deep and meaningful quotes :

Get Posts By Mail! Popular Posts
Enter your email address:

Posts Tagged ‘Google’

Added AdSense To The Blog

Wednesday, April 16th, 2008

After a few months of blogging without AdSense, I've finally decided to add it to my blog.

Let's just see how much I've made in the last hour…

Ok, logged in… $1,873.49!!!! Not really…

To be honest, I'm not logged in at Google at all! I'm not there, I'm here. I'm writing this post! Ha ha ha ha ha ha…

So the question is, does a blog look more or less professional with ads on it? I think it all depends on design and placement. But there's definitely something to be said for conformity (that is, conforming with other blogs).

And I see that a few of them have The AdSense…

Interesting Website:

Friday, April 11th, 2008

Dot fm is really for the Federated States of Micronesia, but anyone can register it, and it's good for radio stations. But isn't exclusively about the radio. It looks like it's about everything!

I really like the design. It feels professional, modern, and intelligent. And maybe a little red.

It's got heaps of articles people have submitted about How To do all kinds of things, from Maximizing Your Google AdWords Impact to Modifying Content by Using Paired Custom Tags. It's really neat.

The thing I like most is how the ads flow with the content. I don't really like sites that try to shove ads in your face, and with there seems to be a nice, even flow. It's like the content is kept in a giant, clean room, and the ads take up only a little wall space. Nice.

Wow, there's still so much cool stuff on the web that I don't know about! At least now I'm a little bit further from total ignorance.

Not bad at all, but this topic is rather little of interest. Please do not disappoint your readership. (Comment Spam)

Friday, April 11th, 2008

I recently noticed that a comment was posted that urged me to shy away from posting "lesser" tidbits of interest, and focus on pleasing my readership.

I must not disappoint my millions of readers…

"But wait," I thought. "Could the person posting this comment consider my site worthy of such a remark?"

I had to be sure.

So I searched google for the exact contents of the comment.

203 results came up.

Unlucky me, I was sucked into thinking that my little old blog was interesting enough to be taken seriously.

The real clincher for how I know the comment was bogus is the fact that both the comment posted here and the first one I found on google point to [blah] and seem to advertise risqué content.

Ho hum, another day of spam-motivated deceit…

Theoretical Dollars And Internet Wealth

Saturday, April 5th, 2008

"South Park" recently aired an episode showcasing a bunch of YouTube celebrities and how they were all theoretical multi-millionaires. I think the guy who sang "Chocolate Rain" is supposed to be $100,000,000 richer, at least according to the show. So how does that work?

In the old days, you'd be in the real, physical world, and set up a stage. Then you'd get on that stage and perform. And people would pay to see you do it. So if everybody pays $1, and you have an audience of 100, you just made $100.

Now, with the internet, we can all show our performance to many, many more people with incredible ease. So, if 100 million people see your $1 show, then you are theoretically $100 million richer!

But this is where the problem is. (From here on might be excruciating because I guess I'm spelling out what many consider to be common sense.)

You perform for a camera. Save your video. Upload it to YouTube. It becomes Google's property. Google shows advertisements. Every time a viewer of your video clicks an ad, Google makes money.

Google is stealing our Theoretical Dollars!

It gets interesting though. The $1 show is now free for the audience. Whoever clicks an ad generates revenue, but one click is usually worth less than a dollar. Say 20 cents.

So 100 million people watch your video. One million (one in a hundred) click. Twenty cents per click times 1 million clicks = 20 million cents, = $200,000.

100 million viewers = $200,000, for Google not you.

If you set up your own site, then you could collect. For every hundred viewers (audience members), you get 20 cents. (Or $2 if you're on the ball.)


You don't have to pay to see all the other shows…

So it's like you're a Rock God, and in your contract it stipulates that you'll receive only 1/500 of your normal salary, because the rest covers lavish "complimentary" trips to all the other rock concerts in the world, ever. Sweet…

Buy Replica Watches Online! (Email Spam)

Friday, March 28th, 2008

Hmm… Instead of telling me I'm going to be rich, this email is telling me to buy watches online… Hmm…

[Begin Email]

From: "LanaGoodspeed588514" <>
Subject: FWD: March Specials
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:26:08 -0400

Buy Replica Watches Online!

