Archive for the ‘Marketing Research’ Category

Google Accused of Conversion-Inflation Syndication Fraud

May 15, 2009

According to Ben Edelman, Google is engaged in a conversion-inflation syndyication fraud.

These tactics are nothing new.

In the featuring article of the November 2008 issue of IR Watch, “Fraudulent Web Analytics – Engineering the Fraud“, we covered how in-the-middle mechanisms are part of Web Analytic Frauds and Business Collusion Schemes.

As in man-in-the-middle attacks found in information security settings, the underlying goal is the same: the crafting of deceiving intermediary events.

Expect soon a pr damage control campaign from the useful idiots/moles.

What is next? A class action lawsuit?

Still, I have a little taste of satisfaction in my mouth when crooks disguised as advertisers/search marketers are gamed. Gaming the gamers: Life ironies!

Microsoft, Inter-Metro to Co-Launch a MIC

April 29, 2009

This afternoon, Microsoft in partnership with The Interamerican University of Puerto Rico, Metropolitan Campus (Inter-Metro) will announce that they are officially co-launching the Microsoft Innovation Center (MIC) of Puerto Rico.

This will be the first MIC in the region. A two stores building has been abilitated within the Inter-Metro campus for this project. As member of the MIC steering committee, I have been invited to the presentation by President, Manuel J. Fernos.

They have also provided me with office and lab space in the MIC building to put together the Internet Business Development Center (IBDC). The objectives of the MIC is the development and commercialization of ecommerce-related software tools. Emphasis will be given to egovernment and ebusiness solutions.

It looks like I will split my schedules between being the IBDC principal investigator, MIC meetings, doing research at Inter-Metro, teaching at PUPR, and writing IRWs. These are exciting news. Let see how things go, especially with the other great news  that PUPR’s ECE&CS department has been accredited by NSA as a CAE.

Marketing Professor Kills Three, Hurts Two

April 26, 2009

George M. Zinkhan III, from Terry College of Business at the University of Georgia allegedly went into a killing rampage, killing his ex-wife and two others, and hurting two.

According to his university page (accessible at the time of writing), Zinkhan is a Coca-Cola Company Professor Department of Marketing and Distribution. Zinkhan is well known in the academic marketing research circles, having served as editor of the JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE.

His 40-page CV reveals he conducted extensive research on Marketing and Net Advertising.

In 2008 he was part of an American Marketing Association committee that redefined marketing. The new definition reads:

“Marketing is the activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large.”

According to the AMA committee,

“Marketing is no longer a function — it is an educational process.”.

Zinkhan published extensively with Yue Pan, associate professor of marketing, University of Dayton. He published on the concept of Netvertising (”Netvertising Characteristics, Opportunities and Challenges: A Research Agenda,” International Journal of Internet Marketing & Advertising, 1(3), 283-299.). According to their abstract:

“Netvertising, or “advertising on the internet”, is attracting much attention from advertising and marketing researchers. However, surprisingly little is known about its new features as compared to other forms of advertising and the implications of the new medium for advertisers. Here, we focus on the following issues: the opportunities and challenges associated with internet advertising; the differences of netvertising from other forms of communication; banner ads – the most popular type of netvertising. Applying this framing perspective, we propose a research agenda for the study of netvertising.”

Netvertising is something search marketers do using different out-of-the-thin-air theories/naming conventions.

Read more about the Netvertising Image Communication Model (NICM)

That was then. Today Zinkhan’s name is associated with a Negative Image on the Net. It will be a matter of time before others will dissassociate themselves with such an image. Life ironies!

He didn’t seem to fit the academic stereotype.

Unfortunately as in any profession, some people cannot coupe with their personal misfortunes and end up doing bad things.

PC + Digital TV + Search Engines

November 17, 2008

I’ll be today presenting at Interamerican University on search engine technologies and on a research project. I plan to cover how the PC + Digital TV fusion will provide an interesting platform for search engine marketing and research in general.

This is going to be fun.

IRW Sneak Preview: Fraudulent Web Analytics

October 31, 2008

Fraudulent Web Analytics

This post is the monthly sneak preview of the next issue of IR Watch Newsletter, now in its new format.

