Because it looks like Yahoo have spotted a gap in the search market that the other two major search engines haven’t. While Google and Bing have scrapped over their ability to index the billions of websites available on the internet, Yahoo have dropped out of online search and adopted Bing’s own algorithm. Because they’ve been working out how to search mobile phone apps.

Rough estimates state that there are around 350,000 apps (short for applications) in Apple’s iStore and upwards of 200,000 apps in the Android market. And no way of searching for the application you want without using the sometimes unreliable in-built search functions.

Until now.

Yahoo App Search combines Droid and iPhone apps into one easily searchable database, allowing you to find app descriptions, price details and a screenshot – filtered by platform, price and genre. While this dual-platform feature seems like it will only be of use to people with both Android and Apple handsets (so, nobody), it will help developers spot gaps in the market, leading to even more useful, intuitive applications.

And, in true social internet style, the search also lets you know which applications are trending and popular. Which is a far less intrusive way of bringing social data into search…

This isn’t the first time Yahoo have brought in a groundbreaking new search product to the market under the noses of the competition. The company released (and promptly scrapped) a real-time search years before everyone was excited by Google’s ‘game-changing’ Google Instant release.

Follow FirstFound on Facebook
Follow FirstFound on Twitter
Follow FirstFound on Google+

Buoyed by the recent takedown of MegaUpload, the entertainment industry in the UK have set their sights on the biggest suppliers of pirated material in the world. The search engines Google and Bing.

A confidential document, leaked by The Guardian and a free speech campaign group shows that a number of copyright holders view the search engines as culpable in the rise of online piracy because they direct users away from legitimate outlets and towards pirate websites:

“Consumers rely on search engines to find and access entertainment content and they play a vital role in the UK digital economy. At present, consumers searching for digital copies of copyright entertainment content are directed overwhelmingly to illegal sites and services.”

Report on “Responsible Practices for Search Engines in Reducing Online Infringement”

The report then goes on to suggest a number of solutions to this problem, none of which the search engines will be particularly happy with:

• De-ranking sites that breach copyright – The report claims that Google and Bing must “exert control” over what is shown
• Prioritising legal sites - Search algorithms must be changed to favour legality over relevancy
• Improve current complaints procedures – Apparently Google aren’t good at responding to complaints. Who knew?
• Stricter advertising rules – No more pay per click for pirates

It’s unlikely that Google and Bing will willingly adopt these solutions, and we imagine that they’ll take offense at the report’s insistence that search engines favour illegal sites.

The music industry may have a point though. A search for downloads of the UK’s top selling album – Ed Sheeran’s +, gives the following results on Google:

“Download Ed Sheeran +”

1. Pirate
2. Pirate
3. Pirate
4. Pirate
5. iTunes
6. Amazon
7. Pirate
8. Pirate
9. YouTube
10. Pirate

Bing displays the following:

1. Myspace
2. Pirate
3. Amazon
4. Wikipedia
5. iTunes
6. EdSheeran.com
7. EdSheeran.com
8. Last FM
9. Capital FM
10. Amazon

If this trend is repeated for searches for other albums and songs, then it looks like the music industry has a point when it comes to Google, but perhaps not as much of a point with Bing. But other than instigating yet another investigation into search engine practices, we’re not sure what they can do.

Oh, and if you’re looking to get a legitimate copy of an album, you’re probably better off using Bing, instead of Google.

Follow FirstFound on Facebook
Follow FirstFound on Twitter
Follow FirstFound on Google+

We’re getting rid of over 60 different privacy policies across Google and replacing them with one that’s a lot shorter and easier to read. Our new policy covers multiple products and features, reflecting our desire to create one beautifully simple and intuitive experience across Google.

As you can see, the intent behind the new policy is to move towards Google’s aim of a single, unified Google product encompassing the browser you use, your preferred search engine and social network, your email client and everything else you can do with your Google account.

In short, Google are saying that they’re adopting a unified policy to make it easier for you to have a lovely, wonderful online experience.

They’re not adopting a unified policy to make it easier for you to have a lovely, wonderful online experience.

