Yahoo Shareholder non-meeting


Today Yahoo Shareholders are meeting in San Jose.   Or maybe we should say non-meeting since there are apparentely mostly empty chairs and uneaten pastry in a venue that was to hold 1000.

With shares now trading about $19 you’d think shareholders would be out in force with torches and pitchforks, but Yahoo management – at enormous cost to shareholders and the company – has kept the corporate raiders and Microsoft at bay partly by granting a newly sheepish Carl Icahn a seat on the board and two more seats.     Icahn noted last week that enough large shareholders were sticking with the current board, making it impossible for him to take over the company.     His plan was fairly simple – buy a lot of Yahoo and then sell the company to Microsoft at a huge profit.    As a shareholder I remain  *totally* confused as to why large shareholders were unwilling to support this move – the obvious choice in terms of maximizing shareholder value with minimum risk.

However with challenges come opportunities.  Yahoo at $19 is looking pretty ripe right now given that Microsoft offered $31 just months ago when Yahoo’s prospects were not significantly different than they are right now.    Either MS is horribly miscalculating Yahoo’s value, or the Market is underestimating that value.     Clearly the current board is convinced there is a lot more value, and in this at least I would agree with them.

It’ll be interesting to see how the rank and file Yahoo folks are feeling at SES San Jose in a few weeks.   SES is the biggest search conference of the year in the heart of Silicon Valley, and hundreds of Yahoo folks will be there.  It will be interesting to get a feel for the current morale challenges at the company.

Disclosure:   Long on YHOO.  Considering buying more.

More Cuil Search fun. Check out the …ummm… multiple personality finder.


Over at Sarah Lacy‘s place she’s reasonable asking “Is it Cuil or Us” in terms of expecting too much from this new search startup.   Since I’d been poking fun at Cuil’s failure to find itself I thought I better try a new search.     Since Sarah’s is indirectly suggesting that bloggers like *me* might be the problem let’s ask Cuil… about me… Joe Hunkins….

JoeDuck’s World has moved CLICK HERE

Time to move my posting to the superior WordPress environment. Given how simple and easy it was to set up and that it’s free I’m not clear why Yahoo and/or Google have not scarfed them up or copied that format. I think Yahoo *supports* wordpress but why don’t they just buy it and then they’d be better than blogger…

joeduck.blogspot.com/

Online Highways Guide to Travel, Leisure and Recreation …

US States: Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Indiana Illinois Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Mississippi Missouri Minnesota Montana Nebraska New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York…

www.ohwy.com/

Joe Duck

Joe Duck. Internet Entrepreneur, Online Quack. Home. Ashland. China Travel&Tips. Joe&Duck. Kim&Story. Las&Vegas. Linkage. Rogue River&Map.

joeduck.com/

Google and privacy

Richard Eid, I’m also a huge fan of using Ctrl-Ctrl in rapid succession with Google Desktop. Joe Hunkins | Joe Duck, I think the “data portability” idea is a good step in that direction. It means that you can take your data in Google and take it somewhere else (not “trapping users’ data”). Good point…

www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-and-p…

Cow Creek/Umpqua Tribe: Joe Hunkins – SOVA

I’m Joe Hunkins of Southern Oregon Visitors Association, and I’d really like to link your resource page to the Native American section of our regional travel site http://www.SOVA.org/native.htm. Our site is a regional focus for travel information, and we have not done a good job of getting travellers information…

www.cowcreek.com/tribes/xkudos/k06_…

Twitter / joeduck

Name Joe Hunkins. Location Oregon. Web http://joeduck.com. Bio Travel and Tech and Internet and Oregon. Stats. Following 603. Followers 341. Favorites 0. Updates 485. Following.

explore.twitter.com/joeduck

Joe Hunkins: ZoomInfo Business People Information

Joe Hunkins, ABR, CBR, CRS, GRI, of Hunkins Real Estate, Inc. in Greenland, N.H. and treasurer of the New Hampshire Association of Realtors was recently appointed as a trustee of the NH Realtor’s Political Action Committee. As a trustee, Hunkins will be responsible for interviewing political candidates and deciding…

www.zoominfo.com/people/Hunkins_Joe…

Explore by Category

Happy Birthday!

