Great Infographic on Importance of Using Images in Your Blog

InfographicHere's a great infographic from MDG that gives oodles of information regarding the importance of visual information (images) in blogs and web sites (hat tip to Michael Hyatt for his link to the MDG website this week).

Google Mobile Compatibilty Penalty Begins April 21 - Test to Make Sure Your Site is Okay for SmartPhones

Mobile-friendly sites will be ranked higher in Google Search Results Beginning April 2015. 

The Google Webmasters have let everyone know that beginning next month, sites that are not easy to read on mobile devices are not going to rank as high as comparable sites that are easy to read with a mobile device or smartphone.

In other words, you are going to be penalized starting April 21, 2015 if your website or blog is not compatible with mobile devices and friendly to searches on small phone screens.   

The deadline to be mobile-friendly is April 21, 2015.

.

Check Your Site for Compatibility with Mobile Devices 

There is an online site that allows you to input your site’s url and determine if you need to worry about this or not.

1. Go to Google’s Mobile-Friendly Test and enter a few pages to confirm the compatibility of your site or blog.  
2. Go to your Google Webmaster Account and check your entire site by grabbing a Mobile Usability Report. 

What if You Fail the Google Mobile-Friendly Test? 

.
If your site or blog fails the test, don’t panic. The test itself (or your Google Webmaster Report) will explain the steps you need to take in order to have your blog or web site ready to meet Google’s Mobile Friendly requirements by the deadline of April 21st.

You may need to get busy, though.  April 21, 2015 isn't that far away ....

Why Is Google Doing This? 

Google is pushing mobile compatibility because so many of its clientele are searching Google using mobile devices. Google wants to provide the best information to those folk who are using Google and that means pushing those providing content on the web (like you and me and your competitors) to make sure that their stuff is friendly for mobile devices. 

It’s all about delivering the best service to the person choosing Google for a search in lieu of Bing or Yahoo or Ask etc. on their smartphone.  

From the Google Webmaster Central Blog:

When it comes to search on mobile devices, users should get the most relevant and timely results, no matter if the information lives on mobile-friendly web pages or apps. As more people use mobile devices to access the internet, our algorithms have to adapt to these usage patterns. In the past, we’ve made updates to ensure a site is configured properly and viewable on modern devices. We’ve made it easier for users to find mobile-friendly web pages and we’ve introduced App Indexing to surface useful content from apps. ….

Starting April 21, we will be expanding our use of mobile-friendliness as a ranking signal. This change will affect mobile searches in all languages worldwide and will have a significant impact in our search results. Consequently, users will find it easier to get relevant, high quality search results that are optimized for their devices. 

For more information, check out:

• Google’s Guide to Mobile Friendly Sites
• "Mobilegeddon" Is Coming on April 21 - Are You Ready? by Chuck Price at SearchEngineWatch (gives some pros and cons to having a mobile-friendly site as well as discussion of having a separate site for phone searches)

Google In Depth Articles Feature: Why Not Create a Corresponding In-Depth Articles Section on Your Law Firm Web Site? (Please?)

Have you seen how some of your search results in Google Search include "in-depth articles" now?  (I've posted about this new subset of search results already, go here for details on what Google is doing with "in depth articles" in the results it provides.)

Above:  example of Google Search Results "In-depth articles" 

Well, over at the Unofficial Google Blog yesterday, there was news about a further development with Google's "in depth articles" selection.  Now, if you click on the "in-depth articles" section, you'll get even more of these longer pieces to read and review.

Read that post, "More In-Depth Articles in Google Search," here.

My Suggestion:  Build a Law Firm In-Depth Article Section on the Firm Web Site

Here's what I'm pondering right now -- I think that law firms should be considering this new Google Search categorization as a great opportunity for them to use some of their longer word count stuff -- articles, maybe even briefing or memoranda  -- here.

Lawyers have lots of writing that is too long for a blog post and too cumbersome for a web site page -- but it's work that is quality and worth the read.

Why not create a section on the law firm web site entitled "Long Articles" or "In Depth Articles" and place a few of these longer works online?  Perhaps next to the FAQ page?  or the Publications section?

Two considerations right off the bat:

1.  copyright -- if the item has been published already, say in the local Bar's trade magazine or in a Law Journal somewhere, then you may need to get permission from that publisher to publish the article online on your firm's site;  and
2.  coding -- the publication itself will need to be coded for Google with the appropriate code to alert Google that an in-depth article exists on this portion of the firm's site.

Why do this?

I think that lawyers who do this may see their longer writings hitting the coveted first page of Google Search Results in the "In Depth Article" section if they follow my suggestions here.  That's their benefit.

The bigger benefit is providing this writing -- the research and the analysis -- to readers who can benefit from work that may well be gathering dust in credenza drawers or setting on thumb drives right now.

Could this include briefing filed of record, saying winning appellate briefs?  I think that would be great to have online, especially in instances where there's a hurdle to get access to the public record filing (sure, I'm thinking PACER).

Yes, I'm a geek that reads the briefs, not just the opinions.  Just typing that makes me realize I may need to get out more, think I'll hit the publish button now and go take the dogs for a walk.  Sigh.

Yelp Online Review Site Sues California Lawyer for Fake Reviews

Yelp.com has sued a California law firm for allegedly fake reviews posted on the review site - read the details in a news story published in Bloomberg Businessweek which includes a link to the complaint that has been filed in the California court.

The defendants here are McMillan Law Group, Inc., and Julian McMillan, who practices bankruptcy in San Diego, California.

The twist to this story:  McMillan sued Yelp.com earlier this year - and won.  Yelp successfully appealed that decision according to the Business Insider and now, Yelp has sued the lawyer in another lawsuit.