According to pretty much everyone who isn’t Google, they’re doing this for the ad revenue.

What the New Google Privacy Policy Means

All Google products can now share data. That means that Chrome has access to your gmail account, Calendar knows what you’ve promised to do on Google+ and that the AdSense network has access to everything.

And that means one thing. In the interests of relevancy, AdSense is going to trawl through everything you do on Google to find out what you’re most likely to buy. Search history, email content, appointments – all of these and more will inform the ads that you see on Google and the AdSense network.

Unsurprisingly, there’s another backlash looming.

Google’s new policy doesn’t let you decide which services can see what data – and that’s upset privacy campaigners. After March 1st 2012, you either accept Google’s new policy and give the whole product range access to everything you do online, or you need to find an alternative to those Google products you think you can’t live without.

Somehow, we think this might be mentioned in the next anti-trust case…

Follow FirstFound on Facebook
Follow FirstFound on Twitter
Follow FirstFound on Google+

To help you get through the day, we’ll let you know who’s protesting and what alternatives are available. But while you’re looking around for a replacement Reddit, you might want to see if there’s a way you can protest against SOPA. If you’re an American, write to your elected officials, and if you’re not, pester some Americans on Facebook until they write in.

Wikipedia

Wikipedia have blacked out the English language version of their website, and are directing users towards social networks where they can spread the word about the evils of SOPA. Cleverly, this blackout is all done by Javascript, meaning that search engines can still access Wiki’s content, meaning that the site’s search engine rankings aren’t at risk.

Of course, using Javascript does mean that there are a few ways through the blackout. If you know who to ask…

Alternatives: Asking for information about workarounds on Twitter, going to a library, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Encyclopaedia Britannica Online

Reddit

The social news site Reddit is completely blacking out, leaving millions of users with nowhere to post badly drawn cartoons, pictures of their cats or badly-spelt screeds about the evils of various computer game designers. Unfortunately for morale in the FirstFound office, this means that half of the tech department will now spend their lunch hour drawing badly drawn cartoons on paper and sticking them to their monitors, in an attempt to ride out the worst of their Reddit addictions.

Alternatives: Going outside, having a conversation, finding a real hobby. Or, for the completely desperate, Digg.

Craigslist

Free listings site Craigslist will also be going dark today, making it far more difficult for people to get rid of broken furniture or post free lonely hearts ads. Fortunately, they’re only censoring US pages, so if you’re in the UK you can still find that slightly damp couch you’ve always dreamed of.

STOP PIPA (Senate 968) & SOPA (HR 3261)
Imagine a world without craigslist, Wikipedia, Google, [your favorite sites here]…
News Corp, RIAA, MPAA, Nike, Sony, Comcast, VISA & others want to make that world your reality.
80 Members of Congress are in their sway, 30 against, the rest undecided or undeclared.
★ ★ ★ Please take a minute to tell your Members of Congress you OPPOSE PIPA & SOPA ★ ★ ★

PS:  corporate paymasters, KEEP THOSE CLAMMY HANDS OFF THE INTERNET!

Message on Craigslist’s US Pages

Alternatives: Gumtree, Free newspapers like Loot.

WordPress

Well, WordPress’ own site is down. So anyone looking to set up a WordPress blog today is out of luck. Luckily for you though, any sites using WordPress will still work, so you can enjoy the fun of the FirstFound Blog all day.

Alternatives: Blogger

Google (Sort of)

Don’t panic. Really. Don’t panic. We’re not living in a post-Google world yet. Google are taking steps against SOPA and PIPA by censoring their logo and posting a link for Americans to complain about the acts. You’ll still be able to search for things – just remember that there’s no point clicking on Wikipedia links.

Alternatives: Google still works, but if you want to pretend it’s completely disappeared, you could try Bing.

Follow FirstFound on Facebook
Follow FirstFound on Twitter
Follow FirstFound on Google+

So after seven days like that, you can imagine that Google wouldn’t want to hear that their biggest rival had continued to increase their market share in December 2011.