Joe Hunkins Said, September 7, 2005 @ 1:57 pm. Congratulations Matt … and Google. Really enjoy the “insider” stories. Gerald Said, September 7, 2005 @ 5:51 pm. Happy Birthday from germany. But why did you xxx the names at the bottom of your mail. Makes me curious. Lxxxx makes me thinking that it could have…

www.mattcutts.com/blog/happy-birthd…

Twitter / joeduck

Name Joe Hunkins. Location Oregon. Web http://www.joeduc… Bio Travel and Tech and Internet and Oregon. Stats. Following 884. Followers 550. Favorites 0. Updates 605. Following.

twitter.com/joeduck/

Now, there is one more “Joe Hunkins” that is fairly prominent online – a real estate guy in New Hampshire – but he’s not pictured here. And neither am I. Despite the fact most of the text does relate to things I have written – though much of it long ago – I’m wondering who the dude is in the first picture?  Hey, he’s a pretty good looking guy – maybe I should be him.    Nope, the older guy isn’t me either.   Hey, the young backpacker dude is more my style.   Maybe I should take over his identity?    Whoops – Cuil is obviously not gender biased – I also am listed as the two women pictured.

Hmmm – I had an imposter over at Furrier.org the other day – maybe they fooled Cuil, too?

Cuil Search – what am I missing about all that they are missing?


TechCrunch and others are waxing almost poetically about the new Cuil search engines, designed by ex Googlers to compete with the mother ship.    But after a few scattershot queries I’m just not feeling the power of Cuil.    It still is failing to find itself for what seems like an obvious query of “Cuil Search Engine”, and for the query “computers” I’d expect a bit more than this among Cuil’s claimed inventory of 121 billion web pages:

We didn’t find any results for “computers”

Some reasons might be…

  • a typo. Please check your spelling.
  • your search includes a term that is very rare. Try to find a more common substitute.
  • too many search terms. Please try fewer terms.

Finally, try to think of different words to describe your search.

Obviously Cuil is missing a LOT of stuff, so what am I missing here?

Update:  I’m still waiting to be impressed, but have learned that Cuil’s architecture is such that if some of the servers go down you can get empty results as I did last night.   Now, ‘Computers’ does turn up relevant results.

Knol Knows Ranking


Google’s new knol project features articles on any topic by anybody who cares to call themselves an expert.   The concept is really intriguing as it relates to bringing higher authority information online that will be vetted both by the author and by the community at large.

Search marketing guru Aaron Wall is one of the sharpest fellows in the SEO business and he’s been testing knol and has concerns about the results both in terms of outranking original material and copyright.

Aaron on knol

The SMX search folks – I think it was Danny Sullivan – have also been testing knol and also are suggesting knol material is ranking very well.     Google says they are not giving their own site preferential treatment, but I’m guessing what they mean is that they are applying the same rules to knol as other sites.    If, for example, those rules that are *applied equally to all sites* happen to include a high value for incoming links from Google sites or other knol pages, the knol content effectively has a big advantage, technically without any special treatment.

In terms of search strategy I think the rule here is to …. write some knol page for topics of interest to you or topics for which you want to improve your rank.      I expect knol to be a huge topic at the upcoming search conference  – SES San Jose.

Later:  Time to check out this knol thing by creating some content myself.    Here are listings I created for:

Beijing, China |     Blogs and Blogging

Extremism in the defense of the algorithm is no vice?


WordPress surfing led me to another interesting sob story from a penalized webmaster and my reply got so long it deserved to become a post:

Marshall Sponder wrote:

Take Know More Media’s case – you have 100+ blogs and 2+ years of content – that’s easy, 30,000 to 50,000 blog posts and Google, with just one or two paid links that pass PageRank, is going to throw the entire blog network out of it’s index over that?