At our watch shop, we have been supplying top-quality, high-grade
replica watches to satisfied customers for close to 8 years now. We provide
our customers with an extremely reliable, affordable and accessible
source to these quality items, which provide the same attention-grabbing
benefits of the genuine articles that cost many times more. We are
constantly seeking to better understand the needs of our customers, and to
update our product selection so as to better serve our customers.

[End Email]

I cautiously visited the site, and what do you know, it looks like any ordinary business. But what kind of name is pirrafe? Like giraffe?

A Google search for brings up one result, for Looks like some kind of vacation site.

A Google search for brings up one result, for "24kt Genuine Italian Snakeskin Bracelets and Leather Cuffs."

Weird. I guess some computer somewhere went crazy!

Here's a completely unrelated thought. Today it occurred to me that each time I post one of these spam messages, I am also posting the email of the supposed sender. Email addresses in plain sight on the web are often harvested by bots for spam purposes. So, am I facilitating an influx of spam for the spammers?

They probably have better spam protection than the rest, seeing as how they're the perpetrators!

Google Upgrades Itself, Predicts Your Next Move

Wednesday, March 26th, 2008

I had signed up to test one of the stages of Google Labs recently. The option I chose was where you type something in, and Google shows a list of popular searches that contain what you've typed so far. I thought it was neat, but lost interest and opted out.

Well now that feature is permanent! Check it out.

**Update: Now that I've tried it in FireFox, it looks like it only works in IE.

Paradox: Front-Page Google Results Include Link To A Dogpile Search

Monday, March 17th, 2008

So, I was thinking of changing my name to something cool, like Stratovarius Megatrend. I'd check into a hotel, and a member of the staff would say, "Sure thing, Mr. Megatrend, I'll take your luggage up right away." Awesome. But could there be a cooler name…? I had to find out.

So I ran a quick search on Google for the exact phrase, "list of cool names."

Almost immediately, I noticed something odd. See if you can spot it:

Google Search Results for List of Cool Names

The 6th result on Google's front page for this specific search term is actually a link to a Dogpile search of a similar term!

Let's see what Dogpile has to offer…

Hmm… I'm curious about something… Let's check back on that Google page:

Ok, ok, and… on Dogpile…?

Wow. Google has 1,720 results. Number 6 is a link to Dogpile, which has 84 results. Granted, the search terms were a little different, but the one used on Dogpile was far less specific! It didn't even use quotes, and it only came up with 84. Plus, it's searching multiple search engines! Weird. Maybe Dogpile says, "I know what is relevant to a far greater extent than the peons of Google or Yahoo. I will selectively remove results that do not suit me." You'd think a search engine would strive for more results, in order to give visitors a greater chance of clicking an ad! And especially since Dogpile's pulling its sources from elsewhere…

I found it most interesting how Dogpile's "Now Searching" area listed Google first! So we search Google, which searches Dogpile, which searches Google, which goes back in time and kills Dogpile's grandfather, who just so happens to be Google's Great-great uncle, and then the universe explodes and implodes simultaneously!

One final thing that jumped out at me was the 6th result on Dogpile. Pretty sneaky, Buzz…

January 2008 PageRank Update

Tuesday, January 15th, 2008

It seems that some sites have already noticed shifting PageRank values, as early as January 10th.

The last update happened in late October of last year. So maybe we'll be seeing updates continue until the end of the month.

With the changes put into effect to account for paid links, I don't think the update will hold entirely to historical trends. Paid links seem to be pretty widespread, and if every page with at least 1 paid link goes from PR whatever to PR 0, the collective PR of the entire net is likely to be affected.

Of course, going from a PR 0 to a PR 5 is like creating something from nothing. They say the more pages of content your site has, the more PR you've got. So as more pages are added to the net, the net's total PR will increase. But when Google arbitrarily changes the PR prerequisites (no paid links), it's bound to have an effect.

I see two possible outcomes. As some would say, "Paid links are here to stay," and so Google will eventually allow PR on paid link pages. On the other hand, Google is king, so perhaps the paid link, paid post, paid whatever industry will sink its claws into the ground and slowly get dragged toward an inevitable death that few want to believe is already underway.

Got On Google's Front Page Without Even Trying

Tuesday, December 11th, 2007

The search terms aren't amazing, but one of them brings up 8,520,000 results, and I'm on the front page, so I'm happy!

I found out when I checked Google Analytics today to see how Misinterpreted dot Org was doing. I thought, "I wonder what kinds of searches are bringing most people here?"

