December 13th, 2007
Not that I take the Writer’s Guild strike lightly (I miss Michael Scott!), but this is pretty hilarious. What do we want? More webdings! [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLR4OJb5suo[/youtube]
Filed under Technology | Comments (3)
October 23rd, 2007
Last month I did a post on a petition that had been passed on to me. The petition was directed at Google, and asked that they remove an anti-semitic web site from its #1 position for the term, “Jew.” While I never anticipated that Google would remove the site (such a move would open a pandora’s box of censorship accusations), I had hoped that the petition would gain some awareness at the very least. The more people realize this site is bupkis, the better!
I Googled the term again yesterday and noticed that Google has added a memo in reference to the situation entitled: “An explanation of our search results.” Yesterday it was in the #1 position for me above Jew Watch and today it is #2. No matter, I find it to be a much appreciated concession on the part of Google. Adding a fresh page to the search results for a specific cause is a pretty big deal in my book. Here’s what the memo says:
<<If you recently used Google to search for the word “Jew,” you may have seen results that were very disturbing. We assure you that the views expressed by the sites in your results are not in any way endorsed by Google. We’d like to explain why you’re seeing these results when you conduct this search.
A site’s ranking in Google’s search results relies heavily on computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page’s relevance to a given query. Sometimes subtleties of language cause anomalies to appear that cannot be predicted. A search for “Jew” brings up one such unexpected result.
If you use Google to search for “Judaism,” “Jewish” or “Jewish people,” the results are informative and relevant. So why is a search for “Jew” different? One reason is that the word “Jew” is often used in an anti-Semitic context. Jewish organizations are more likely to use the word “Jewish” when talking about members of their faith. The word has become somewhat charged linguistically, as noted on websites devoted to Jewish topics such as these:
Someone searching for information on Jewish people would be more likely to enter terms like “Judaism,” “Jewish people,” or “Jews” than the single word “Jew.” In fact, prior to this incident, the word “Jew” only appeared about once in every 10 million search queries. Now it’s likely that the great majority of searches on Google for “Jew” are by people who have heard about this issue and want to see the results for themselves.
The beliefs and preferences of those who work at Google, as well as the opinions of the general public, do not determine or impact our search results. Individual citizens and public interest groups do periodically urge us to remove particular links or otherwise adjust search results. Although Google reserves the right to address such requests individually, Google views the comprehensiveness of our search results as an extremely important priority. Accordingly, we do not remove a page from our search results simply because its content is unpopular or because we receive complaints concerning it. We will, however, remove pages from our results if we believe the page (or its site) violates our Webmaster Guidelines, if we believe we are required to do so by law, or at the request of the webmaster who is responsible for the page.
We apologize for the upsetting nature of the experience you had using Google and appreciate your taking the time to inform us about it.
Sincerely,
The Google Team
p.s. You may be interested in some additional information the Anti-Defamation League has posted about this issue at http://www.adl.org/rumors/google_search_rumors.asp. In addition, we call your attention to Google’s search results on this topic.
They are correct that the term “Jew” is more often used in a derogatory sense but people all over the world use Google and one cannot predict how terms are used as translated from other languages. Though Jew Watch still exists and cannot be censored, at least there is now a page that clearly explains the controversey surrounding it, taking a lot of credibility away from them.
I acknowledge that part of Google’s motivation is to protect their own tuchases, but if it benefits others I am pleased regardless.
Filed under Technology | Comment (0)
September 9th, 2007
Google the term “Jew” and the #2 result is a certain hate filled website which claims to educate on Jewish culture. In the site, Frank Weltner, the so-called “librarian,”preaches to his readers about how the Jewish people are attempting to dominate the world and need to be stopped. He blames Jews for causing nearly every war, spreading communism and other ridiculous accusations. It’s a hate filled, anti semitic website which is under the ruse of a library which distributes “scholarly, factual information.”
Given my SEO background, it doesn’t surprise me that a basic site of this nature-packed with text and little images-has a top ranking. Unfortunately, Google isn’t the moral police and can’t pick and choose sites based on the viewpoints they perpetuate. However, the idea that this site will be a source of learning for people about Jewish culture really upsets me. I have my doubts that anybody has the power to change Google rankings by voicing an opinion, but there is a petition out there for the removal of this site from its top position. I would encourage all of my readers to sign the petition. Google needs 500,000 signatures to remove the site. Currently we’ve got about 272,000. It’s a long way to go but whether hopeless or not, we can at least feel that we made a small effort to stop the spread of hatred.
Filed under Technology | Comments (14)
August 30th, 2007
The grownups have arrived, and they’re here to stay. Welcome to the new world of Facebook where everybody, of any age, can create an account. As a Facebook user since its naissance around 2001 (my Junior year of college), I’ve been grappling with how to handle this new Facebook metamorphosis.