In this issue, the featuring article pretends to raise awareness on some of the schemes used to defraud those that make business decisions based on Web Analytics. If you are an advertiser or investor, you must read it. Don’t be gamed by unethical marketers and spammers. 

The article exposes how some marketers/spammers engineer the fraud by gaming the wisdom of crowds. We expose how traffic fraud, click-through injections, and form injections are used within viral networks to produce bogus Web Analytics advertisers might be paying for or using to make critical decisions.

The Question of the Month column is dedicated to precision vs. recall.

In the Who is Who in IR section, the late Karen Sparck Jones is featured.

In the Top CS Departments, the CS Dept of Stanford University is featured.

We have a new column dedicated to historical notes on computers, search engines, and IR. In the current column, Hewlett-Packard origins are highlighted.

Last, but not least, more IR blogs and graduate theses are listed.

Now, some great news! Please keep reading.

We are currently in negotiations with a local university to co-launch an interesting start-up at the intersection of IR, search engines, and business research.

The way we see it, a bad Economy presents opportunities. The time is right for such a unique project.

Direct-to-Consumer Drug Advertising: A Waste?

September 2, 2008

According to these news articles.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/29/AR2008082902646.html

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iQtDzzee581Ixc7sEbUjWFvcMwjg

direct-to-consumer advertising (DTC ads) of drugs through TV, Internet, and other media channels is an about $5B big waste of money. DTC ads, the study finds out, is based on scant data that has a small effect on the sales of drugs.

Prescription drugs are not like selling aspirin, cereal, or popcorn.

Stephen Soumerai, head of the research group that worked on the study thinks DTC advertising has failed because the process of buying prescription drugs is not like buying over-the-counter medication.

According to Soumerai, a person has to see an ad, get motivated, contact their doctor, show up for an appointment, communicate both the condition and the drug, convince the doctor to prescribe it, and then actually fill the prescription, which is also likely to carry an out-of-pocket cost.

It is certainly not a waste for modern snakeoil sellers (marketers, spammers, and scammers) that eat from the $5B pie. Same pattern as usual: theories made out of thin air and scant data.

I will not be surprise if they soon send a paid researcher or someone with vested interests to write a rebuttal.

Sneak Preview of IRW: Graduate Research

August 1, 2008

The current issue of IRW, Graduate Students Research, is out. It consists of short abstracts of research conducted by graduate students.

In this issue:

Introduction
Genetic Algorithms, K-Means, and Fuzzy C-Means
Word Association Patterns
U-Site Search Engine Interface
Enhancement of a U-Site Search Engine Interface
News, Research, and Events
Terms of Use and Copyright

The next issue will go back to its how-to mode.

SEOs and their Exhaustivity Search Myths

July 21, 2008

Some SEOs, in an effort to sell something, gain credibility, or save face, will come up with all sort of theories made out of thin air about search engines. When not citing themselves, they cite each other hearsays, often through their link farms. When caught with the pants down, they will lie or edit qualifiers in their posts. Can you guess who, according to Mike Duz, wrote this?

“Some of those well in the know attribute this to latent semantic indexing, which Google has been using for a while, but recently increased its weighting”. (From the Internet Archive)”

According to Duz, this guy later changed his categorical assertion into this:

“Even if they are not using LSI, Google has likely been using other word relationship technologies for a while, but recently increased its weighting”.

Note that in this case changing the qualifier (”had” to “if”) also changes the categorically asserted facts, which is not a minor thing since flies against Credibility. Thanks, Mike.

Answer: (Aaron Wall) 
http://www.internetbusiness.co.uk/09072008/different-google-algos-for-different-keywords/

What a saving face effort!

Instances of such kind of edits are not new across the Web.

We roast these folks simply because they sell search engine snake oil and lies often to promote themselves, their peers, or some kind of crap tool or service. We do this through IR knowledge. One of our goals is to warn the ethical sector of the search marketing industry about such pseudo experts.

We will hammer their myths any day of the year, which takes us to another persistent myth about how search engines work: the search exhaustivity myth.

