SEO: Let Us Hustle, Everyone
May 4, 2020
I was horrified in 2013 when I read “Google Semantic Search: Search Engine Optimization (SEO) Techniques That Get Your Company More Traffic, Increase Brand Impact, and Amplify Your Online Presence.” I assume Ramanathan Guha, one of the semantic sparkplugs, may have to breathe deeply and do Zen things when he ponders how his semantic inventions have been applied.
One idea for “semantic” was to deal with ambiguity and provide improved recall for Web content. I am not to thrash around in the Semantic Web kiddy pool with over inflated natural language processing methods, the sprites of SPARQL, and Watson-esque methods that can figure out “meaning” in human utterances. No, no.
I want to point out that crazy suggestions for fooling Google’s bastardized relevance methods into presenting a user with increasingly less and less relevant information. Here’s an example: A query for “Peruvian Machu Picchu stone masonry.” Pretty specific. Here’s what the GOOG delivers:
The top hit is from a travel agency. Number two is a Wikipedia article. Number three is a collection of pictures.
I don’t know about you, but I am not confident in a travel agency’s take on Mesolithic quarrying. The Wikipedia entry raises the question, “Says who?” And the pictures. I don’t need pictures, I need data about quarrying: Where, chemical composition of stone, tools, etc.
But that’s the search engine optimization world at work. Travel agencies are experts because they put a word in their sales material. Notice that the wondrous Google ad matching algorithm did NOT generate explicit travel advertisements. This begs the question, “What’s the problem, Google smart software ad matching thing?”
The goal of search engine optimization is to outfox an increasingly mixed up Google and the clueless user who wants information on a specific topic; for example, Peruvian Machu Picchu stone masonry,” NOT a pitch for a tours. The sacred valley gateway to Machu Picchu becomes under ham fisted SEO manipulations, the Valley of Tricked Customers, populated with users wondering, “I meant masonry information, not a tour.”
Let’s put David Amerland and his ilk aside. At least, the almost respectable SEO bilkadoodles (a cross between a street savvy fox and pink miniature poodle) write books and contribute to Search Engine Journal, one of the advocates of helping Google display unrelated content.
No, let’s take a quick look at an outfit which is a breed of interest to SEO veterinarians: Woobound.com.
Woobound.com came across my lidar when I received this email on Friday, May 1, 2020. Note that the text is unedited:
Hi ,
My name is Christian from Woobound, Helping you get through remote work challenges!I’ve been looking up content related to Seo, Digital Marketing & Lead Generation for Finance topic and noticed that you published one on your site http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/2016/04/06/nasdaq-joins-the-party-for-investing-in-intelligence/
I liked what I have read so far, and I think we can agree on all your points. In fact, we have written and published similar content on the same topic which also touches on some of the Seo, Digital Marketing & Lead Generation for Finance tips/topics featured in your article.
We thought your readers might find it as a useful resource, and you can find it here: https://woobound.com/seo-financial-advisor/
Think it would make a nice addition to your page? I’m also keen to know your feedback or thoughts on our writing as well.We also have a blog manukakitchen.com and we’re happy to give you a link in return.
Keep up the great work at arnoldit.com and stay safe
Best
Christian
I noted several issues which this spam email poked in my face:
- The email is signed Christian, but the email address is for jeffrey@woobound.com. A fake name is a flashing yellow light.
The warning light is now pulsing. - The Christian Arriola / Jeffrey entity is following what is a trend in getting useless content in order to pump up a loser blog. (I receive these “please, take my content and link to me” requests frequently. As I was assembling this post, an entity called andreea.sauciuc@cognitiveseo.com begged me to respond to her earlier requests for me to talk to her. No, doesn’t work with these thoughtless, clueless individuals.) The Christian Jeffrey entity called my attention to a story from 2016 about finance, and it seems to Christian Jeffrey that a story related to “seo-financial-advisor” and Manuka Kitchen. The entities are either stupid humans or stupid software bots. The common denominator is “stupid.”
- The Christian Arriola / Jeffrey entity is confident that the entity and I agree. Wrong. The fake praise is even more obtuse than the links to subjects of zero interest to me and the DarkCyber team. What’s most inept? Assuming that I am going to agree with this Christian Arriola / Jeffrey or that I will craft a five star review of the Amerland SEO book?
What’s up with this Christian Arriola / Jeffrey entity, please?
