Profile

Cover photo
Thomas P.
118,415 views
AboutPosts

Stream

Thomas P.

Shared publicly  - 
 
Google is now doing unmarked promotions/adverts for other than Google's own products & services.

+Tadeusz Szewczyk : I suppose the search [hotel New York] is still worse, producing a worse SERP (but only because I have to scroll down a bit to find the first organic result when doing [hotel New York]), 
 ·  Translate
I Google Grupper kan du oprette og deltage i onlinefora og e-mailbaserede grupper med stor erfaring i samtaler i fællesskaber.
1
Tadeusz Szewczyk (Tad Chef)'s profile photoThomas P.'s profile photo
2 comments
 
+Tadeusz Szewczyk  I never said I believed it to be directly paid by the site getting the attention.
But that http://i.imgur.com/KJntxOU.png contains a boxed promotion/advert is obvious! .... and why are the words "plan", "family", and "individual" being bolded for that boxed result only, when none of those words are even synonymous with any of the search words: Could it be that Google is planning for the sales dept. to give the site(s) a call?
Add a comment...
 
 Finally Google came to do the sensible thing:
No more G+ Name Policies.
Now, Anything goes!
 
Finally, Google has ended their fake name policy: No more need for creating a real-like-sounding name. You can now create a real handle, thus avoiding to unintentionally trick anyone into thinking that a real-sounding name is real.
 
Only thing left, is to get rid of the "verified name" situation (yeah, some do have a "verified name" while using a fake name or handle. And virtually nobody have any idea about what "verified" actually implies anyway.).
 
When we launched Google+ over three years ago, we had a lot of restrictions on what name you could use on your profile. This helped create a community made up of real people, but it also excluded a number of people who wanted to be part of it without using their real names. 

Over the years, as Google+ grew and its community became established, we steadily opened up this policy, from allowing +Page owners to use any name of their choosing to letting YouTube users bring their usernames into Google+. Today, we are taking the last step: there are no more restrictions on what name you can use. 

We know you've been calling for this change for a while. We know that our names policy has been unclear, and this has led to some unnecessarily difficult experiences for some of our users. For this we apologize, and we hope that today's change is a step toward making Google+ the welcoming and inclusive place that we want it to be. Thank you for expressing your opinions so passionately, and thanks for continuing to make Google+ the thoughtful community that it is.
496 comments on original post
1
Add a comment...

Thomas P.

Shared publicly  - 
 
PBS Documentary (May 2014)
The NSA spying story, of this millennium
* "United States Of Secrets", part 1 (1h54')
.  : http://video.pbs.org/video/2365245528/
* "United States Of Secrets", part 2 (0h53')
.  : http://video.pbs.org/video/2365251169/
1
Add a comment...

Thomas P.

Shared publicly  - 
 
Wikipedia, a state of ignorance.
Why(?) One reason being that Wikipedia Administrators have much power, but little brains. And I mean little brains both literally and figuratively: They're not just childish, they are children.
Ref.: http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2013/02/02/how-old-are-the-wikipedia-administrators/ .
 
It's no wonder why factual errors and half-witted incoherent crap is so extremely common on wikipedia.
(good thing Google would never uncritically draw any information from Wikipe... Oh, scratch that)
1
Add a comment...

Thomas P.

Shared publicly  - 
 
Google, the Orwellian monster.
The title of the infographic is a little deceiving: While the infographic does contain some points confined to SEO (Search Engine Optimisation), then many observations & points does apply to YOU as a normal human being, using ANY of Google's services.

(infographic discovered via +Tadeusz Szewczyk )
 
ReferralCandy published an infographic about the greatest fears in the SEO industry. Some experts included were: +Eric Enge +AJ Kohn +Paul Shapiro +Clayburn Griffin +Krystian Szastok +Tadeusz Szewczyk +Yuriy Yarovoy +Chuck Price and +Takeshi Young 
In a recent blogpost, Buzzsumo founder Henley Wing shared 41 search marketers’ greatest SEO fears that keep them awake at night. We were fascinated by the data, and spent some time trying to discern the underlying patterns and narrative. This is what we came up with, for your scanning pleasure. Enjoy! The infographic above presents the [...]
1 comment on original post
1
Tadeusz Szewczyk (Tad Chef)'s profile photoThomas P.'s profile photo
2 comments
 
Well, splitting hairs: I think most would be able to fathom the problem, but most just aren't looking or paying attention.
Add a comment...

Thomas P.

