Virtue Signaling: A Covid Short Circuit
May 6, 2020
One of the DarkCyber team sent me a link to “COVID-19 & SEO: Why SEO Is More Important Now Than Ever.” The impact of the article was, “Befuddlement.” The phrase “more important than ever” assumes that search engine optimization was important in the first place.
I have long held the belief that online advertising vendors used search engine as mechanism to drive ad sales. Based on the research for Google Version 2: The Calculating Predator, it was clear that manipulating content could cause the “clever” Google PageRank method to boost pages with minimal intellectual value. Therefore, if you can’t stop weaponized, shaped, or malformed information, what is the benefit of search engine optimization?
The shift coincided with some of my work for the world’s largest source of Web indexed content. By encouraging SEO via an “ambassador” to SEO conferences, online advertising could be positioned as an essential service.
A new Web site is posted. The content is indexed and boosted in the search results. Then over time, the ranking of that “new” site begins to slip down the results page. Nothing the SEO expert does has an impact on the lost results. The customer becomes frustrated and may try another SEO expert. But the site is now essentially not findable.
What’s the solution?
The fix is to purchase online advertising and then traffic returns. Is this magic?
No, it illustrates an aspect of misinformation that gets little purchase in today’s world.
The article “COVID-19 & SEO: Why SEO Is More Important Now Than Ever” illustrates the effort optimization experts expend trying to get a free boost on ad supported “free to use” Web indexes. The word “covid” is lashed to SEO. The argument, noted above, is that SEO is important.
I circled this passage in the write up:
While ecommerce businesses are seeing unmatched results from SEO at the moment — Adobe reports an almost 200% increase in toilet paper purchases alone — companies outside the ecommerce sector are still benefiting from their investment in SEO.
This is interesting logic. Adobe is a word which is used to locate information about Photoshop and other applications. The bound phrase “toilet paper” is a word used frequently on Amazon. (Amazon attracts more product searches now than Google.) But the statement ignores the fact that similar interest in toilet paper occurred in Russia. Perhaps something about the product is causing the searches? Is that something a factor other than SEO?
The search engine optimization sector uses whatever words are needed to generate a boost. Then when the customer finds the SEO less effective, the customer is softened up to buy online ads.
The free Web search systems are under increasing pressure to generate financial returns. This means that the claims of SEO will pay off for those who sell online ads. When the SEO ministrations fail to work, what’s a company to do?
Answer: Buy online ads. Those are going to work.
Why’s this important? Three reasons:
- The symbiosis between SEO and online advertising is not widely discussed.
- Content, even if it is wonky, is needed to give the illusion that an online indexing system is timely and comprehensive. They are neither timely nor comprehensive, but those are separate topics.
- Companies are becoming more and more desperate to make sales. That means that high value information is going to get lost in the barrages of dross.
Are there examples of this activity? Yes, there is the high profile issue between what’s displayed, what’s available, and what’s shown. Navigate to “How Google Search Results Shape, and Sometimes Distort, Public Opinion – and Why You Should Care.”
And there are other examples as well. Take a look at LinkedIn and run a query for “search engine optimization.” You will find a number of experts. At least one of these experts uses an alias. Why? Who is this? We’ll try to answer these questions. Watch for our new feature about SEO deception.
Remember this assertion:
No matter your industry, the COVID-19 pandemic has presented your business with a slew of challenges and difficult decisions, especially when it comes to how you’ll market your company. Compared to other marketing options, SEO offers far more stability and security. It’s a great option for businesses focusing on long-term growth during tenuous times.
One question: “Are the statements accurate?” or are they the shibboleths of the hustler.
Looking for our search engine optimization hustling coverage, click this link.
Stephen E Arnold, May 7, 2020
Looking for more SEO fancy dancing, read this DarkCyber story at https://wp.me/pf6p2-gdY
Google Ad Revenue: What Happens When the One Trick Pony Gets Seedy Toe?
May 1, 2020
Seedy toe?
What’s that? If you live in Kentucky, home of the abandoned Derby you know. If not, your child’s pony is going to be in discomfort. And the costs? You don’t want to know what large animal vets in horse country charge, do you?