Yep, it appears that’s it – that’s the reason.  But is it fair?  No.
Strictly from a users point of view I think it is very hard to justify technical penalties on good content.    Few users know or care what “hidden text” is, so if a mom and pop webmaster uses this tactic and Google deletes the otherwise informative, relevant website it is hard to argue that users are served well.    Even if a black hat SEO created a site filled with illegal tricks but also full of highly relevant quality content I think Google’s case against including that site is weak.  As a user I want  *quality content* and I don’t care about the site’s technical construction.    Where Google is simply banning sites for using spammy tactics I’d agree with Marshall that to be faithful to user centricism they really have to take it a step further and look at the content they are excluding.   Even if the content contains paid linking and other violations if it unique, quality content Google cannot exclude it without violating their stated “prime directive” of providing the best for the users.

However, Google has to manage about one trillion URLs, so obviously they need shortcuts in ranking and one of them is a page from AZ Senator Barry Goldwater’s playbook when – many years ago – he tried to justify an escalation of the Vietnam war, perhaps to nuclear level.   Google’s coin of the famous Goldwater phrase would be: “Extremism in the defense of the algorithm is no vice”.

I don’t think penalties are generally *fair* or *user friendly*, but I’m willing to concede they may be necessary for Google to function as profitably as they do since it would take a lot of human intervention to help every mom and pop determine what’s wrong with their sites.

However, I feel Google continues to fail in their obligation to communicate more effectively with penalized sites although I think they are s-l-o-w-l-y  catching on to the fact that most webmasters of penalized sites remain unclear as to why the site has been penalized or downranked.    Removal offers you a shot at “reinclusion” and (very rarely) possible webmaster tools staff feedback.   Downranking is algorithmic and Google will not generally offer any advice to help downranked sites.     In this case you generally want to re-read the webmaster guidelines and experiment with different approaches in an effort to boost rankings.

My view is that as many thin content database sites have flowed online Google is holding online material to a higher standard of quality, especially if it’s at a new website.    This helps explain why you can find well ranked pages that are inferior to pages at a new website.

There is a solution to all of this in my opinion, which is for Google to include a lot more community input and feedback into the process than they currently appear to do.    I’d guess the recent discussions to aquire DIGG may have been in part to gain more community feedback tools and data.     Historically Google has been brilliant at using algorithms to determine ranking and advertising, but has fallen short of brilliance in their ruthlessness in dealing with website practices they don’t like, leaving a lot of collateral damage – especially related to sites involved in “paid linking” and variations on that complex theme.

At SES San Jose 2009 I’ll hope to get to ask Matt Cutts more about this in person.   Matt is Google’s top spam cop and always very open to conversations about ranking and search.    In fact the best event of the conference is the Google Party where engineers are on hand to discuss search related issues – including complex ranking technicalities that are sometimes brought to Google’s attention as part of the search conference circuit.

Microsoft BrowseRank to compete with Google PageRank


CNET profiles a new paper showcasing a Microsoft effort to enhance search by looking at *user behavior* as well as the old standby standards that all the major search engines use such as links in to the page, the content of the page, titles of the page, and several others.

Google’s initial brilliance was recognizing that the link relationships on the web gave you great insight into the best websites. Google correctly noted that sites with many links to them, especially for a particular keyword, were more likely to match a users interest for that keyword. Although many factors have been included in Google ranking for years, pagerank was arguably the most important breakthrough. Initially the system tried to be an online analogy to academic citation. Google’s Larry Page reasoned that websites with more incoming links would tend to be better, and that those incoming links themselves should also be weighted according to the importance of the site from which they came.

The system started to show severe signs of wear as search marketeers as well as mom and pop businesses began to “game” the pagerank system, creating spurious incoming links from bogus sites and buying links from high rank websites.

Enter Microsoft “BrowseRank”, which will arguably be harder to game because it will monitor the behavior of millions of users, looking for relationships between sites, pages, length of time on page, and more. It’s a good idea of course but arguably it is Google that has *by far* the best data set to manage this type of approach. So even if Microsoft’s system starts to deliver results superior to Google’s one can expect Google to kick their own efforts into gear.

As with all search innovation the users shoud be the big winners. Search remains good but not great, and competition in this space will only serve to make everybody better….right?

Yahoo Microsoft Boxing Match


Yahoo and Microsoft haven’t been able to agree on very much over the last few months so it now appears fairly likely the battle will head into the shareholder meeting on August 1st.

