|
Facebook 
Twitter | More Ways to Engage
joi, 5 septembrie 2013
Former President Bill Clinton Explains the Affordable Care Act
Comparing Rank-Tracking Methods: Browser vs. Crawler vs. Webmaster Tools
Comparing Rank-Tracking Methods: Browser vs. Crawler vs. Webmaster Tools |
| Comparing Rank-Tracking Methods: Browser vs. Crawler vs. Webmaster Tools Posted: 04 Sep 2013 04:05 PM PDT Posted by Dr-Pete Unfortunately, there are many ways to run a search, and once you factor in localization, personalization, data centers, data removal (such as [not provided]), and transparency (or the lack thereof), it’s hard to know how any keyword really ranks. This post is an attempt to compare four common rank-tracking methods:
MethodologyWe started by collecting a set of 500 queries from Moz.com’s Google Webmaster Tools (GWT) data for the month of July 2013. We took the top 500 queries for that time period by impression count, which provided a decent range of rankings and click-through rates. We used GWT data because it’s the most constrained rank-tracking method on our list â€" in other words, we needed keywords that were likely to pop up on GWT when we did our final data collection. On August 7th, we tracked these 500 queries using four methods: (1) Browser â€" PersonalizedThis is the old-fashioned approach. I personally entered the queries on Google.com via the Chrome browser (v29) and logged into my own account. (2) Browser â€" IncognitoAgain, using Google.com on Chrome, I ran the queries manually. This time, though, I was fully logged out and used Chrome’s incognito mode. While this method isn’t perfect, it seems to remove many forms of personalization. (3) CrawlerWe modified part of the MozCast engine to crawl each of the 500 queries and parse the results. Crawls occurred across a range of IP addresses (and C-blocks), selected randomly. The crawler did not emulate cookies or any kind of login, and we added the personalization parameter (“&pws=0â€) to remove other forms of personalization. The crawler also used the “&near=us†option to remove some forms of localization. We crawled up to five pages of Google results, which produced data for all but 12 of the 500 queries (since these were queries for which we knew Moz.com had recently ranked). (4) Google Webmaster ToolsAfter Google made data available for August 7th, we exported average position data from GWT (via “Search Traffic†> “Search Queriesâ€) for that day, filtering to just “Web†and “United Statesâ€, since those were the parameters of the other methods. While the other methods represent a single data point, GWT “Avg. position†theoretically represents multiple data points. Unfortunately, there is very little transparency about precisely how this data is measured. Once the GWT data was exported and compared to the full list, there were 206 queries left with data from all four rank-tracking methods. All but a handful of the dropped keywords were due to missing data in GWT’s one-day report. Our analyses were conducted on this set of 206 queries with full data. Results: CorrelationsTo compare the four ranking methods, we started with the pair-wise Spearman rank-order correlations (hat tip to my colleague, Dr. Matt Peters, for his assistance on this and the following analysis). All correlations were significant at the p<0.01* level, and r-values are shown in the table below: *Given that the ranking methods are analogous to a repeated analysis of the same data set, we applied the Bonferroni correction to all p-values. Interestingly, almost all of the methods showed very strong agreement, with Personalized vs. Incognito showing the most agreement (not surprisingly, as both are browser-based). Here’s a scatterplot of that data, plotted on log-log axes (done only for visualization’s sake, since the rankings were grouped pretty tightly at the upper spots): Crawler vs. GWT had the lowest correlation, but it’s important to note that none of these differences were large enough to make a strong distinction between them. Here’s the scatterplot of that correlation, which is still very high/positive by most reasonable standards: Since the GWT “Average†data is precise to one decimal point, there’s more variation in the Y-values, but the linear relationship remains very clear. Many of the keywords in this data set had #1 rankings in GWT, which certainly helped boost the correlations, but the differences in the methods appear to be surprisingly low. If you're new to correlation and r-values, check out my quick refresher: the correlation "mathographic". The statement "p<0.01" means that there is less than a 1% probability that these r-values were the result of random chance. In other words, we can be 99% sure that there was some correlation in play (and it wasn't zero). This doesn't tell us how meaningful the correlation is. In this particular case, we're just comparing sets of data to see how similar they are â€" we're not making any statements about causation. Results: AgreementOne problem with the pair-wise correlations is that we can only compare any one method to another. In addition, there’s a certain amount of dependence between the methods, so it’s hard to determine what a “strong†correlation is. During a smaller, pilot study, we decided that what we’re really interested in is how any given method compares to the totality of the other three methods. In other words, which method agrees or disagrees the most with the rest of the methods? With the help of Dr. Peters, I created a metric of agreement (or, more accurately, disagreement). I’ll save the full details for Appendix A at the end of this article, but here’s a short version. Let’s say that the four methods return the following rankings (keeping in mind that GWT is an average):