There's more coverage with more details, if you're interested:   the Wall Street Journal has blogged about it; and ArsTechnica.com reports that the Yelp case has been ordered to binding arbitration.

What I find interesting about all this is that: (1) apparently, Yelp has yet to make a profit on its review site, where revenues come in from advertising; and (2) allegedly, lawyers are not only getting friends and family and employees to write sweet and wonderful reviews for their Yelp profits but lawyers are also purportedly grouping together, so that firms can submit glowing reviews about each other's practices on Yelp.com, too (this all, according to Yelp).

Two things:

1.  If Yelp isn't turning a profit, then how long can it survive?  Just wondering here.
2.  I realize that lawyers come in all shapes and sizes, but asking Aunt Harriet to write a fake Yelp review, or forming some secret review society to chock the site with fake reviews for the group?  Sure, I'm jaded enough to think that there may be some lawyers out there doing this.  I just don't know any lawyer that would bother.  They don't have enough hours in the day as it is.   And I mean, really.  

Is Your Marketing Newsletter In Compliance With Federal Law? FTC Regulates Commercial Newsletters: Fines If You Don't Comply with CAN-SPAM Act

Have you heard of the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing (“CAN-SPAM”) Act?

If you’re sending out newsletters via email for marketing purposes, then you may want to insure that you (or your firm) are in compliance with this federal law designed to curtail unwelcome spam messages. 

Together with the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), the CAN-SPAM Act works to protect all of us from unwelcome and uninvited messages in our email inboxes or in text messages on our cell phone. 

They’ve been on the books since 2003 and they’re enforced by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). These federal laws regulate ALL commercial messages sent via email or text message; therefore, any marketing campaign that includes email newsletters or text campaigns must be in compliance with these federal laws.

1. Is your communication a “commercial electronic mail message” as defined by the Act? 

From the CAN-SPAM Act: 

• The term "commercial electronic mail message" means any electronic mail message the primary purpose of which is the commercial advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service (including content on an Internet website operated for a commercial purpose). 
• The inclusion of a reference to a commercial entity or a link to the website of a commercial entity in an electronic mail message does not, by itself, cause such message to be treated as a commercial electronic mail message for purposes of this chapter if the contents or circumstances of the message indicate a primary purpose other than commercial advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service. 
• Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the term “sender”, when used with respect to a commercial electronic mail message, means a person who initiates such a message and whose product, service, or Internet web site is advertised or promoted by the message. 
• (B) Separate lines of business or divisions: [i]f an entity operates through separate lines of business or divisions and holds itself out to the recipient throughout the message as that particular line of business or division rather than as the entity of which such line of business or division is a part, then the line of business or the division shall be treated as the sender of such message for purposes of this chapter. 

In essence, the federal law requires the reader of your newsletter or series of emails to consent to these messages being sent to their inbox if the messages meet the definition of “commercial electronic mail message.”

2. Need for Consent from the Recipient for Commercial Email Messages 

The FTC has rules in place that require written consent for text messages to a phone; for email inboxes, the consent can be oral or written (say, in an email message subscribing to the messages or newsletter) if the message meets the definition of “commercial electronic mail message.”

 Your Newsletter Needs to Meet Requirements under Federal Law 

 The Small Business Administration (SBA) recognizes the power of email marketing on its website; it quotes Pingdom research for a Return on Investment of $44.25 for every $1.00 spent on email marketing in 2011. 

A ROI of $44 to $1 means that newsletters work: therefore, the goal is not to back away from email marketing but instead to make sure that the newsletter comports with federal guidelines.

To that end, the SBA provides details and suggestions on how to take advantage of the benefits of this marketing tool without falling afoul of the federal laws and regulations.

Read more from the SBA here.

And remember: the FTC does enforce this and does fine companies it determines to be in violation of these laws. Here’s a helpful video from the FTC on this issue:

Infographics for Lawyers: a Great Addition to Your Law Firm Web Site or Blawg

Infographics (informational graphics) are so much fun, and sure they are getting to be pretty darn trendy right now.  (Just go over to Pinterest and search for "infographics" to find all sorts of wonderfully creative infographics on all sorts of topics.

Thing is:  infographics are great tools for lawyers to use to educate readers about all sorts of issues.  Law firms can place infographics into their websites, their blogs (blawgs), their newsletters, even in client emails.  (I'm not sure about using them in motions or briefs yet - but if I were a judge, I'd welcome the innovation.)  

Here, for example, is a great infographic from DailyInfographic that provides details on the impact of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) upon employers (click on it or hit Ctrl + a couple of times to enlarge the image):

For more information on infographics, check out these online sources:

Daily Infographics 

Visual.ly

Fast Company's Infographic of the Day

To learn more about creating original infographics for your site, for free, see:

Picktochart

Infogr.am

Commercial Speech vs Political Speech and the Law Firm's Blog - Is Your Blawg Protected Free Speech or Not? What Would Your State Bar Answer Here?

Free speech isn't without its limitations, lawyers know this, and when it comes to "commercial speech" the United States Supreme Court has been happy to allow limitations on the free speech of attorneys and law firms when "commercial speech" is involved.  Lawyers don't like being regulated, however, and there are attorneys blogging today who may think that their blog (blawg) isn't subject to state bar review when in fact, it is.  Those bloggers (blawgers) are at risk of bar discipline.

Free speech protections provided by the federal constitution are not as broad for commercial speech as they are for other forms of free speech.  Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Comm'n of New York, 447 U. S. 557 (1980); Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U. S. 748 (1976).  Advertisements are subject to governmental regulation.

