Central Perk

luni, 23 martie 2015

Moving 5 Domains to 1: An SEO Case Study - Moz Blog

Moving 5 Domains to 1: An SEO Case Study

Posted on: Monday 23 March 2015 — 01:16

People often ask me if they should change domain names, and I always shudder just a little. Changing domains is a huge, risky undertaking, and too many people rush into it seeing only the imaginary upside. The success of the change also depends wildly on the details, and it's not the kind of question anyone should be asking casually on social media.

Recently, I decided that it was time to find a new permanent home for my personal and professional blogs, which had gradually spread out over 5 domains. I also felt my main domain was no longer relevant to my current situation, and it was time for a change. So, ultimately I ended up with a scenario that looked like this:

The top three sites were active, with UserEffect.com being my former consulting site and blog (and relatively well-trafficked). The bottom two sites were both inactive and were both essentially gag sites. My one-pager, AreYouARealDoctor.com, did previously rank well for "are you a real doctor", so I wanted to try to recapture that.

I started migrating the 5 sites in mid-January, and I've been tracking the results. I thought it would be useful to see how this kind of change plays out, in all of the gory details. As it turns out, nothing is ever quite "textbook" when it comes to technical SEO.

Why Change Domains at All?

The rationale for picking a new domain could fill a month's worth of posts, but I want to make one critical point – changing domains should be about your business goals first, and SEO second. I did not change domains to try to rank better for "Dr. Pete" – that's a crap shoot at best. I changed domains because my old consulting brand ("User Effect") no longer represented the kind of work I do and I'm much more known by my personal brand.

That business case was strong enough that I was willing to accept some losses. We went through a similar transition here from SEOmoz.org to Moz.com. That was a difficult transition that cost us some SEO ground, especially short-term, but our core rationale was grounded in the business and where it's headed. Don't let an SEO pipe dream lead you into a risky decision.

Why did I pick a .co domain? I did it for the usual reason – the .com was taken. For a project of this type, where revenue wasn't on the line, I didn't have any particular concerns about .co. The evidence on how top-level domains (TLDs) impact ranking is tough to tease apart (so many other factors correlate with .com's), and Google's attitude tends to change over time, especially if new TLDs are abused. Anecdotally, though, I've seen plenty of .co's rank, and I wasn't concerned.

Step 1 - The Boring Stuff

It is absolutely shocking how many people build a new site, slap up some 301s, pull the switch, and hope for the best. It's less shocking how many of those people end up in Q&A a week later, desperate and bleeding money.

Planning is hard work, and it's boring – get over it.

You need to be intimately familiar with every page on your existing site(s), and, ideally, you should make a list. Not only do you have to plan for what will happen to each of these pages, but you'll need that list to make sure everything works smoothly later.

In my case, I decided it might be time to do some housekeeping – the User Effect blog had hundreds of posts, many outdated and quite a few just not very good. So, I started with the easy data – recent traffic. I'm sure you've seen this Google Analytics report (Behavior > Site Content > All Pages):

Since I wanted to focus on recent activity, and none of the sites had much new content, I restricted myself to a 3-month window (Q4 of 2014). Of course, I looked much deeper than the top 10, but the principle was simple – I wanted to make sure the data matched my intuition and that I wasn't cutting off anything important. This helped me prioritize the list.

Of course, from an SEO standpoint, I also didn't want to lose content that had limited traffic but solid inbound links. So, I checked my "Top Pages" report in Open Site Explorer:

Since the bulk of my main site was a blog, the top trafficked and top linked-to pages fortunately correlated pretty well. Again, this is only a way to prioritize. If you're dealing with sites with thousands of pages, you need to work methodically through the site architecture.

I'm going to say something that makes some SEOs itchy – it's ok not to move some pages to the new site. It's even ok to let some pages 404. In Q4, UserEffect.com had traffic to 237 URLs. The top 10 pages accounted for 91.9% of that traffic. I strongly believe that moving domains is a good time to refocus a site and concentrate your visitors and link equity on your best content. More is not better in 2015.

Letting go of some pages also means that you're not 301-redirecting a massive number of old URLs to a new home-page. This can look like a low-quality attempt to consolidate link-equity, and at large scale it can raise red flags with Google. Content worth keeping should exist on the new site, and your 301s should have well-matched targets.

In one case, I had a blog post that had a decent trickle of traffic due to ranking for "50,000 push-ups," but the post itself was weak and the bounce rate was very high:

The post was basically just a placeholder announcing that I'd be attempting this challenge, but I never recapped anything after finishing it. So, in this case, I rewrote the post.

Of course, this process was repeated across the 3 active sites. The 2 inactive sites only constituted a handful of total pages. In the case of AreYouARealDoctor.com, I decided to turn the previous one-pager into a new page on the new site. That way, I had a very well-matched target for the 301-redirect, instead of simply mapping the old site to my new home-page.

I'm trying to prove a point – this is the amount of work I did for a handful of sites that were mostly inactive and producing no current business value. I don't need consulting gigs and these sites produce no direct revenue, and yet I still considered this process worth the effort.

Step 2 - The Big Day

Eventually, you're going to have to make the move, and in most cases, I prefer ripping off the bandage. Of course, doing something all at once doesn't mean you shouldn't be careful.