Curious I did some checking of open source content. What do you know? The Christian Arriola / Jeffrey reinvented himself in 2018. Here’s a before behavioral modification in the food aisle and the fashion forward Christian Arriola / Jeffrey of the here and now. The image comes from Facebook. Of course, this Christian possibly named Arriola is a Facebooker and an Instagramer to boot:
`
The “less pizza” diet seems to have had zero impact on the fashion sense of the entity Christian Jeffrey. You can check out the girl friends (numerous), the dog, the favorite cities, and the entity’s most loved pizza restaurants at this link.
A little more exploration revealed a cornucopia of search engine optimization rubbish presented in a series of YouTube videos. You can experience these discharges (effluent, not prison) by clicking on this image:
The Christian Jeffrey program does not present the name of the top hustler who operates the program.
Compared to the Poland China output in the Amerland book, the content in these videos might challenge a trippe of hungry pygmy goats.
Let’s look at an example:
The image is similar to those my team has reviewed as part of our work for a tribunal focused on human trafficking and child sex crime.
The program is part of the “show” — now mercifully discontinued — called The Hustle. This particular video features images of hot flames, a visage with what seems to be a Hustle smirk, a VW sedan, footage in a bar, and includes the statement “My life is proving my mom and dad wrong.”
With some trepidation, I asked some of my team to “watch” videos prepared by the Christian Arriola / Jeffrey entity.
Here’s the scorecard I received for three of the eight videos my team viewed. Please, note that each person watched two videos because as one of the DarkCyber team said, “I can’t stand this vlogger and the content. Two’s the limit for me.” I listen, so I said, “Okay, team two shows.”
Programs were rated on a scale of one to 10. One is an F or failure; 10 is a great program with solid content. Here we go:
Show 1: How to Be a Podcaster. Score: 2. Comment: Mostly correct but geared to a person who cannot read. On the Hustle Web site, the link to this program and the free series of which it is allegedly a part does not resolve. Dead links are not what SEO experts report as helpful.
Show 2: Best Keywords for Massage Therapist. Score 1. Comment: Distasteful subject. Seems like a way to build traffic for in call and outcall prostitution services.
Show 3: Make Money with SEMrush. Score 1. Comment: Superficial. Seems to suggest that anyone — even a person with zero education and a questionable reputation — can become a search engine optimization expert.
DarkCyber provided the Christian Arriola / Jeffrey entity with some questions, a routine part of our data collection process. Here are the questions Christian Jeffrey declined to answer:
Would you be kind enough to explain the use of dual names?
One of the team took a gander at the LinkedIn profile associated with one of the names the “Hustle” expert used in his communications to me. Here’s what one of the DarkCyber team learned:
- One job at the present time: “Associate Director of SEO” for Nexstar Digital. This is a full time position. Engaged for one year.
- Another job at the present time: “Search Engine Optimization SEO Consultant”. Engaged for nine years.
- A third job at the present time: Podcast Host and content marketing strategy. Engaged for three years. Note that the video podcast went into what seems to be permanent hiatus “one year ago.”
- Education: Five years to get a BA degree in “business administration, marketing, and computer information systems.”
- An entity named Carlos Rosado said, “One of the most complete SEO managers I have ever worked with.”
- Christian Jeffrey is interested in AT&T and the Hotel Group, among others.
The DarkCyber team member’s opinion based on viewing the Hustle programs and the LinkedIn profile:
The fact that the person Christian Arriola / Jeffrey uses one name for LinkedIn and omits his name from the “Hustle” podcast raises red flags. Also, the information presented in the LinkedIn biography makes clear that this individual presents three “jobs” of which two are his own endeavors. This is another warning light. Multiple gigs are understandable today, but to list one’s own projects as full time jobs leads me to believe that this individual is one with a bit of professional fluidity or “stretch.”
Net Net: SEO is a discipline which plays a cat-and-mouse game with Google. Making a Web page appear when the content of that Web page is not germane to the user’s query is in some ways beyond marketing. The practice edges into intellectual dishonesty. Maybe the behavior is not in the same class as illegal weapons dealing, contraband, human trafficking, and child sex crime? But the facts presented in open source support these conclusions:
- SEO practitioners do shade or shape what Google displays.
- Individual practitioners may embrace methods associated with criminal behavior; that is, the use of aliases in a professional setting like LinkedIn and email to entities like ArnoldIT.