SEOs have this idea that when a user submits a query, the system does an exhaustive search through the entire document collection or index to compute term weights and rank documents according to a particular similarity measure. Evidently these folks do not know how an inverted index works. One of the reasons (there are many) for using inverted indexes is to avoid searching through all the documents listed, present in a collection. “Jumping” and “intersecting” posting lists is one of the reasons why search engines return results so fast.

BTW, when we understand how positional inverted indexes work, the benefits of document linearization, a topic we have written on before, become clear.

How an inverted index works is a good topic for IR Watch – The Newsletter.

Link Sellers from 1995

June 20, 2008

I was looking for the oldest evidence of marketing firms formally selling links and came across this one from 1995 that predates Google and most current search engines. Back then the Internet-on-a-Disk newsletter was hot.

Their November 1995 issue http://bubl.ac.uk/archive/journals/ioad/n1395.htm  reports this:

A NEW KIND OF ADVERTISING — Webconnect http://www.worldata.com/webcon.htm These folks act as hyperlink brokers. They have signed up hundreds of Web sites. They go to potential advertisers and offer them a package deal. For $X per month, you can have hyperlinks to your Web site from Y Web sites which attract the kinds of audiences you want to appeal to. The revenue is shared with the Web sites, which have the right to refuse any advertiser they don’t feel is appropriate for them.

They contacted us about a month ago, and now already we have our first “advertiser” — The Encyclopedia Britannica. For including a hypertext link to their site (with a little graphic), we receive $45 a month. That’s not bad considering the run our entire Web site on free space that we get with our $29 a month SLIP account with TIAC. So our one advertiser more than pays for our Internet access and our Web space. And the advertiser is a company we’re glad to help promote – they have a site that we have wanted to point to anyway as an important educational resource (http://www.eb.com)

*********************************
“HIT-VITATIONS” – WHAT’S GOING ON? AND HOW DO YOU PLAY THIS GAME? by Richard Seltzer, B&R Samizdat Express
I never expected that blatant commerical advertising would work on the Internet. The medium is much better suited for providing detailed information to people who want it, when they want it, and how they want it. Surprisingly, some of the much travelled on-ramp sites like Netscape are showing impressive results from “hyper- banner” advertising. I recently spoke with Kathleen Gilroy of Kathleen Gilroy Associates, a distance education company in Cambridge, Mass.. In exchange for sponsorship of an Internet training program, she got a hyperlinked “banner” on the Netscape site. The result was 500,000 hits on her Web site in the first month (http://www.kga.com).

Well, if you learn anything from dealing with the Internet and human behavior there, it’s that you’ve got to expect the unexpected and adjust quickly to change.

So is advertising “in” now? Is that the way to go?

I’ve heard people comparing hits or visits at a Web site to responses to a direct mail campaign. That seems far-fetched — not the right ballpark, not the right order of magnitude in terms of predicting audience behavior.

The first-time visitor who clicks to your site by way of a hyper-banner does so on random impulse. You’ve generated some street traffic by making it easy for people to impulsively move in your direction from some other site — a click costs the user little time and almost no effort — little thinking is involved — curiosity is enough.

When you buy an ad on television or in a newspaper, you are buying an opportunity to catch the attention of an established audience. When you buy a hyper-banner on the Internet, you buy an opportunity to induce people to come to your site and be (at least once) part of your audience. You have not yet begun to catch their attention.

A reminder and invitation to check a website (not a direct ad for a product or service) is a step or two removed from traditional advertising. It is audience acquisition for another program.

Once they “hit” your site, you have an opportunity to catch their interest, to provide them with useful information or an enjoyable experience or a discussion with people of like mind. You have earned a chance to give them good reason to come back again and again to your site. If, at that point, you simply shove a blatant ad in their face or ask them to fill out a long form before you let them see or do anything else, you could be throwing away that opportunity.

In other words, a hyper-banner is a “hit-vitation,” an invitation to hit another site. And the success of this approach does not mean that blatant advertising is thriving on the Internet.