This distinction between different kinds of speech is very important for lawyers who write blogs to remember.

Consider, for example, the concerns of the High Court in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977) where things like (1) the adverse effect on professionalism; (2) the inherently misleading nature of attorney advertising; (3) the adverse effect on the administration of justice; (4) the undesirable economic effects of advertising; (5) the adverse effect of advertising on the quality of service; and (6) the difficulties of enforcement were determined to be sound bases for regulating attorney advertising even though "advertising by attorneys may not be subjected to blanket suppression."  Bates, 433 U.S. at 368- 379, 383.

Of course, the Bates opinion came down long before blogs popped up everywhere.  Lawyer blogs are tricky things.  There are firm-blogs, and individual lawyer blogs.  Ones written for specific practice areas (e.g., appellate, real estate, or environmental law) are popular these days.  You will find some blogs attached to law firm web sites (where they may be tools to boost the search result rankings of the firm's site) or you may find blogs as stand-alone publications (where they have their own separate domain).

Blogs and Free Speech:  Commercial vs Political Speech

Twisted into all this complexity of law blogs ("blawgs") are the legal protections afforded to the particular blog under constitutional free speech protections.  Not all blogs (blawgs) are the same, and not all blogs will be policed in the same way.

Commercial speech in a blog will allow the Bar to regulate and police that publication, just as the Bar regulates advertisements in the Yellow Pages, on the television screen, or in a standard firm web site.

If the blog basically serves an advertising purpose, then the state bar association that has jurisdiction over the lawyer or law firm responsible for that blog will argue it has a right to regulate that blog.  Period.

When does a blog not have to conform to Bar regulation?  When the blog publishes content that is protected as political free speech.

Political free speech isn't trying to sell the reader on hiring the lawyer or the law firm.  Political speech essentially involves any “... interactive communication concerning political change.” Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988).  It's not trying to sell the reader on paying the author of the content for the author's goods or services, in other words.

What happens if there's a mishmash of the two within the blog?

Blogs published by lawyers may offer political speech, but all too often they are intertwined with commercial speech -- especially if the blog is attached to the firm web site.  Whether or not the speech will be given free speech protection isn't as easy of a question to answer.

If one of the motivations for the blog is marketing the lawyer or law firm but it's not the only reason for the blog's publication, then what?

In Bolger v.Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463 U.S. 60 (1983),  the problem of mixed commercial and political speech in advertising was addressed.  Lawyers cannot use political free speech posts to protect themselves from regulation:

Advertisers should not be permitted to immunize false or misleading product information from government regulation simply by including references to public issues.

Bolger, 463 U.S. at 68.

If the blog combines commercial speech with political speech, then it will not automatically achieve the constitutional protections that a blog devoted solely to political speech will have.  Nevertheless, that combination of commercial speech with political speech may still rise to that level of constitutional protection if certain characteristics exist.  See, Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809, 818 (1975); Board of Trustees of the State University of New York v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469, 474 (1989).

According to other precedent, we have a test:

....For commercial speech to come within that provision, it at least must concern lawful activity and not be misleading. Next, we ask whether the asserted governmental interest is substantial. If both inquiries yield positive answers, we must determine whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted, and whether it is not more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest. Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 447 U.S. 557, 566 (1980); Adams Outdoor Advertising v. City of Newport News, 236 Va. 370, 383, 373 S.E.2d 917, 923 (1988).

Whether or not the reader may be misled means looking at the unsophisticated reader (Bates) and the assumption is going to fall in favor of the potential that someone out there reading the blog posts may be misled -- think Jethro Bodine as your potential reader when you're evaluating your publications.

The Bar Is Focused on Lawyers Misleading their Readers

The reason for bar regulation of lawyer advertising is to protect the public from being manipulated by lawyers marketing themselves in various formats: newspapers, television commercials, internet marketing, etc.  It's true that there's a profit motive in lots of web sites that enjoy protected free speech: the local newspaper's web site, for example, is published by a company operating for a profit and yet its site content is under the First Amendment free speech umbrella.

State bars, however, are going to come down on the side of regulation of the site or blog.  Consider your blog content and the design carefully.

Ask yourself this:

Would Jethro Bodine think you're selling yourself to him, even if your posts are careful not to market your practice or your firm directly?  Does having your blog attached to your law firm web site suggest that the blog is a commercial tool to get him to call the firm for a free initial consultation?  Does the design itself suggest commercial intent with things like 1-800 numbers in huge fontfaces in headings, footers, or margins?

If so, then you need to make sure that your blog (blawg) conforms to your state's advertising requirements (disclaimers, etc.) even if the majority of your content is political in nature.

LinkedIn Company Pages and More: Committing to More Time and Effort on LinkedIn in 2013

LinkedIn is coming up in more and more conversations that I'm having with clients and over this Thanksgiving holiday weekend, LinkedIn actually popped up in a chat or two among friends - seems that more and more business folk are interested in learning more about LinkedIn.

Most everyone at this point considers LinkedIn as more than a site used by people looking for a job or those looking to hire.  (Not that there's anything wrong with that, right?)  Most everyone is also confused about what LinkedIn can do for them, and absolutely everyone that I have been chewing the fat with over LinkedIn is wary of the amount of time that needs to be invested into LinkedIn before results are seen.

Still, LinkedIn is a surprisingly hot topic here on the Planet Reba: people are pondering doing more on that site, it's just a question of what they will do and how much time it will require.

Of course, this is exactly what LinkedIn is working hard to achieve: just read a post or two at the LinkedIn blog and you'll catch the drift about LinkedIn's plans for the future.  (Maybe it's not world domination, but I wouldn't discount the possibility.)