- The expertise required to deliver for fee SEO services may depend on the use of questionable software tools developed by other SEO “experts” and may not work. (Alexa Ranking reports that the Woobound.com site ranks at 7,313,183. DarkCyber finds it peculiar that an SEO expert cannot generate traffic or YouTube views for that matter.)
If you have to decide between the Amerland book’s advice and the “expertise” peddled by Christian Arriola / Jeffrey, look further. You’ll probably save time and money and avoid the “hustle.”
Stephen E Arnold, May 4, 2020
New Speak: Editorial Control Becomes Custom Results
March 5, 2020
Just a small thing. Newspapers, magazines, and book editors (well, once in a while) once exercised editorial control. The idea was simple: Reasonably well-educated people who were sober (one hoped) would screen and select content to appear in their respective content outputs. A “content output” in the Okay, Boomer hay day were printed artifacts: A daily paper (no reminders about yellow journalism, please), magazines (no snide comments about multi-year renewal offers a few weeks after a new subscription was started, and books (please, no remarks about samizdat).
“Pinterest Is Combating Corona Virus Misinformation with Custom Search Results” says:
The company told The Verge it’s introducing a “custom search experience” to ensure its users can get reliable information when they turn to the platform for information about the epidemic. With the new experience in place, the next time you search for “Corona Virus” and “COVID-19,” Pinterest will surface curated pins created by the World Health Organization.
Yikes, adulting. Now let’s use simple words like “selected,” “editorial judgment,” “controls,” etc. “Old speak” still works.
Progress, modest but still progress.
Stephen E Arnold, March 5, 2020
Amazon: Buying More Innovation
February 26, 2020
DarkCyber noted the article “Amazon Acquires Turkish Startup Datarow.” The word “startup” is rather loosely applied. Datarow was founded in 2016. Not a spring chicken in DarkCyber’s view is a four year old outfit.
What’s interesting about this acquisition is that it provides the sometimes unartful Amazon with an outfit that specializes in making easier-to-use data tools. The firm appears to have been built around AWS Redshift.
The company’s quite wonky Web site says:
We’re proud to have created an innovative tool that facilitates data exploration and visualization for data analysts in Amazon Redshift, providing users with an easy to use interface to create tables, load data, author queries, perform visual analysis, and collaborate with others to share SQL code, analysis, and results. Together with AWS, we look forward to taking our tool to the next level for customers.
The company provides what it calls “data governance,” a term which DarkCyber means “get your act together” with regard to information. This is easier said than done, but it is a hot button among companies struggling to reduce costs, comply with assorted rules and regulations, and figure out what’s actually happening in their lines of business. Profit and loss statements are not up to the job of dealing with diverse content, audio, video, real time data, and tweets. Well, neither is Amazon, but that’s not germane.
Will Amazon AWS Redshift (love the naming, don’t you?) become easier to use? Perhaps Datarow will become responsible for the AWS Web site?
Stephen E Arnold, February 26, 2020
Twitter: Embracing Management Maturity?
January 20, 2020
Twitter has a new initiative in 2020 to keep academic researchers honest, although it is not advertised in that manner. TechCrunch shares the details in the article, “Twitter Offers More Support To Researchers-To ‘Keep Us Accountable.’” Twitter’s new support for academic researchers is a new hub called “Twitter Data for Academic Researchers” and it has easier access to Twitter’s information and support about its APIs. Within the hub, one can apply for a developer account, links for researcher tools, and information about the APIs Twitter offers.
Twitter apparently added the Twitter Data for Academic Researchers hub this year based off researchers’ demands. The social media platform states they want to encourage communication and offer more support between developers. One reason Twitter wants more transparency and easier communication with its developers is due to the United States’s 2020 presidential election. Twitter, like most social media platforms, wants to cut down the number of bots and/or false news reports that effected the 2016 election. There is also the need to tamper down these accounts on a regular basis:
“Tracking conversation flow on Twitter also still means playing a game of ‘bot or not’ — one that has major implications for the health of democracies. And in Europe Twitter is one of a number of platform giants which, in 2018, signed up to a voluntary Code of Practice on disinformation that commits it to addressing fake accounts and online bots, as well as to empowering the research community to monitor online disinformation via “privacy-compliant” access to platform data.”