“CEO Sundar Pichai Spells Out Alphabet’s Positives, but COVID-19 Damage to Ad Revenues Is Only Going to Get Worse” presents a key point articulated by the chief Googler Sundar Pichai:
In March, we experienced a significant and sudden slowdown in ad revenues. The timing of the slowdown correlated to the locations and sectors impacted by the virus and related shutdown orders…Overall, recovery in ad spend will depend on a return to economic activity.
The article also quotes the Google chief financial officer as observing: The second quarter will be “a difficult one.” Google’s CFO did not elaborate on Google cost control measures. Yep, cost control. Important DarkCyber believes.
But back to seedy toe and a lame pony.
The bulk of Google revenues come from online advertising. Amazon is doing a good job of capturing product search and that means that Amazon product ad revenue is likely to track those clicks. That’s bad news for Google as the bad news from the virus disruption affects large swaths of the global economy. Facebook’s ad revenues may have taken a hit in the most recent quarter, but that outstanding, other-directed manager Mark Zuckerberg hungers for more ad revenue as well.
Google may be able to kick sand in the face of dead tree outfits, but the datasphere is a different sort of construct.
Limping ponies will not be invited to parade at birthday parties. Lame ponies can be expensive to make well again.
Here in Kentucky there are only so many places at the Old Friends Farm. Then what? A one way ticket to Fiji? Ponies are a treat of sorts in Oceania. Bula!
Google needs to avoid seedy toe. Amazon and Facebook are not ponies. These outfits are tigers with a hunger for easy prey; for example, a lame pony.
Stephen E Arnold, May 1, 2020
Google: The Laser That Threatened James Bond Creeps Closer to the Private Parts of the GOOG
April 23, 2020
Update: I omitted the link to the actual Googler blog post. Too excited thinking about “integrity.” My bad.
Goldfinger was an interesting film. In 1965, lasers were advanced. Some thought they were death rays. The Hollywood people, sunning around the pool with Technicolor drinks, thought the laser was the ideal way to burn James Bond’s private parts. Goldfinger was the bad actor. Now Google’s integrity weapon may be threatening Alphabet’s private parts. Odd job indeed.
The laser posed a risk to the fictional James Bond’s private parts. The Google integrity verification is a similar risk with one difference: Googlers are steering the destructive beam of actual data toward Alphabet’s secret places.
Flash forward to 2020, “Google to Require All Advertisers to Pass Identity Verification Process.” The word “all” is probably not warranted, but it sounds good. Talking heads enjoy glittering generalities and categorical affirmatives.
Nevertheless, the news story, if accurate, reveals some interesting quasi-factoids. Here’s one example:
Google began requiring political advertisers wanting to run election ads on its platform to verify their identity back in 2018. Now, that program is being extended to all advertisers, the company wrote in a blog post this morning from John Canfield, its director of product management for ads integrity. The change will allow consumers to see who’s running an ad and which country they’re located in when they click “Why this ad?” on a placement.
Advertisers have to “prove” something other than having a mechanism to put funds into a Google advertising account. Second, Google has a job description which includes these words: “Management” and “integrity.” Plus, the information will not help Google. Nope, the winners in knowing who allegedly buys ads is “consumers.”
Google’s integrity person allegedly said:
“This change will make it easier for people to understand who the advertiser is behind the ads they see from Google and help them make more informed decisions when using our advertising Controls,” John Canfield, Google’s director of product management for ads integrity, said in the post. “It will also help support the health of the digital advertising ecosystem by detecting bad actors and limiting their attempts to misrepresent themselves.”
How does one become verified by Google’s integrity people?
Organizations are required to submit personal legal information (like a W9 or IRS document showing the organization’s name, address and employer identification number). An individual from the organization also needs to provide legal identification on the organization’s behalf. Individuals have to show government-issued photo ID like a passport or ID card. Google said it previously had collected basic information about the advertiser but didn’t require documentation to verify.
How effective are Google’s efforts to filter, screen, and verify? We know that human traffickers and others in this line of business have infiltrated videos on YouTube. We know that one can run a query for “Photoshop crakz”:
Apparently Google’s system cannot block listings for stolen commercial software. In fact, the listing for this illegal offering was updated three days ago. DarkCyber knows that some legitimate sites’ content has not been updated for longer periods of time. Notice how Google’s smart autocorrect changed “crakz” into “cracked.” Helpful smart software. Why does Google display the result? Why doesn’t Adobe email Google’s search wizards to have these links with illegal intent filtered? One reason may be that Adobe has emailed Google customer support and is, like many others with questions for the Google, waiting for a response from an informed Googler?