The biggest problem I see with domain switches (even if they're 1-to-1) is that people rely on data that can take weeks to evaluate, like rankings and traffic, or directly checking Google's index. By then, a lot of damage is already done. Here are some ways to find out quickly if you've got problems…

(1) Manually Check Pages

Remember that list you were supposed to make? It's time to check it, or at least spot-check it. Someone needs to physically go to a browser and make sure that each major section of the site and each important individual page is resolving properly. It doesn't matter how confident your IT department/guy/gal is – things go wrong.

(2) Manually Check Headers

Just because a page resolves, it doesn't mean that your 301-redirects are working properly, or that you're not firing some kind of 17-step redirect chain. Check your headers. There are tons of free tools, but lately I'm fond of URI Valet. Guess what – I screwed up my primary 301-redirects. One of my registrar transfers wasn't working, so I had to have a setting changed by customer service, and I inadvertently ended up with 302s (Pro tip: Don't change registrars and domains in one step):

Don't think that because you're an "expert", your plan is foolproof. Mistakes happen, and because I caught this one I was able to correct it fairly quickly.

(3) Submit Your New Site

You don't need to submit your site to Google in 2015, but now that Google Webmaster Tools allows it, why not do it? The primary argument I hear is "well, it's not necessary." True, but direct submission has one advantage – it's fast.

To be precise, Google Webmaster Tools separates the process into "Fetch" and "Submit to index" (you'll find this under "Crawl" > "Fetch as Google"). Fetching will quickly tell you if Google can resolve a URL and retrieve the page contents, which alone is pretty useful. Once a page is fetched, you can submit it, and you should see something like this:

This isn't really about getting indexed – it's about getting nearly instantaneous feedback. If Google has any major problems with crawling your site, you'll know quickly, at least at the macro level.

(4) Submit New XML Sitemaps

Finally, submit a new set of XML sitemaps in Google Webmaster Tools, and preferably tiered sitemaps. While it's a few years old now, Rob Ousbey has a great post on the subject of XML sitemap structure. The basic idea is that, if you divide your sitemap into logical sections, it's going to be much easier to diagnosis what kinds of pages Google is indexing and where you're running into trouble.

A couple of pro tips on sitemaps – first, keep your old sitemaps active temporarily. This is counterintuitive to some people, but unless Google can crawl your old URLs, they won't see and process the 301-redirects and other signals. Let the old accounts stay open for a couple of months, and don't cut off access to the domains you're moving.

Second (I learned this one the hard way), make sure that your Google Webmaster Tools site verification still works. If you use file uploads or meta tags and don't move those files/tags to the new site, GWT verification will fail and you won't have access to your old accounts. I'd recommend using a more domain-independent solution, like verifying with Google Analytics. If you lose verification, don't panic – your data won't be instantly lost.

Step 3 – The Waiting Game

Once you've made the switch, the waiting begins, and this is where many people start to panic. Even executed perfectly, it can take Google weeks or even months to process all of your 301-redirects and reevaluate a new domain's capacity to rank. You have to expect short term fluctuations in ranking and traffic.

During this period, you'll want to watch a few things – your traffic, your rankings, your indexed pages (via GWT and the site: operator), and your errors (such as unexpected 404s). Traffic will recover the fastest, since direct traffic is immediately carried through redirects, but ranking and indexation will lag, and errors may take time to appear.

(1) Monitor Traffic

I'm hoping you know how to check your traffic, but actually trying to determine what your new levels should be and comparing any two days can be easier said than done. If you launch on a Friday, and then Saturday your traffic goes down on the new site, that's hardly cause for panic – your traffic probably always goes down on Saturday.

In this case, I redirected the individual sites over about a week, but I'm going to focus on UserEffect.com, as that was the major traffic generator. That site was redirected, in full on January 21st, and the Google Analytics data for January for the old site looked like this:

So far, so good – traffic bottomed out almost immediately. Of course, losing traffic is easy – the real question is what's going on with the new domain. Here's the graph for January for DrPete.co:

This one's a bit trickier – the first spike, on January 16th, is when I redirected the first domain. The second spike, on January 22nd, is when I redirected UserEffect.com. Both spikes are meaningless – I announced these re-launches on social media and got a short-term traffic burst. What we really want to know is where traffic is leveling out.

Of course, there isn't a lot of history here, but a typical day for UserEffect.com in January was about 1,000 pageviews. The traffic to DrPete.co after it leveled out was about half that (500 pageviews). It's not a complete crisis, but we're definitely looking at a short-term loss.

Obviously, I'm simplifying the process here – for a large, ecommerce site you'd want to track a wide range of metrics, including conversion metrics. Hopefully, though, this illustrates the core approach. So, what am I missing out on? In this day of [not provided], tracking down a loss can be tricky. Let's look for clues in our other three areas…

(2) Monitor Indexation

You can get a broad sense of your indexed pages from Google Webmaster Tools, but this data often lags real-time and isn't very granular. Despite its shortcomings, I still prefer the site: operator. Generally, I monitor a domain daily – any one measurement has a lot of noise, but what you're looking for is the trend over time. Here's the indexed page count for DrPete.co:

The first set of pages was indexed fairly quickly, and then the second set started being indexed soon after UserEffect.com was redirected. All in all, we're seeing a fairly steady upward trend, and that's what we're hoping to see. The number is also in the ballpark of sanity (compared to the actual page count) and roughly matched GWT data once it started being reported.

So, what happened to UserEffect.com's index after the switch?