In the Hit-vitation business, you are in do-it-yourself mode. Your Web site is the equivalent of a publication or a broadcast station – run by you. You need to build an audience — by serving an audience — before you can expect to get results. And raw hits – randomly gleaned from pointers and paid-for banner links — are not an audience, they are just an opportunity to build an audience.

Generating hits by way of hyperlink invitations is analogous to acquiring a list of prospects for one-time direct-mail use. These people have not yet even seen, much less read, an ad or marketing material, and the vast majority, once at your site, will do the equivalent of throwing your marketing material in the wastebasket. In other words, this is a step removed from direct mail responses, and marketers should set their expectations of results accordingly.

At this point in the evolution of commerce on the Internet, the experience of the user with a Web site is simply too complex to reduce to statistics. For the long term, success should be measured not by hits or visits but by some index of user loyalty — how likely they are to retun again and again. For today, remember that if you pay for a banner/link, you are sending out invitations to anyone and everyone to click on over to your site and take a look. And what that’s worth to you depends on what you have at your site — how useful and compelling people find it.

I still believe that the most interesting opportunities on the Internet are likely to come from serving audiences rather than selling advertising.

In my ideal model, you provide a place where people can interact with one another about matters of common interest; you provide related free information and useful pointers; and once you have built an audience and interact with those people regularly, you begin to provide them with services and products which they need. The better you serve them, the more likely you are to be successful. And in this mode very small operations could be very profitable and very beneficial as well.

****************************************************
REACTIONS TO “HIT-VITATIONS”
by Tom Camp, camp@zeke.enet.dec.com

Some interesting thoughts regarding “hit-vitation”. Another way to view these interesting “sign-posts” is from the perspective of someone driving down a city street loaded with signs for organizations (e.g. churchs, clubs, etc.), businesses (stores, commercial sites, etc.) and leisure activities (theatres, parks, amusements, etc.).

The Internet allows individuals to return to first days of driving (a.k.a. teenagers) when “cruising” in and of itself was compelling. While cruising, we looked at all the signs. They were new, exciting and had never been seen from the drivers seat. A great way to just enjoy ourselves as we thrilled at the freedom. Computers prior to the Internet didn’t allow us much freedom, you know. We saw the same view of office applications and accounting programs, spreadsheets, lists, etc.

When we first drove our cars, we may have driven by those signs thousands of times and driven into a few parking lots and browsed in some stores. Slowing to check things out, talking with people on the sidewalk – just enjoying the thrill. The places we checked out had a high degree of relationship to our interests.

As we matured though, driving became routine and lost some of its thrill and excitment. We went from one place to another because we had a purpose. Sometimes that purpose was to browse or loose ourselves for few hours in a Mall or store that we liked, but most often it was guided by a very specific purpose. When driven by such a purpose, every red light, yellow light, traffic jam and small yellow volkswagon in front of us proved a maddening distraction. Eventually we stop only where we have a purpose.

Much of what we’re pursuing with the Internet today is an attempt to match our Internet content and services to purposes which people find compelling in their lives. For the consumer market this will not be an easy task. The business user will benefit significantly in the short term for all the reasons you’ve described before.

Obviously, we need to understand more about the habits and effects of maturation of the Internet driver. I know I still act like a teenager sometimes, clicking and clicking and clicking… But when I’m looking for specific information on a company or a product – I want it NOW (one click away). Long delays (regardless what the cause) drive me to look for a horn to blow or some gesture to make at some faceless Webmaster in the sky. I maintain my hot list and constantly scribble URLs to avoid those long lines.

As a marketeer, I know there is power in this new medium. Measuring its effectiveness will keep us all employeed for many years to come. I agree with your concept that return is important. But as in life on the road, for some sites how often is not so important — pure hits may be. The type of site is a critical component in measuring how successful it is. For example, a site which provides information for a specific event might be effectively measured on total hits, while a commercial site offering a variety of information over time might be better measured by some combination of new hits and returns.

Over time we’ll see an evolution of sites and a maturity of users. As with any new market, niches will evolve that we can’t anticipate today and specialized services will develop to meet these needs. For us the challenge is to keep looking to identify these trends and help characterize them, measure their success and build (as we say) compelling solutions.

