Archive: May, 2010

One thing is for sure, back-linking is perhaps one of the more misunderstood and Mal-advised tools in the SEO arsenal.
Over the past few weeks I have seen many articles giving less than accurate advice with regard to back-linking, and many people are under the assumption that back-linking is dead from a beneficial standpoint.

While it is not dead, many people use back-linking incorrectly and this may account for the incorrect perception.

For example: using spamming techniques and purchasing links will get you either penalized or banned from search engines. To many, this is how they understand back-linking, and that methodology would negate any possible benefit.

In most cases, it can be a recipe for disaster.

Consider what would happen if instead of that, you effectively used a social media build, replete with back links, utilized a news feed and possibly submitted articles carefully written with an eye on beneficial keywording, to a number of new oriented websites?

You could see your efforts rewarded beyond your expectations.

Keep in mind as well, that all SEO methods use link building to establish a website’s authority.
Relevance in key-wording and back-linking is not only instrumental, it is mandatory.

This week there were two auctions where top dollar was exchanged for property; one kind of property you drive in traffic, and the other kind you drive traffic to. Specifically, the Domainfest and Mecum car auctions.

At the DomainFest Internet domain auction at Fort Lauderdale this week, desirable domain names were put up on the auction block by their respective owners to gather the highest price possible; If there was ever a question that this is a lucrative industry, auctions like this are the answer.

Intellectual property seems to have become more “property” in recent times and current legislation only reflects that ideal.  For example, in a recent decision, Domain names were ruled as propertyand can be garnished to pay off a debt. Specifically, in a case involving James Tombas of Canada Incorporated. Mr. Tombas registered the domain name “umbro.com,” and then allegedly asked Umbro International for a lifetime supply of the soccer apparel company’s products, as well as $50,000 for himself and another $50,000 for the Internet-focused charity of his choice.

The clothing manufacturer responded to Tombas’s offer by suing him for trademark infringement.

Privacy seems to be in the news this week; whether it concerns whois data, or what you are highlighting as

in the case of Amazon’s e-book.

The big controversy is over the remote functionality of Amazon to upload and store the user notes and

highlights that users make on the Kindle, which is supposedly used for “popular highlights.”

Amazon has tried to ease concerns with an assurance that the data is an aggregate and not a privacy

violation, but for the users who were unaware this was taking place at all, this is of little comfort.

In my opinion, Amazon has not done their due diligence here.

A “more than” significant portion of these Kindle users are also air- travelers; and after having their personal

belongings x-rayed, scrutinized, and all privacy violated after walking shoeless through a metal detector, the

last thing they want to hear is that their thoughts (via highlighted passages) are now under review as well.

Its not surprising that Amazon’s intentions for the data are being questioned.

However, Amazon’s intentions are not the only ones being questioned online recently; Mariano Favazza is

Recently Google sought a ruling against record label to squash infringement claims

by Matthew Rogers.

To paraphrase, a small record company called Blues Destiny Records sued Google,

Microsoft and Rapidshare. The lawsuit revolved around Google and Microsoft

providing links to infringing material on Rapidshare in their respective search

results.

In response, Microsoft quickly pulled its offending search results from Bing, but

Google decided not to comply as there was not order to do so. Rapidshare did not

change anything either.

The lawsuit filed by Blues Destiny and Matthew Rogers was ill-prepared and it was

unable to stand on its own in court, so Blues Destiny withdrew their suit for now but

declared that they would sue Google when they get their affairs in order.

Google decided not to wait and has filed a “complaint for declaratory relief” to

force the court to rule on the case that Blues Destiny abandoned.

From a strategic standpoint, this was a brilliant move on Google’s part.

However they are not alone in the strategic use of the “complaint for declaratory

relief” suit; the motion picture industry has utilized this language against