Petey's
Pipeline E-zine
Issue #23
January 16, 2006
Contents
Business
First Google
Goofiness & Link Swap Ethics
Random Ramblings & Miscellaneous Musings
An Open Letter
Write Thinking Improve Your
Spelling (Rule #1)
Business
First (Editorial)
Google
Goofiness & Link Swap Ethics
Back
in late 2003, just before Google changed its page rank algorithm,
Perfect Text ranked #1, #2, #8, #14, #23 and #28 for specific
keywords and keyword phrases. I'd spent much of that summer
writing articles, adding content, installing meta tags, optimizing
pages—essentially doing everything Google required for
a Web site to earn a good page rank. Finally, all my hard work
was paying off. Perfect Text had "arrived" at last,
and I was ecstatic.
But
Perfect Text's moment of Google page rank glory didn't last
long. At the instant Google's page rank algorithm changed, the
Perfect Text Web site virtually disappeared. For all I knew
it had been abducted by aliens. What I did know was that it
no longer ranked in the top 200. I was too discouraged to look
any deeper than that.
Today,
nine of the ten top slots for the search terms "Web page
editing," "proofreading," and "freelance
writing" are occupied by "portals"—various
link farms, BBS pages, and dmoz (dmoz is the open source directory).
Only one Web site owned by an actual editor who provides actual
editing services, made it into the top ten. That site grabbed
a much deserved #2 spot behind a portal site that sure as hell
didn't deserve to be in the #1 spot.
And
if that's not bad enough, let's add some insult to injury. When
you click on the Web site listed in the #8 position, you get
a "fatal error" message. What's that all about, anyway?
Oh, right! That's Google's idea of a better, more relevant Web
search.
Has
Google lost its focus? Has it strayed from its stated mission
of providing accurate and relevant search results? Whatever
happened to the basic premise that Web sites that provide relevant
content should be rewarded with a higher page rank than Web
sites that do not? Could it be that Google has become a victim
of its own success?
Today,
Google's strategies are drastically different. Today, it's somewhat
harder to tell exactly which criteria a Web site must meet in
order to get a top Google page rank. Relevant content is largely
. . . well, irrelevant, leading me to believe that Google's
page ranking system is as seriously flawed as the reasoning
behind it.
Today,
Google's page rank strategy provides new opportunities for unethical
Webmasters to game the system. Webmasters who see an advantage
to having lots of incoming links and a downside to having too
many outgoing links are developing linking strategies and policies
that are highly unethical and grossly unfair.
Among
the most serious offenders are those Webmasters who request
a link exchange in friendly e-mail that reads something like
this:
So
far so good! When you click on the verification link, up pops
a links page and sure enough, there's your link staring back
at you. Everything must be aboveboard, right? Not necessarily
so!
Before
you hasten to add Cheating Webmaster's link to your links page,
why not pay a visit to the Cheating Webmaster home page, first?
Can you find a link on the home page that leads to the links
page upon which resides your reciprocal URL? Do other pages
on the site link to the links page? Chances are that if you
can't navigate to your reciprocal link, search engine spiders
won't be able to navigate to it, either.
What
does this mean to you? What it means is that you're about to
be scammed into making a unilateral link exchange. You'll be
giving up a perfectly good link that points directly to Cheating
Webmaster's home page in exchange for a link that, in effect,
doesn't point back to yours.
If
it's not a quid pro quo arrangement, why should you even consider
it?
Copyright
© 2006 by Phil Hanson
All rights reserved.
Random
Ramblings & Miscellaneous Musings
An
Open Letter
by Phil Hanson
To
the political leaders, business leaders, entrepreneurs and citizens
of the State of Oregon, and of the world:
Oregon's
Advisory Group on Global Warming made an excellent start in
addressing the myriad problems attributable to global warming.
However, Oregon can—and should—do more to mitigate
the effects of global warming. One should not be satisfied in
merely reaching one's goals if it's within the realm of possibility
to exceed them.
One
important thing the Advisory Group didn't do is to recognize
the root cause of global warming, which is population growth.
Population growth drives the demand for energy, and energy use
drives global warming. Failure to address this problem, now,
means that our children, or our children's children, will have
to deal with it at some time in the future. Yes, it involves
tough decisions and hard choices, but, eventually, somebody
is going to have to make them. Better to avert disaster before
it strikes than to try to cope with it afterward.
Before
implementing any plan that's intended to influence or control
public behavior, the governing body should first conduct a public
information and awareness campaign detailing best-case and worst-case
scenarios in taking, or not taking, a particular action. In
regards to global warming, the Advisory Group has taken a bold
first step, but more steps need to follow. Every Oregonian must
know that failure to take decisive actions to halt global warming,
now, will likely result in dire consequences for themselves,
their children and all other humans— indeed, all other
life—on the planet. Everyone has a stake in the outcome,
and everyone has a responsibility to act in ways that will accrue
to the common good.