Just a few thoughts…

**********************************************************
HOW DO YOU DEFINE SUCCESS? THE REAL RESULTS DIRECTORY

People who run Web sites have many different objectives — from making the world a better place to live, to building a business or both — and hence they have very different definitions of success and methods of trying to achieve it. If you run a Web site and believe that it brings you results, send email to samizdat@samizdat.com and ask for “results.txt”, and we’ll send back a questionnaire. We’ll gather the responses (no hobbies and personal pages please — just sites designed to produce results), and we’ll make them available to all for free on our Web site at http://www.tiac.net/users/samizdat/results.html (Remember, we’re just getting started. There’s not much to see yet.)

We hope that by sharing our experiences we can help one another make better use of this strange and exciting new medium. And at the same time, this is a vehicle for those who run Web sites to let people know what they’re doing and why, and why people should visit.

We’re calling this project “Real Results: The directory of successful Web sites.” Please spread the word.

I am not claiming these are the earliest link brokers and probably they aren’t.

If some have pointers to earliest link brokers, let me know as there is nothing new under the Sun. Nevertheless, it is a great fun reading about how online marketing components started. I always learn something new by reading or lecturing on pieces of online history.

Send me pointers to the original sources, not articles some marketer wrote or compiled about the history of the Internet. I am putting together material for a new lecture titled: The History of Online Marketing.

SEOs and their IDF Myths

June 17, 2008

Now that the semester is over we can take on other projects. After a little break from the blog, it is good to be back. We are putting the final touches to this month issue of IR Watch – The Newsletter.  During the break dozen of new subscribers signed.

The piece takes on several IDF myths and misconceptions promoted by SEOs and on what IDF is/is not. Here is an excerpt:

One recurrent misconception found across online media channels (search marketing blogs, forums, etc) is the assertion that IDF can be used to assess how important or relevant a term might be to the content of a document. This claim has no basis.

 

It should be stressed that as a measure of term specificity over N, IDF is not a local, but a global measure. IDF evaluates the discriminating power of a term within a collection of documents. A term ti might be relevant or important to the content of a document. However, if this document is part of a collection wherein all documents repeat ti, the term loses its discriminating power since N = ni and IDFi = log(N/ni) = 0.

Somehow, these marketers are mistaking IDF for the RSJ model or who knows what to possibly, as is often the case, promote themselves or whatever they sell.

Microsoft: Putting Dollar Value to Searches

May 22, 2008

According to VNUNET.com,

Microsoft has introduced a service which offers ad-funded cash rebates to customers who search for and buy products.

The Live Search cashback portfolio includes more than 10 million product offers from more than 700 merchants.

Early adopters of the service include eBay, Barnes & Noble, Overstock.com, Sears and Zappos.com.

The cost-per-action (CPA) model is one of the best advertising models around, in which advertisers pay each time a click results in a sale. Combine this with a cash rebate plan for consumers and you have a win-win revenue model.

For those that were born to hate Microsoft, that giant from the software world, sure they will find something wrong with this or any move from Microsoft, simply because comes from Bill Gates. I disagree with these folks, many of which are eager to justify in their minds “the other Microsoft”; that is, the one of the search world: Google.

I remember when GoTo (later Overture) put a dollar value to searches. Many SEOs and average users sworn not to use a search engine that allows competitors and advertisers buy their way to the top. Look around now. Google jumped in front of the parade “a la Microsoft” and few lawsuits later we are where we are.

History repeats itself. Who will jump in front of the parade now?

Cell Phone Spam

May 19, 2008

Cell phone spam: Hum. Nothing new, but it is more prevalent than ever.

Yesterday a local newspaper (El Nuevo Dia) featured the Los spams ahora atacan a los celulares article in which few local sources were inquired on the subject.

Unfortunately they all seem to miss the point.

Telephone companies are indoubtly making money from spam, and quite a lot. So, why kill the money making machine? Duh!

Don’t just take my word. Look around for a second opinion like this one:

Verizon Won’t Help You Filter Out SMS Spam Because It Makes Them Money

If that is not enough, then check why

Angry Customers Sue T-Mobile Over Texting Charges.