This yielded a disagreement score for each of the four methods for each of the 206 queries. We then took the mean disagreement score for each method, and got the following results:
GWT showed the highest average disagreement from the other methods, with incognito rankings coming in on the low end. On the surface, this suggests that, across the entire set of methods, GWT disagreed with the other three methods the most often. Given that we’ve invented this disagreement metric, though, it’s important to ask if this difference is statistically significant. This data proved not to be normally distributed (a chunk of disagreement=0 data points skewed it to one side), so we decided our best bet for comparison was the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U Test. Comparing the disagreement data for each pair of methods, the only difference that approached statistical significance was Incognito vs. GWT (p=0.022). Since I generally try to keep the bar high (p<0.01), I have to play by my own rules and say that the disagreement scores were too close to call. Our data cannot reliably tell the levels of disagreement apart at this point. Results: OutliersEven if the statistics told us that one method clearly disagreed more than the other methods, it still wouldn’t answer one very important question â€" which method is right? Is it possible, for example, that Google Webmaster Tools could disagree with all of the other methods, and still be the correct one? Yes, it’s within the realm of possibility. No statistic will tell us which method is correct if we fundamentally distrust all of the methods (and I do, at least to a point), so our next best bet is to dig into some of the specific cases of disagreement and try to sort out what’s happening. Let’s look at a few cases of large-scale disagreement, trying not to bias toward any particular method. Case 1 â€" Personalization BoostMany of the cases where personalization disagreed are what you’d expect â€" Moz.com was boosted in my personalized results. For example, a search for “seo checklist†had Moz.com at #3 in my logged-in results, but #7 for both incognito and crawled, and an average of 6.7 for GWT (which is consistent with the #7 ballpark). Even by just clicking personalization off, Moz.com dropped to #4, and in a logged out browser a few days after the original data collection, it was at #5. What’s fascinating to me is that personalization didn’t disagree even more often. Consider that all of these queries were searches that generated traffic for Moz.com and I’m on the site every day and very active in the SEO community. If personalization has the impact we seem to believe it has, I would theorize that personalized searches would disagree the most with other methods. It’s interesting that that wasn’t the case. While personalization can have a huge impact on some queries, the number of searches it affects still seems to be limited. Case 2 â€" Personalization PenaltyIn some cases, personalization actually produced lower rankings. For example, a search for “what is an analyst†showed Moz.com at the #12 position for both personalized and incognito searches. Meanwhile, crawled rankings put us at #3, and GWT’s average ranking was #5. Checking back (semi-manually), I now see us at #10 on personalized search and up to #2 for crawled rankings. Why would this happen? Both searches (personalized vs. crawled) show a definition box for “analyst†at the top, which could indicate some kind of re-ranking in play, but the top 10 after that box differ by quite a bit. One would naturally assume that Moz.com would get a boost in any of my personalized searches, but that’s simply not the case. The situation is much more complex and real-time than we generally believe. Case 3 â€" GWT (Ok, Google) Hates UsHere’s one where GWT seems to be out of whack. In our one-day data collection, a search for “seo†showed Moz at #3 for personalized rankings and #4 for incognito and crawled. Meanwhile, GWT had us down in the #6 spot. It’s not a massive difference, but for such an important head keyword, it definitely could lead to some soul-searching. As of this writing, I was showing Moz.com in the #4 spot, so I called in some help via social media. I asked people to do a logged-in (personalized) search for “seo†and report back where they found Moz.com. I removed data from non-US participants, which left 63 rankings (36 from Twitter, and 27 from Facebook). The reported rankings ranged from #3 to #8, with an average of 4.11. These rankings were reported from across the US, and only two participants reported rankings at #6 or below. Here’s the breakdown of the raw data: You can see the clear bias toward the #4 position across the social data. You could argue that, since many of my friends are SEOs, we all have similarly biased rankings, but this quickly leads to speculation. Saying that GWT numbers don’t match because of personalization is a bit like saying that the universe must be made of dark matter just because the numbers don’t add up without it. In the end, that may be true, but we still need the evidence. Face ValidityUltimately, this is my concern â€" when GWT’s numbers disagree, we’re left with an argument that basically boils down to “Just trust us.