The timeframe here is shorter, since UserEffect.com was redirected last, but we see a gradual decline in indexation, as expected. Note that the index size plateaus around 60 pages – about 1/4 of the original size. This isn't abnormal – low-traffic and unlinked pages (or those with deep links) are going to take a while to clear out. This is a long-term process. Don't panic over the absolute numbers – what you want here is a downward trend on the old domain accompanied by a roughly equal upward trend on the new domain.

The fact that UserEffect.com didn't bottom out is definitely worth monitoring, but this timespan is too short for the plateau to be a major concern. The next step would be to dig into these specific pages and look for a pattern.

(3) Monitor Rankings

The old domain is dropping out of the index, and the new domain is taking its place, but we still don't know why the new site is taking a traffic hit. It's time to dig into our core keyword rankings.

Historically, UserEffect.com had ranked well for keywords related to "split test calculator" (near #1) and "usability checklist" (in the top 3). While [not provided] makes keyword-level traffic analysis tricky, we also know that the split-test calculator is one of the top trafficked pages on the site, so let's dig into that one. Here's the ranking data from Moz Analytics for "split test calculator":

The new site took over the #1 position from the old site at first, but then quickly dropped down to the #3/#4 ranking. That may not sound like a lot, but given this general keyword category was one of the site's top traffic drivers, the CTR drop from #1 to #3/#4 could definitely be causing problems.

When you have a specific keyword you can diagnose, it's worth taking a look at the live SERP, just to get some context. The day after relaunch, I captured this result for "dr. pete":

Here, the new domain is ranking, but it's showing the old title tag. This may not be cause for alarm – weird things often happen in the very short term – but in this case we know that I accidentally set up a 302-redirect. There's some reason to believe that Google didn't pass full link equity during that period when 301s weren't implemented.

Let's look at a domain where the 301s behaved properly. Before the site was inactive, AreYouARealDoctor.com ranked #1 for "are you a real doctor". Since there was an inactive period, and I dropped the exact-match domain, it wouldn't be surprising to see a corresponding ranking drop.

In reality, the new site was ranking #1 for "are you a real doctor" within 2 weeks of 301-redirecting the old domain. The graph is just a horizontal line at #1, so I'm not going to bother you with it, but here's a current screenshot (incognito):

Early on, I also spot-checked this result, and it wasn't showing the strange title tag crossover that UserEffect.com pages exhibited. So, it's very likely that the 302-redirects caused some problems.

Of course, these are just a couple of keywords, but I hope it provides a starting point for you to understand how to methodically approach this problem. There's no use crying over spilled milk, and I'm not going to fire myself, so let's move on to checking any other errors that I might have missed.

(4) Check Errors (404s, etc.)

A good first stop for unexpected errors is the "Crawl Errors" report in Google Webmaster Tools (Crawl > Crawl Errors). This is going to take some digging, especially if you've deliberately 404'ed some content. Over the couple of weeks after re-launch, I spotted the following problems:

The old site had a "/blog" directory, but the new site put the blog right on the home-page and had no corresponding directory. Doh. Hey, do as I say, not as I do, ok? Obviously, this was a big blunder, as the old blog home-page was well-trafficked.

The other two errors here are smaller but easy to correct. MinimalTalent.com had a "/free" directory that housed downloads (mostly PDFs). I missed it, since my other sites used a different format. Luckily, this was easy to remap.

The last error is a weird looking URL, and there are other similar URLs in the 404 list. This is where site knowledge is critical. I custom-designed a URL shortener for UserEffect.com and, in some cases, people linked to those URLs. Since those URLs didn't exist in the site architecture, I missed them. This is where digging deep into historical traffic reports and your top-linked pages is critical. In this case, the fix isn't easy, and I have to decide whether the loss is worth the time.

What About the New EMD?

My goal here wasn't to rank better for "Dr. Pete," and finally unseat Dr. Pete's Marinades, Dr. Pete the Sodastream flavor (yes, it's hilarious – you can stop sending me your grocery store photos), and 172 dentists. Ok, it mostly wasn't my goal. Of course, you might be wondering how switching to an EMD worked out.

In the short term, I'm afraid the answer is "not very well." I didn't track ranking for "Dr. Pete" and related phrases very often before the switch, but it appears that ranking actually fell in the short-term. Current estimates have me sitting around page 4, even though my combined link profile suggests a much stronger position. Here's a look at the ranking history for "dr pete" since relaunch (from Moz Analytics):

There was an initial drop, after which the site evened out a bit. This less-than-impressive plateau could be due to the bad 302s during transition. It could be Google evaluating a new EMD and multiple redirects to that EMD. It could be that the prevalence of natural anchor text with "Dr. Pete" pointing to my site suddenly looked unnatural when my domain name switched to DrPete.co. It could just be that this is going to take time to shake out.

If there's a lesson here (and, admittedly, it's too soon to tell), it's that you shouldn't rush to buy an EMD in 2015 in the wild hope of instantly ranking for that target phrase. There are so many factors involved in ranking for even a moderately competitive term, and your domain is just one small part of the mix.

So, What Did We Learn?

I hope you learned that I should've taken my own advice and planned a bit more carefully. I admit that this was a side project and it didn't get the attention it deserved. The problem is that, even when real money is at stake, people rush these things and hope for the best. There's a real cheerleading mentality when it comes to change – people want to take action and only see the upside.