Indeed, cell phone spam “is the perfect storm of annoying attributes. It audibly interrupts your life like telemarketing”.

SEOs and University Education

February 29, 2008

Posters at SEOmoz are debating why the Internet is not taught at schools.

One poster claims: “I think all Universities are quite a ways off from this.” Others simply think this will never happen or that if it does, it will not be worth it.

These opinions are understandable, especially when universities have offered courses with “ecommerce”, “web marketing”, “ebusiness” and similar terms in their course titles when most of these are soooo outdated. Many are limited to explaining what is a cookie, bayesian and game theorems, and few other topics that are not really that useful in the real world.

Here is a first hand story. Back in 2002 I was hired by Graduate School of Business of University of Turabo in PR to teach the graduate course ECommerce Technology. It was the first time the course was offered as a core course for students pursuing a master degree. The problem: the syllabus and textbooks were sooo outdated, with case studies of companies that no longer existed. I was forced to redesign the entire course and material.  

Here is another first hand story. Many students that took data mining at Polytechnic University of Puerto Rico (PUPR) before I was hired by the university were complaining that they did not learn anything useful because lectures emphasized theory and no practice. This is something I tried to avoid when back in October I started to teach the Web Mining graduate course. It is the same approach I use for my other courses.

As for studying the Internet as SEOmoz posters argue, it is not possible to study “The Internet”. When they say “Internet” probably they refer to studying search marketing, SEO, or Web Analytics. It looks like an opportunity for other marketers to make some money out of their peers’s ignorance.

I know there are some seos already trying to squeeze money from their peers by offering college-type courses dictated by “experts”. Don’t be gamed by these folks. Their “colleges” and “institutes” are not certified by any higher education body, like The Middle States Association, or by research funding organizations like NSF. These mostly look like scams and their diplomas are not worth even the ink these hold.

As for the above claim of teaching SEO in colleges, there is a list of traditional schools already teaching updated web marketing, design, usability, and even accessibility courses. In fact, more and more grad schools are developing Web Mining and Web Marketing courses.

At PUPR I’m in the curriculum development arena, developing and teaching the following hands-on courses, all at the graduate level:

Search Engines Architecture (Spring – classes start next week; lectures and lab)
Web Mining (Winter – semester just ended; lectures only) *
Search Engines for Penetration Testing and Intelligence (Fall – next fall; lectures and lab) **

* This was a course on Web Mining, Business Intelligence, and Search Engines. Agenda and syllabus is available online.

**Just asked by the head of EE&EC and CS Dept to teach this one.

These ARE NOT paperless, online courses. The class meets in the computer lab building. We have plenty of computers and software to play with. I offer all lectures using powerpoint and smartboards. We study which Web business models work and which one don’t. We check case studies from the Web. We dissect SEO myths. We teach why and how search engine algorithms and web analytics work, etc, etc.I have grad students conducting projects or theses supported by grants from gov agencies like DoD, etc. Some of these projects interface with SEO, Web Analytics, Business Intelligence, and Homeland Security.

In addition, we have an upcoming conference on these topics (October). I’m also pushing for a 2-year certificate on Web Marketing & Analytics with a local college.

And how about AIRWeb wherein , as scholars and researchers, we dissect and test search engine spam strategies and find new ways to neutralize, minimize, or “kill” these techniques–many promoted by some among you?

SEOS: Definitely, we are not oblivious to Web marketing and your “world”.

The Power of Document Linearization

January 25, 2008

In http://www.miislita.com/fractals/keyword-density-optimization.html  I explained to the SEO community the concept of document linearization as part of document GAP analysis. Marketers learned what IR graduate students already know: that document linearization (i.e., markup removal) is just one component of document indexing.

Keyword distribution, word distances, phrase matching, etc. are obtained from the text stream that results from linearization, not from the apparent position of text that is rendered by a browser and visually inspected by average end users. Document linearization debunks the common SEO Keyword Density Myth. One thing is the apparent distribution of words as perceived when end users visually scan a document and another thing is the actual word distribution as parsed by a search engine. The futility of computing KD values is quite obvious.

