Friday, May 30, 2008
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Monday, May 26, 2008
Cisco PIX/ASA Security Appliance: How to Configure Banners
Banners can be configured to display when a user first connects (MOTD), when a user logs in (login), or when a user accesses privileged mode (exec). Banners are used for legal warnings such as when a user is cautioned not to access a restricted system or that their access of a system is subject to monitoring and logging. Banners are also used on locked systems placed at customer locations by service providers to provide contact information for device access or technical support. The Cisco security appliance supports the use of login banners in console sessions and Telnet sessions, but not in SSH sessions. Exec and MOTD banners are supported in console, Telnet, and SSH sessions. Banners can be up to 510 characters in length. You can create multiple line banners either by creating multiple banner statements or by using the keystroke sequence of "\n" which inserts a carriage return.
Here's how banners are displayed:
MOTD Banners--When usernames are not configured, MOTD displays at login in a serial console session and before login in Telnet sessions. When usernames are configured, MOTD displays before login in a Telnet session and after login in a serial console session.
Login Banners--The login banner displays before login in Telnet and serial console sessions.
Exec Banners--The exec banner displays upon login in all sessions.
How to Configure a Banner
Note: The following procedures were tested on an ASA 5505 Security Appliance running software version 7.22. Other hardware or software platforms may require modification of these procedures in order to function properly.
To configure a banner, use the following configuration mode commands:
asa(config)#banner motd This is a restricted system.
asa(config)#banner motd Do not attempt unauthorized access.
Notice the use of two banner motd statements to create a multi-line banner. As mentioned previously, you can also use the "\n" key sequence to insert a carriage return.
You can view the banners you created with the following privileged mode command:
asa#show running-config banner
Hands-On Exercise: Creating Banners on the Security Appliance
The following procedures are for training purposes only and should only be performed on devices in a laboratory environment. Under no circumstances should these procedures be performed on equipment in a live, production environment without first verifying their suitability in a laboratory environment.
In the following hands-on exercise, you will create MOTD, login, and EXEC banners.
Step 1: In configuration mode, enter the following commands:
asa(config)#banner motd This is the MOTD banner
asa(config)#banner login This is the login banner
asa(config)#banner exec This is the EXEC banner
Step 2: Display the banners you just created with the following command:
asa(config)#show running-config banner
Step 3: Type exit repeatedly until you are logged out of your laboratory security appliance.
Notice which banners are displayed.
Step 4: Enter privileged mode with the command "enable" and notice which banners are displayed.
Step 5: From your laboratory computer, start a Telnet session and again observe which banners are displayed. When you are finished, exit the Telnet session.
Step 6: Also from your laboratory computer, start an SSH session and again observe which banners are displayed. When you are finished, exit the SSH session.
Note: The above procedures are similar to the procedures used to configure banners on other Cisco devices including routers.
Here's how banners are displayed:
MOTD Banners--When usernames are not configured, MOTD displays at login in a serial console session and before login in Telnet sessions. When usernames are configured, MOTD displays before login in a Telnet session and after login in a serial console session.
Login Banners--The login banner displays before login in Telnet and serial console sessions.
Exec Banners--The exec banner displays upon login in all sessions.
How to Configure a Banner
Note: The following procedures were tested on an ASA 5505 Security Appliance running software version 7.22. Other hardware or software platforms may require modification of these procedures in order to function properly.
To configure a banner, use the following configuration mode commands:
asa(config)#banner motd This is a restricted system.
asa(config)#banner motd Do not attempt unauthorized access.
Notice the use of two banner motd statements to create a multi-line banner. As mentioned previously, you can also use the "\n" key sequence to insert a carriage return.
You can view the banners you created with the following privileged mode command:
asa#show running-config banner
Hands-On Exercise: Creating Banners on the Security Appliance
The following procedures are for training purposes only and should only be performed on devices in a laboratory environment. Under no circumstances should these procedures be performed on equipment in a live, production environment without first verifying their suitability in a laboratory environment.
In the following hands-on exercise, you will create MOTD, login, and EXEC banners.
Step 1: In configuration mode, enter the following commands:
asa(config)#banner motd This is the MOTD banner
asa(config)#banner login This is the login banner
asa(config)#banner exec This is the EXEC banner
Step 2: Display the banners you just created with the following command:
asa(config)#show running-config banner
Step 3: Type exit repeatedly until you are logged out of your laboratory security appliance.
Notice which banners are displayed.