Google, Ad Transparency, and Query Relaxation: Should Advertisers Care? Probably
April 20, 2020
You need information about Banjo, a low profile outfit in Utah. Navigate to Google and enter the query Banjo law enforcement. No quotes for this query. Banjo has a Web site, and the phrase law enforcement is reasonably common and specific. (It is what is known as a bound phrase like White House or stock market; that is, the two words go together in US English.)
Here’s what the system displayed to me on April 20, 2020, at 0918 am US Eastern time:
The search results are okay. The ads do not match the query or the user’s intent: Law enforcement is not even close to a $1,000 musical instrument in a retail store.
Notice that the first result is to a Salt Lake Tribune article in March 2020 about Banjo’s allegedly “massive surveillance system.” The second result is from the same newspaper which reports a few days later that the Salt Lake City police won’t share data with Banjo. So far so good. Google is delivering timely, relevant results.
But look at the ads. The query Banjo law enforcement displays to a person wanting information about a policeware company the following for fee, pay to be seen ads in front of a buyer with an interest in Banjo:
These advertisers are betting money that Google can get them relevant clicks when a person search for a banjo. Maybe? But when someone searches for the policeware company Banjo, the advertiser is going to be “surprised.” Do advertisers like surprises?
Here are the advertisers whose for fee ads for people interested in law enforcement software (policeware) had displayed in front of a Google user with a vanishingly low probability of purchasing a stringed instrument whilst researching a specialist software vendor selling almost exclusively to police and screened quangos (quasi non governmental organizations):
- Banjo Ben Clark
- Deering Banjo Company
- Banjo.com (note that our Banjo is Banjo.co)
- Banjo Studio
- Instrument Alley
- Sweetwater
- Guitar Center
These companies paid for ads as a result of query relaxation. Google’s system does not differentiate the Banjo policeware outfit from the music products.
Are there parallels between games in which a person can win money by guessing which cup hides the ball? These games of chance are often confidence operations. In this context confidence means trickery, not trust.
Why? There are url distinctions; that is, Banjo.co versus Banjo.com; there are disambiguation clues in Banjo.co’s Web page; there is the metadata itself with the keyword surveillance a likely index term.
As Google Relies More on Its Smart Software, Smart Software Sells Protective Masks. Really?
March 19, 2020
DarkCyber noted “Senators Blast Google For Facemask Ads Amid Coronavirus, Demand FTC Action.” The senators are Mark Warner of Virginia and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut.
What agitated these luminaries? The write up reports:
…despite Google announcing a ban on ads for protective facemasks last week, their staff were easily able to find Google ads for facemasks over the past week.
Who blew the whistle on Google’s smart software and ad serving machine?
The write up reports:
The senators told the FTC, “our staffs were consistently served dozens of ads for protective masks and hand sanitizer,” often when browsing news stories about the coronavirus.
DarkCyber thought big contributors and lobbyists were best positioned to pass information to these stalwarts of democracy.
The write up further offers this factoid:
“These ads, from a range of different advertisers, were served by Google on websites for outlets such as The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, CNBC, The Irish Times, and myriad local broadcasting affiliates,” the senators told the FTC. Google has made repeated representations to consumers that its policies prohibit ads for products such as protective masks. Yet the company appears not to be taking even rudimentary steps to enforce that policy,” they added.
Perhaps the humans at Google agreed to stop these ads. However, the memo may not have been processed by the smart ad sales system. Latency happens.
Some humans with knowledge of the offending module appear to have implemented a fix. (DarkCyber thought that Google’s code was not easily modified. Objectivity, relevance, and maybe revenue.
We were not able to get Google to display surgical mask ads as of 0947 Eastern on March 18, 2020. Progress and evidence that Google can control some of what appears in search results pages. Contradiction? Nope, just great software, managers, and engineers.