Twitter wants to support its developer community, but the transparency also makes it easier for Twitter to hold people responsible for their actions. They are keeping tabs on how their technology is used, while also assisting developers with their work. It is a great idea and if trouble arises, it might make it easier to track down the bad actors who started the mess. It is also another score for Twitter, because Facebook does not support academics well. Facebook has altered its APIs for researchers and Facebook does not want to stop false information spreading.
Whitney Grace, January 20, 2020
MIT and Ethics for the 21st Century: A New Spin on Academia, Ethics, and Technology
January 13, 2020
Yes, a new spin. There is nothing like spin, particularly when an august institution has accepted money from an interesting person. Who is this fascinating individual?
Jeffrey Epstein, alleged procurer, human trafficker, and hobnobber with really great and wonderful people.
I read, with some disgust, “Eight Revelations from MIT’s Jeffrey Epstein Report,” which was conveniently published in Technology Review, an organ of truth and insight affiliated with MIT. For context, I had just completed “Alphabet’s Top Lawyer to Retire after Google Founders Leave,” which appeared in the Bloomberg news-iverse. You remember Bloomberg, the outfit which reported with some nifty assertions that motherboard spying was afoot.
But to MIT and Epstein, then a comment about the sterling outfit Google.
MIT’s write up explained that MIT was prudent. Instead of accepting $10 million from the interesting and now allegedly deceased Mr. Epstein, the university accepted a mere $800,000. Such restraint. And that’s the subtitle for the write up!
What are the eight teachings derived from the fraternization, support, and joy of accepting the interesting Mr. Epstein? Here you go, gentle reader:
- The relationship for money extended over 15 years. Such tenacity.
- The hook up with Mr. Epstein were happenstance. Maybe MIT was seduced?
- The $10 million didn’t happen, but the donations had to be anonymous. Such judgment.
- It was the MIT Corporation, not the real school.
- Mr. Epstein prevaricated about his donations. Quite a surprise, of course. Lies, deception, manipulation, etc. etc.
- Mr. Epstein attended real MIT events, like the funeral for “AI pioneer Marvin Minsky.” An icon, of course.
- No big wheels like Bill Gates were involved in directing Mr. Epstein’s money. Perhaps a bit of color on this point would be helpful.
- A real MIT professional asserted that Mr. Epstein was a person whom MIT “should treat with respect.”
And the write up concludes, “The Media Lab [a unit of MIT] rejected $25,000, Mr. Epstein tried to donate in 2019. Another example of judgment.
To sum up, quite a write up about an institution which I assume offers a course in ethics. Well, maybe not. Full disclosure: I was quote in the MIT Technology Review late in 2019. I was not thrilled with that association with an outfit will to treat Mr. Epstein with respect.
Now to the Google. The world’s largest online advertising agency seems to be channeling the antics of Madison Avenue in the 1950s. In this episode of the Science Club Explores Biological Impulses”, I learned:
David Drummond, the legal chief of Google parent Alphabet Inc. and a company veteran, stepped down following questions about his conduct at the technology giant.
The conduct may have involved another Googler. What do two Googlers create? Why another Googler it seems. Who knew that Madison Avenue extended from New York City to Mountain View, California.
Net net: Two outfits with people who should have known about propriety demonstrated poor judgment. Look for slightly used ethical compasses on eBay. Lightly used but likely to manifest flawed outputs.
I would suggest that certain non technical behaviors qualify as grounds for viewing MIT and Google as very poorly managed institutions staffed by individuals who operate from a position above the “madding crowd.”
Stephen E Arnold, January 13, 2020
Are Media Worthless? Matt Taibbi Says Yes
January 3, 2020
Robert Steele, a former US spy whom I know, and also the top reviewer for non-fiction books in English, has published Review: Hate Inc. Why Today’s Media Makes Us Despise One Another by Matt Taibbi and given the book five stars, calling it “”totally brilliant.”
I was drawn to this statement in Steele’s review:
There will come a time, guaranteed, when Americans pine for a powerful neither-party-aligned news network, to help make sense of things.
Steele’s review appears to provide a concise summary of the book that those who worry about accuracy, data integrity, ethics, and the concept of social value should find interesting. Steele concludes the review by noting:
The same is true of the intelligence community, and the academy, of non-profits and governments. Keep the money moving, never mind the facts.
Facts? Are facts irrelevant? Steele and Taibbi appear to agree that facts remain important. Dissenters: Possibly the “media?”