Should LinkedIn be a part of your future?  I think so.  I know that I plan on LinkedIn having more of a presence in my 2013 Schedule than ever before.  How?  Why?

I'll explore this in more detail in future posts; however, right now there is something that I think is worth noting now and worth your time to consider implementing on the LinkedIn networking site: it's their new company pages.

LinkedIn Company Pages

LinkedIn made their redesigned company pages available to everyone last month.  LinkedIn has a nice set of pages to acquaint members with this new offering, as well:

• Overview of LinkedIn Re-Designed Company Pages
• Connecting:  How to Find and Follow Other Companies on LinkedIn
• How To Set Up Your Own LinkedIn Company Page
• Money, Honey:  Set Up Products and Services on Your Company Page
• Easy Peasy Status Updates to Your Company Page

And there's more.  There's a widget so you can place a "follow" button for your LinkedIn Company page on your company's web site or blog.  There's a nice FAQ section.

Best for last:  LinkedIn also has everything here packaged in a set of instructional videos to make things even easier and more inviting to you.

And, yes -- it's all free.  Free.  (Take that, Facebook.)

Want to learn more about this?  Check out this downloadable pdf from LinkedIn for those who would rather print something and read it instead of looking at a screen.  (Dinosaurs do still roam the earth.)  Also check out their case histories of companies who are happy with the results they've experienced with their LinkedIn company pages.

On-Page versus Off-Page Search Engine Optimization: What's the Difference?

On Page SEO, short version, involves all the words that you can see on your web site's pages.  How this content is optimized for the search engines is just one component of effective SEO.  Here is where key words and key phrases get put to good use.  Captions, headlines, paragraphs, footers, disclaimers, etc. are all a part of On Page SEO. 


Off Page SEO, succinctly, is everything else.  Some of the off page factors include: linkage on the site, both internal links and external linkage; writing the text of internal links themselves; building site popularity through tweeting, commenting on forums and blogs, press releases, submitting to directories, etc.

There's a lot that goes into search engine optimization - and there's lots of stuff out there on the web for you to read about SEO, if you're interested.  (Read Google's SEO overview here.) There's also lots of people out there claiming to know all about SEO.  Maybe they do, maybe they don't.  Ask for examples of their accomplishments before you pay them anything.

Meanwhile, consider this.  The purpose behind optimizing content is to get your content noticed and highly ranked in search results on its themes or topics by the search engines.  Which for most folk mainly means Google.  You're competing with other content to get into the top spots.

Google is in the business of competing with other search engines to provide the more informative and on-target results to its reader's search requests.  If Yahoo could give you better results (and you should compare them often -- Yahoo gives better locator information IMHO, for example) then you'll switch to Yahoo, right?

It's really not rocket science.  Write the best content possible for your topic.  Think of your reader, and help them here.  Give them your expertise.  Give them links.  Give them information in easy to follow language. 

Help Google beat its competition, in other words.  Do this, and do this well, and you've achieve your SEO goals automatically. 

Using Media Content on Your Blog or Web Site: First, Just Ask Permission.

You want to use content from a news article or television station's web site in your blog post - this could cover many things.  For lawyers, news coverage about big victories in the courtroom usually means a desire to place that coverage on their bio page at the law firm's web site.  The 21st Century's version of an Ego Wall.

However, as I've discussed here before on more than one occasion, if a lawyer pulls that story or that video and puts it on the firm's website willy-nilly, then copyright infringement may occur.  Those media stories (including photos and videos and audio interviews) are all the copyrighted work of these media outlets and should be respected.

What to do?  First things first, just ask.  Call or email the media source (this is really easy if you have the contact information of the reporter who just did your interview) and ask permission.  Alternatively, surf their site for words like "reprint" or "permission" and you will find things like this:

San Antonio Express News
Dallas Morning News
Houston Chronicle
The Associated Press.

Will you have to pay?  Maybe.  It's called a "licensing fee."  Balance that cost against dealing with a cease and desist letter (if you get one, Righthaven never bothered) or a claim for copyright infringement by the media's IP litigators. 

Cut and Pasting From the Web: Be Careful.

Last week, another client was happily posting away on their blog and proud of their word count.  Which was good.  However, most of that word count involved cutting and pasting from other web sites.  Not so good.

First of all, it's fine to share news releases.  They are written to be distributed -- the intent of that release is to get that message out.  So, sharing these cuts and paste excerpts in a blog post with an intro "news from Acme site this week" is not a bad, horrible (and by that I mean illegal) thing to do.

Second, it's fine to share information provided on government sites, for example in their "frequently asked questions" section.  Intro the cut and paste excerpt with something like "the [name of agency] recommends the following" and you're fine. 

Third, it's okay to share your own stuff.  Excerpts from your firm website in a firm blog post isn't violating anything.  Example:  the post is discussing a major product recall and you provide an excerpt from the site that discusses your state's products liability law. 

Here's where it's not okay.  It is not okay to take content from other sites - especially news sites - and cut and paste them into your blog post, wham bam.  My client, excited about coverage in the media, plugged media coverage into the blog without getting any okay from the media source.

Not to mention not checking with the news source to determine how much they wanted in payment for the use of their news story.  And its photos. 

Luckily, that post was not published online before someone checked with me and I pointed out that this was copyright infringement of the copyright held by the media source. 

Newspapers and television news departments publish news with photos and videos online because that is how they generate revenue.  They will share that content and those images with you, but they may want payment for the use.  Maybe it's a lot.  Maybe it's a little.

Point is: news stories and television videos - even if you are prominently a part of the story - should not be duplicated on your web site or blog without the permission of the copyright owner. 