Ultimately, in a corporate or agency environment, you can't be the one sour note among the cheering. You'll be ignored, and possibly even fired. That's not fair, but it's reality. What you need to do is make sure the work gets done right and people go into the process with eyes wide open. There's no room for shortcuts when you're moving to a new domain.

That said, a domain change isn't a death sentence, either. Done right, and with sensible goals in mind – balancing not just SEO but broader marketing and business objectives – a domain migration can be successful, even across multiple sites.

To sum up: Plan, plan, plan, monitor, monitor, monitor, and try not to panic.

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

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

Seth's Blog : Things we don't see that much any more

Things we don't see that much any more

Wine coolers, Julia Roberts movies, fondue, Geocities pages, baby on board signs, a line at the Krispy Kreme...

Ubiquitous doesn't mean forever, and popular isn't permanent. Someone is going to fade, and someone is going to be next to take their place.

• Email to a friend •

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

France Local Elections: Hollande's Party (PS) Trounced by Sarkaozy (UMP) and Le Pen (FN)
War Games: Russia Threatens Denmark, NATO Intercepts Russian Jets, NATO Launches Drills on Russian Border
Bottled Water: Is it Safer? Taste Better?

France Local Elections: Hollande's Party (PS) Trounced by Sarkaozy (UMP) and Le Pen (FN)

Posted: 22 Mar 2015 07:49 PM PDT

In local French elections over the weekend, Conservatives Hold Off National Front while PS, the party of president Francois Hollande finished a distant third.

France's centre-right UMP party and its allies have taken first place in the first round of local elections, partial results show.

Projections suggest that the far-right National Front - despite strong gains - came second with about 25% of the vote, behind the conservatives on 30%.

President Francois Hollande's governing Socialists came third with about 20%.

Voters are electing representatives in 101 departments, or counties, charged with issues like schools and welfare.

The results mean the second round on 29 March will see a run-off between the UMP and the FN in many constituencies.

Le Pen: "We Dislodged PS"

Following the election, a triumphant Marine Le Pen announced "We dislodged PS".

Via translation from Le Monde:

In an exclusive interview with Le Monde, the president of the National Front believes that the score of his party in the first round of the departmental elections, Sunday, March 22, is a "feat".

Le Pen: I have always said that beating the results of the European election [25%] would be a triumph. We beat that score score tonight.

Le Monde: You cannot dislodge the role of Nicolas Sarkozy.
Le Pen: The one that has been dislodged is the PS. It was dislodged in a thousand cantons!

Le Monde: You pay for your policy of isolation. The dynamic alliance between the UMP and the UDI allows to garner more votes.
Le Pen: We went from zero local presence to many second rounds. It's spectacular! Our score reassures everyone, it shows that our standards have reached such a point that some blow when one makes 27%.

Le Monde: Your dynamic still seems halted.
Le Pen: Not at all! We scored better than in the European elections! The vast majority of our candidates are unknown. And we come to consolidate a national proportional vote. I have no reason to be disappointed tonight. None.

Le Monde: The results of the PS is a defeat for Manuel Valls?
Le Pen: The vote eliminated half of PS candidates in the first round! This is a personal defeat.

Le Monde: Today your main opponent is Manuel Valls and Nicolas Sarkozy?
Le Pen: My main opponent is a presidential candidate. It's Hollande and Sarkozy.

Achievement of National Front

Also from Le Monde, please consider Local Elections 2015.

Marine Le Pen, made its best score ever in the local elections, with about 26% of the votes.

Marine Le Pen took the floor to celebrate the "achievement" made by the National Front, who managed to better its score in the European elections. "This vote shows that the French want their freedom and understood that Another policy is possible," said the National Front, in a statement at the party headquarters.

Marine Le Pen said that "the overwhelming number of second rounds which will present FN candidates and the eviction of PS candidates in over thousand cantons shows our success."

The FN even won the first round several cantons: that of Eurville-Bienville in Haute-Marne (50.35%), Pontet Vaucluse (53.70%), Fréjus in the Var (51.17 %) of Vic-sur-Aisne in Aisne (53.80%).

Runoffs on March 29

It will be interesting to see the results on March 29. History suggests the left will hold their nose and vote for UMP.

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

War Games: Russia Threatens Denmark, NATO Intercepts Russian Jets, NATO Launches Drills on Russian Border

Posted: 22 Mar 2015 01:29 PM PDT

Destabilizing war drill exercises from both NATO and Russia are the order of the day. The more the drills, the more like one side or the other is going to make a major mistake.

Russia Threatens Denmark

In addition to the drills which we will discuss momentarily, the Financial Times reports Russia delivers nuclear warning to Denmark.

Russia has threatened Denmark with a nuclear strike if it takes part in NATO's missile shield, in some of the most incendiary comments yet directed at a member of the military alliance.

Russia's ambassador to Denmark wrote in a newspaper opinion piece that the Nordic country had not fully understood the consequences of signing up to the NATO missile defence programme.

"If it happens, then Danish warships will be targets for Russia's nuclear weapons. Denmark will be part of the threat to Russia," Mikhail Vanin wrote in Jyllands-Posten.

Mr Lidegaard indicated in August that Denmark would fit one or possibly more frigates with a type of radar that would allow the ships to be used in the NATO missile shield.

Russia Targets NATO With Military Exercises

In a totally one sided article, Stratfor moans Russia Targets NATO With Military Exercises.

