For those writing blog posts and articles for web sites, Google's constant evolution as a search engine can be overwhelming - how can you get your content noticed by Google and therefore found and read by people (other than your mother and your friends)?
The answer to that question seems to change every day, but the key is providing the best writing you can create for your intended reader. And Google isn't aloof - there are lots of helps provided by Google online to help you reach your goals.
Google Webmaster Tools are available to you here. Perhaps an easier way to learn the basics is to watch a few Google instructional videos, like this one:
2/10/14
Hashtag Tip: Hashtagify.Me is Great Help in Choosing Great Hashtags (for Lawyers and Everyone Else)
Hashtags have to be somewhat of a common denominator among lots of folk's vocabulary or they’re not doing much good.
Suffering Hashtag Frustration?
Which brings me to a conversation I had with a frustrated client a couple of weeks ago who is a lawyer dipping his toe into Twitter. Hashtags? If he had any hair left on his head, it would be gone now just over his frustration of finding hashtags to include with his tweets.
Hashtags are Important to Twitter and Google Plus and Facebook and More
One of the hurdles lawyers face with Twitter or Google+ (when they decide to delve into social media at all) is that lawyers think like lawyers. I remember being told by a UTLaw professor (Treece, Torts) that the theme of law school wasn’t to learn the law, it was to learn to think like a lawyer. To think differently when I left the building than when I first entered. Every lawyer out there has heard the same thing, countless times. “Thinking like a lawyer” - the reason for the Socratic Method, right? (Or at least one of them.)
It’s true, too. Lawyers do think differently, and this is great when considering all the potential ramifications of a contract being negotiated or when negotiating the settlement of a wrongful death case - but it’s sometimes problematic when attorneys are hunched over their keyboard, deciding what terms they should use to index their social media post or tweet.
Hashtags are tools you can use to index your tweet or post to help others find your content even if they aren’t following you, aren’t in your community, etc. Hashtags are helpful.
In indexing their social media with hashtags, lawyers may toss off a couple of words with an “#” in front and think “that’s that.” However, those hashtags may not be as advantageous to the attorney as other choices can be.
Lawyers tend to use words with which they are familiar, or which apply to their particular case or deal, rather than stopping to consider that these words may not be the best choice in drawing potential readers to their content (even sophisiticated ones).
Hashtags, after all, are just ways to index what you’ve written so others can find what you’ve shared. Consider these alternatives: Litigation vs. Lawsuit; Coverage vs. Insurance; Mortgage vs Loan; Housing vs. Property or RealEstate; Accident vs. Crash.
Lawyer or not, anyone using hashtags should be choosing words that they believe are familiar to their intended reader. If you are writing for teenagers, then consider what words will work best as hashtags for them, not the words that work best for you and your peers. You get the idea.
Try Hashtagify.me
One option? Synonyms, sure. However, there’s a free service online that can help you find hashtags to use as well as discovering trending hashtags and more. It’s Hashtagify.me - try it and see if what your chosen hashtags provide as options when you input them into the Hashtagify.me word machine. (By the way, Hashtagify.me has the Highest Trust Rating at ScamAdviser).
2/3/14
Online Review Defamation Case: Jury Verdict is in for Dietz Development LLC v. Perez
Bottom line, both the plaintiff and the defendant were held to be guilty of defamation by the Virginia jury — and no damages were awarded to either side. Zowie.
It took the jurors the full Friday to deliberate the case, where Fairfax County’s Jane Perez was sued by her contractor for alleged harm to his business (around $750,000) because of the negative reviews that she wrote about her experience with his company in online reviews at Yelp.com as well as Angie’s List.
That’s defamation claim, round one.
Defamation claim, round two, hit when the owner of the company, a man named Christopher Dietz, went online and wrote some stuff in response to the things that Jane Perez had written. Things that Perez would argue defamed her.
Talk about finger-pointing.
Jury Finds Defamation in Perez v. Dietz Development
Now, each side can argue that they were right — the other side has been found guilty of defamation. Of course, each side has to walk away with no award money in their pocket to cover the costs of litigating this case through a week of trial, much less that appellate review round to the state’s high court.Who knows what the bottom line is for either of them once all the dollars and cents are added up. (Perez was assisted by the ACLU and Public Citizen, FYI.)
Here’s the thing: the victim of a negative online review (which the jury agreed was defamatory) took the same action that many lawyers understand: he responded to the bad review, and in doing so found himself faced with a defamation claim against him and months and months of this controversy being spotlighted in the local media. As well as spending lots of time and money in the fight.
This is not a lawyer online review case. It is, however, something for lawyers to consider before they decide to reply to any negative online review that pops up on an online review site like Yelp, Avvo, YellowPages.com, etc.
The Dietz Lesson for Lawyers Deciding How to Handle a Bad Online Review
Lawyers and law firms have lots to consider before taking up their arms in battle against a negative online review. Practical things that may fly in the face of principles and true justice. What are the consequences of a lawyer's responding to an online review that is negative, maybe even defamatory?
Will another lawyer be all too happy to pursue that unhappy client’s defamation claim against the attorney or his firm?
Are these cases akin to the warnings that lawyers get when pondering a lawsuit over unpaid attorneys’ fees (i.e., that they are inviting a counterclaim for malpractice no matter how weak it may be, as a strategic defense play)?
Just one more consideration in how to deal with negative reviews these days. It may be painful to be silent in the face of a disturbing, negative online review, but many may argue that it is the prudent thing to do. Particularly when lawyers are involved and there's the possibility of Bar disciplinary action in addition to civil litigation (as was recently faced by an Illinois attorney who responded to a negative online review, now she's been disciplined for her actions).
Those interested in learning more about this case can review the Complaint filed by Christopher Dietz and Dietz Development that started this lawsuit back in October 2012:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)