Shared publicly  - 
 
to Tip in real life = to Flattr on WWW
: http://flattr.com/howflattrworks  
 
WWW is so vast, that even far less than pocket change - can make a difference.
WWW is also the place where anyone, having a great idea, can & do make great things - with very little capital.
But ... Creators & Providers does tend to loose interest when implementations of their great ideas only see attention & use, but no tips.
And when Creators & Providers loose interest, then you & I get deprived of the great tools - which we often use, possibly without thought about origins.
 
Throwing a tiny coin out of pocket change, in the real/physical world - is extremely easy.
It sometimes is too in the electronically connected world - just think about your phone: You make a 20 second phone call, and the administrative burden of payment, is virtually zero!
Why(?) Because you have a relation (possible a contract) with a business enity, commonly know as a phone company.
And you have that, because you expect to keep having a need for making phone calls in the future too.
Well - Do you intend to keep browing & using the Internet, as you intend to keep calling & talking using the phone?
1
Add a comment...
 
#CloudWarI
Microsoft now offering unlimited storage on OneDrive w. Office 365.
Ref. 27.Oct.2014: https://blog.onedrive.com/office-365-onedrive-unlimited-storage/ .
 
Well, What does Google have:
* https://support.google.com/drive/answer/2375123?hl=en (Cached: https://archive.today/Vp3Uj )
* http://www.google.com/intx/en_my/work/apps/business/pricing.html (Cached: https://archive.today/J5gAj )
Compared to Microsoft, who haven't yet updated their pages to reflect the news of unlimited storage
* http://products.office.com/en-us/business/compare-more-office-365-for-business-plans
* http://products.office.com/en-us/office-365-home
* http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/buy/ .
 
Right, I (as an individual) am faced w. paying & getting either A or B:
A. Microsoft $8.25/month: ("Office 365 Business")
- the full MS Office,
- unlimited storage space.
B. Google $10/month:("Google Apps for Business and more")
- GDocs suite (i.e. crappy freeware, compared to MS Office)
- 1TB storage.
 
 
The Bigger Picture (or Quick Recap):
This February (i.e. Feb.2014), Steve Ballmer, the last dinosaur heir to the PC era, stepped down as CEO of Microft.
The elected successor, Satya Nadella (CEO of Microsoft), was & is a Cloud guy.
In April, Office 365 users got 1TB storage there in OneDrive (formerly called SkyDrive, before Feb.2014).
Later Microsoft cut prices, while Google (Oct.2014) renamed "Google Apps" to Google Apps for Work, and also partnered w. Rackspace.
(See e.g.: http://www.cmswire.com/cms/information-management/google-counters-office-365-price-cuts-with-new-partnership-026768.php )
And so now (very soon), there'll be no storage limit on OneDrive (for Office 365 users).
 
Indeed, The Cloud War is raging!
OneDrive is the one place for your files that you can access from virtually anywhere. Read our blog to hear the latest news and updates!
1
Add a comment...

Thomas P.

Shared publicly  - 
 
Hmmm: I do so hope that the HR folks responsible for hiring Google CMs (Community Managers) participated in the workshop.
: Google CMs are in fact the least diverse group I have ever seen (~95% are female, around 23-27 years old, and with 2-4 years of real life experince from marketing ... which is not a perfect fit for being the gateway in the technical support reporting pipeline.)

>>Using the same standards to evaluate all options can reduce bias. This is why we use structured interviews in hiring, applying the same selection and evaluation methods for all.<<
What standards will do, is to ensure that elements in the data sets' are comparable.
But if using one specific standard (e.g. specific interview templates & checklists for specific job descriptions'), then highly metric focused standards is a potential pitfall - a potential path for eliminating diversity, rather than cultivating it.
Eliminating diversity by unknow/opaque/unexposed built in correlations, is a pitfall. E.g. If you're looking for an open-minded go-getter type, then you can certainly find one when doing interviews. But such a type does unfortunately also bear correlation with being young, naive, gullible, unrealistic, ignorant, ...