A
system of economic incentives and disincentives applied through
various tax schemes, and coupled with a broad range of options,
would put the cost of polluting squarely where it belongs—on
the backs of the polluters. When it becomes too expensive for
them to pollute, prudent people will resort to lower-cost, less
polluting alternatives.
Consumers
and producers alike will more readily accept any plan or method
used to reduce, limit, or otherwise control greenhouse gas emissions
if it can be shown to have multiple uses, provide multiple benefits
and generate multiple income streams. One such methodology involves
the use of cannabis hemp, which appears to be the best single
approach to minimizing greenhouse gas emissions. But, as ludicrous
as it is ironic, it's illegal to grow the one plant that could
do the most to save the planet from global warming. Am I the
only one to think we have our priorities wrong?
Growing
cannabis in a natural environment is a straightforward process
requiring no herbicides and few, if any, pesticides. The only
soil requirements relate to pH, plant nutrient levels, moisture
availability and drainage.
Farmers
choosing to grow cannabis could benefit in numerous ways. Because
it restores the soil in which it's grown rather than depleting
it, cannabis makes an excellent rotation crop, allowing farmers
to avoid "fallow field" syndrome. 100% of arable land
could be planted every year. Due to cannabis hemp's many uses
and the fact that virtually no part of a hemp plant is wasted,
it's unlikely that cannabis would ever be subject to market
price fluctuations. Annual farm income and profitability would
rise accordingly.
Cannabis hemp is a perfect vehicle for biological carbon sequestration
because it produces more biomass, in less time, than any other
multiple-use plant capable of growing in the Northern Hemisphere.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Bulletin No. 404, issued
in 1916, reported that one acre of land planted in hemp would
produce 4.1 times more cellulose, over 20 years, than an equal
amount of land planted in trees.
Legalized cannabis could revitalize Oregon's economy by creating
new industries, or recreating old ones. Paper, plastics, textiles,
biomass fuels, food, medicine, building and construction materials
and protective coatings and finishes are just some of the products
that can be made from cannabis. There are thousands of others.
New industries would help alleviate Oregon's chronic unemployment
problem, and bring in new tax revenues to help fund education
and health care.
Oregon's
colleges and universities could research new uses for cannabis
hemp, and develop new, energy-efficient technologies for producing
cannabis-based products. Solar stills capable of producing fuel-grade
alcohol in commercial quantities would be particularly useful,
as would small-scale versions suitable for home use. Private
industry would find profitability in developing and manufacturing
hemp harvesting and processing machinery. As demand for hemp
and hemp-based products spreads across the nation and around
the world, new markets are sure to open.
Biomass
fuels, particularly alcohol (ethanol and methanol) and biodiesel
made from cannabis could be processed on-site, where the hemp
is grown, or at other nearby processor locations to serve local
communities, thereby reducing fuel transportation costs. Alcohol
fuels are exceptionally clean burning, leaving behind only carbon
dioxide and water as combustion byproducts. As a result, alcohol-fueled
engines last longer, require less maintenance and fewer oil
changes than do their gasoline-fueled counterparts.
Cannabis hemp uses fewer chemicals during its growth cycle,
and fewer chemicals during paper manufacturing processes, meaning
that the saved chemicals aren't introduced into the environment.
Additionally, fabrics made from hemp are stronger, warmer, more
absorbent and more durable than are fabrics made from cotton.
Hemp fabrics can be recycled into paper at the end of their
life cycles, and hemp paper can be recycled many more times
than can wood pulp paper, which translates into less energy
used in manufacturing processes, and less toxic pollution entering
the environment.
In
any event, Oregon should explore every avenue and pursue every
means possible in its quest to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
and halt global warming. Any action taken that also reduces
or eliminates other types of environmental pollution is to be
commended, and encouraged.
Oregon
is at a crossroads, of sorts. Our state can seize the initiative
and lead the country in curbing greenhouse gas emissions and
combating global warming, or it can follow the lead of others
whose methods and decisions may be less wise or less effective.
Oregon has a unique opportunity to create for itself a sustainable
culture based on a sustainable economy. Oregon has the chance
to become the world's poster child for environmental sanity,
and I urge Oregon's leaders not to forfeit this opportunity,
nor to squander it.
Phil
Hanson, Editor/Publisher
Perfect Text
Petey's Pipeline E-zine
Copyright
© 2006 by Phil Hanson
All rights reserved.
Write
Thinking
Improve
Your Spelling (Rule
#1)
For
words that end with a silent e, it's normal to drop the
e when adding a suffix that begins with a vowel.
Examples:
revive – revival, evade – evading, sublime
– sublimate, recluse – reclusive
Exceptions