Step 4: Enter privileged mode with the command "enable" and notice which banners are displayed.
Step 5: From your laboratory computer, start a Telnet session and again observe which banners are displayed. When you are finished, exit the Telnet session.
Step 6: Also from your laboratory computer, start an SSH session and again observe which banners are displayed. When you are finished, exit the SSH session.
Note: The above procedures are similar to the procedures used to configure banners on other Cisco devices including routers.
How Important Is Wikipedia In The Grand Scheme Of Things?
Wikipedia is the center of the online encyclopedia universe. Millions of entries on every conceivable topic makes this website an authority source that many young students and adults turn to from all corners of the globe.
The widespread popularity of Wikipedia has made it an easy target for quite a bit of controversy and critique. Many academic institutions disapprove of any use of unverified Internet sources, including Wikipedia articles. Ironically, Wikipedia prides itself on the idea that its information is verifiable. Read more about Wikipedia's Verifiability policy here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
Wikipedia Basics
Founded in 2001, Wikipedia is a free content resource that anyone can submit information to according to certain submission rules. Articles are written and submitted by anyone interested in the topic being discussed.
Authenticity is supposedly ensured by the ability of others to edit previously submitted information and correct any errors. Grossly inappropriate or incorrect articles can be nominated for deletion. Wikipedia users are given a week to vote on the appropriate response to a deletion nomination.
These safeguards have been built into Wikipedia's design as a way of preserving both its credibility and authenticity. While Wikipedia's systems of checks and balances are not failsafe, they do eliminate quite a few of the errors that would otherwise occur.
The fact that the website's content is made up exclusively by donated content and that it has over 2 million topic articles is a testament to the popularity of this style. While there are no basic rules for submitting articles, there are basic guidelines that Wikipedia asks submitting authors to follow.
Maintaining a neutral tone and presenting the information in a fair unbiased way are the perfect tones that dictate encyclopedia articles. Authors and editors are expected to be respectful of the work of others and not to modify anything without a good reason or verifiable references.
Controversy
Academic institutions and authority reference sources such as encyclopedia companies have been less impressed with Wikipedia than the general public. There are many reasons for the less than enthusiastic response from institutions of higher learning and professional reference companies.
The publishers of Encyclopedia Britannica became enraged when a study claimed that the accuracy of Wikipedia was comparable to the accuracy of Britannica's long-standing published encyclopedia. They widely disputed the results, insisting that their publication is by far the more superior publication.
Public opinion sides with Britannica. The majority of most people, when polled, have great faith in the reputation of Britannica and hold it in much higher regard than its online counterparts.
The convenience of the Internet encyclopedia version is where a lot of its competition with Britannica arises. Being able to access any information with the click of a mouse brings research to a whole new level.
Wikipedia and Academics
Studies are regularly inconsistent on the accuracy of Wikipedia. There is a wide range in the quality and accuracy of the Wiki articles online.
Articles are constantly being modified and improved upon. When doing research, it is very important to double-check all information. Wikipedia is a great resource, but it should never be trusted as the final word on any topic.
Members of academia are prone to carry negative feelings towards to the use of Wikipedia. Most become agitated when their students source Wikipedia, because they feel their students are not able to tell the difference between a good resource and a bad one – a truthful fact or an erroneous statement.
A commonly held belief is that a student lacks the common sense or ability to differentiate between a good article and a biased, inadequate presentation of a story as fact. Academia also points to the general lack of solid research supporting most Wikipedia articles.
Lazy Research
There is no excuse for laziness, but the blame for it is often placed on the presence of technology instead of where it actually belongs – on the people who rely on technology to provide them the shortcuts they take.
The modern age is one of advanced technology and many students are more than willing to take advantage of the ease of relying on computers and minimal online research.
The primary function of schools is to teach children. Not only are they responsible for teaching them facts, but also for teaching them how to think and solve problems for themselves. When students are no longer able, or willing, to logically decide something, academics are quick to blame the ease of access to technological advances, separating themselves from the blame.
Unfortunately, schools hold as much blame as the technology they bash, for the falling ability of students to produce results on their own. When I was in high school during the early 1980's, calculators were prohibited in all classes except for the advanced mathematics classes that required the use of scientific calculators. By the mid-1990's, the children of friends were telling me that they were required to bring a simple calculator to the classroom to assist them in their basic math calculations.