†This is difficult for many SEOs, given what feels like a concerted effort by Google to remove critical data from our view. On the one hand, we know that personalization, localization, etc. can skew our individual viewpoints (and that browser-based rankings are unreliable). On the other hand, if 56 out of 63 people (89%) all see my site at #3 or #4 for a critical head term and Google says the “average†is #6, that’s a hard pill to swallow with no transparency around where Google’s number is coming from. In measurement, we call this “face validityâ€. If something doesn’t look right on the surface, we generally want more proof to sort out why, and that’s usually a reasonable instinct. Ultimately, Google’s numbers may be correct â€" it’s hard to prove they’re not. The problem is that we know almost nothing about how they’re measured. How does Google count local and vertical results, for example? What/who are they averaging? Is this a sample, and if so, how big of a sample and how representative? Is data from [not provided] keywords included in the mix? Without these answers, we tend to trust what we can see, and while we may be wrong, it’s hard to argue that we shouldn’t. What’s more, it’s nearly impossible to convince our clients and bosses to trust a number they can’t see, right or wrong. ConclusionsThe “good†news, if we’re being optimistic, is that the four methods we considered in this study (Personalized, Incognito, Crawler, and GWT) really didn’t differ that much from each other. They all have their potential faults, but in most cases they’ll give you an answer that’s in the ballpark of reality. If you focus on relative change over time and not absolute numbers, then all four methods have some value, as long as you’re consistent. Over time, this situation may change. Even now, none of these methods measure anything beyond core organic ranking. They don’t incorporate local results, they don’t indicate if there are prominent SERP features (like Answer Boxes or Knowledge Graph entries), they don’t tell us anything about click-through or traffic, and they all suffer from the little white lie of assumed linearity. In other words, we draw #1 - #10, etc. on a straight line, even though we know that click-through and impact drop dramatically after the first couple of ranking positions. In the end, we need to broaden our view of rankings and visibility, regardless of which measurement method we use, and we need to keep our eyes open. In the meantime, the method itself probably isn’t critically important for most keywords, as long as we’re consistent and transparent about the limitations. When in doubt, consider getting data from multiple sources, and don’t put too much faith in any one number. Appendix A: Measuring DisagreementDuring a pilot study, we realized that, in addition to pair-wise comparisons of any two methods, what we really wanted to know was how any one method compared to the rest of the methods. In other words, which methods agreed (or disagreed) the most with the set of methods as a whole? We invented a fairly simple metric based on the sum of the differences between each of the methods. Let's take the example from the post â€" here, the four methods returned the following rankings (for Keyword X):
That sounds a lot more complicated than it actually is. Let's calculate the disagreement score for method 1, which we'll call "M1" (likewise, we'll call the other methods M2, M3, and M4). I call it a "disagreement" score because larger values ended up representing lower agreement. For M1 for Keyword X, the disagreement score is calculated by: sqrt(abs(M1-M2)) + sqrt(abs(M1-M3)) + sqrt(abs(M1-M4))The absolute value is used because we don't care about the direction of the difference, and the square root is essentially a dampening function. I didn't want outliers to be overemphasized, or one bad data point for one method could potentially skew the results. For Method 1 (M1), then, the disagreement value is: sqrt(abs(2-1)) + sqrt(abs(2-1)) + sqrt(abs(2-2.8))...which works out to 2.89. Here are the values for all four methods:
Finally, for each method, we took the mean disagreement score across the 206 keywords with full ranking data. This yielded a disagreement measurement for each method. Again, these measurements turned out not to differ by a statistically significant margin, but I've presented the details here for transparency and, hopefully, for refinement and replication by other people down the road. 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!       |
| Why Local Businesses Don't Need Big Budgets for Their Content Marketing Posted: 04 Sep 2013 03:07 AM PDT Posted by MatthewBarby This post was originally in YouMoz, and was promoted to the main blog because it provides great value and interest to our community. The author's views are entirely his or her own and may not reflect the views of Moz, Inc. Time and again we hear the same old argument that we shouldn't be building links, but that we should be focusing on developing exciting and unique content that encourages organic linking all by itself. I completely agree with this statement, but I see businesses misinterpret this far too often. If you run a local business and have a relatively small budget for your online marketing, is spending that money on a flashy infographic going to be the best use of your resources? More often than not, it isn't. Big brands vs. local businessesThe marketing goals for local business and multinational brands are often quite similar in basic principleâ€"they want to establish their brand name as a leader within their field and the geographic areas that they serve. The big difference here is that a local business is looking for large levels of brand exposure to their customers on a micro-level (i.e. they want to reach their customers within the local area that they serve). Major brands also want maximum brand exposure to their customers but on a macro levelâ€"they want to be recognised the world over, and to do this they need to spend big on reaching everyone. This is where the content of these two types of businesses becomes different. Content is EVERYTHINGWhen we think of "content," we typically think of articles, webpage text, and imagery. This is one of the greatest reasons for failure within content marketing campaigns. Having a very linear and restricted view of what content is will only restrict and inhibit results.