Sure, you may think I am nit-picking.  After all, aren't you helping that news source by publicizing its work?  Sorry, but I don't know that the owner of the copyright will agree with that argument.  And, after all, isn't the story all about you and your victorious win, so don't you have some sort of indirect ownership right in the news article anyway?  No.  No you don't.     

Go ahead if you want to risk it.  Lots of sites do this, true.  However, now that NewsRight is out of the box, my nit-picking today may seem prophetical tomorrow.

Better safe than sorry, folks.  Plus, it's the right thing to do.  Don't just plug those news articles into a blog post, even if you or your firm is the star of the story. 

What is Google Panda and Why You Should Care, and How Much, About Panda's Power over Your Site or Blog

This past week, one of my law firm clients had a problem with a guest post they were providing on another blog.  Seems that company had heard of Google Panda and was so scared of Google Panda that they refused to publish the guest post unless one paragraph within the post was rewritten -- it was quoting from the law firm's blog, and they were terrified that Google would penalize their site for duplicate content. 

Of course, this is ridiculous.  However, it was easier in time and money for my law firm client to rewrite a paragraph than argue over SEO, so there was one problem solved.  However, all this hoopla has me hearing more and more terrorized, trembling comments from colleagues and clients about the very scary Google Panda and what it means .....

So, here goes. 

First of all, what the heck is Google Panda?

Google Panda is a change in the algorithms used by Google to decide which site gets ranked first, second, third, etc. in the results list it provides to your search request.  This began months ago; there was a recent Panda update in October 2011 that some consider to be pretty big. 

Short version: the top secret mumbo jumbo that Google uses to decide who gets top billing got revamped.  

Why do this?  Google tries to explain in a February 2011 blog post, pointing to a desire to move "high quality sites" up in the search results and "reduce" the ranking of "low quality sites."  Low quality sites specifically including those that copy content from other sites ... and here is where some big reactions have come.  Some pretty big and established sites saw themselves fall in ranking at Google.com.  What the heck was going on?  So, Google provided "additional guidance" on how Google searches and ranks web sites in May 2011. 

Google suggests that you look at your site from their perspective, and ask yourself the following questions:

• Would you trust the information presented in this article?
• Is this article written by an expert or enthusiast who knows the topic well, or is it more shallow in nature?
• Does the site have duplicate, overlapping, or redundant articles on the same or similar topics with slightly different keyword variations?
• Would you be comfortable giving your credit card information to this site?
• Does this article have spelling, stylistic, or factual errors?
• Are the topics driven by genuine interests of readers of the site, or does the site generate content by attempting to guess what might rank well in search engines?
• Does the article provide original content or information, original reporting, original research, or original analysis?
• Does the page provide substantial value when compared to other pages in search results?
• How much quality control is done on content?
• Does the article describe both sides of a story?
• Is the site a recognized authority on its topic?
• Is the content mass-produced by or outsourced to a large number of creators, or spread across a large network of sites, so that individual pages or sites don’t get as much attention or care?
• Was the article edited well, or does it appear sloppy or hastily produced?
• For a health related query, would you trust information from this site?
• Would you recognize this site as an authoritative source when mentioned by name?
• Does this article provide a complete or comprehensive description of the topic?
• Does this article contain insightful analysis or interesting information that is beyond obvious?
• Is this the sort of page you’d want to bookmark, share with a friend, or recommend?
• Does this article have an excessive amount of ads that distract from or interfere with the main content?
• Would you expect to see this article in a printed magazine, encyclopedia or book?
• Are the articles short, unsubstantial, or otherwise lacking in helpful specifics?
• Are the pages produced with great care and attention to detail vs. less attention to detail?
• Would users complain when they see pages from this site?

From what I know at this point, Google Panda will still get some more tweeks, and in the long run, Google is always going to be trying to better itself -- to make sure that you don't find another search engine preferable to Google.  It looks like Google is trying to thwart content mills that just copy stuff from other sites and republish them as their own, you know the sneaky ones that I mean; however, sites that do things like publish press releases are getting hit here, too, and that's not fair (e.g., PR Newswire). 

Some reputable sites are facing a 60% loss in web traffic after Google Panda - and that's money either in sales or jobs or marketing or something, folks.  Sixty percent is a huge hit, and it's not hitting those sneaky, yucky, content copying sites -- it's hitting respectable, longstanding sites that are understandably peeved.  For many folk, being angry and fearful of the Google Panda Power is justified and I hope they get their trains back on the track soon. 

However, Google's position is understandable and if you are writing for the web with the intent to add value then I don't think Panda Power is something for you to lose sleep over.  I learned today from David Naylor that Google Panda isn't named after the cute bear but after a Google engineer named Navneet Panda.  I like David Naylor's two cents worth on Google Panda: ask yourself two questions and stop worrying about it.  The questions?  Go read Naylor's post to find out. 

And, if you really want to learn all about this, Search Engine Roundtable has done a video on Google Panda (including the October 2011 updates) which you can watch on YouTube. It's ten and half minutes, if you've got the time.

google, blogs, blogging, google panda, seo

Florida Bar's Advertising Rules Are Found Unconstitutional by Federal Judge

Details are given in an article in today's Wall Street Journal entitled, "Florida Court Strikes Down Limits on Lawyer Advertising," concerning the opinion released last Friday by the Honorable Marcia Morales Howard of United States District Court for the Division of Jacksonville.

The federal judge has held that the Florida Bar violated the First Amendment rights of Florida attorney William Harrell Jr. when it deemed Mr. Harrell's advertising message of "don't get less than you deserve," as "manipulative" and therefore in violation of state solicitation rules. 