Microsoft hasn’t lost many of these matches and the smart money remains on them to “win” this battle and take over Yahoo.   My take is that there is now enough ego investment on all sides that you can expect Microsoft to be pretty ruthless in their efforts to replace the board and overhaul the company.  Of course with with management leaving Yahoo at a record pace anyway, Microsoft is likely to inherit more of a management skeleton than a burden, and they are probably fine with this.

How poison will Yahoo make the pill?     As a shareholder I’m concerned about this but comforted that the current board and Jerry Yang have a huge financial stake in this outcome.    To Bostock and Yang’s huge credit they has been playing this game with their own money, though I’d argue they have not been playing it very well or with anybody’s best interests in mind (including their own).    My take is that Yahoo simply could not readjust their expectations from the dramatic success story they enjoyed early on and the belief they could see that kind of success again.     This gave them a perception of the current value of Yahoo that was completely out of line with the market perception, which by definition is the real value of a company.    The $33 sale price has come from the desparate realization by Yahoo that they are going to lose the battle and possibly be forced to sell well below this price, though I think it’ll be in Microsoft’s interest to keep the tensions to a minimum and keep their new “post Yahoo merger” shareholders marginally happy with an offer above $30.

That said, Ballmer is clearly smelling the blood in the water and could probably force an eventual sale of Yahoo in mid to high twenties by jerking the strings for a few more months to soften up Icahn and other major shareholders who are clearly looking for something above the $31 offer Yahoo rejected a short time ago.  Without Microsoft Yahoo’s share price would be well under $20 and this is now clear to everybody.

So the boxing match moves into the final rounds.   It’s pretty much a corporate death match between Jerry “the Yahoo” Yang and Steve “the Basher” Ballmer.    Although my money is invested with Jerry right now, I’d be betting on Ballmer to win this fight.

Disclosure:  Long on YHOO

Yahoo’s Don Quixote


The Yahoo Microsoft fiasco saga continues as Jerry Yang, in today’s interview with Kara Swisher, seemed to suggest he’d basically go down with the ship.   Or perhaps more accurately he’s willing to take the ship down with him in what appears closer and closer to a Quixotic vision of what to do about Microsoft.   Yang seems to suggest two incompatible things – first that Microsoft has not given a clear offer to Yahoo and second that:

“Their motivations are suspect and there is simply no good reason to think they will actually show up at the end of the day.”

Huh?   MS is clearly prepared to buy Yahoo.   This is obvious to everybody including Jerry.   He could argue that they are going to screw up Yahoo after buying it, but that rings a bit hollow given the sad conditions of the company right now.     In fact it’s hard to imagine how Yahoo, a key brand in the key global sector, can be doing so poorly right now.   How in the world could Microsoft screw the company up more than Yahoo is screwed up right now?

Even if Microsoft *is* going to bring devastating changes to Yahoo, there is a shareholder obligation here that probably is not met without a sale to Microsoft.     It is simply no longer viable to suggest that an independent Yahoo is likely to show the revenues required to bring the stock to 33+ within a year.    Without any Microsoft interest  YHOO would be trading at about $18, so the likely Icahnesque MS offer can arguably be viewed as a premium of close to 100% on what shareholders can expect if this deal *really* crumbles, which is what Yang clearly wants to happen.

I agree with Swisher:

… even with all the noise, it should be entirely clear by now that Microsoft and Yahoo need each other.

Disclosure:  Long on YHOO

Google Ranking Needs a Spanking


Over at the Google blog today Amit Singhal has post 1 of 2 that promises an introduction to Google ranking.  As usual I’m disappointed in the way Google maintains what to me is a pretense of transparency while using some very ruthless and mysterious tactics to downrank sites they claim don’t meet quality guidelines.   Google (correctly) sees themselves as warring with spammers for control of the web but (incorrectly) thinks transparency is the wrong approach in this fight.

There were some rumblings last year of contacting webmasters directly about site problems but my understanding is that this would represent only a tiny fraction of total sites under penalty.    Of course, due to so little transparency in this area we can’t know the real numbers.