Well, unfortunately for Google, Bing have finally achieved in the USA what they achieved in Europe months ago – becoming the second most-used search provider, with over 2.7 billion searches carried out in the US alone.

It’s not been all bad for the market leaders though, as they managed to increase their own market share by a fraction of a percent, making up for a drop-off in the number of people using Yahoo:

Search Engine Rankings for December 2011 (USA)

• Google: 65.9% – 12 billion searches
• Bing: 15.1% – 2.7 billion searches
• Yahoo: 14.5% – 2.6 billion searches
• Ask: 2.9% – 531 million searches
• AOL: 1.6% – 287 million searches

When you take into account the fact that a number of search engines are powered by Bing, the Microsoft search engine was responsible for over 26% of organic search results. They’re not quite knocking on Google’s door yet, but if people are disillusioned with Google over social search, market shares could become very interesting over the coming months…

Follow FirstFound on Facebook
Follow FirstFound on Twitter
Follow FirstFound on Google+

Somewhat unsurprisingly, it took the internet about an eighth of a second to decide that this was a stupid idea, that Google weren’t doing this to improve search, and that we all liked it just fine when we only had ten search engine results on a page, flanked by a few pay per click ads.

To save you from wasting today trawling through hundreds of rants and screeds, here’s a summary of why the net isn’t happy about Google’s latest masterplan:

Complaint One: How can you have social search without Twitter?

Put forward by: Twitter

Last year, Twitter decided that they didn’t want Google to use their data anymore, and withdrew from an agreement over live search – which up until then had displayed tweets in real time. So it’s no surprise that Google have left them out in the cold when it comes to “Search, plus Your World“.

This hasn’t stopped Twitter from blasting Google’s move in a statement which demonstrates why any social search needs to include the micro-blogging service:

“As we’ve seen time and time again, news breaks first on Twitter. We’re concerned that as a result of Google’s changes, finding this information will be much harder for everyone.”

Twitter Statement

Compelling argument?:  Yes. As we mentioned yesterday, a social search function that doesn’t include the largest social networks is at best hopeless, at worst a concerted effort to promote Google+. Speaking of which…

Complaint Two: This is just a concerted effort to promote Google+

Put forward by: SearchEngineLand, thousands of SEOs and social media experts

What do you do when you’ve spent years working on a social network to challenge Facebook, and it’s pulling in about as much traffic as the terminally declining MySpace?

According to skeptics (including one or two in the FirstFound office), you integrate your social network into your main search product, giving undue prominence to social pages and making users think that said network is far more important than its userbase would suggest.

Compelling argument?: Our Google+ business page, which has a handful of users, outranks our Facebook and Twitter pages which have been going for years and have decent followings. So yeah, we think there’s something in this. Which could be a problem, because there’s a bunch of commissions waiting to hammer Google on just this issue.

Complaint Three:  This is yet another example of Google’s penchant for privacy and anti-trust violations

Put forward by: A number of privacy and anti-trust groups

Google’s unfairly promoting Google+, Google’s sharing data that users might want to keep private, Google is trying to set up a monopoly whereby you never need to leave Google for any reason whatsoever. It’s all the usual arguments, from all the usual suspects.

But this time, it does look like Google are guilty as charged. Your Google+ pictures will pop up in Google searches, and why would you need to visit Facebook when you can just use Google to search for information on your friends, thanks to the magic of Google+?

Compelling argument?: We’ve got to admit. “Don’t be evil” seems like a fanciful dream at this point.

But what do you think? Have you popped over to Google.com to try out social search? Do you think it’s pointless? Are Google biased? Is this a ridiculous attempt to monopolise the web?

Or is it a storm in a teacup that will all blow over soon?

Follow FirstFound on Facebook
Follow FirstFound on Twitter
Follow FirstFound on Google+

In their infinite wisdom, Google’s search team have decided that when you search Google.com, you really want to search Google+. So as of today, they’re beginning to drop your social data into your search results.