Here is a report of another recent SEO that discovered the power of document linearization:

http://seo-gw.blogspot.com/2008/01/fractal-semantics-linearization.html

The testimonial is worth to read.

The post http://irthoughts.wordpress.com/2007/12/20/from-keyword-density-to-william-tuttes-legacy/  is also relevant these days.

Search for posts on keyword density: http://irthoughts.wordpress.com/?s=keyword+density

A PageRank-Rank Correlation?

November 20, 2007

On 11-16, Stephane Labert sent me copy of an article that attempts to correlate Google’s PageRank and the rank of a document in this search engine result pages (SERPs).

In spite of the fact that Labert apparently worked hard on the piece, and besides proper credit given for this, I found the article disappointing on the grounds of the sampling, chosen regression model, and statistical analysis employed.

I suggested Labert few tips and things to look at since my perception was that the article was not ready for prime time. My intentions: To prevent Labert from getting unnecessary “harm”.

I was too late. Apparently, by the time I received it, the piece was already sent to many known SEOs or webmasters. This included some of IRW readers, including expert cloaker Ralph Tegtmeier, aka fantomaster.

On 11-17 Tegtmeier blogged about it. He and other SEOs promptly put into question the article’s statistical analysis. I am not going to go over their reactions since I pretty much agree with their critiques. Besides, the main issues argued by Labert and these SEOs are not knew at all and have been revisited many times. For those interested, reactions to Labert’s article can be read at the following links:

http://fantomaster.com/fantomNews/archives/2007/11/17/pagerank-evolution-and-serp-rankings-analyzed-evaluating-a-statistical-study/

http://sphinn.com/story/14452#wholecomment18087

http://www.timnash.co.uk/11/2007/lies-damn-lies-and-pagerank-statistics/

Rather than echoing their comments I prefer to discuss the experimental of Labert’s article:

Firstly, the sampling:

There is no full disclosure on how the data was collected. To be honest, this goes against the article’s credibility. Which queries were used? How many terms were used per queries: 2, 3, 4…? Which query modes were used: AND (FINDALL), ANY (OR), EXACT, constraining modes…? This is important since many variables, including the query, can influence SERPs. None of this was disclosed in the article.

As mentioned, many variables affect ranking results, and some have interactions. Ignoring these interactions and then isolating one variable and plotting this against an X axis does not provide an accurate picture.

Secondly, the regression model:

Why the data was adjusted to a linear model, when it actually tends to be nonlinear? Why apparent outliers were included in the least square analysis? Which error analysis respect to the slope was used to justify the inclusion/rejection of these apparent outliers? None of this was explained or reported.

Third, variable dependencies:

All graphs show a curve with a very small slope for the adjusted regression straight line. This suggests that changes in the X-axis (Rank) provoke small changes in the Y-axis (PageRank), indicating that variables are almost independent from one another, and that is despite the correlation coefficient value allegedly reported as close to 1.

Indeed, a correlation coefficient close to 1 is not enough. To investigate whether any two variables are dependent of one another or that there is a significant correlation between these we need to do more than just look at a bunch of correlation coefficients. As a matter of fact, an almost flat, orthogonal straight line against a Y-axis actually suggests orthogonality and variable independence.

To assess whether the correlation found is significative one could conduct a two-tail t-test and n – 2 degrees of freedom on the correlation coefficient at a defined confidence level. Once this is done, one would need to make the null hypothesis that there is no correlation between X and Y and compare the experimental t-value versus tabulated values from t-test tables. If t-experimental is greater than t-table the null hypothesis is rejected, that is, we conclude in such a case that a significant correlation does exist. This test was not reported, either.

Labert claims to have conducted a more detailed research to support the aforementioned article claims. I look forward to read that.

ADSAM: Emotional Response Modeling

August 6, 2007

I have the pleasure of learning about Dr. Jon Morris, Professor at the University of Florida and CEO of ADSAM. He specializes in Emotional Response Modeling. His company is at the leading edge of the field and has incredible research articles and studies applied to advertising and marketing. I highly recommend those interested in emotional adverstising to read about his work.

(more…)