Marketing Pilgrim

Google has been criticized for censoring search results, even it was the only way they could get into certain countries, such as China. But as they’re abandoning that approach in China, are they picking it up elsewhere? Search Google Australia for [aboriginal and encyclopedia], and you’ll find an interesting message at the end of the page.

The page at ChillingEffects.org explains that Google removed a listing from this SERP after a complaint was filed about the site under the Australian Anti Discrimination Act.

I believe the fact that Google has posted this notice (note that “chilling effect” refers to actions, especially legal ones, that would have a deterrent effect on a free press) shows that they’re reluctant to comply with the ruling, but feel compelled to legally—which might well be the case. The Sydney Morning Herald explains the process behind this move:

So it only takes one high-ranking government official calling Google a monopoly to have German companies jump on an anti-trust bandwagon, eh? Who’dathunkit?

Yep, after Federal Minister of Justice Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger said, “All in all, what’s taking shape there to a large extent is a giant monopoly, similar to Microsoft,” the Federation of Newspaper Publishers, online mapping company Euro-Cities and even Microsoft-owned Ciao have filed complaints against Google with the German government.

The complaints have been lodged with the Bundeskartellamt, the Federal Cartel Office. The office is independent, but falls under the purview of the Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology—not Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger’s ministry.

This video Q&A from Matt Cutts didn’t really reveal anything new about how Google treats links–Google doesn’t follow nofollowed links and that’s the story it’s sticking to.

What did catch my attention was the reference to the weight carried by .edu and .gov links. Matt pretty much debunks any suggestion that a link from an edu/gov TLD carries more weight than a .com one:

I’m sure some of you will debate the “truthiness” of that statement–based on your own findings–but for me, it was a blast from the past to hear anyone talk about edu/gov links. Five years ago, a .edu or .gov link was considered the holy grail of backlinks. These days, I rarely hear anyone talk about them as being any more important than other relevant/authoritive .com links.

It’s been little over a year since I shared my super-secret list of WordPress plugins used on Marketing Pilgrim.

You loved it!

So, I’m back with an updated list–simply because I’ve made a lot of changes over the past year–and your blog needs to be just as awesome as ours, right?

I’m sharing this list on one condition. By reading the list below, you agree to click the little green “retweet” button at the top right of this post.

Deal?

Then read on, good sir/madam!

(New) After the Deadline – make me sounds smarter

I added this plugin, when WordPress announced it was acquiring it. Unfortunately, I’m either extremely arrogant, too darn busy, or too nonchalant to care, because I rarely actually use it. Any grammatical errors in this post are hereby considered as intentional for comedic purposes!

Do you like peep shows?

How about a sly peek at what could be part of AOL’s broader strategy to flood the web with contributor-generated content and monetize it?

Well, AOL built Owl as a testing ground for its SEED platform–or, as some people are calling it, its “craptent” platform. The site, according to an AOL insider, “is not currently being used,” but it gives us a sneak peek at how AOL plans to distribute content across the web.

What’s interesting is that SEED gives AOL the ability to create and syndicate content to sites such as Owl, with very little set-up costs. After all, Owl looks like a pretty slick site, but clearly AOL didn’t have too much invested in it–if it could so easily afford to let it lie fallow. I suspect we’ll see AOL build dozens of these sites–Hawk, Pigeon, Chicken, Yellow-nosed Albatross–the possibilities are endless!

New York magazine is reporting that the New York Times could be announcing its own move to a paid subscription model as early as this week. If this is the case, we may see more of the dominoes fall in this tenuous conversation. It seems that whenever anyone discusses even the threat of paid content online, a hush comes over the room and people start to whisper like they do when your creepy uncle shows up at the family reunion. Well, whether this is the time or not, this could be the year where content makes a break from the free world to either save itself or crash and burn in spectacular fashion for all to watch.