Academia is generally as responsible for the falling academic performance of students as website sources such as Wikipedia. Although academia shares in the blame for falling academic performance with poor resources like Wikipedia, this shared blame should not excuse Wikipedia's less than ideal service record.
One Thousand Monkeys Typing The Next Great Novel
Wikipedia and all of its sister projects are not perfect. They are websites dedicated to providing knowledge to everyone. Those willing to share what they have learned donate to this knowledge base in hopes of helping others. At least, that is what they do in theory.
The Wikipedia frontier has real possibility for the future, but behind the scenes, it is rife with "monkeys learning to type the next great novel," as sourced in the Infinite Monkey Theorem at (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem). There are some areas of the Wikipedia that are definitely lacking in information and credibility, and yet when someone makes a gesture to add to the Wiki knowledge base, some editors frame these new contributions as unsupportable and unacceptable additions to the Wikipedia world.
The Wikipedia world relies upon its published Code Of Conduct to drive the decisions of its editors. Examples of the Wikipedia Code Of Conduct include: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BIO
The Wikipedia Monkey Brigade
One extreme example of the "Wikipedia Monkey Brigade" is the story of how Danny Sullivan noticed the attempt by some editor to delete the Matt Cutts chapter in the encyclopedia.
For those involved in the study of search engines, Danny Sullivan is one of the most recognized experts in the field of search engines, and has been since 1997. As the founder of Search Engine Watch, and now the editor-in-chief of Search Engine Land, Danny even has his own page in the Wikipedia world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Sullivan_%28technologist%29
It seems some Wikipedia editor decided that Matt Cutts was not notable enough for his own chapter in the Wikipedia. For those of us who work in the search engine optimization community, such a suggestion is absolutely obscene. As a quality control engineer for Google and the voice of Google's spam detection department, people in the search industry pay close attention to what Cutts says about the future of search placement within Google.
Sullivan suggested that the attempt to delete the Matt Cutts page was at the very least an example of how "inept" the Wikipedia editors have shown themselves to be. You can read Sullivan's heartfelt argument here: http://searchengineland.com/070108-170335.php
Almost as interesting as Sullivan's blog post about the suggestion to delete the Matt Cutts page from the Wikipedia, was the page where people argued the decision about whether the page was worthy of deletion. You can read that interchange here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Matt_Cutts
Those supporting the deletion of the page were quick to point out the Wikipedia guidelines on Notability at: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BIO) Strangely, I had read the guidelines myself and I felt that Matt Cutts was a slam-dunk for inclusion.
The Good Faith Argument
Much to my own surprise, the fellow who originally suggested that the Matt Cutts page should have been deleted got into the fray that resulted from his action. He even made reference to having read Sullivan's comments and chose to use them as a springboard to belittle Sullivan:
"The sources provided by Sullivan in his blog are interesting and some would even make great additions to a number of AfD-submitted articles to help fulfill notability (it's a shame he spent the time to make personal commentary about me on his blog than to improve these poorly drafted articles, but to each his own)."
For a guy who quotes the Wikipedia guidelines about "assuming good faith" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AGF) as frequently as he does, I think his own comments about Sullivan betray his double standards about "good faith".
It is true that one would not expect anyone who studied Bioinformatics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioinformatics) in college to understand who the players are in the search industry, but then one would also not expect a person who knew nothing about an industry to judge who is notable in that industry either. It would be like me assuming to be able to identify notable people in the bioinformatics field... Yep, that would be dishonest and silly.
Final Thoughts
The one thing that makes the world of Wikipedia both great and terrible is the same; it is the ability of people to make corrections to the Wikipedia encyclopedia when they see the need to do so. But, the truth is that any monkey with a keyboard and an Internet connection can create and edit documents in the Wikipedia community.
Even I am a Wikipedia editor... I may even be a monkey editor, but at the end of the day, I don't monkey around editing information about which I am clueless.
The widespread popularity of Wikipedia has made it an easy target for quite a bit of controversy and critique. Many academic institutions disapprove of any use of unverified Internet sources, including Wikipedia articles. Ironically, Wikipedia prides itself on the idea that its information is verifiable. Read more about Wikipedia's Verifiability policy here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
Wikipedia Basics
Founded in 2001, Wikipedia is a free content resource that anyone can submit information to according to certain submission rules. Articles are written and submitted by anyone interested in the topic being discussed.