Among the top terms were:

watch me move with my juke
watch me juke
watch me move
watch me move like my juke
watch my juke
peter petrelli scrubs
has vista failed

All the juke stuff relates to a post I made a while back called, A Commercial I Hate: "Watch Me Move, Got My Juke!" Now that I think about it, my quote of the lyrics was wrong! More on that later…

So I thought I'd see what a search term like "watch me move" would bring up in the results. I thought maybe I'm somewhere on some random page.

Lo and behold, I'm on page one:

Watch Me Move

– #5 out of 8,520,000

Watch Me Move

Lets check all the variants.

Watch Me Juke

– #2 out of 656,000

Watch Me Juke

Watch My Juke

– #3 out of 700,000

Watch My Juke

Watch Me Move With My Juke

– #1 out of 34,100

Watch Me Move With My Juke

Watch Me Move Like My Juke

– #9 out of 20,000

Watch Me Move Like My Juke

Watch Me Like With My Juke

– #2 out of 57,300 (I had typed in the wrong query, but being #2 is awesome [unless you're Bono])

Watch Me Like With My Juke

Watch Me Move Got My Juke

– #1 out of 193,000

Watch Me Move Got My Juke

I read this comment on YouTube under the Verizon Juke video commercial: "That is called "Juking" my friend…very hard, but fun to do…it's been big for over 30 years and in the Midwest, but its finaly made its way around…."

I guess to Juke is to dance? And listening to the song again, it sounds like, "Watch me move, like my Juke?" Like, "Watch me dance, like my moves?" So in that case, the title to my post is completely wrong! But I'm not changing it. Being on the front page of Google for those search terms is too much motivation to leave it as is.

Among the other search terms that were bringing me traffic were aquafrequencies, peter petrelli scrubs, and has vista failed. The Vista one didn't bring me up anywhere near #1, so I'll just cover the other two.

Aquafrequencies relates to another post I wrote called "The Power Of Water And Positive Thought" about the Aquafrequencies cure-all software system. How do I rank for that search term?


– #6 and #7 out of 188


It's interesting that I'm listed on the front page, just a few results below the actual site for the program. But I guess since there are only 188 results for the term, that doesn't really mean as much as it might otherwise.

What about Peter Petrelli? I had written a post about his name being mentioned on Scrubs, When Worlds Collide: Peter Petrelli and Scrubs. And now:

Peter Petrelli Scrubs

– #1 out of 51,500

Peter Petrelli Scrubs

I had heard someone say on Scrubs that her fear of death forced her to ask Peter Petrelli to the sock hop in the 8th grade. Astounded, I searched and searched before finding that others on the net had noticed the same thing. At one point I mistakenly thought that there was only 1 other person who knew. Later I found out that others were also aware of the triviality (well, I thought it was cool). But now being #1 for the search term I had originally used — all I can say is wow.

So now I bet you're wondering, how did I pull off getting on the front page of Google for 9 different searches? Here's my 3 Point Solution to this conundrum:

Point 1: I wrote 3 separate posts, each of which used the key words in their titles.
Point 2: WordPress automatically added header tags and created SEO-friendly URLs.
Point 3: The ideas for each search are either rare or relatively new.

As I said, Peter Petrelli mentioned on Scrubs seemed at first to be rarely noticed, and therefore not too often mentioned online. Aquafrequencies only has 188 results because the program isn't that well-known. And the Verizon Juke commercial is fairly new.

I believe I was able to rank highly for all these terms because there isn't a major amount of competition (just yet). Plus, the terms don't send me a huge amount of traffic. If they did, you can bet there'd be other sites more proactive about ranking for them.

But still… I'm made the front page of Google, and not just for some Googlewhack!

Secret Behind "Superfluous" Link In Google Search Results For A Domain

Saturday, December 1st, 2007

Have you ever wondered why a search of certain sites will bring up one result up top with links throughout the domain, and then another result for a random page? Why bother showing that second result?

Today I found out. At BlogStorm, it was shared that although many people perceive this search behavior to be bug-related, it is in fact intentional. In fact, many people actually do not see the first (Sitelinks) result at all, which is why a second, different (some might say "normal") one is also available.

It would seem to make sense why some people are blind to Sitelinks results, as not all sites have them, and ads are sometimes placed in that area.

The second listing is believed to be the most recently popular (or perhaps most linked to) page in the site.

Do you sometimes unintentionally overlook that first Sitelinks result? I honestly can say that I have. I'm so ashamed. :)