Stephen E Arnold, March 19, 2020
Google: Information Is for Us (Us Is the Google)
February 22, 2020
I won’t write about the alleged Google murder. Plus, I won’t run through the allegations related to this story: “Google Secretly Monitors Millions of School Kids, Lawsuit Alleges.” Google has many facets, and I find advertising Google style fascinating.
DarkCyber thinks the multi state investigation into Google’s possible violation of of antitrust law is philosophically challenging. The case involves information, consultants, Texas, and a tendril reaches Microsoft, an outfit skilled in software updates.
Let’s start with a Wall Street Journal (a story protected by a pay walls) revealed an interesting Google stance.
“Google Resists State Demands in Ad Probe” (February 22, 2020) reported that the company’s resistance to requests for information, in the words of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton:
They don’t believe that they’re clean because they don’t act in any way like they are.
Those involved is the Texas-led legal action want more than email. Google has balked. Google has groused about c0onsultants working on the case.
Why the hassle over ads? According to the Murdoch owned WSJ:
News Corp has complained that Google and other digital companies siphon ad revenue from content creators.
DarkCyber finds the pivot point in this multi state tug of war is information.
Google is an information company. Some believe that Google sought to index the world’s information. Then allow people to access the content.
But advertising revenue and a mostly ignored lawsuit about ad technology have altered the definition of information.
Google has information about its ad business. Some of that information has been requested via appropriate legal vehicles by the states’ taking Google to court. Google does not want to make that information available.
If the data were made available, presumably attorneys would be able to:
- Perform text analytics; for example, display statistical information about word occurrences, generate clusters of like data, etc.
- Generate indexed entities and tag them. Once tagged, these entities can be graphed so relationships become visible
- Output timelines of events and link those events to entities
- Search the content using key words and use the tags to reveal tough to discern items of information; who influenced what action when the words used to describe the activities were ambiguous to a non Googler.
There are other functions enabled by the corpus and current content processing technology.
DarkCyber noted these thoughts:
- Google is an information company and does not want that information disclosed
- Tools, some of which may run on Google’s cloud infrastructure, can reveal important nuances in the ad matter, nuances which otherwise may be impossible to discern by reading and human note taking
- The legal system, which has been most ineffectual in dealing with Google lacks laws and regulations which have not be enacted in the US to deal with digital monopolies.
Net net: Google may have the upper hand… again.
Stephen E Arnold, February 22, 2020
Google Discover: In Praise of Smart Ads
February 19, 2020
“Google’s Next Move: from Search to Discovery” is an interesting essay. The author sees a bright future for “smart targeting.”
Here’s the explanation of discovery:
The AI can collate and make sense of thousands of data points about a web user across multiple Google platforms and products – among them YouTube, Gmail, Play Store, News, Photos, Shopping, Translate, Calendar and any website that has a Google tag or Google Tag Manager. Using these signals about a user’s intent and interests, the AI can personalize content according to the emotional and rational factors that matter to the individual. One of the game changers here is the advertising on Google Discover, a feed that serves relevant content to a user, even when they’re not searching.
One of the benefits of the approach is that the “algorithm keeps learning more about you.”
DarkCyber noted this statement, presented as a glorious positive:
Google’s algorithms become more powerful as it discovers more about your brand, product, political, lifestyle, and other preferences from the way you engage with the content. As an example, the technology claims to be so advanced that that it would know not to show a video on the basics of how to play a guitar to an experienced musician, while it would know to show that video to a beginner. Another advantage of the Discover platform is that Google can roll out ads in a native format rather than traditional display banners, which is similar to the newsfeed that has been so effective for Facebook. In addition, advertisers can now reach customers earlier in the customer journey, before they start searching for and evaluating options. Brands can run Discovery campaigns across YouTube home feed, Gmail social and promotions tabs and Google Discover feed. The company claims that more than 800 million people now use Discover each month.
Sounds wonderful. The idea of advertising that flows to a prospect when that person is not looking for information.
The startling factoid in the write up is that Discover is here and beavering away in a smart way, of course. The factoid: 800 million people now use Discover each month.
Very Googley: A next move that is already here.
Stephen E Arnold, February 19, 2020
Google May Be Facing a Moon Shot Challenge
February 17, 2020
DarkCyber wants to reflect on a challenge, a difficult one.