Authenticity is supposedly ensured by the ability of others to edit previously submitted information and correct any errors. Grossly inappropriate or incorrect articles can be nominated for deletion. Wikipedia users are given a week to vote on the appropriate response to a deletion nomination.
These safeguards have been built into Wikipedia's design as a way of preserving both its credibility and authenticity. While Wikipedia's systems of checks and balances are not failsafe, they do eliminate quite a few of the errors that would otherwise occur.
The fact that the website's content is made up exclusively by donated content and that it has over 2 million topic articles is a testament to the popularity of this style. While there are no basic rules for submitting articles, there are basic guidelines that Wikipedia asks submitting authors to follow.
Maintaining a neutral tone and presenting the information in a fair unbiased way are the perfect tones that dictate encyclopedia articles. Authors and editors are expected to be respectful of the work of others and not to modify anything without a good reason or verifiable references.
Controversy
Academic institutions and authority reference sources such as encyclopedia companies have been less impressed with Wikipedia than the general public. There are many reasons for the less than enthusiastic response from institutions of higher learning and professional reference companies.
The publishers of Encyclopedia Britannica became enraged when a study claimed that the accuracy of Wikipedia was comparable to the accuracy of Britannica's long-standing published encyclopedia. They widely disputed the results, insisting that their publication is by far the more superior publication.
Public opinion sides with Britannica. The majority of most people, when polled, have great faith in the reputation of Britannica and hold it in much higher regard than its online counterparts.
The convenience of the Internet encyclopedia version is where a lot of its competition with Britannica arises. Being able to access any information with the click of a mouse brings research to a whole new level.
Wikipedia and Academics
Studies are regularly inconsistent on the accuracy of Wikipedia. There is a wide range in the quality and accuracy of the Wiki articles online.
Articles are constantly being modified and improved upon. When doing research, it is very important to double-check all information. Wikipedia is a great resource, but it should never be trusted as the final word on any topic.
Members of academia are prone to carry negative feelings towards to the use of Wikipedia. Most become agitated when their students source Wikipedia, because they feel their students are not able to tell the difference between a good resource and a bad one – a truthful fact or an erroneous statement.
A commonly held belief is that a student lacks the common sense or ability to differentiate between a good article and a biased, inadequate presentation of a story as fact. Academia also points to the general lack of solid research supporting most Wikipedia articles.
Lazy Research
There is no excuse for laziness, but the blame for it is often placed on the presence of technology instead of where it actually belongs – on the people who rely on technology to provide them the shortcuts they take.
The modern age is one of advanced technology and many students are more than willing to take advantage of the ease of relying on computers and minimal online research.
The primary function of schools is to teach children. Not only are they responsible for teaching them facts, but also for teaching them how to think and solve problems for themselves. When students are no longer able, or willing, to logically decide something, academics are quick to blame the ease of access to technological advances, separating themselves from the blame.
Unfortunately, schools hold as much blame as the technology they bash, for the falling ability of students to produce results on their own. When I was in high school during the early 1980's, calculators were prohibited in all classes except for the advanced mathematics classes that required the use of scientific calculators. By the mid-1990's, the children of friends were telling me that they were required to bring a simple calculator to the classroom to assist them in their basic math calculations.
Academia is generally as responsible for the falling academic performance of students as website sources such as Wikipedia. Although academia shares in the blame for falling academic performance with poor resources like Wikipedia, this shared blame should not excuse Wikipedia's less than ideal service record.
One Thousand Monkeys Typing The Next Great Novel
Wikipedia and all of its sister projects are not perfect. They are websites dedicated to providing knowledge to everyone. Those willing to share what they have learned donate to this knowledge base in hopes of helping others. At least, that is what they do in theory.
The Wikipedia frontier has real possibility for the future, but behind the scenes, it is rife with "monkeys learning to type the next great novel," as sourced in the Infinite Monkey Theorem at (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem). There are some areas of the Wikipedia that are definitely lacking in information and credibility, and yet when someone makes a gesture to add to the Wiki knowledge base, some editors frame these new contributions as unsupportable and unacceptable additions to the Wikipedia world.
The Wikipedia world relies upon its published Code Of Conduct to drive the decisions of its editors. Examples of the Wikipedia Code Of Conduct include: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BIO
The Wikipedia Monkey Brigade
One extreme example of the "Wikipedia Monkey Brigade" is the story of how Danny Sullivan noticed the attempt by some editor to delete the Matt Cutts chapter in the encyclopedia.