How much will this decision impact Florida attorneys?  Maybe not so much:  right now, amendments to the Florida Disciplinary Rules await approval by the Supreme Court of Florida. 

To review the rules in place for Florida attorney advertising, go here.
To review the rules that were proposed this summer for Florida Supreme Court approval, go here. 

Lawyers Should Know Ethics Rules and Social Media Policies for Blogs and Social Media (LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook): Bar Regs and Other Social Media Guidelines

Individual bar associations across the country may or may not have regulations governing social media on their books: social media moves fast; the process of creating new rules to govern the practice of law within certain jurisdictions, not so much.

Obviously, lawyers should know their own bar rules and regulations, since they are bound by the ethical rules applicable to their jurisdiction(s).  That's not the only attempt at corralling online communications on the web, however. 

Social Media Policies and Guidelines Established for Private Companies and Public Entities

Attorneys should be aware that social media policies and online communication guidelines are being set up by many different types of entities now; savvy lawyers will be aware of those internet rules and regulations that may apply to certain clientele - as well as those of a competing law firm (e.g., the April 2011 social media guidelines established by Baker & Daniels).

For example, there are social media policies in place for the States of Delaware, Oklahoma, and North Carolina as well as big corporations like Ford Motor Company, FedEx, and Coca-Cola. Many more have been collected for review by Chris Boudreaux at SocialMediaGovernance.com, an excellent go-to site for those interested in learning more about the evolving trends in controlling social media today.

Lawyers and Ethical Rules, Social Media Guidelines

Does the attorney have to know these social media guidelines?  No, the lawyer will not be controlled by these policies; however, he or she should be able to explain why they disagree with a particular guideline if a client, potential client, or referral source asks about it after reading the lawyer's blog or social media tweets, pokes, etc.  Having access to this information when creating an internal set of online social media guidelines as part of law firm policy will also be very helpful. 

Does the lawyer need to know about ethical rules?  Yes, they do need to know what their local and state bar associations have defined as acceptable online communications.  Lawyers and law firms should be aware of the ethical rules and regulations that apply to their online activities: they may be disciplined for violating them (e.g., reprimand, suspension).

In some states, a broad brush is applied to blogs, Twitter accounts, and pages on LinkedIn, Facebook (and now Google+) where the governing body attempts to regulate these new marketing avenues using the same solicitation rules already in place for things like web sites and direct e-mail communications.  Comments and guidelines to existing ethical codes need to be monitored. 

For example, the State Bar of Texas has tried to keep up with the rapid changes in social media by issuing an "interpretive comment" to work in conjunction with Part 7 of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. 

Another example: the State Bar of Florida, which has passed specific regulatory language that applies specifically to the growing use of social media by attorneys and law firms.  Shown below is the Florida Bar's Guideline for Networking Sites, note how Florida goes into detail about such things as LinkedIn professional pages and Instant Messages: 

Lawyers: Please Stop Stealing News Video for Your Firm Web Site, and YES You Are, Too....

It's Friday, thankfully ... because if I have another client conference where I have to explain this simple fact to a lawyer this week, I may start pulling my hair out.  And I like my hair, I don't want to do this. 

So, I'm going to rant here on my blog instead, and here goes:

When an attorney is interviewed by a reporter and that interview gets uploaded as a video on the reporter's website -- usually, a local television station's web site, or that lawyer is quoted extensively in a publication -- usually, a daily newspaper serving his local community, then it's understandable for that lawyer to be excited about this and want to share this great news. 

And not just with his family and friends, of course.  This is great exposure for the attorney: he's been acknowledged as an expert in whatever the topic of the interview was - from the Mets vs. the Yankees to the future of class action lawsuits in view of the 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Wal-Mart and AT&T.  Whatever.

Clients should know about this, right?  Sure.  And, referring attorneys should be aware of this, right?  Yes.

However, this interview cannot simply be taken from that online website and stuck on the law firm web site or blog without gaining the permission of its owner, the publication that's uploaded it onto their site.

No. No. No. 

Too many lawyers do this, and they should know better.  If they are sued for copyright infringement, that law degree is going to be a big fact used by the plaintiff that they did know better. 

And yes, sometimes you will have to pay for the use of the video or article.  How much will depend upon the publication.  There are times where the publication waives that charge, I've seen this happen more than once.


However, they're the ones who have to waive it.  You have to get permission, simple as that.

And if you think I'm being picky (and yes, I've been accused of being picky and it's true, I am) then think again.  Web sites are being sued without so much as any prior notice (e.g., cease and desist letter) in more and more parts of the country for just this sort of thing.

Go read my posts regarding Righthaven if you're interested. 

In the meantime, STOP stealing those news stories where your name is mentioned by just sticking them on your web site or blog.  Stop. It.

Okay, rant over.  

Whew.

Lawyers Write Blogs About All Sorts of Things - The Evolution of Lawyer Blogs

The word "blog" is actually a contraction of the phrase "web log," and back in the day, folk wrote web logs or journals, usually writing about personal diary-like topics: day's events, family life, etc.  As the internet grew in popularity and technology got more user-friendly, it cost less in time and money to start a web log. 

People took notice.  Business minds pondered how these logs, or journals, could be revamped to sell products or services.  News junkies started blogs to share scoops (think Drudge Report).  Educators thought of ways blogs could provide learning opportunities and ways to share information over the web.  Political pundits started blogs to share their views (e.g., Little Green Footballs).  Families figured out how blogs could connect loved ones in all sorts of locations, even in war zones.  The list goes on.

In the midst of this, there were lawyers who started blogs with a personal touch.  They opined to their colleagues about pending cases, new legislation, the state of the law - and of the legal profession.  Some were more analysis-oriented than others, but it was usually a single attorney writing a short blog post (article on a web log) several times a month, or week, or day, like Howard J. Bashman's How Appealing where he's been writing "the Web's first blog devoted to appellate litigation" since May 2002. 