I’ll hope Amit’s second post is a LOT more specific, because I think he’s already practicing the kind oblique speak that is becoming commonplace when many from Google talk about ranking:

Amit:
No discussion of Google’s ranking would be complete without asking the common – but misguided! 🙂 – question: “Does Google manually edit its results?” Let me just answer that with our third philosophy: no manual intervention.

That statement is false, and he should not say it.   He does try to clarify later in the post:

I should add, however, that there are clear written policies for websites recommended by Google, and we do take action on sites that are in violation of our policies or for a small number of other reasons (e.g. legal requirements, child porn, viruses/malware, etc).

Action?  Yes, of course he means the *manual intervention* he said above does not happen.  Google has a right to pull sites out of the rankings, though it is annoying how much they talk about NOT manually intervening when they do it.    Because of no transparency nobody outside of Google knows how often they manually intervene.    Amit makes  it sound like it’s only for horrors like child porn or malware, but note that the use of inappropriate “SEO” tactics such as “hidden text” can get you removed and even banned from the Google index.   Unfortunately for small sites – e.g. “Aunt Sally’s House of Knitting website”  Aunt Sally may have no idea her webmaster is using these tactics.   How often does this happen?    My guess is that hundreds of thousands of legitimate sites are ranked very improperly due to technical penalties, but due to no transparency (and probably no measure of this at Google) nobody knows.

The big Google problem is that the policies for algorithmic downranking are not *clear enough*.  Many SEO companies prey on this lack of transparency, ironically often using Google’s mystique to lure unsuspecting businesses into expensive “optimization” schemes that don’t work or can get them seriously penalized.

Part of Google’s search algorithm philosphy is that they don’t share details because spammers would exploit them before honest people.   Although a weak case can be made for this idea, a better one is that in  non-transparent systems dishonest folks will do *better* because they invest more energy into finding the loopholes.    For example inbound linking, a very hot SEO topic last year at SES San Jose, has complex rules nobody understands outside of Google.    For example linking between sites in an information network can be advantageous or it can be penalized depending on whether Google (rather than the community or webmaster) sees the practice as manipulative of the algorithm or user-friendly and thus allowable.

Amit – a clear policy is one where the webmaster will know, rather than guess, what they are doing to annoy the Google algorithm or the manual intervention folks.

There is a pretty good source for information about how to approach site architecture for optimal ranking and it is to read Matt Cutts’ SEO related posts here.

Although Matt won’t give out much about the algorithmic penalties that create much of the Google confusion and frustration for established websites, if you follow Google’s guidelines and Matt’s posts on SEO you are unlikely to have serious problems with ranking.     Of course unless you work to optimize a new website you will have the *standard problems* with ranking since your competition is probably doing basic SEO on their site.   I’d argue (along with many SEO folks) that the best way to enter things this late in the game and hope for good ranks is with a topical *blog* to support your website.   Start with several posts about your general area of business, using a lot of the terminology people would use to find your website, and add posts regularly.

I’ll be covering the SES San Jose Search Conference and expect to hear a lot more debate about the issue of transparency, blogging, and SEO.

Facebook tells me I’m overweight – this is *good* targeted advertising?


Logging into Facebook I was assaulted presented with an advertisement featuring a picture of an incredibly fit fellow’s chiseled abdomen with the caption “48 YR OLD Overweight?”….

I suppose I should be thankful this was not a picture of a shirtless Mark Zuckerberg, but ..

I’m 48 so I can’t believe this was a coincidence – obviously Facebook is using my personal information to target ads to me – using the information they said they’d keep confidential and I really don’t want shared with any old Tom, Dick, or Hairy bodybuilder advertisers.

As I’ve noted before online privacy is largely an oxymoron, and I’m really not very concerned about the privacy “violation” here.  However something about this pisses me off – I think partly because after all the hype – including from people like me – I hate to think this is the best we can do with targeted advertising.

Sure, I’m a *little* overweight but I don’t need the bogus overpriced green diet junk advertised to me here by Mr. Muscleydude.    This is the classic type of junk product “seen on TV” presented in an annoying way using information I don’t want given out to advertisers.   In my book Facebook has already pushed past the limit of advertising more than is welcome by me, and I get the strong feeling that with revenues in question we’ll see a lot more of these marginally relevant ads in the future.