For those involved in the study of search engines, Danny Sullivan is one of the most recognized experts in the field of search engines, and has been since 1997. As the founder of Search Engine Watch, and now the editor-in-chief of Search Engine Land, Danny even has his own page in the Wikipedia world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Sullivan_%28technologist%29
It seems some Wikipedia editor decided that Matt Cutts was not notable enough for his own chapter in the Wikipedia. For those of us who work in the search engine optimization community, such a suggestion is absolutely obscene. As a quality control engineer for Google and the voice of Google's spam detection department, people in the search industry pay close attention to what Cutts says about the future of search placement within Google.
Sullivan suggested that the attempt to delete the Matt Cutts page was at the very least an example of how "inept" the Wikipedia editors have shown themselves to be. You can read Sullivan's heartfelt argument here: http://searchengineland.com/070108-170335.php
Almost as interesting as Sullivan's blog post about the suggestion to delete the Matt Cutts page from the Wikipedia, was the page where people argued the decision about whether the page was worthy of deletion. You can read that interchange here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Matt_Cutts
Those supporting the deletion of the page were quick to point out the Wikipedia guidelines on Notability at: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BIO) Strangely, I had read the guidelines myself and I felt that Matt Cutts was a slam-dunk for inclusion.
The Good Faith Argument
Much to my own surprise, the fellow who originally suggested that the Matt Cutts page should have been deleted got into the fray that resulted from his action. He even made reference to having read Sullivan's comments and chose to use them as a springboard to belittle Sullivan:
"The sources provided by Sullivan in his blog are interesting and some would even make great additions to a number of AfD-submitted articles to help fulfill notability (it's a shame he spent the time to make personal commentary about me on his blog than to improve these poorly drafted articles, but to each his own)."
For a guy who quotes the Wikipedia guidelines about "assuming good faith" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AGF) as frequently as he does, I think his own comments about Sullivan betray his double standards about "good faith".
It is true that one would not expect anyone who studied Bioinformatics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioinformatics) in college to understand who the players are in the search industry, but then one would also not expect a person who knew nothing about an industry to judge who is notable in that industry either. It would be like me assuming to be able to identify notable people in the bioinformatics field... Yep, that would be dishonest and silly.
Final Thoughts
The one thing that makes the world of Wikipedia both great and terrible is the same; it is the ability of people to make corrections to the Wikipedia encyclopedia when they see the need to do so. But, the truth is that any monkey with a keyboard and an Internet connection can create and edit documents in the Wikipedia community.
Even I am a Wikipedia editor... I may even be a monkey editor, but at the end of the day, I don't monkey around editing information about which I am clueless.
Green With Envy In The Google Game
Beginning on April 14th, 2007, a firestorm blew through the Internet community with the search engine optimization (SEO) community burning the hottest. The embers were warm and waiting for a strong wind to blow and kick up the flames, but it took Matt Cutts, the Google engineer extraordinaire to fire the flames with an off-the-cuff comment about "paid links."
The flames raged and in most forums, the wind quickly shifted moving the firestorm back towards Cutts and Google. Thread Watch offered the most biting rebuttal to Cutts' comments: http://www.threadwatch.org/node/13925 and http://www.threadwatch.org/node/13941
Aaron Wall at Thread Watch is a respectable fellow, and he tore into Google with a ferociousness that I had not anticipated. Matt Cutts tried to answer some of Aaron's questions, but it seemed that Cutts' rebuttals only added more fuel to the fire.
I would not have wanted to be in Matt Cutts' shoes that week. Oh my, it was brutal!
Even on Cutts' own blog where the "paid link" comment originally surfaced (http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/hidden-links/), Danny Sullivan posted a question that went unanswered, so Sullivan commented about it on his site: http://searchengineland.com/070420-111550.php
Search Engine Watch even mentioned this issue and linked to additional forums where the debate was raging: http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/070416-020746
What Most Readers Took From Cutts' Comments
There were only a few readers who took Matt Cutts' comments to be brotherly-advice.
The vast majority of people were screaming that Google intended to exercise their "monopoly control" over the Internet to run all of their competitors out of business.
Generally, I am not a "reactionary" type person. But for about an hour, even I had a ball in the pit of my stomach.
The ball passed from the pit of my stomach when I read a post that mirrored an opinion I have openly written about numerous times before: How does Google determine the "intent" of a person making a link? They can't!
