alanbleiweiss’s Techdirt Profile

alanbleiweiss

About alanbleiweiss

Forensic SEO consultant, industry speaker, blogger and author working in online marketing since January 1995

http://www.linkedin.com/in/AlanBleiweiss



alanbleiweiss’s Comments comment rss

  • Apr 7th, 2015 @ 3:32pm

    Re: Re: all sales final

    Yeah my concern is if there's a problem, not if I'm not happy with it.

    I appreciate the response. And FYI I did buy one of the ZeroLemon solar chargers as a result of checking out the camera :-)

  • Apr 7th, 2015 @ 3:12pm

    all sales final

    Went to buy this because it could be a neat way to keep tabs on my place. The "all sales final" terms of purchase killed that for me.

    If a product in 2015 that isn't 2nd hand doesn't come with a proper return policy, I'm out.

    I really like the concept of Techdirt deals. Just not where I set myself up to be a sucker.

  • Jan 16th, 2015 @ 3:39pm

    (untitled comment)

    Where do I sign up to be "John Doe 7"? I'd enjoy being referred to as John Doe #7.

  • Dec 25th, 2014 @ 9:55pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    since I work in search marketing, I've had clients hire me to help with their online reputation. I don't always take them on as clients (Streisand effect, etc.)

    Once in a while, it's much more complicated. I had one client where a competitor hired an agency to post false content all around the web, mostly on sites that stand behind the "we just host it" claim.

    Even though my client won the legal battle, the posters had been "an outside agency", and used false profiles. Just to get the first court process done took two years and $100,000.

    To actually get a court to direct those sites to remove that content (since the "anonymous John Does" and their "agency" were unreachable) was expected to take at least another two years. And that much more money.

    Seriously. It's a major problem.

    Sure, I think forcing search engines to take down links is a mostly horrific path, the system is critically broken as it is, and real human lives, livelihoods and reputations are ruined all the time by malicious troll behavior and actions.

  • Dec 23rd, 2014 @ 4:34pm

    Re:

    Actually that's a false flag claim under various circumstances.

    One that comes to mind is if information is posted that is flagrantly false, (as has been claimed in such cases all the time), then it has nothing to do with erasing history. It has every thing to do with restoring credibility where it is rightly due.

    Only immature people think "if its on the internet, it must be true, and should become part of history".

  • Dec 18th, 2014 @ 12:30pm

    Re:

    I believe the current statutory guidelines call for "hell freezing over".

  • Dec 18th, 2014 @ 11:54am

    (untitled comment)

    Thank you Senator Wyden for taking the time to so clearly and concisely refute the continued lies, deception and twisting of facts coming from people who, while vital to the interests of our country, are obviously drunk with power, ego and arrogance.

    THIS is why I

  • Dec 16th, 2014 @ 10:35pm

    (untitled comment)

    Used to freak out knowing I was approaching a red light camera intersection back when I lived in the SF bay area. Then, this year when I made plans to move to Arizona, started reading old blog posts about Redflex and their scammy ways. Total relief when I learned killing off the Redflex Plague there was already a done deal.

    Unfettered capitalism. Greed, control, arrogance. This is why some laws are just necessary in a society, even if we want more freedom than we get most of the time.

  • Dec 15th, 2014 @ 2:15pm

    Re: Re:

    I audit 60 to 80 sites a year. From the smallest mom-pop to enterprise global sites with hundreds of millions of pages.

    The vast majority of sites are owned and maintained by small business owners who don't know what they're doing, and barely can afford to implement fundamental necessities, yet they do so nonetheless, and that allows them to participate in the digital community.

    As much as I personally would prefer that every site be set up, maintained and upgraded by qualified professionals, it's not realistic in the current environment.

    Worse still, I've seen more than several developers screw up some of what I consider the most fundamental technical changes necessary for a site to function.

  • Dec 15th, 2014 @ 2:11pm

    Re: Re:

    From the original post:

    Then, in the long term, the vendor might decide to represent non-secure origins in the same way that they represent Bad origins.

    Most consumers could well make assumptions (correctly or incorrectly) from how its presented. "WARNING - THIS SITE IS UNSECURE" implies danger.

    It wouldn't be unrealistic to assume that many consumers interpret that to be "so dangerous that I should avoid it, without thinking through what this really means in this situation".

