection'. It means keeping the promise the customer wants you to make.

• Email to a friend •

luni, 26 august 2013

From Keywords to Contexts: the New Query Model

From Keywords to Contexts: the New Query Model

Traditional query model

New query model

Context: the source of the implicit query

Implicit-only searches

What does this mean for keywords?

So, you're saying keywords aren't important?

**So, then... what does this mean for doing SEO?**

Final words

Seth's Blog : Great design = getting people to do what you want

Great design = getting people to do what you want

More Recent Articles

duminică, 25 august 2013

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Seth's Blog : "When I grow up..."

"When I grow up..."

More Recent Articles

sâmbătă, 24 august 2013

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

A Better Bargain for Responsible, Middle Class Homeowners

Seth's Blog : Misunderstanding quality

Misunderstanding quality

More Recent Articles

Pagini

Persoane interesate

Arhivă blog

luni, 26 august 2013

Traditional query model

New query model

Context: the source of the implicit query

Implicit-only searches

What does this mean for keywords?

So, you're saying keywords aren't important?

So, then... what does this mean for doing SEO?

Final words

More Recent Articles

duminică, 25 august 2013

More Recent Articles

sâmbătă, 24 august 2013

More Recent Articles

Pagini

Persoane interesate

Arhivă blog

Subscribe to

**So, then... what does this mean for doing SEO?**