When Facebook was a wee pup it was an exclusive group, open to a few Ivy League and Big Ten schools. The concept was exciting: connect with people at your college and others in an insulated forum. (We can find out information about everyone at school? Relationship status? Plans for the weekend? Parties? This is amazing!) It spread like wildfire and soon every school from Harvard to Nassau Community College (no offense) had a Facebook network. Though it existed at every school, it still felt like our own private club, untainted by grown-ups. People wrote about anything and everything without the fear of parents, teachers and the like being privy. After all, they didn’t even know what Facebook was. And forget about them figuring it out!
After a few years of Facebook’s private success, things began to change. Recruiters started doing background checks on Facebook profiles, advertisements were added, and it became a rich tool for marketing to the Millennial generation. Grownups started to buy into it and became members themselves. At the current phase of my life, as a true Fauxnup I can say that I’m using Facebook more than ever. Every day I make new friends in the wine business and join groups such as Wine 2.0 which cater to people of common business interests. It adds a tremendous level of personalization and a little fun to work.
But what does one do when wall posts that read “Hey- great party on Friday night! I was sooooo wasted. I can’t believe Jamie hooked up with Dan at SAE. What a slut!” are juxtaposed next to others that read “Came across your profile when searching for bright kids looking for opportunities in the marketing industry. Message me if interested” ? I don’t really know the answer to that. I’m probably not the authority since as recently as yesterday I was still a member of latent groups such as “Tulane Electronica Club- HappyRavers of New Orleans!” I let it all hang out, so to speak, and was stubborn about changing representations of myself. But I think we have to find the happy medium. Let’s call it, “Decent Exposure.”
You can use privacy settings to choose who gets to see various parts of your profile. But to me, it sounds like a lot of work and maintenance. I think the answer is to keep the same profile for everyone and keep it friendly and fun with your interests, favorite quotes, and things of that nature. But, start picking and choosing the photos that you post and the groups you want to stay in. Us Facebook alumni (faux-nups) need to upgrade our profiles to be work-friendly or we will look silly. It’s an obnoxious reality but it’s the truth. Don’t abandon Facebook, just learn how to use it properly. What do you all think? Do you use Facebook for work related networking? Have you changed your profile to accommodate? Is this a completely boring topic or are some people thinking about it besides me? 
Filed under Technology | Comments (7)
July 20th, 2007
Unless you’ve been living under a rock lately, you’ve at least seen or heard the concept of Web 2.0. This phrase refers to the widespread internet trend of community based websites and tools which allow people to share information. Social media services such as Digg, Del.icio.us and Reddit all fall under this category as does this blog. So, what does this mean for wine?
Since wine first became popular in the U.S., there were a limited number of experts. Beginning with Robert Parker, The Wine Spectator, and the Wine Enthusiast, people have always looked to the palates of critics to determine what to drink. With so many wines to choose from, one wants to make an educated purchase of wines with higher ratings. Unfortunately, with this came the intimidation factor. With so few experts around, folk are scared to share their opinions about wine for fear of sounding uneducated. What if I hated this wine but the Wine Enthusiast gave it a 92? Does that mean I have bad taste? Certainly not. What if I am supposed to smell strawberries but I get cherries? Fine by me.
Each person’s palate is unique and one person’s 92 may be another person’s 85. Wine reviews are there as a starting point. Reviewers who taste wines for a living know the basics of balance, flavor, development etc. Their ratings are important, but it always makes me sad when people are afraid to talk about wine because of the intimidation factor. The more people are comfortable with wine, the more people will drink it- an obvious benefit for all parties involved.
Enter Web 2.0, from stage left. What a wonderful way for people to share their opinions about wine in a friendly, fun environment. Sites like Winelog, Snooth, and Corkd allow people to become members, rate wines, make friends, receive recommendations and far more. On Winelog for example, you can create excel spreadsheets of wines you’ve tasted, print tasting notes, and even have reviews sent to your phone. And of course, other Web 2.0 services such as widgets and RSS feeds of your favorite wines are built into every site. Checkout my “recent wine ratings” widget in the right sidebar
I’ve been meaning to blog about this for quite some time as I think it’s an important development for the world of wine. No longer do wine ratings sit in an untouchable tower of intimidation. Now YOU are the expert.
I am in no way minimizing the importance of wine ratings from expert sources. In fact, these ratings become all the more important as wine becomes more popular throughout the world. People will always care about the opinions of those with knowledge. Just because Joe Shmo gives a wine 90 points, it is not necessarily a 90 point wine. The reviews of credible sources will always be haloed over the average quaffer. But there is a space for both and I feel that Web 2.0 is paving the way. Do you agree?
Filed under Technology, Wine 2.0 | Comments (11)
Subscribe in RSS
