- As you all know, the print newspaper industry is contracting like a melting ice cube planted in the middle of the Sahara.

- Many Old World’s thinkers put the blame on Google. The Mountain View search engine is pictured as the villain, who steals the money from the hands of the content creators (the print newspaper journalists).

- The New World’s thinkers do an excellent job in rebutting the accusations, and explaining the real fundamentals and problematic of the Internet eco-system we now live in.

- That said, I found something very interesting in one of those anti-Google slams:

If media companies want to compete with Google, they need to look at the source of its power — judging good content, which enables Google to be the most efficient and effective distributor of content. They also need to look at Google’s fundamental limitation — its judgment is dependent on OTHER people expressing their judgment of content in the form of links. Above all, they need to look at sources of content judgment that Google currently can’t access, because they are not yet expressed as links on the web.

The balance of power on the web can shift — but only by understanding what the real sources of power are.

The web link under “can shift” sends us to an imaginative conjecture worth the kingdom of DisneyLand about how newspaper websites could become all of the sudden the masters of links and turn the whole Web around in their favor. But the reason why Internet users favored Yahoo! and Google in the first place is that they have understood their users better than their competitors. Why don’t the newspaper people try this approach?

I hope that, one day, they will be able to link to their prediction exchange as they wish.

-

Nigel Eccles:

How do I improve the search ranking of a page on our site?

I am one of the co-founders of Hubdub, which is a news prediction game. A couple of weeks ago we created a market on which of the This Week in Tech panelists would have the most followers on Twitter by Sunday May 25th. The question page is here:
http://www.hubdub.com/m7040/TWiT_Twitter_Derby_Wholl_be_most_followed_by_midnight_May_25th

The market is really popular and we got mentioned on the TWiT show (which was great as we are big fans), posted to Digg, tweeted about on Twitter, and couple of bloggers [that includes MIdas Oracle] have posted about it. The thing is when you search for “Twit Twitter Derby” we come up on the second page despite all the above linking to that page on our site.

I believe we have a good search profile with a page rank of 5, a flat structure (that page is 1-2 clicks from the homepage) and SEO friendly URLs. Therefore, why we rate so poorly on content that is unique to us is a bit of a mystery. Can anyone offer any guidance?

-

Screen shot of the Google Search:

-

-

The HubDub prediction market page ranks #12.

The HubDub blog on that prediction markets ranks #33 —a total disaster.

-

My thoughts:

1. Logically, if someone creates something, that someone should rank first at Google Search for that query about that something. No question about that.
2. A SEO expert would look into the structure of that “Twit Twitter Derby” prediction market page. I think that’s where the first issue lays —since that prediction market page is amply linked to by everybody talking about the “Twit Twitter Derby”. (So, it’s not that there’s a lack of linking. Jed’s point is weak, I believe.)
3. The second issue is the identification of the owner of that thing, the “Twit Twitter Derby”. I would advise to use sub-brand names that have the term “HubDub” embedded into them. Instead of the term, “Twit Twitter Derby”, I would use the term, “HubDub Twitter Derby” (or something better), and have the bloggers cite that whole phrase without omitting the term “HubDub” —that way, since the domain name where that page is located is “hubdub.com”, you’re almost guaranteed that that prediction market page will rank #1. Google will easily understand that “HubDub Twitter Derby” belongs to hubdub.com.
4. The third issue is the value for the Google researchers —and that’s up to Google’s appreciation. The fact is that search engine algorithms understand the value of texts (like the text of this present blog post, where I have repeated many times the phrase “Twit Twitter Derby”), but they have much more difficulty figuring out charts, widgets, images, outbound links, etc. And, on that prediction market page, I don’t see much text. I don’t see a long text where the keyword “Twit Twitter Derby” would be repeated over and over.
5. Funny to see that all 5 answers posted at LinkedIn in response to Nigel Eccles’ question (about his “Twit Twitter Derby” problem) are totally pointless —none of them cracked open the problem.
6. That said, what is more preoccupying is that that prediction market (which is one of HubDub’s most popular ones) is linked to by so few bloggers, and that the HubDub blog post on the “Twit Twitter Derby” prediction market ranks almost last. That’s where the real disaster is. Nigel Eccles pays good money to a bunch of amateurish bloggers, with the objectives of drawing traffic and understanding to his HubDub prediction markets —and the end result is a total disaster. Money wasted thru the window. Midas Oracle ranks #2, and the HudDub blog ranks #33.
   
7. That reinforces my conviction that prediction market journalism is an issue of grand importance for the field of prediction markets, and that can’t be left to clueless amateurs managed by incompetent bozos.
8. For a more detailed solution about your “Twit Twitter Derby” problem, Nigel, pass by my office at 4:45 pm later today —and don’t forget your checkbook.

-

-

Does anybody know whether full prediction market journalism can be practiced on America‘s soil? Or do we have to go offshore to be able to link to InTrade?

What does the law say?

-

-

To explain you a little bit, please first spot Tom Bell’s post, as seen from within the WordPress system. You’ll spot that Prof Tom has not inserted any link into the “InTrade” trademark. (You’ll see an underlined red-wave line, but that’s not a link. That’s a spelling corrector marking.)

-

-

And, now, surprise, surprise, on the actual published post, you see that the plugin has automatically inserted the link into “InTrade”.

-

-

You might think that I’m just playing with a pointless new toy, here… Think again. Many people in the field of prediction markets are currently thinking about using this kind of technology to mash together news stories and prediction market data (chart links or prices/probabilities).

Anyway.

The purpose of this present test is to see whether the WordPress plugin interferes with link texts. [And the ultimate goal is to investigate whether deep links to prediction markets and market-generated probabilities could be inserted automatically into stories.]

• The test is a success if, below, you see the BetFair / InTrade image, only. [Put your mouse cursor 2 seconds on that image, and you should see the link and the link test. The link is to the BetFair site and the link text is "InTrade". (Yes, I know, it is twisted, but that's the purpose of this test. To see whether the plugin adds a link under the "InTrade" labelling of the image.)]
• The test is a failure if, just below the image, there is an additional, messy line, mixing text and link(s), in a way I didn’t intend.
• 3… 2… 1… PUBLISH!!!!

-

-

-

-

UPDATE: Success. On a related note, see above that the WordPress plugin has automatically inserted links into BetFair and InTrade —but not when I wrote these two words surrounded with quotes, like this: “InTrade” and “BetFair”. Logical.

UPDATE #2: The hyperlinks are also visible when the post is read from within a web-based or PC-based feed reader. Pleasant surprise. Had I bet, I would have bet against it. I’m so pleasantly surprised. Now, I’m going to test a competitive plugin…

UPDATE #3. The competitive plugin I have tested on the other blog is a lemon. So I keep “Cross Linker”, for now.