Social Media Snowball

Google Semantic Search: Live or Just Testing?

Quick post to comment on the fact that the much talked about Google Semantic Search is now appearing within the SERP’s; although whether this is ‘it’ or Google’s still in a testing phase is yet to be seen. The semantic search update aims to answer the questions users are asking when they type some keywords into a search engine; effectively predicting what users want when they search for a term. It’s a strategy which seems like it would work well (think about the popularity of the Apple Siri technology, where users literally ask questions and are directed to an answer or resource) but would change the way that we all search the web, and would force websites to change their content strategies too. It would involve going from websites which are like online brochures to making brands predict the questions their customers may be asking and creating content to answer these questions. 

For more about the aims of Semantic Search, this E-Consultancy article is very good.

Anyway - after seeing a few of the aforementioned ‘best guess’ results, and the odd bit of information down the right-hand side of the SERP’s, today I’ve seen some actual Semantic Search results. Googling terms such as ‘members of x band’, ‘characters in x tv show’ and ‘CEO of x company’ now brings up a result, or a list of results at the top of the SERP’s. 

Take a look at this search result (Google.co.uk) for ‘members of the Beatles’:

Here, the first result comes from Google, and names the members of the band. If you click the little blue ‘Show Details’ link, you will see the following additional information:

This shows where this information has been pulled from. Note also, the small ‘Is this accurate?’ question at the bottom? Google wants to know if these are the right answers, thus adjusting the algorithm. 

Perhaps most interesting / worrying for those in SEO is that this semantic search result is pretty much the ONLY thing which shows on the first page for this search term. 

Once you’ve seen the semantic search results, there’s just THREE search results on the first page - two of which are Wikipedia. This is a big change for SEO.

See below an example of searching for ‘CEO of Google’ - this one is perhaps unsurprising:

In contrast, search for ‘characters in Harry Potter’ and get no semantic result - 

Yet the same search for ‘characters in Hunger Games’ shows the new style results. 

So it seems that whilst this is live at the moment, it’s not been rolled out fully. It will be interesting to see how this changes over time - and please let me know if you see any other interesting examples!

A guide to Instagram, which grew by three million overnight

I’m one of those 3 million new Instagram users and am loving the social aspect of the platform. I have better camera apps on my phone, but the ability to share is unique. This is really useful. 

rabbitagency:

The Rabbit Feed on Instagram - 2.0

(Dirk Rabbit writes) Yesterday afternoon (UK time) Instagram for Android finally saw the light of day.    The result?  Three million new sign-ups over night.  

On Monday when checking the latest Instagram numbers for a presentation I counted 28.7 million odd.   Today at Noon (London time), the total stood at 32 million - 32,104,009 to be precise

What does this mean for Instagram, will this trajectory continue?  Yes and no:

Read More

Game Over, Audi

I Love Copy-Based Ads Are Stupid

Is Rape Wrong? The pitfalls of generation Y meets social media

When I was in my first year of university studies, I was once in a Philosophy and Ethics class. The set text was a large, thick book of various essays on a number of different topics - the vast majority of which I never even glanced at whilst writing an essay or typing a response to a tutorial question. (Typical for an undergrad course, right?!)

But I did flick through the book, and there were a few sections which interested me. The debate between pornography and free-speech. Questions of whether positive discrimination should be allowed. And then the near-impossible to comprehend essay title:

Is rape wrong?

Now, remember, when I read this I was an 18 year-old undergrad who had never studied philosophy before. The title was sensationalist; the essay was not. It detailed how rape is a violation of the fundamental human right to choose what happens to our body, it detailed how we each own our own flesh and that rape is wrong because it takes away choice and rational decisions from the owner. (Sorry for the short overview, but this was 6 years ago now!)

But the title has stuck with me for the last six years, popping up in conversation about this or that Philosophy course, until I thought of it again this week, when it was reported that the intern of Westminster politician Tom Watson had made a ‘rape joke’ on his Twitter account.

Further investigation of the story illustrates how the intern found that Tom had logged into his Twitter on her computer, and she decided to play a practical joke on him; showing him up in the Twitterverse, pretty much. 

And she used terminology which is fairly widespread in the generation Y camp; 

“I should log out of my twitter so that my intern doesn’t twit-rape me…”

And she, and Tom Watson, were immediately criticised for ‘making a rape joke’. For not being sensitive to those who have suffered sexual abuse. But did she? 

Is complaining about being ‘fraped’ (‘Facebook raped’) insulting to people who have been raped? Is it okay to say that one football team ‘raped’ another? Then why is it okay that football pundits say that Man City murdered Wigan, then? Why is it (apparently) okay to be insensitive about the victims of murder, but not those of rape? And why do almost all of the people of my age group I know use the terms ‘frape’ ‘facebook rape’ ‘twape’ and ‘twitter rape’ as though they are simply light-hearted ways to describe a phenomena which didn’t (couldn’t have) occurred 10 years ago?  

I completely understand that a lot of the uproar around this occasion is due to the fact that the tweet came from the official account of someone elected into public office - that what is acceptable for the intern to say on her own account is not the same as what is acceptable on Mr Watson’s account. But this really illustrates, once again, that there is no rule-book when it comes to social media - and that what is unacceptable in one situation may be widely used in another. 

What do you think? Are the terms like ‘frape’ or ‘twitter rape’ morally wrong, or not politically correct? And what about when they’re used with no reference to actually rape at all - instead just referring to a violation of their social media account? Do we need a new word - a neologism - for when our social media profiles are compromised? And could anyone persuade people (young people) to replace their rape-terminology for the new words? 

Thieving Brands and Social Media

Well well - it has not been a good week for brands and social media this week. Monday saw McDonald’s receiving a thrashing on Twitter related to their new choice of hashtag (McDStories) when users decided to talk about the negatives, not the ‘happy customer’ stories McD’s had hope for. Tuesday saw LA Fitness (a chain of gyms and fitness centres) chewed out (again, on Twitter) due to their unreasonable contract expectations and inability to look at the bigger picture - even after pressure from UK newspaper The Guardian. Wednesday - well, Wednesday brought the news the o2, the British mobile phone provider, had been ‘accidentally’ sending the phone numbers of customers to each website that they visited via their phone’s 3G and WAP service. 

So I wasn’t entirely surprised when I saw that yet another brand was being attacked by their customers on social media today - however, I was slightly surprised when I saw why. H&M are currently embroiled in a somewhat futile war with their social media fans and followers, regarding their new products and the originality of the design. Now, if H&M have stolen this design from an American artist (which it does seem that they have) they’ve made a double faux-pas. Not only have they copied someone else’s work without crediting them in any way, but they’ve failed to learn about the repercussions of doing this from other brands.

Because H&M aren’t the first brand to cause public outcry due to stealing design ideas from struggling artists - last year, Urban Outfitters came under heavy fire on social media regarding the design they used for some jewellery, which was almost exactly the same as a design by a bespoke designer on Etsy.  

Let me say this straight out; large companies thieving the designs of aspiring artists is NOT OKAY. Lying about it afterwards is EVEN WORSE. And because of the internet, social media and the way that online communities work, people will find out when brands do this. 

Here is my one tip to big brands who are using social media, and especially in response to criticisms and customer service woes; BE TRANSPARENT. You need need need to respond to these situations quickly and honestly; otherwise big news headlines and brand-bashing will follow. H&M looked a fool when they denied the stealing, only later to admit to it and release a statement saying that they would contact the artist directly - and that is what all of these news stories are talking about. 

Social Applicant: Elevator Pitch

Google’s new privacy policy; changing the game