Then the idea hit for business development via a web log or blog.  We began reading more about "blawgs."  Law firm web sites were no longer cutting edge; now, blawgs were the new trend.   Law firm marketing strategies began to incorporate blogs into their rainmaking plans in much the same way that Web 2. 0 campaigns do now (i.e., the use of Twitter and Facebook and LinkedIn). 

Blogs for lawyers and law firms diversified.  The intended readers of lawyer-generated blogs are varied: some are targeting potential clients, some are targeting referring attorneys, some are seeking to support an issue or to build public awareness about it.

Some blawgs consistently give opinion, some never do.  Some blawgs are funny, some are serious.  Some deal with the law, and some don't. 

Lawyers Who Blog About Things Other Than Law -- Ten Examples

For example, here are a few blogs appearing on the web today that are written by lawyers that have nothing to do with legal issues:

1. Appalachian Trail Hike 2010 -- coverage of  hiking the Appalachian Trail " ... from the perspective of a lawyer, an ivy grad, and a city chick," via a blog on the Blogger platform (together with videos on MySpace, photos on Picasa, etc.), hiking from Georgia to Maine in one year's time. There's a documentary now, too. 
2. Nathan B. Hannah, Attorney   -- periodic posts on jazz from a lawyer "who'd rather write music commentary."  Wish he'd write more - what's there is good stuff. 
3. Ironlawyer -- an attorney posts about preparing for an Ironman competition with her husband - they completed a half-Ironman in May 2011.  Hopefully, there will be more posts after they recuperate.
4. Paul's Travel Blog -- with periodic blog posts, this lawyer dedicates his travelogue to "...discuss[ing] a bit how a legal education changes your general behavior, decreases your appetite for certain kinds of risk. Now, it is true that the profession probably draws the risk-adverse simply because a legal education is seen as a "safe" field for moderate professional and economic success.... Yes, I believe that law school and law practice have made me a more cautious, risk-adverse person."
5. Instapundit --  Glenn Reynolds is a law professor at the University of Tennessee who publishes a political blog as part of "Pajamas Media," whose personal passion is pondering "...the intersection between advanced technologies and individual liberty."  Instapundit has been on the web since 2001.
6. Black Coffee and a Donut -- two sisters who are both attorneys have dedicated their blog to their foodie passion, and have a great food blog with very nice photos covering local restaurants as well as food finds during their travels (which do include Paris, of course).  Recently covered in the Baltimore, Maryland Daily Record.
7. Everyday Simplicity -- my own blog, begun in January 2006, where I post regularly on issues of living a simplicity lifestyle, which includes issues like going green, downsizing, career change, recipes, cleaning tips, and being more frugal. 
8. LeffStyle -- former NYC entertainment lawyer blogs on interior design with lots of photos, who educates readers not only on design, but designers. Chic and fun.
9. Michelle's In Cambodia -- as a lawyer who moves overseas to Cambodia to teach English and have adventure, Michelle is as much a photographer as a writer and there are many wonderful photos uploaded here on her blog documenting her journey as well as her periodic posts.
10. ProFootballTalk - an all-things-football blog, hosted by NBC.com as of June 2009, with lawyer Mike Florio as its editor; Florio also contributes posts to its "Daily Rumor Mill," with news tips as well as his viewpoints on all things pro football.  It's not known how much Florio got paid by NBC when he sold his blog to them, but he's remained at its helm as editor since the sale. 

CAPTCHAS: What Are They, and Are They Worth the Trouble?

CAPTCHA stands for "Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart," and I use them on my blogs. Whether or not you choose to use them on yours is a different matter.

What is a CAPTCHA?

It's that annoying little gizmo that asks you to retype a random series of numbers and letters into a little box, to show that you're human and not some spamming computer. They even have a little audio icon, so you can hear the series if the scramble is too hard to read (which lots are, I've noticed). 

There are different kinds of CAPTCHAs, with differing levels of complexity.  Older ones are nicer and less problematic than the later versions. 

Should You Use CAPTCHAs on Your Blog?

I do. Some don't: they argue that the balance between Spam-Fighting and making their blogs comment-friendly means not having a CAPTCHA. They worry that a CAPTCHA costs them comments.

Personally, I think it depends on the blogging platform - not all CAPTCHAs are the same. Check yours out. If it's a problem, then consider pulling it.

For example, Typepad (a popular blogging platform) has CAPTCHAs that bother me.  One writer-friend loves Typepad, and I like to comment on her blog every once in a while.  However, I'm doing this less and less because it's such a hassle.  What's going on? 

There's an added burden to her CAPTCHA of requiring me to sign in via one of my social media accounts before I can leave a comment.  Time-consuming.  That alone stops me.  And this is a friend:  what if I don't want the blogger to know who I am, because I'm worried about uninvited enewsletters, etc.? Anonymous commenting is not only faster for me, but protects me from this mess.

What about Anonymous comments?  That's for a different post on a different day.  

Google Places: What Attorneys and Law Firms Need to Know - and Beware the Scams!

Google Places is a big deal for lawyers.  How big is Google Places for law firms and attorneys on the web?  Remains to be seen. 

The Onslaught of Cold Calls to Law Firms Pushing Google Places SEO Services - Beware of Scams!

I'd just had a week of clients (and fellow lawyers) contacting me in a panic after hanging up with hard-sell marketing cold calls pushing them to drop everything and deal with the purported game-changer of Google Places.  It's amazing what these internet marketing specialists are offering to attorneys who are too busy or too disinterested to investigate this new Google tactic for themselves.  Buyer beware, my friends.