Russian military exercises, the latest in a series across the country, have taken on a threatening posture. While the most recent installment is not the largest exercise Russia has conducted, the areas involved and the forces included seem to have been deliberately chosen to send a warning to NATO; the exercise itself seems to simulate a full-scale confrontation with NATO through the forward deployment of nuclear armed submarines, theater ballistic missiles and strategic bomber aircraft. Strategic weapon systems, including assets that are part of Russia's nuclear capabilities, have also been deployed to locations near NATO's borders.

According to Russian statements, the snap exercise, which was not announced before it began March 16, will last five days and will involve some 45,000 servicemen, around 3,000 vehicles, more than 40 surface vessels, 15 submarines and 110 aircraft. The more notable systems involved are the Iskander mobile theater ballistic missiles and fighter aircraft that are being deployed to Kaliningrad, Tu-22M3 long-range strategic bombers that are being deployed to Crimea, and ballistic missile submarines that have been sent to sea with protective escorts.

NATO Holds Military Drills in Estonia

The Russia snap exercise began on March 16. On February 25, the Telegraph wrote NATO and Russia Hold Rival Military Exercises on Estonian border.

Russian and NATO troops took part in rival exercises on either side of the Estonian border on Wednesday, highlighting fears that the tiny Baltic state could be the next target of the Kremlin's territorial ambitions.

NATO forces put on a show of strength within yards of Estonia's Russian border, with armoured personnel carriers, tanks and 1,300 Estonian soldiers forming a military parade. The parade, which also included 100 troops from Britain and other European nations, followed warnings from David Cameron on Tuesday that the Baltics could be next in Russia's sights for a Crimea-style annexation.

The parade took place in the snow-bound Estonian frontier town of Narva, where a majority of residents are ethnic Russians. The choice of location was a pointed warning to Moscow, which regards the Russian community there as de facto evidence that Estonia is part of Russia's "back yard".

The Kremlin responded with its own military drills, sending 2,000 paratroopers into Russia's western Pskov region, which borders both Estonia and neighbouring Latvia.

Note that it was Russia who responded in Estonia. NATO held exercises first.

US Tanks Arrive in Latvia for NATO Drill in Poland, Estonia, Lithuania

On March 9, the Pontiac Tribune reported US Tanks Arrive In Latvia For NATO Drill With Poland, Estonia & Lithuania.

Om March 18, Newsweek reported NATO Intercepts 11 Russian Jets as War Games Continue

Lithuania has intercepted the largest group of Russian military jets near allied airspace this year, in the early hours of this morning, as Russia continues its snap military exercises in the Baltic, Arctic and elsewhere.

The increasing number of unannounced Russian military drills near its Baltic neighbours, combined with Russia sending jets into airspace close to its European neighbours has prompted concern from defence officials on the continent before. Lithuania and Estonia's defence ministries have previously said such tactics could allow Russia to redeploy forces on their borders.

Drills for Me but Not Thee

On March 21, RT wrote Drills for me but not for thee: NATO launches war games near Russian border.

Despite being quick to condemn Russian military manoeuvers, NATO is conducting wide-scale war games in the Baltic states and creating a "line of troops" across Eastern Europe. The US denies a double standard, but records and transcripts suggest otherwise.

Thousands of US troops and hundreds of tanks have poured into Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in the past two months as part of an operation dubbed "Atlantic Resolve." In February, 140 NATO vehicles and 1400 troops swept through Narva, a mere 300 meters from the Russian border.

Just last week, Washington pushed Vietnam to prevent Russian aircraft from refueling there.

"We have urged Vietnamese officials to ensure that Russia is not able to use its access to Cam Ranh Bay to conduct activities that could raise tensions in the region," one State Department official told Reuters, on the condition of anonymity.

Meanwhile, in the first three weeks of February, the US Navy flew its latest surveillance aircraft from bases in the Philippines over disputed islands in the South China Sea. The P-8 Poseidon is equipped with the latest sensors and electronics in the US Navy arsenal, and can "pack a serious punch," according to one US military analyst.

When asked why the US was condemning Russian exercises inside Russia, State Department press official Jeff Rathke told RT no such statement had ever been made.

"Wouldn't US and NATO maneuvers on Russian borders, at a time when the West and Russia are at odds over the crisis in Ukraine, also raise tensions?" asked AP diplomatic correspondent Matt Lee.

"We would disagree with that," replied Rathke.

Russia announced a massive surprise military drill earlier this week, putting forces all over the country on high alert and conducting exercises in the Baltic Sea, Black Sea, the Arctic and the Far East. The ongoing snap check of the military involves about 76,000 troops, over 10,000 vehicles, 65 warships, 16 support vessels, 15 submarines, 200 warplanes and helicopters.

Principles Please

The Daily Coin comments Principles Please? US Lauds NATO Drills But Calls Russian Ones Provocative

Principles in Reporting

What about principles in reporting?

RT, unlike Stratfor and Newsweek at least mentioned some military exercises of both Russia and NATO.

I am not here to defend any of these actions. My belief, as stated upfront, is that these war drill exercises are destabilizing. The more the drills, the more like one side or the other is going to make a major mistake.

If anything, it appears US hawks are itching for a war with Russia. The US and Europe have already waged economic war on Russia, with round after round of sanctions. Those sanctions have hurt Europe as badly as Russia.