DarkCyber read “Google Removes 500+ Malicious Chrome Extensions from the Web Store.” No, not a “the” store. The store is Google’s online store toward which every Android phone longs to visit. Some mobile devices have no choice. Other Android phones have some restraints, but “home is home.”
According to the write up:
The removed extensions operated by injecting malicious ads (malvertising) inside users’ browsing sessions. The malicious code injected by the extensions activated under certain conditions and redirected users to specific sites. In some cases, the destination would be an affiliate link on legitimate sites like Macys, Dell, or BestBuy; but in other instances, the destination link would be something malicious, such as a malware download site or a phishing page.
You should read the ZDNet story mentioned above and follow its links. However, the notion that DarkCyber has been noodling involves Google’s large online advertising business. Here are some questions we drafted after our morning call:
- If the Google Android store is disseminating software which generates clicks, how will those affected advertisers be compensated?
- What other ad centric spoofs or manipulations exist within the ad system for YouTube?
- What malware or manipulative techniques operate within the core AdWords’ system?
- What role to click bots or click farms play in manipulating Google’s online advertising data?
- What about human Googler manipulation of advertising systems; for example, as quarters draw to a close?
DarkCyber only has these and a number of other questions. The answer to these questions may call into question the reliability, accuracy, and honesty of the Google online advertising operation.
If the answers fail to reassure advertisers and others, the strength of Google might become its most serious challenge in the company’s rise from objective search system to global online ad giant.
Challenge? Maybe multiple challenges: Credibility, legal, technical, and managerial.
Stephen E Arnold, February
A Call for Openness in Search
January 24, 2020
DarkCyber understands that if one cannot “find” something, that something does not exist for most people who look for the “something.” This is not a statement from Grasshopper or a tablet unearthed outside of Athens. Finding is required in order to do work or — as a matter of fact — anything in a digital environment.
“Opening Up Search Is an Ethical Imperative” presents an argument for opening up search. “Opening up” appears to mean that Google’s grip on ad supported search and retrieval is broken. The write up states:
This is a shocking state of affairs given search’s ubiquitous impact on human well-being. And no I don’t think I’m overreaching. Search might mean a doctor diagnosing a patient with tricky symptoms. Bad search results might have life or death consequences. E-Commerce isn’t about buying pointless frivolities. It’s increasingly society’s economic glue. We no longer call on someone in sales to describe our needs verbally. Instead we request via the e-commerce search bar. Add job search, dating search, enterprise search, food delivery, grocery, legal, real estate, and so on, and you get a picture where search is indeed eating the world. What human activity will exist that won’t involve a search bar?
The statement is accurate. In the context of the article, search also means looking for information on a public facing Web site, not just locating a pizza restaurant or checking the weather. Here’s another statement we noted:
As users are reaching more-and-more for search, supporting the community collectively helps ensure positive outcomes for society as a whole. We’ll collectively help doctors find the right diagnosis for a suffering patient; support a purchasing agent find the right parts for an airplane they’re manufacturing; uplift lawyers seeking to hold the powerful accountable by helping them find solid legal precedent for their arguments.
Again, an accurate observation.
The article includes a list of suggestions for companies and others; for example, Do open source correctly and create search talent.
Several observations:
- For most people, including those in organizations, search occurs on mobile devices. Either form factor or the location in which the user runs the search is not conducive to the “library style” of information retrieval and review. The habituation to mobile and on the fly searching is going to be difficult to change. As my eighth grade teacher said, “Habits are like a soft bed: Easy to get into and hard to get out of.” Her grammar may have been questionable, but her comment applies to search today.
- You can learn more about the “open everything” initiative in the DarkCyber video news program which will become available on January 28, 2020. A former CIA professional reveals his commitment to “open everything.” The remarks may spark some fresh thinking.
- The introduction of the word “ethical” into the article raises some interesting questions; namely, “In today’s environment, what does ‘ethical’ mean? This is a surprisingly difficult word to define across contexts.
To sum up:
- There are different search and retrieval systems. Some are ignored like Qwant; others are misunderstood because they are metasearch systems; still others are proprietary systems swathed in buzzwords like artificial intelligence and machine learning; and even more are “sort of” open source like Amazon’s search system which was influenced by defectors from Lucid Imagination, now LucidWorks. Plus there are other variations. Search remains confusing and tangled in the shoe laces of worn out sneakers.