>>As we shared back in May, we’re not where we should be when it comes to diversity.<<
Planet Earth got a population of 7G (G: Giga/billion), but only 318M (Mega/million) are in the USA (i.e. about 4.5%).
If you think gender & ethnicity is amongst Google major diversity problems, then: No!
E.g. We (some of Google's Top Contributors) have for years (me personally for more than 5 years) been trying to tell Google to always write dates as dd.Mmm.YYYY (e.g. 26.Sep.2014). Yet, we've not really been having major success. (Here, a real "facepalm"-example was with Google's Locale London Meetup, where 100% of the invited audience was of non-US origin. The Agenda for the Meetup: Yup, it was using the US-dateformat ... Well: 9/8 is NOT 8.Sep, but rather 9.Aug, unless you're an ignorant American)

Not to mention non-working dysfunctional keyboard shortcuts in e.g. GDocs (Hint: Only standard US keyboard layout miss a <Alt Gr> key, and ... ; A GDocs problem which was introduced in April 2010, promised to get fix in July 2010, but then silently ignored and still not fixed here 26.Sep.2014; Ref.: https://productforums.google.com/d/msg/docs/2ZnL7Z_A3E8/VqZJidw717EJ ; Note: Jeff Harris was a Googler with GDocs in July 2010)

+Laszlo Bock 
1
Add a comment...

Thomas P.

Shared publicly  - 
 
Terms and Conditions may apply
If you're here reading this, then you're in the soup, making it a must see Documentary (1h19' long, from 2013.)

If having troubles w. country/IP-blocking, then a global accessible version is at: http://vimeo.com/73079834 (hopefully)
I agree to the terms and conditions · I AGREE · Foreign Sales · Request a screening via Tugg.com. Request A Screening · Request A Non-Theatrical Screening (US/Canada) · Theatrical Sales · Follow @TACMayApply. Subscribe to our mailing list:
3
2
Michael W's profile photoThomas P.'s profile photoIstván Maczkó's profile photo
4 comments
 
Michael, you're missing a word in "I don't quite <?what?> about the ..."

Anyway - Google does have a de facto monoploy in many areas:  Search (WebSearch), Video (YouTube), ...
While an oligopoly is seen in many other areas (the mobile scene is mostly or often close to Google versus Apple).
And so: >> Do we, as consumers, have choices? <<
That's the point: If we as the consumers have no choice, then they as suppliers have no fear (of competition).

I'm not saying that Apple or Verizon are doing things different or better - but I am saying that Eric Schmidt gotta have realised that his "... our user would move to our competitors, so we don't ... " is bogus.
That while I do beleive that he's right on government (intelligence agencies) having an interest in the data. And Google is getting increasingly in the spotlight by them being so dominant. (The Google Buzz affair alone got them 20 years of yearly auditing by the FTC)

On the one side, there's the old "Don't be evil" which brings a smile on users faces.
On the other side, there's billions of dollars in revenue rolling in to shareholders pockets, and government eyes unable to overlook the giant which Google has become.
A battle? : Google showing everyone a picture of their happy users, causing shareholders to reject their own greed, and government to stay out of anything Google does. (and I'll probably also receive a pink flying elephant along with that) 

(off-topic: The Google-Apple conspiracy on hiring isn't over yet: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/19/us-apple-google-settlement-idUSKBN0EU2OP20140619 )
Add a comment...
 
Especially important to note is the point about metadata
: 2. Just collecting call detail records isn’t a big deal.

In pratice, whenever possible: You should always use an InPrivate browser session for all your online activities, without being signed in to your Google account (or any other account for that matter).
And if you really care, then you will most likely also want to set your browser to use a proxy you trust to provide you with annonymity.  #privacy    #surveillance   #Google   #NSA  
 
Tired of hearing the same old arguments in defense of NSA spying? So are we— especially since they're so wrong.
19 comments on original post
1
Add a comment...

Thomas P.

Shared publicly  - 
 
For those outside the USA, generally having difficulties getting something to play: RadioTuna works fine  - and does run a lot of stations :-)
1
Add a comment...

Thomas P.

Shared publicly  - 
 
Win! What could be more meaningful on a 404 page, than a chatterbot, e.g. https://duck.co/SomeNonExistingPage 
1
Add a comment...
Story
Introduction
Since I'm a "Top Contributor" in Google's WebSearch Forum:  You'd better read below Guideline/Protocol for contacting me, before any attempt of contacting me with a Google Search issue. Because, I'm not getting paid to act as anyone's personal support donkey ;-)

Guideline/Protocol for Contacting me:
If contemplating contacting me w. a Google Search issue, then please observe following regulatory conditions:
  • If I have explicitly requested you to send me a message via my profile page, then please do include a reference (URL) to the thread where I requested you to send me a message.

  • If I have not explicitly requested you to send me a message via my profile page, then it's probably a bad idea doing so. Because 99.9% of all unsolicited messages send via my profile will simply be deleted.
Basic Information
Gender
Decline to State