Let me elaborate a little on the points I've made above. Let's take the example of a local coffee shop (you can take a look at the discussion I had on inbound.org about this as well). Turning your staff into contentMost local businesses are heavily focused around delivering a high level of customer service to gain positive feedback for their business. Herein lies an amazing opportunity for content that will boost the awareness and reach of your brand. Within a coffee shop business, the staff are just as important as the food/drink itself. In some cases they are more important. If you have built in strong customer service that sets you apart from your competitors then, believe it or not, people will talk about you. Considering the work that goes into building local citations and reviews for SEO, utilising your staff to encourage these makes sense. Getting creative with your staff source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/hootersgirls/7735589086/in/set-72157630960120760
For years, major international brands have been looking at ways to differentiate themselves from their competitors. Just look at the likes of Hooters; everyone knows about them because of their staff and the outfits that they wear. One simple thing that has got them where they are today, and that has become one of the most iconic pieces of content within the restaurant industry is the Hooters uniform. I'm not saying that you should start making all your staff wear hot-pants and revealing topsâ€"as fun as that might sound, but what I'm saying is that you can give your staff a unique edge that makes them a piece of creative content. For example, I visited a coffee shop a few weeks back and some of the staff had aprons on with a big QR code on the front that said "zap me for a 10% discount." When you scanned the QR code you had to like their Facebook page and the member of staff would give you a discount there and then... awesome! Turning your shop/office into contentLike with your staff, your business premises can become an awesome content example. With the example of a local coffee shop, it's easy to get creative on a small budget to gain attentionâ€"create a unique style and do something different. Also, make it easier to tie in your offline presence with your online presence. For example, you could have your Twitter handle stenciled onto the wall. If you want to get really creative then you could have a chalkboard where you write out your recent tweets as they happen in chalkâ€"this would certainly engage your customers within the shop and I can guarantee it would get people talking about you. Design your space to be unique and it could become one of the best evergreen content assets that your business could have. The above photo is one that I took whilst visiting the Shakespeare and Company vintage bookstore in Paris. I read somewhere that this is one of the most photographed bookstores in the world - you will see why when you step inside! Photo: by http://www.camenzindevolution.com at http://mz.cm/17CDwr4 This is just what many major international brands doâ€"the above image is from the Google Tel Aviv office, and yes, that's a slide! I remember when I visited the Burberry offices in London a couple of years ago and they had a catwalk in the lobby area with models walking down it all dayâ€"that certainly got me talking. These ideas are completely relevant and applicable to local businesses, and they don't necessarily need to involve huge slides or catwalks! Your products are contentThe products and services that you offer can both be used within other content or as creative content in their own right. You don't need to have the most unique product in the world, and sometimes this isn't actually possible within standardised product industries. Let's look at a coffee shop, for example. We might say that our coffee shop sells a range of different coffees, some sandwiches and a selection of cakes/pastries. The first thing you would think of to make them stand out from the competition is quality. The only problem here is that it's hard to show the quality of these products to someone who hasn't actually tasted them; plus, when all of your competitors claim to have the "best quality products," it can be hard to stand out. With this in mind, why not try something a little different... source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/krobison/3346410954/ I know, pretty awesome isn't it? Apparently "latte art" is pretty popular, and to be honest, if that was served in front of me, the first thing that I'd do would be to take a picture and share it on Facebook/Twitter. source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamieanne/3991004528/ Seasonal product themes can be another fantastic way to augment your current product offering and turn it into creative content. At the local coffee shop that I go to, they create crazy cupcake variations on Halloween and decorate the whole shop. That's just asking to be talked about on social media and can result in some tasty links as a byproduct. Your product/service collateral can be contentI'm guessing that you can see where I'm starting to go with this idea that anything can be content, no matter how boring it is. Let's take some food and drink menus as an example. In its purest form, a menu should deliver the goal of displaying what your business has to offer to your customers. Now, when we bear in mind that over 90% of the customers in a coffee shop are going to take a look at this menu, there is a huge opportunity to get creative. The above video shows how the Global Mundo Tapas restaurant in the North Sydney Rydges Hotel has replaced all of its menus in favour of actual iPads. The customer can view the whole menu, get more information on each of the different dishes and they can actually place their order live on the tablet. There could be huge potential for linking this in with social media and really connecting the link between online and offline interactions with customers. Another great example