They’re calling this new development “Search, plus Your World”, and it was announced on the Official Google Blog yesterday:

“Search is pretty amazing at finding that one needle in a haystack of billions of webpages, images, videos, news and much more. But clearly, that isn’t enough. You should also be able to find your own stuff on the web, the people you know and things they’ve shared with you, as well as the people you don’t know but might want to… all from one search box.

“We’re transforming Google into a search engine that understands not only content, but also people and relationships.”

Official Google Blog

What Does This Mean?

Simply put, it means that Google will now look at your Google+ network as well as the Google search database when you do a search. And, when Google deem appropriate, photos, status updates and profiles from Google+ will be dropped into your search results.

For example, if you search for “Christmas Party Venues”, you’ll see a few organic Google results, a map with local venues, status updates from your friends lamenting the fact that they drank too much at their own Christmas Party, photographs of you, drunk at your Christmas Party, and some AdWords results. Which is a far cry from the days of ten, trustworthy organic listings and a spattering of ads.

When Will I See Social Results?

For now, only people who are logged into their Google account and are searching from Google.com will see social results. And, in the short term at least, they’ll be told that their search might incorporate social results (see the image above).

So if you’re searching from Google.co.uk, or you’re logged out of your Google account, you’ll just see relevant web results, as chosen by the Google search algorithm. Which is nice.

Is This Really a Good Idea?

Time will tell, but initial comments aren’t positive. Unlike Facebook and Twitter, people aren’t emotionally invested in their Google+ networks, and aren’t particularly interested in seeing a smattering of photographs from their circles.

And with Plus still being far smaller than Facebook, a few dissenting voices are claiming that there’s not really enough social data available to make this move worthwhile, and that the majority of Google users don’t have Plus accounts and as such won’t be affected.

Google do want to involve Facebook in the future, but the social networking giant is currently partnered up with Google’s search rivals Bing. So don’t expect to see a link any time soon.

For now, this integrated social search is optional – so if you’re happy with Google’s usual results, just don’t sign into your Google account.

But what do you think? Is this the future of search, a gimmick, or a ploy to increase Google+’s userbase? Let us know in the comments section.

Follow FirstFound on Facebook
Follow FirstFound on Twitter
Follow FirstFound on Google+

Image credit – SearchEngineLand.com

Oh Google. When will you stop getting into the news for all of the wrong reasons? The BBC are reporting that the world’s favourite search engine has a lucrative sideline in selling knock-off Olympics tickets and mail order cannabis.

Of course, they’re not selling illegal products themselves, but they’re yet again profiting from AdWords ads that flout Google’s own rules, as well as laws including the “London Olympic and Paralympic Games Act 2006″.

The BBC’s 5 Live Investigates programme is up in arms over the fact that Google keep the money they’re paid for illegal adverts before they’re spotted and removed (instead of refunding criminals directly?), and that Google’s automatic filters aren’t stopping as many illicit AdWords adverts as they should.

Due to huge demands for first page listings using Google’s pay per click system, adverts cannot be manually examined before appearing in the search engine listings unless a filter is triggered – as a Google spokesperson explained in a statement made to the BBC:

We have a set of policies covering which ads can and cannot show on Google. These policies and guidelines are enforced by both automated systems and human beings.When we are informed of ads which break our policies, we investigate and remove them if appropriate.

Our aim is to create a simple and efficient way for legitimate businesses to promote and sell their goods and services whilst protecting them and consumers from illicit activity.

However, this hasn’t stopped people who’ve not been able to get their adverts to the top to complain that Google’s system is inherently corrupt, slow to react, and generally biased against them. As these statements only mention the amount that businesses are bidding, and not quality scores or any other factors, we’re unable to tell you whether the companies complaining have a point.

This isn’t the first time Google have received a slap on the wrists over AdWords, after being forced to pay out 500 million dollars for providing US citizens with cheap, Canadian medicine.

If you need assistance getting your business to the top of the AdWords pile, give FirstFound’s pay per click experts a call on 0161 909 3400.