Stephen E Arnold, January 3, 2020
Silicon Valley: Management Talent Available for the Challenges of 2020?
December 24, 2019
Ho, ho, ho. It is the eve of a big time holiday. What do some Silicon Valley companies want to kick the festivities off in grand style? Fresh, experienced, capable management talent? New hires create new opportunities.
DarkCyber may have spotted several candidates. With proven leaders a company struggling in today’s difficult business climate may be able to revivify trust, increase market influence, and enhance credibility via key hires. Some MBAs believe that new management is just the ticket to win the revenue lottery.
Who are these candidates?
If the information in Reuters’ story “Boeing Fires CEO Muilenburg to Restore Confidence Amid 737 Crisis” is accurate, “Muilenburg’s departure followed a week of dramatic setbacks for Boeing, which vies with Europe’s Airbus for leadership of the $150 billion jet industry.” But one person’s setback is another company’s opportunity. It seems that this individual may be seeking his future elsewhere.
For companies looking for senior management talent for their European ventures, HR professionals may need to look no farther than the French executives who made headlines recently. According to “Three French Executives Convicted in the Suicides of 35 of Their Workers,” the method used to motivate colleagues was described as harcelement moral institutionnel. That means energetic constructive criticism.
DarkCyber believes that traditional hiring practices typically do a good job identifying and motivating professionals. Some individuals stand out for different reasons.
Stephen E Arnold, December 24, 2019
Facebook Helps Employees Think
December 4, 2019
I read the headline “Facebook Gives Workers a Chatbot to Appease That Prying Uncle. The “Liam Bot” Teaches Employees What to Say If Friends or Family Ask Difficult Questions about the Company over the Holidays.”
I thought “Liam” was a misspelling of “liar.” Upon a second look, I realized that “Liam” was a friendly, neutral, even trustworthy word.
Is this a photograph of one of Liam’s ancestors? DarkCyber believes that this is not Facebook’s Liam. But the possibility of this individual’s DNA finding its way to Facebook is interesting to contemplate.
The main point of the write up is that Facebook is not sure what employees will say when asked a question. To address the problem, the company has rolled out a smart system to provide some digital support to the Facebookers who have to answer spontaneously.
The write up explains that answer should point out that Facebook seeks information from experts. No definition of an “expert” is provided it seems. But that’s a minor point because we’re are doing damage control here, not thinking.
Other steps Facebook is taking to deal with interesting content includes contractors who review information before it goes live, identify hate speech, and other hand waving.
Google explained that volume makes it difficult to catch certain types of interesting content. Bigness is a burden for sure, right?
I circled in True Blue marker this statement from the write up:
In its answers, the Liam Bot often links to company blog posts and news releases. It doesn’t just provide answers to difficult questions about Facebook’s role in the world, either. Liam Bot is also practical with personal technology advice.
Several observations:
- A brain implant might be a useful supplement to Liam
- Activating the employee’s mobile phone to video and record conversation would provide useful training data
- Chat bots are quite useful, particularly when interacting in a spontaneous manner with friends and family. Why look a person in the eye. Just read from the mobile phone.\
Facebook is a pioneer following in the footsteps of individuals who wanted to control thinking and speaking. Who were these individuals?
Ask Liam, please. Not even IBM Watson can help with this question.
Stephen E Arnold, December 4, 2019
Is Google Thinking about Turkeys?
November 27, 2019
Is Google actually fearful of an authoritarian government? Google is okay with firing people who do not go along. Google exerts considerable force. Is Google is a company driven by dollar signs? Is it possible that Google fears anything and anyone that threatens its net profit? The Register explains the cause of Google’s fear in “Google Takes Sole Stand on Privacy, Rejects New Rules For Fear Of ‘Authoritarian’ Review.”
Google, like any company from a capitalist society, is leery of any organization that wishes to restrain its power. Google recently blocked a new draft for he Privacy Interest Group (PING)’s charter. PING is a member of the W3C web standards body. Google blocked the new draft, because it creates an unchecked authoritarian review group and will create “significant unnecessary chaos in the development of the web platform.”
PING exists to enforce technical specifications that W3C issued to respect people’s Web privacy. W3C provides horizontal review, where members share suggestions with technical specifications authors to ensure they respect privacy. Ever since the middle of 2019, PING’s sixty-eight members have tried to rewrite its charter. The first draft was shared with 450 W3C members, one of which is Google, and only twenty-six members responded. Of the twenty-six members, Google was the only one that objected.