is from Duo restaurant in New York. Their menus actually light up when you open them, which makes them look pretty awesome. Again, this has resulted in the restaurant being mentioned on several niche-relevant blogs that will boost their rankings and give them a wider reach for their brand (it made me notice them, and I'm on the other side of the world!). The branding of your business is contentThe values, culture and vision of your company says a lot about your brand. Multinational brands use their slogans as one of their most valued content assets. If I mentioned "Just Do It" or "They're Gr-r-r-eat!" then you would know exactly which companies/products I'm talking aboutâ€"this can be the same for local businesses, but on a different scale. One hilarious example of some amazing branding was from a local sofa company near the place where I grew up, called "Sofa King." They drove around in these big white vans every day that had "Our prices are Sofa King Low!" written on them. They got loads of press coverage from this because they were told they had to remove them and actually got a mention on the TV as well. This may not be the most transferable example but I love telling this story to people because it's just so funny! Another great way that a lot of cafes and restaurants can use their company values to build content is by partnering up with higher welfare suppliers and institutions. If we look at the likes of the Rainforest Alliance, an international charity focused around conserving biodiversity and improving the working conditions of third-world suppliers. They actually offer a way to certify your business as being Rainforest Alliance approved. This can then be used to build some positive PR around the business, especially within local publications. Your customers are contentYes, that's right... your customers are content too. If you run a local business then you're likely to be customer-facing a lot of the timeâ€"why not take advantage of that? I worked on a recent campaign with a UK restaurant chain where we ran a competition to eat free for a year at the restaurant. All you had to do to enter was like the Facebook page, send a tweet (that we had pre-defined) and also give some feedback on their experience at the restaurant. We ended up with over 10,000 entries into the competition and the Twitter account was going crazy for weeks. We ended up driving back some good quality links to the website in the process by running an effective link prospecting campaign alongside this, but more importantly we grew the social following dramatically and had loads of people talking about the brand. Another tactic that I've used in the past, and a tactic that could be used within the coffee shop example, is to bring in a group of bloggers and let them eat for free in exchange for writing up a blog on their experience. It's important to keep things impartial here, but getting a write up from a respected blogger can do wonders for your brand and will be an awesome link back to your websiteâ€"it doesn't cost a lot either. Content is EVERYTHINGAs you've probably now realised, content doesn't just mean blog articles or infographics. Content can come in the shape of all sorts of things, both online and offline. The important thing is to understand the end goal of your content marketing strategy and how this then ties in with your social media and SEO campaigns. When run on their own, content marketing, SEO and social media can be very expensive for local businesses, but when you integrate these together and take full advantage of the resources at your disposal, it will be both cost effective and bring in far greater results. This doesn't need to apply to just local businesses either. A perfect example of this is with the post that I wrote for Moz a short while ago that was a case study on the link building campaign that I carried out for my travel blog. Case studies are a fantastic way to squeeze out more links to your website and can be awesome pieces of content that can apply to blogs, major brands and small businesses alike. A few actionable content ideas for local businessesYour staff:
Your premises:
Your products:
Product/service collateral:
Your customers:
Some comments from our Inbound.org discussionVictor Pan: Content for content's sake doesn't work. ‘Doing' SEO without knowing what you're doing doesn't work. However, both methods work when executed correctly. It's not whether or not it is done, but rather how it is done. Time is scarce for small businesses. They don't have time to learn the ‘how' and execute it correctly on their first try. All too often, they visit the wrong neighbourhood on the web and do what they've learned... or hire the wrong people. Bad blogging (scraping/plagiarism/panda) can get you penalized just as well as bad links (irrelevant neighbourhoods/fishy anchor text/penguin) - so I wouldn't be so quick to say one is better than the other, or that you need both. Have you run into a business that has gone through the hands of a rogue SEO who did low quality content spun from a competitor and a list of comment links from forums? I have. It's not pretty. If I had to choose, I'd say it's easier for small businesses to be smart about content generation. SEO? That's not part of their core business - it's inefficient for them to learn it beyond the absolute fundamentals. Martin Harris: Whilst the above analogies are great, i think the point here is how to get the best out the client's time. Ultimately it's what going to be getting them more traffic and if (like most of my clients) you pay an hourly rate; 3-4 hours a month of SEO specific time, content marketing, won't cut it. But here lies the problem; they should be treated as separate entities. Put it this way: would creating great promotional and traffic relevant content on social media drive more traffic or would ranking for a targeted niche relevant term? It's both. For small businesses, getting natural links from content marketing should be a by-product not a SEO strategy.