Who "Wins"?

No one "wins" in economic warfare
No one "wins" in nuclear warfare

Sadly, It's entirely possible the former leads to the latter with all these drills as the prelude.

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

Bottled Water: Is it Safer? Taste Better?

Posted: 22 Mar 2015 11:31 AM PDT

A friend sent me a hilarious video this morning on bottled water. The video is from 2010, but it's also timeless.

Bottled water is a big industry, and profit margins are amazing. But does bottled water taste batter? Is is free of chemicals? Is it even regulated?

Depending on what you know about bottled water, some of the answers may surprise you.

Link if video does not play: Truth About Bottled Water

There are reasons to drink bottled water of course. Here are two:

Your city tap water is tastes bad or looks bad.
Your well water is tastes bad, looks bad, or has higher than you like minerals or organics in it.

The number one water in taste tests happens to be New York City tap water. Chicago has great water too, at least it did when I was there in 2000. The vast majority of citizens in the US have excellent water.

I once lived in a town called Lake in the Hills. It had water that was brown one day of the week, like clockwork. I believe it was every Tuesday. Whatever day it was, you learned not to wash your clothes on that day.

We have a well now, and I think the water tastes great. But it does have high calcium content which a water softener takes care of nicely.

If you like the convenience of having a cold bottle of water handy, I have a simple suggestion: refill the bottles from your tap.

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

duminică, 22 martie 2015

Seth's Blog : The tyranny of random numbers

The tyranny of random numbers

Is that iPhone game really conspiring to put blue squares up at the last minute, just to foil your attempt at a perfect score?

Human beings are story-making engines, and when we're confronted with randomness, we make up an egocentric version of what happened, and it involves us.

So when things randomly go well, we give ourselves a pat on the back, a reminder of why we deserved it. And when they don't, we seek out the ghost in whatever machine did us wrong and come up with a reason.

Here's the truth: There is no reason. That's why we define it as random.

All the time we spend inventing reasons is probably better spent responding to what occurs.

• Email to a friend •

sâmbătă, 21 martie 2015

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

China's Vice Premier Seeks "Reasonable Growth"

Posted: 21 Mar 2015 09:08 PM PDT

China's Vice Premier says "high speed growth" is a thing of the past and instead says China Will Keep Economic Growth in Reasonable Range

China's economy faces increased downward pressure this year, Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli said on Sunday, while reiterating that economic growth must be kept within a reasonable range.

China's economic growth slowed to just 7.4 percent last year, the slowest in 24 years. Beijing has set a target for growth of around 7 percent for 2015.

"The downward pressure on China's economy increased somewhat since the start of this year," Zhang told a high-level conference in Beijing.

"It's impossible and unnecessary for us to maintain the high-speed growth seen in the past," he added.

"We have paid a price and it's unsustainable. We should focus on improving quality and efficiency, change models and adjust structures."

Preposterous Growth

7 percent is not reasonable. Something like 2 percent may be reasonable, but targets themselves are silly. Moreover, it's highly doubtful China grew at 7.4% last year. In fact, China may not have grown at all in the 4th quarter.

The problem with preposterous growth targets is that it puts pressure on local governments to achieve them. Two things happen: local officials make up numbers or worse yet, take silly risks to meet targets.

For a realistic assessment of China's growth please see Reality Check: How Fast is China Growing? Global Recession at Hand

My followup was China's Deflationary Bust and Beyond: Anne Stevenson-Yang Presentation

Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli says "We have paid a price and it's unsustainable."

The only accurate part of his statement is "it's unsustainable." No price has been paid yet, but it's coming.

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

Seth's Blog : Companies don't care about you

Companies don't care about you

Brands don't care about you...

Institutions don't care about you either.

The only people who are able to care about you are people.

The question, then, is this institution owned and organized and run by people who will allow the people who work there to care?

Generally, the answer is 'no', because caring is unpredictable, hard to command and regulate and sometimes expensive in the short run.

What a shame.

• Email to a friend •

vineri, 20 martie 2015

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Evolution of Taxes: Italy Taxes "Shadows", Tax on Breathing Next?
Yield Curve, Futures, Suggest No Rate Hike Until December; GDP Forecast Halved Again to 0.3%
Proposed Illinois Tax Hikes: Financial Transactions, Millionaires, Guns, Sweetened Beverages, Satellite Providers, Fireworks, Progressive Income
Bitcoin vs. Uber: Bitcoin Lovers Respond to Mish

Evolution of Taxes: Italy Taxes "Shadows", Tax on Breathing Next?

Posted: 20 Mar 2015 08:12 PM PDT

Zero Hedge had an interesting article today called In Italy, They're Now Taxing Shadows.

This is one of those stories where you expect the headline to be a bit of an exaggeration. It wasn't.

As Italian newspaper Leggo reports, store owners in Conegliano are now faced with the unfortunate (albeit comically absurd) proposition of paying taxes on shadows.

The rationale appears to go something like this: an awning casts a shadow on public property and therefore you must pay to use that property.

Tax on Breathing Next?

I pinged that article off Pater Tenebrarum at Acting Man. He lives in Austria. Pater responded ...

They actually got that idea from Austria, where we have the so-called (put down the coffee) "air tax". No, it's not a tax on breathing just yet. But if you have a shop sign that "occupies airspace", you must pay a tax for it!