    As a User Experience professional, I have seen all too often that a majority of end users have a very difficult time applying critical thought to their online decision making process.

    So the question here then - does the good outweigh the bad? I say too many site owners who are incapable of adapting will suffer.

  • Dec 15th, 2014 @ 1:42pm

    (untitled comment)

    I hate social engineering. If a site is informational only, there's absolutely no reason to force it into an HTTPS status. To eventually make it APPEAR that an HTTP site is somehow BAD, or DANGEROUS is a horrific notion.

    There are so many perfectly legitimate, valid, helpful and worthy sites that won't go to HTTPS for a plethora of reasons this effort will only hurt more than it helps.

  • Nov 14th, 2014 @ 3:13pm

    Re: Re: Implementation fails

    I disagree. If you're not going to allow proper https functionality, the correct best practices functionality should have the https version automatically redirect via 301 server redirect to the non https version.

    This ensures that anyone getting to the page will actually get a page.

  • Nov 14th, 2014 @ 1:40pm

    Implementation fails

    As someone who audits sites for a living, I can't tell you how sad it is out there. Most site managers / devs who roll out HTTPS make big mistakes.

    I've seen it do so much harm it's pathetic. And the bigger the site, the more likely there's a lack of proper QA testing overall long before a site tries to go "all" HTTPS.

    So this is a perfect example of that.

  • Jun 25th, 2014 @ 3:33pm

    Re: Simple, pop them in a Faraday cage

    I'm cyincal. I take it to mean "We'll just plug a USB device in and scrape the entire contents of the phone before we get a warrant"...

    Or of course other situations will be done in the name of national security or some bullshit.

  • Jun 25th, 2014 @ 2:25pm

    DOJ Horrific Response

    Quoted from a CNN article on the ruling:

    "We will make use of whatever technology is
    available to preserve evidence on cell phones while seeking
    a warrant, and we will assist our agents in determining
    when exigent circumstances or another applicable exception
    to the warrant requirement will permit them to search the
    phone immediately without a warrant," Canale said. (Canale
    is from the DOJ)



    There you go. Yeah, fine. I read that as meaning "We're going to find ways to help law enforcement get around this"

    So as far as I'm concerned, the DOJ still does what it wants and conspires with others to ignore the constitution.

  • Jun 12th, 2014 @ 10:42am

    Rumor is true - new announcement from Tesla

    http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you

  • May 28th, 2014 @ 4:39pm

    How permanent is permanent

    "permanent secretary of the Information and Communications Technology Ministry"

    So exactly how permanent is such a position in a country like this? I mean is it "permanent as long as this coup lasts" permanent? Or is it "permanent even if some other group stages a coup later" permanent?

    I think before they shut down all social media entirely (because you know - fomenting unrest during such an important period of unrest is wrong), they should be more clear in the titles they issue to people...

  • Dec 19th, 2013 @ 10:55am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Heh

    I agree. Its a difficult issue for sure. However it definitely emphasizes the concept of proper due diligence. Something seriously lacking in the business world.

  • Dec 18th, 2013 @ 9:40pm

    Re: "We Want To Break Their Spirits"

    oh - forgot to mention credit for the word for word transcript and my being alerted to this goes to an article from Barry Schwartz over at SearchEngineLand

  • Dec 18th, 2013 @ 9:37pm

    "We Want To Break Their Spirits"

    Just saw this:

    Matt Cutts, head of Googles Search Spam unit stated on the record over on TWIT.TV their intent with the way they are going after spammers:

    "If you want to stop spam, the most straight forward way to do it is to deny people money because they care about the money and that should be their end goal. But if you really want to stop spam, it is a little bit mean, but what you want to do, is sort of break their spirits. There are lots of Google algorithms specifically designed to frustrate spammers. Some of the things we do is give people a hint their site will drop and then a week or two later, their site actually does drop. So they get a little bit more frustrated. So hopefully, and we’ve seen this happen, people step away from the dark side and say, you know what, that was so much pain and anguish and frustration, let’s just stay on the high road from now on."

    So my position that it IS punishment, in my opinion based on this statement,is correct. Punishment is designed to break people of a bad habit.

    Here's the link to the full audio

More comments from alanbleiweiss >>