Slava Rybalka: 1) as for me, content marketing involves both, and first of all, it's like you said, being creative and notice what is going on in your daily business operations and what you can turn into content 2) I have seen the same effect, however, I tend to focus more on content rather than links, because: 1. Links tend to disappear over time, whereas your contents stays on your site, you don't have control over your links but you have control over your content 2.if you have content that resonates with you target audience, great links will come naturally and recently we have seen the cases when few links can make a difference in search results, since Google is focusing more on quality of links. There are other things that come to my mind but these are 2 main points. View the full discussion here: http://www.inbound.org/articles/view/content-marketing-the-ultimate-seo-office-discussion TL;DR
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!     |
Deep down, we all have the uncomfortable feeling that rank-tracking is unreliable at best, and possibly outright misleading. Then, we walk into our boss’s office, pick up the phone, or open our email, and hear the same question: “Why aren't we #1 yet?!†Like it or not, rank-tracking is still a fact of life for most SEOs, and ranking will be a useful signal and diagnostic for when things go very wrong (or very right) for the foreseeable future. 
| You are subscribed to email updates from Moz Blog To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
Seth's Blog : The Red Lantern
The Red Lantern
At the grueling Iditarod, there's a prize for the musher who finishes last: The Red Lantern.
Failing to finish earns you nothing, of course. But for the one who sticks it out, who arrives hours late, there's the respect that comes from finding the strength to make it, even when all seems helpless.
Most parents (and most bosses) agree that this sort of dedication is a huge asset in life. And yet, as we head back for another year of school, I can't help but notice that schools do nothing at all to encourage it.
The coach of the soccer team doesn't reward the players who try the hardest, push themselves or put in the hours. He rewards the best players, by playing them.
The director of the school play puts the same kids in leading roles year after year. After all, the reasoning goes, we need to have tryouts and reward the best performers, just like they do in real life.
But school isn't real life. School is about learning how to succeed in real life.
Natural talent is rewarded early and often. As Malcolm Gladwell has pointed out, most of the players in the NHL have birthdays in a three month window, because when you're 8 years old, being six months older is a huge advantage. Those kids, the skaters with good astrological signs, or possibly those performers with the genetic singing advantage--those are the kids that get the coaching and the applause and the playing time. Unearned advantages, multiplied.
If we're serious about building the habits of success, tracking is precisely the wrong approach. Talent (born with or born without) is not your fault, is not a choice, is not something we ought to give you much credit or blame for.
How do we celebrate the Red Lantern winners instead?