In Vienna this is garnished additionally with the "subway levy", which has to be paid regardless of whether one uses the subway or not. In fact, I think there is no government on the planet more inventive with regard to taxes, levies and imposts of all sorts.

Illinois Tax Proposals

Earlier today I noted Proposed Illinois Tax Hikes: Financial Transactions, Millionaires, Guns, Sweetened Beverages, Satellite Providers, Fireworks, Progressive Income

Additional tax-hike proposals are being thrown around without any idea of how much they might raise. State Rep. Rita Mayfield, D-Waukegan, proposed a 3.75% tax on guns and gun parts.

When asked how much revenue it would raise, she said she didn't know but thought "if we can get a good million or so, I'll take it.

State Rep. Lou Lang, D-Skokie, recently said that "creative lawmakers can come up with many options for new revenue."

Creative Options

Let's hope Lou Lang does not look at what's happening in Italy or Austria, or proposed tax on shadows or even breathing will soon be on the way.

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

Yield Curve, Futures, Suggest No Rate Hike Until December; GDP Forecast Halved Again to 0.3%

Posted: 20 Mar 2015 12:42 PM PDT

Curve Watcher's Anonymous is investigating the yield curve following Janet Yellen's exceptionally dovish FOMC announcement on Wednesday.

Yield Curve 2-yr, 3-yr, 5-yr, 10-yr, 30-yr

click on chart for sharper image

30-year in black and red
10-year in orange
5-year in blue
3-year in green
2-year in purple

Change From Year Ago

Above rate table from Bloomberg.

Futures Suggest No Rate Hike Until December

Please consider Yellen Sends Odds of Any Rate Increase Below 50% Until December

"The likelihood that policy makers will lift their benchmark rate from near zero in September fell to 39 percent from 55 percent on Tuesday, according to calculations by Bloomberg using federal fund futures contracts. Futures traders have wiped out the chance of an increase in June, assigning it an 11 percent probability."

Door Open

On Wednesday, Bloomberg took the stance Fed Drops Patient Stance, Opening Door to June Rate Increase.

I found that rather amusing and responded Fed Drops Word "Patient"; Door Open, But For What?

Although the Fed removed the word "patient", the rest of Yellen's yap could not possibly have been any more dovish.

The panel said it will be appropriate to tighten "when it has seen further improvement in the labor market and is reasonably confident that inflation will move back to its 2 percent objective over the medium term."

That statement can mean virtually anything, prompting me to ask "How much more improvement does the Fed want? Or does the Fed not believe all these glowing labor reports either?"

And of course no one has any clues about the true meaning of "medium term".

Weak Data

For four months nearly all data except lagging jobs data has been weak.

That's just a sampling. Nearly every economic report except for jobs has been weaker than expected.

GDP Forecast Halved Again

On March 13 I noted Atlanta Fed Halves GDP Forecast to 0.6%; Blue Chip Consensus Eight Miles High

Today we see the Atlanta Fed's GDPNow Forecast has been halved again.

The forecast for GDP growth is now down to 0.3%.

I doubt the Fed will hike in a recession, and I do think a recession is on the way. If the Fed does hike, it will be to prick the asset bubble in stocks.

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

Proposed Illinois Tax Hikes: Financial Transactions, Millionaires, Guns, Sweetened Beverages, Satellite Providers, Fireworks, Progressive Income

Posted: 20 Mar 2015 11:22 AM PDT

Illinois pension plans are in extremely dire shape even with the huge stock market returns over the past few years. Illinois Spendaholics have proposed a huge array of tax hikes to make up the shortfall.

Ben VanMetre at the Illinois Policy Institute explains in this guest post.

Illinois politicians propose $100B in tax hikes over next 5 years

More than $100 billion in tax hikes over five years may sound like a joke. But to many Illinois lawmakers, it sounds like a solution.

State Rep. Lou Lang, D-Skokie, recently said that "creative lawmakers can come up with many options for new revenue." Unfortunately, Illinois lawmakers have outdone themselves in the creativity department this year.

The array of six tax hikes proposed by Illinois lawmakers this legislative session adds up to more than $100 billion over the next five years. That's more than the state's total projected general-fund spending in fiscal years 2016, 2017 and 2018 – combined.

And the tax-hike proposals don't stop there.

Additional tax-hike proposals are being thrown around without any idea of how much they might raise. State Rep. Rita Mayfield, D-Waukegan, proposed a 3.75% tax on guns and gun parts. When asked how much revenue it would raise, she said she didn't know but thought "if we can get a good million or so, I'll take it."

Enough is enough. How can taxpayers take their legislators seriously when they've put more than $100 billion in tax hikes on the table in a state that is on the brink of financial and economic collapse?

Rather than trying to build a "creative" revenue plan based on how much lawmakers want to spend over the next few years, they should instead focus on building a spending plan based on the amount of revenue the state will have under its current tax structure.

Ben VanMetre
Director of Pension Reform

Tax Madness

Had Pat Quinn won reelection, most or all of those proposals would have passed. And more people would have fled the state in response.

I have a far better set of ideas.

Immediately switch from a defined benefit system to a contribution system.
Allow municipalities to go bankrupt so they can shed pension obligations
Allow municipalities to create their own pension systems instead of setting everything at the state level.
Enact a progressive tax on pension benefits.
Tax at a 90% rate, all benefits above a certain level.