- The dominance of Google means that Google is in charge of presenting information to people using computing devices. The market penetration in some countries is over 95 percent which is the reason that most estimates of search share beat the drum for marginal players like Bing, Qwant, and DuckDuckGo. The thinking is, “A percent or two of share means some money. But the money is not Google scale.”
- Google is not about to change unless the search business is regulated, Google implodes which is possible but not in the next year or two, or billions of people change their “habits.”
Advertisers go where the eyeballs are. Money can alter the meaning of ethics. And that money issue may be the reason Web sites are not indexed comprehensively, US government Web sites are indexed infrequently and superficially, and why Google ignores certain types of content.
Stephen E Arnold, January 24, 2020
\
Online Video: Revenue Options to Watch
January 24, 2020
Since we assembled CyberOSINT: Next Generation Information Access, we have been monitoring video content innovations. Of interest to the team are interfaces. These are essential because — let’s face it — keyword search on mobile devices sucks. Clicking on big, colorful icons is the future. How smart are the interfaces? Not smart enough.
In terms of eyeballs, both Twitch and Neverthink are taking approaches that Video content continues to proliferate. However, monetization seems to innovating slowly and in predictable ways. The “begging for dollars” approach is the most common. In this post, I want to highlight a problem with begging.
A ripple roiled the Twitter-verse because a Twitch content producer with the handle BadBunny, wanted more financial support from her followers. (This performer (content creator) adopts a left leaning, abrasive persona; therefore, her approach may have been designed to attract publicity.) “Twitch Streamer BadBunny Slams Her Own Viewers for Not Paying for Her Content” reported:
The streamer, frequent in the Just Chatting section, is close to reaching 100,000 followers on Twitch thanks to her content and the guests she brings to her debates. During a broadcast on January 18, she slightly deviated from the topic of conversation to refer to her audience, insisting she needed the cash to continue creating content for the platform. After giving the blunt message, BadBunny, who could not believe the number of people who were watching her for hours for free, said she was surprised to see that her message was in vain since she did not get new subscribers. Faced with the refusal, she exclaimed: “How did all my speech about how I need subscribers to start the broadcast, blah, blah, blah, result in zero subscribers?”
DarkCyber believes BadBunny’s situation may reflect the lack of monetization innovation at Amazon Twitch. The platform is popular, but Microsoft has been poaching some streaming talent from Twitch. Twitch has other challenges, and these may be making Twitch cause people like BadBunny to demonstrate her Xanthippe-infused characteristics.
For sake of contrast, DarkCyber wants to call attention to to Neverthink.tv. The service is different from Twitch because it streams content available on other services; for example, YouTube, Reddit, and others. As a result, ads on Neverthink.tv drive traffic to YouTube. Presumably, Google passes some of the cash to creators. (But maybe not?)
The key differentiators of Twitch and Neverthink are:
- User interface. Both provide point and click video consumption. The Neverthink approach deals with categories, not individual streamers.
- Revenue model. Amazon jams ads in front of and in the middle of some streams. Neverthink accepts sponsored content for cash and uses what appears to be Google ads in some streams. Neverthink accepts money to run videos as “Specials.” Twitch may accept money, but if it does, the deals are not labeled. (Do those featured streamers who attend Twitchcon get some money?)
- Curation. The Neverthink angle is curation. Allegedly smart software and video loving humans make sure nothing “bad” streams. Twitch — regardless of its method — does have some interesting content. DarkCyber won’t provide any examples, but we do present some of the gambling, stolen content, and somewhat off color content in our lectures to law enforcement and intelligence professionals.
Net net: Twitch may have to up its game. Neverthink seems to have a more varied monetization model. What happens if Neverthink lures popular streamers to its app? Amazon Twitch will have to get woke or do a rethink.
If you want to check out these services, here are the links you need:
- www.twitch.tv. BadBunny is at https://www.twitch.tv/badbunny/videos
- www.neverthink.tv A useful “channel” is Millennial AF. DarkCyber finds this service educational.
Stephen E Arnold, January 24, 2020
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