Follow FirstFound on Facebook
Follow FirstFound on Twitter
Follow FirstFound on Google+

The bill could give copyright holders a number of powers that they’ll be able to use without trial if a website is thought to be in breach of copyright laws, and a fair few major online companies aren’t happy.

SOPA could let companies such as record labels and movie studios force websites to remove content, suspend financial transactions and even have power over what the search engines choose to rank. So Wikipedia, Google, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, AOL, eBay, Yahoo, PayPal, Mozilla and more are all planning on taking action.

This online coalition could unleash what they’re calling a “nuclear option”, in which all of the companies involved turn off their website for 24 hours, simultaneously, in order to protest the act and show what would happen to online business if they decided to take their ball and go home.

This sort of move could upset consumers and provoke a backlash from users, but a spokesperson explained that Google, et al, feel that drastic action is necessary:

“This type of thing doesn’t happen because companies typically don’t want to put their users in that position. The difference is that these bills so fundamentally change the way the Internet works. People need to understand the effect this special-interest legislation will have on those who use the Internet.”

Markham Erickson – Director, NetCoalition

It’s a safe bet that 24 hours without Google, Wikipedia and eBay will force internet users around the world to stop messing around and do some work stand up, take notice and protest SOPA, especially when they realise that this is an attempt by the US government to allow American businesses to take action against websites all over the world without any sort of judicial process.

And it might just do some damage to the online economy too…

We think the thought of a world without Google might make the people behind SOPA reconsider, but we’d like to know what you think. If you support or oppose a blackout, let us know in the comments section, or on Google+ or Facebook.

Follow FirstFound on Facebook
Follow FirstFound on Twitter
Follow FirstFound on Google+

FirstFound have constantly and consistently advised our customers against link buying because Google’s Webmaster Guidelines are incredibly clear on the issue. Don’t do it:

However, some SEOs and webmasters engage in the practice of buying and selling links that pass PageRank, disregarding the quality of the links, the sources, and the long-term impact it will have on their sites. Buying or selling links that pass PageRank is in violation of Google’s Webmaster Guidelines and can negatively impact a site’s ranking in search results.

Google’s own advice on Paid Links

So when it came to light yesterday that Google had decided that it was all a case of “do what we say, not what we do”, the online SEO community decided they weren’t happy about the situation.

The issue concerns a marketing campaign for Google’s fast-growing Chrome browser, and the URL www.google.com/chrome. Despite Google’s own rules on buying links, a marketing company employed to promote the web browser decided that they’d like to pay bloggers to write posts on how brilliant Google Chrome is. In essence, paying people to link back to the Chrome website. Which just isn’t cricket.

This underhand tactic was brought to the world’s attention by Search Engine Land, who thought that swapping Amazon gift cards for back links constituted a significant breach of Google’s quality guidelines, and a backlash ensued. Google then tried to avoid taking action by claiming they’d just asked for a few video ads and that they had nothing to do with the marketing tactics they were paying for.

Funnily enough, this didn’t wash, and the company has been forced to demote Google Chrome in the listings for no less than 60 days. Meaning that the site no longer appears for Google searches for the term “browser” (it does still appear on page one of Bing, so obviously Microsoft aren’t copying that particular result…) or “chrome”. Somewhat irritatingly for people who want to download Google Chrome, the site isn’t even listed for “Google chrome”.

“We’ve investigated and are taking manual action to demote www.google.com/chrome and lower the site’s PageRank for a period of at least 60 days. We strive to enforce Google’s webmaster guidelines consistently in order to provide better search results for users. While Google did not authorize this campaign, and we can find no remaining violations of our webmaster guidelines, we believe Google should be held to a higher standard, so we have taken stricter action than we would against a typical site.”

Google Statement

If you’re considering buying links, we’d like to strongly suggest that your reconsider. After all, if Google can’t get away with breaking their own rules, what chance do you have?

If you’re interested in ethical optimisation that meets Google’s guidelines and won’t get you de-listed, call FirstFound now on 0161 909 3400, or visit the FirstFound website.

Follow FirstFound on Facebook
Follow FirstFound on Twitter
Follow FirstFound on Google+