The one tax worth instituting is a progressive tax on pension benefits, big enough to make the state system solvent. Let those who want a "progressive tax" have it. Just put it on something that makes sense.

Should the Illinois Supreme Court strike down a tax on pension benefits, I would take the case to the US Supreme court where I would expect it to win.

For a look at the sorry state of affairs of the Illinois pension system, please see Illinois Pension Plans 39% Funded; Taxpayers On the Hook for $105 Billion in Liabilities; It Will Get Worse!

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

Bitcoin vs. Uber: Bitcoin Lovers Respond to Mish

Posted: 20 Mar 2015 12:39 AM PDT

I recently commented that it would not surprise me if bitcoin plunged to $1.00. That was not a prediction, it was a comment.

Still, I still feel a collapse in bitcoin is likely.

For discussion, please see Cash Dinosaur: France Limits Cash Transactions to €1,000, Puts Restrictions on Gold; Bitcoin End Coming?

In response, reader Creighton writes ...

Hello Mish

While I'm not going to argue the point about the possibility that Bitcoin drops to $1, or less, (that could happen yet, but not for the reasons you propose) I felt it necessary to point out something you seem to have overlooked.

While it's likely that the US government watching Bitcoin in order to get some pointers about releasing it's own version of the US$, they would also have noticed that Canada attempted to do that exact thing two years ago.

It went nowhere. And it went nowhere for the same reason that the US, or China, or any other nation, couldn't expect to succeed in the same market.

Bitcoin was first to market in the, previously non-existent, field of non-state Internet currencies. Precious metals don't work, because there has to be a vault somewhere. The Liberty Dollar & Egold both tried that, and both got raided. There is a real market for a working non-state currency, that can't be screwed with by state actors. Bitcoin isn't perfect, as I have stated before, but if it's going to zero, it will be because one of the many start--up cryptocurrencies that have arrived since Bitcoin turns out to be substantially better at doing the same things.

I understand that you are not a crypto-geek like myself, and that I'm biased because I understand how Bitcoin actually does what it does, but I can honestly say that it does some things in completely novel ways; and has features that no fiat currency, digital or otherwise, has been able to do internally. There are entire financial institutions in the finance industry founded upon solving many transaction problems that Bitcoin handles just fine internally, for the cost of about a nickel per transaction. Bitcoin is actually capable of taking over all the functions of notary publics & most of the functions of county clerks, everywhere.

Western Union's cash transfer business model is walking dead. Keep an open mind, because there is a fair chance that you will eventually use Bitcoin, or its successor, in some capacity within a decade. Perhaps only as a cash transfer method, with the intent of switching back to cash immediately, but that day shall come.

Governments can no longer just suppress these new crypto-currencies and expect them to go away. The last chance to crush Bitcoin was several years ago, before the hashing rate (the cryptographic support of its security model) shot past the capability of the largest non-classified supercomputer on Earth.

Today (I just checked bitcoinwatch.com) it is over 4 million petaflops. The largest (unclassified) supercomputer on Earth is only 33 petaflops. It would cost more than the market capitalization of all of Bitcoin to build a computer cluster capable of matching that, and it would take years; by which time it would take still much more.

Someday, you too will be a convert, if never a fan.

Mish Response to Creighton

Hello Creighton. I fully understand that bitcoin is innovative and disruptive. Yet, all it takes is government action to make it illegal.

It does not even take action by the US to do bitcoin in. China could do it in given that 80% of bitcoin transactions are from China, most likely fraudulent as I have pointed out.

Bitcoin vs. Uber

The car service Uber survives even though it has been banned nearly everywhere.

I started accumulating all sorts of links many months ago. I collected well over 20. Here are a few of them.

Germany: Car sharing service Uber banned in Germany
France: France Bans Uber As Taxi Drivers Stage Protest In Paris
New York City: Uber faces limited suspension in NYC for noncompliance
Belgium: Uber prospers in Belgian capital despite ban
Everywhere: Uber Is Apparently Illegal Almost Everywhere

In spite of the fact Uber is banned nearly everywhere, the company survives!

Why?

Because Uber is what the masses want.

Uber Cars Outnumber Yellow Taxis in New York City

Please consider Uber Cars Outnumber Yellow Taxis in New York City.

For the first time, there are more black Uber cars on the streets of New York City than traditional yellow taxis, figures have revealed.

The New York Taxi and Limousine Commission said there were 14,088 registered Uber cars compared with 13,587 yellow cabs.

However, the number of trips taken in yellow cabs far outpaces Uber rides. That is because many Uber drivers work part-time, whereas taxis often operate all day.

Do the Masses Want Bitcoin?

I do not believe the masses want bitcoin. Heck, do the masses even know what bitcoin is?

Bitcoin has a legitimate model. Yet, it is not a model the masses care about. As such, it is heavily dependent on the graces of governments and alternative models.

Governments can easily create (and demand usage of their own digital currencies). Governments cannot easily disrupt Uber.

Question of Sentiment

If I am wrong, then bitcoin will survive (just as Uber has survived numerous bans everywhere). In the end, it all boils down to sentiment.

I question whether or not public sentiment on bitcoin will be sufficient to overcome government restrictions.

In contrast, Uber has fared phenomenally in spite of governmental attacks everywhere.

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

luni, 23 martie 2015

Moving 5 Domains to 1: An SEO Case Study - Moz Blog

Why Change Domains at All?

Step 1 - The Boring Stuff