Caveat: I'm a legal writer - not a SEO expert.  I do write optimized content, but I don't provide the usual panorama of search engine optimization services: no pay-per-click, etc.  I'm not interested in providing Google Place services, but I am concerned that scams concerning Google Places don't succeed.  And they are out there, and they're growing.

What is Google Places?

Google Places is a new service provided by Google that some may recognize as "place search."  It's a big deal because Google search results look different now, as a result of Google Places.  Now, for example, when you search for "injury law firm Houston" the first page of Google Search Results is filled with Google Place Results.

You sign up for free at Google Places.  You pay for "tags."  Your business gets reviewed by whomever wants to take the time to do so, and until recently, the business owner couldn't control negative reviews.  That's apparently been changed recently by Google.

Here's the Reason for the Brouhaha: Google Place sites get priority in search results. Your optmized web site is bumped down below the Place listings.

Google Place is being stuck atop the usual Google search results, and you can identify the Place sites by the little alphabetized red flag (A gets the highest rank, etc.) that is predominantly displayed next to the individual result description.  The flags correspond to the map that is shown in the right sidebar. 

So, no matter how much you paid some web marketing firm to optimize your site so you get in the top search results for your areas of practice or locality, you will be bumped by those Google Place listings to page 2 or 3 of the search results. 

What Can You - the Busy Attorney or Law Firm - Do About Google Places?

First, you can recognize that this is impacting web sites - not blogs.  Your blogs, established as a seperate domain name, will continue getting Google search results based upon the posts you are writing, etc.  Law firm blogs, or "blawgs," are safe. 

Second, you can do several things for yourself, for free and without much complication.  These include:

1. Go to Google Places and list your law firm.  Put in the same info that you see on your business card.  Do not be creative here.  Resist the urge to do multiple listings: AttorneySync, for example, warns that this can result in Google penalizing your site as violating its quality guidelines.
2. Take advantage of the free service, GetListed.org, and make sure that your firm appears in Bing, Yahoo, etc.  Why? Google is known to cross-reference these sites to make sure your Place information is accurate.  (In SEO lingo, these third party references are "citations.")  Your firm information (address, phone number, email address) needs to be exactly the same in all the citations for Google Place purposes.
3. Access your web site and insure that it is filled with images, links, etc. that are local in nature.  Garrett French has already accumulated a list of forty-four (44) query tips to help you do this. 

Do you need to hire someone to do this?  From what I've read online, experts do not agree on this.  Should you decide to hire someone for Google Place services, then be sure that they are indeed an expert in this area -- and check what they're charging.  It's amazing the scamming going on out there -- and by some very, very "reputable" firms (for instance, charging for duplicate Place submissions despite the fact that Google may well penalize the duplication in the future).

What's Really Going On Here?  More Money for Google

Google is focusing upon providing localized search results not just because it's considered to be more convenient for the Google user -- Dustin Ruge explains that Google expects Google Places to make it lots of money.  According to Ruge:

Local search is one of the fastest growing categories online and Google now claims that 20% of their search queries are local in nature. Furthering this is the rapid growth in mobile search where Google now claims that over 100 million people conduct maps searches from their mobile devices each month. By 2013, mobile device searches are expected to exceed PC based searches. But Google makes money off the their paid advertising and when local online advertising is expected to grow at 18% compared to only 11% for all online advertising by 2011, it is little mystery why Google is looking to profit from it.

What's the Real Result?

Too soon to tell, I think.  Personally, the Place results bug me so much, that I'll switch over to Bing or Yahoo rather than deal with them.  Google Places feels manipulative to me as a user, I don't like it.

Second, law firms may need to avoid Google Places as it implements and encourages its review feature.  Recently, Google announced the addition of the HotPot recommendation service to Google Places.  In many states, bar ethic rules prohibit this sort of recommendation service for law firms. 

There's probably more fall out.  And, here's the thing:  Google Places isn't really helpful in finding the best lawyer for the client - because the best attorney for the particular matter isn't necessarily the law office that's closest in proximity. 

The real answer for attorneys to Google Places is to find a way to educate the public on this key issue (to the extent that the public doesn't recognize this simple fact already).  For me, that answer online is easy: blog. 

Public Domain - The Best Source for Images or Content to Use on Your Blog

What is the Public Domain?

The U.S. Copyright Office defines "public domain" as a work "...no longer under copyright protection or if it failed to meet the requirements for copyright protection."  The public domain also includes works where the creator has freely released the work into the public domain. 

On the web, lots of people freely release their copyright in order to expose their talent and their work as widely as possible.  Anything -- content, software, images, fonts, videos, etc. -- in the public domain may be used freely by anyone without contacting or gaining the permission of the originator.

Finding Images and Content in the Public Domain

1.  Searching for "public domain" along with various words or phrases that you are seeking is an easy enough way to find free images and content on the web. 

Looking for an image of Abraham Lincoln?  Google "public domain image Abraham Lincoln," and you'll find the photo of President Lincoln shown above.  (The Library of Congress has been kind enough to upload it for us.)

2.  Wikipedia has also provided an online list of links that provide free, public domain images -- a list that is continually growing.  It is an excellent resource.  (One of my favorites is Wikimedia Commons.)

3.  Again, Wikipedia provides a long and growing online list of links providing free, public domain content -- worldwide.  It includes links to huge public domain content collections such as Project Guttenberg. 

Demographics - Who is Online, Where are They, and What are They Doing?

Prepared by Forrester Research and shared by EMarking Association with its members.  Thanks to both! (Click to enlarge.)