More Recent Articles
- The timing of El Greco
- Learn together
- Q&A: Tribes and the reality of worldview
- Scuff-proof shoes
- New for now
[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.
| Your requested content delivery powered by FeedBlitz, LLC, 9 Thoreau Way, Sudbury, MA 01776, USA. +1.978.776.9498 |
miercuri, 4 septembrie 2013
Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis |
- No Progress for Long-Term Unemployed; Ten Reasons the Problem is Structural
- McCain Proposes Military Aid to Al Qaeda; Mideast Map of Who Supports Who
- Warmongers Unite (As They Always Do); Boehner Caves In, Backs War; McCain Caught Playing iPhone Poker During Syria Hearing
| No Progress for Long-Term Unemployed; Ten Reasons the Problem is Structural Posted: 04 Sep 2013 06:51 PM PDT In Long-Term Jobless Left Out of the Recovery, the Wall Street Journal notes that Despite Improving Economy, Prospects Are Bleak for Millions of Unemployed. More than four years after the recession officially ended, 11.5 million Americans are unemployed, many of them for years. Millions more have abandoned their job searches, hiding from the economic storm in school or turning to government programs for support. A growing body of economic research suggests that the longer they remain on the sidelines, the less likely they will be to work again; for many, it may already be too late.What is Happening vs. Why The Wall Street Journal did a good job explaining "what" is happening. The Journal failed to explore "why" this is happening. I will address the key question in a moment. First consider a few more charts. Those Not In The Labor Force Who Want A Job  Those who want a job but don't have a job total 6,619,000. That is an increase of about 2.2 million from the pre-recession low. Factor the "marginally attached" (those who want a job and do not have one, but did not look) and the unemployment rate is 8.8%. Marginally Attached Unemployment Rate - U5  Factor in "Involuntary Part-Time employment" (U6) and the rate is 14.0% U6 Unemployment  Taking into consideration millions of additional part-time jobs created as a direct result of Obamacare lowering the number of hours part-timers worked even further, and the base unemployment rate as well as the U5 rate would both be higher. I suspect the U-5 rate would be between 9.5 and 10%. Cyclical or Structural? Regardless of what the unemployment rate is, here is the key question: Is the problem cyclical or structural? The Fed thinks unemployment is a cyclical problem. I don't. Ten Reasons the Problem is Structural
It will takes years, if not a decade, to sort out those issues. In the meantime central bankers around the world further distort the global economy for the benefit of banks and those with first access to money. Inflation Benefits Those With First Access to Money For an explanation of how Fed policies benefit the banks and the top 1% at the expense of everyone else, please see Reader Asks Me to Prove "Inflation Benefits the Wealthy" (At the Expense of Everyone Else). Wonderland Economics Compounding the problem is a massive hoard of economic illiterates who promote inflation as the answer. For a case-in-point, please see DeLong-in-Wonderland. Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com |
| McCain Proposes Military Aid to Al Qaeda; Mideast Map of Who Supports Who Posted: 04 Sep 2013 11:00 AM PDT Inquiring minds are looking a Map of the Mideast that details who backs who in the Syrian Civil War.  Map of countries surrounding Syria (red) with military involvement.
This is pretty messy with factions in Iraq on both sides of the issue. Who Gains From Using Chemical Weapons? Assad had the most to lose by using chemical weapons. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar have the most to gain, especially if chemical use was attributed to Syria (not the rebels). As noted in Warmongers Unite (As They Always Do), Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack. Here are some additional links.
John Kerry says US tests prove sarin used in Syria attacks Kerry never answered the question "By Whom?" Who Are The Rebels? Just who are the rebels seeking to overthrow Assad? Wikipedia has the answer in Foreign rebel fighters in the Syrian civil war There have been a number of foreign fighters that have joined the Syrian civil war in opposition to Assad. While some are jihadists, others, such as Mahdi al-Harati, have joined to help the Syrian revolution.[59] Some fighters have come from as far away as Chechnya and Tajikistan.[60] Another group, the Al-Nusra Front, is headed by Abu Muhammad al-Julani[61] The group includes some of the rebellion's most battle-hardened and effective fighters. However, U.S. has formally designated the Al Nusra Front as a foreign terrorist organization. "Extremist groups like Jabhat al-Nusra are a problem, an obstacle to finding the political solution that Syria's going to need," said the American ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford.[62]McCain Says "Arm the Rebels" Bloomberg reports McCain Balks on Syria Measure Absent More Rebel Support McCain, opposing the resolution in its current form, will seek changes to include provisions for arming Syrian rebels and assurances that military strikes would be able to deter further Syrian use of chemical weapons, according to an aide who asked not to be named because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly.Military Aid to Al Qaeda, Al Nusra McCain wants to arm the rebels, but if we arm the rebels, we arm Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, and other foreign terrorist organizations. It's as simple as that. Warmongers like McCain do not care about such things. They just want war. Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com |