Google supports PING’s horizontal review, bit the search engine giant did not want to invest in the new charter without the group having more experience. There are not many differences between the charter drafts:
“‘The new charter is not dramatically different from the existing one, Doty said in an email. ‘It includes providing input and recommendations to other groups that set process, conduct reviews or approve the progression of standards and mentions looking at existing standards and not just new ones. I think those would all have been possible under the old charter (which I drafted originally); they’re just stated more explicitly in this draft. It includes a new co-chair from Brave, in addition to the existing co-chairs from the Internet Society and Google.’
Doty said he’s not surprised there would be discussion and disagreement about how to conduct horizontal spec reviews. ‘I am surprised that Google chose to formally object to the continued existence of this interest group as a way to communicate those differences,’ he said.”
Doty hopes that Google will invest in PING and Web privacy, but Google’s stance is more adversarial. Google and other tech companies are worried about their business models changing of cookies are blocked. Google does not want to lose the majority of its business, which comes from advertising through its search engine. Google might protect privacy, but only so far as it does not interfere with their bottom line.
Whitney Grace, November 27, 2019
The Cost of Indifference and the Value of Data Governance
November 23, 2019
The DarkCyber team suggests a peek at “Unsecured Server Exposes 4 Billion Records, 1.2 Billion People.” The write up states:
The data itself comes from the data aggregator and enrichment companies People Data Labs (PDL) and OxyData.Io and contains basic personal information, such as names, home and mobile phone numbers and email addresses and what may be information scraped from LinkedIn, Facebook and other social media sources.
The write up points out that the data losses included:
- Over 1.5 billion unique people, including close to 260 million in the U.S.
- Over 1 billion personal email addresses. Work email for 70%+ decision makers in the US, UK, and Canada.
- Over 420 million LinkedIn URLs.
- Over 1 billion Facebook URLs and IDs.
- 400 million plus phone numbers with more than 200 million U.S.-based valid cell phone numbers.
The hosting provider may have been Amazon AWS. The software system was Elasticsearch. The individuals were those who set up the system.
Without reploughing a somewhat rocky field, one might suggest that default settings for cloud services, software, and passwords need a rethink. One might want to think about the staff assigned to the job of setting up the system. One might want to think about the sources of the information the company named in the article tapped. In short, one could think about quite a few points of failure.
Another approach might be to raise the question of responsibility. I suppose this is a type of governance, a term which refers to figuring out what’s to be done and how to complete tasks without creating this all-too-common situation of whizzy systems’ functioning as convenience stores for those who want data.
A few observations:
First, the individuals involved in setting up this system were not, it seems, managed particularly well. That’s a problem when managers don’t know what to stipulate their contractors and employees must do to secure online services. These “individuals” work at different organizations. Thus, coordination and checks are difficult. But the alternative? Loss of data.
Second, the developers of the software understand the security implications of certain user actions. The fix is to purchase additional security. Security is not baked in. Security is an option. That approach may generate revenue, but the quest for revenue seems to have a downside. Loss of data.
Third, the operators of the cloud system continue to follow the “just a platform” approach to business. The idea is that the functionality of a cloud system makes it easy to deploy an application. In a hurry? No problem. Use the basics. Want something special? That takes time, and when done in a careless or partial way, loss of data.
It seems that “loss of data” may be preventable but loss of data is part of the standard operating procedure in the present managerial environment.
How does the problem become lessened? Governance. Will companies and individuals step up and go through the difficult task of figuring out what and how before losing data?
Unlikely. Painful lessons like the one revealed in the source article slip like rain water off the windshield of a car speeding down the information superhighway.
Dangerous? Sure. Will drivers slow down? Nope. The explanation after an accident was, “I don’t know. Car just skidded.” There’s insurance for automobile accidents. For cloud data wrecks, no consequences of a meaningful nature. Just blog posts. These are effective?
I will be talking about how the tendrils of the Dark Web and security lapses may create a greater interest in data governance. Exciting? Only if you were one of the billion or so whose personally identifiable information was put online in a less than secure way. I will be at the DG Vision Conference in Washington, DC, early in December 2019.
Stephen E Arnold, November 23, 2019
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