| Posted: 04 Sep 2013 12:20 AM PDT In a completely expected yet disappointing moment, a wide range of Democrat and Republican fools have united in support of war. It's hard to know precisely where to begin with this wrap-up as there is rampant stupidity on both sides of the political aisle but let's start with a preposterous statement by Secretary of State John Kerry who said Congress Faces 'Munich Moment'. Secretary of State John Kerry told House Democrats during a Monday conference call that they face a "Munich moment" as they weigh whether to approve striking Syria to punish Syrian President Bashar Assad for using chemical weapons, two sources with knowledge of the call told NBC News.Kerry's Preposterous Comparison Five Simple Facts
Rush to War In this mad dash to war please note that John Kerry says US tests prove sarin used in Syria attacks John Kerry, the US secretary of state, on Sunday strengthened the case for military action against Bashar al-Assad's regime after announcing that tests conducted on gas attacks in Syria had proved positive for the nerve agent sarin. Sarin Used? By Whom? Let's assume that sarin was used. Not once did Kerry say who was responsible. So who was responsible? Please consider Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack As the machinery for a U.S.-led military intervention in Syria gathers pace following last week's chemical weapons attack, the U.S. and its allies may be targeting the wrong culprit.Propaganda On Both Sides Given the propaganda on both sides, it is arguable as to whether the above story is true or not. Regardless, the story is plausible. More importantly, precisely what business is it of the US to rush to war over uncertain facts? Is poison gas really any worse than tens of thousands killed in African slaughters by machetes and other means? To those who died, what difference does it make? The Difference Is Oil The US is in Syria for two reasons.
Were it not for oil, the warmongers probably would not have succeeded in this case. Oil is the only real difference between this case and numerous slaughters in Africa in which the US stood by and did nothing. Boehner Caves In As totally expected by any rational thinking person (especially in light of Boehner caving in to the whims of Obama on numerous budget issues) Boehner's Aboard: Obama Gains Syria-Strike Support President Barack Obama gained ground Tuesday in his drive for congressional backing of a military strike against Syria, winning critical support from House Speaker John Boehner while key Senate Democrats and Republicans agreed to back a no-combat-troops-on-the-ground action in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack.Warmonger McCain Leads the Charge On September 2, McCain said Congress Must Support Obama on Syria Action Republican Senator John McCain said Congress must back taking action against Syria and that a failure of lawmakers to act would be "catastrophic" for U.S. interests in the region. Catastrophic? How? Why? Is Syria a threat to the US? If so, in what way? McCain Caught Playing iPhone Poker During Syria Hearing Syria is so much a threat that McCain Was Caught Playing iPhone Poker During Syria Hearing As the hearing continues, our ace photographer Melina Mara reports she spotted Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) "passing the time by playing poker on his iPhone during the hearing."  Warmonger McCain attempted to make light of the issue with a ridiculous tweet: "Scandal! Caught playing iPhone game at 3+ hour Senate hearing - worst of all I lost!" McCain Scandal Yes senator, this is a scandal. If you were a Democrat, Fox news would be trumpeting the story for days if not weeks. McCain learned nothing from his six years in captivity in one of the stupidest wars in history. And because of his captivity, he is the ideal spokesman for the defense industry warmongers. Who better than McCain to fire the often heard charge "weak on defense" McCain Fake Patriot McCain is the gold medal winner in the "fake patriotism" contest. Getting shot down in a war that the US should not have been involved with in the first place does not make one a hero. Squandering taxpayer money in other senseless wars does not make one a hero either. The simple facts of the matter are: this is another mad rush to war, on trumped-up evidence, for no good reason even IF the evidence as portrayed was correct. Yet, here we go again, in another mad dash to war, this time with Obama siding with war-mongering McCain, and Boehner caving in to Obama (as he always does, on every issue). Recall that Hillary Clinton caved in to Bush (and likely lost the nomination to Obama because she would not admit an error). What if Romney Won? Would things be any different if Mitt Romney won the election? Given the Democrat strangle hold on the Senate, it is 100% certain that Obamacare would not have been repealed. Most legislation in Congress would not have been any different. The biggest difference under Romney, is that we would probably be in a trade war with China and a real war with Iran. Would that be better? If you conclude war was likely no matter who won, you conclude correctly. If you sense I am disgusted with both political parties, you sense correctly. Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
Postări