Understanding The Nuances Of Similar Items
Some people suggest that I should be ashamed of myself for speculating about the future of Google's algorithms. There is even one clown, who has suggested that I should fear mentioning Matt Cutts' name in an article, because I am bound to draw Cutts' ire against me and my businesses. But, I am not worried.
I am simply laying out my "speculative" opinion about what Cutts' comments might mean to my business and yours. You are free to use your own brain to judge the value of my words.
Am I playing a double standard when I say that Google cannot determine the intent of the person placing a link, and then I comment on how I interpret the future of the Google search algorithms? I don't think so, and let me tell you why.
Google uses algorithms (software programs) to make distinctions about what a web page is about, how they value that page, and to judge the nature of a link.
I use my intellect (or as some would suggest, my lack thereof) to make a judgment about what Google has told us we should expect from them in the future.
I trust software to a certain extent, but software cannot always read the nuance that separates two very similar items. So, how can the Google algorithm be expected to determine the intent of a person who placed a link?
It has always been my contention that humans are "required" in any process that must make an interpretation of nuance. In my businesses, we refuse to trust computers to make judgments of nuance, because they can't. That is the reason we employ human beings to process orders.
What Is Google's Intent Behind The Paid Links Issue?
The whole of Cutts' argument seems to hinge on nixing "paid links" that are designed to manipulate or "game Google's PageRank" and to a lesser extent, their organic search results. Google seems to be really agitated that webmasters are "selling links based on the PageRank value of a page."
The problem is that webmasters are selling an intangible asset that is wholly owned by Google and maintained for "Google's benefit." Webmasters are selling this Google asset, but Google will not receive any of the proceeds from that sale.
As a result, Cutts suggested that webmasters should use some method that Google's spider can use to recognize and distinguish "paid links" from "given links." Since Google's algorithm is based on the theory that links are given to websites that deserve those links, the paid links on high PageRank pages can really skew Google's PageRank values and its organic search results.
Here Is Where It Gets Ugly
Both honest and dishonest people inhabit this Internet.
Google wants webmasters who are selling links to distinguish paid links from given links, so that Google can ignore "links purchased to influence PageRank."
If honest people distinguish paid links in a way that Google can recognize, then the market demand for those links will dry up. Once the PageRank value of a link is taken away from the buyer, the buyer will be forced to purchase links based only on the traffic that the specific web page receives. If all paid link decisions were based only on a web page's traffic, then the market value of a link would be decimated.
Once a webmaster tells his link-buying customers that his or her links will no longer carry PageRank value to the buyer's website, then the value of that link will drop in most cases by 80% or more. Why would a webmaster want to reduce the market value of his links by 80%?
Although Google's links do not pass PageRank to the websites that are in their index or paid listings, we have to ask ourselves one thing. Would Google be willing to take a step that would reduce the market value of their own links by 80%? They certainly would not do anything that would cut their own bottom line that deeply, yet they are asking webmasters to do just that.
This is the reason people are teed off at Google. At least 80% of the market value of a link is driven by the PageRank value of the web page where the link will be placed.
Dishonest people don't care to play by the rules; they will continue to sell their PageRank value, as long as they continue to have buyers. Only the honest will suffer.
Link Buyers Are Green With Envy
Link Buyers are envious of the PageRank value given to other web pages, and they want a bit of that value passed over to their own websites.
Link buyers are green with envy, because they can see that little green bar in the top of their browser that tells them how much value Google gives a web page in its algorithms.
If Google were to keep PageRank as a private value, known only to them, then "paid links" would not be an issue for them to manage.
If the public cannot see what a page's PageRank value is, then link buyers would not be able to use PageRank to influence their link buying decisions, and webmasters would not be able to market their PageRank value to other websites.
How Simple Is That?
All Google has to do to solve this problem of theirs, is to take away the indicator people use to buy and sell PageRank.
Someone suggested to me that Google would never do away with the PageRank indicator in their toolbar, because Google feels that it is the only thing that ensures that people will keep the Google toolbar in their browser. Personally, I will continue to use the Google toolbar for my searches, even if the PageRank indicator was not there, because I like the search results Google gives to me. But that is just my opinion, and I am only one person out of millions of Google toolbar users.
What it boils down to is this. If Google is serious about nixing schemes to buy and sell PageRank, then they would simply take their PageRank indicator away from us. But will they take it away? Only time will tell.
The flames raged and in most forums, the wind quickly shifted moving the firestorm back towards Cutts and Google. Thread Watch offered the most biting rebuttal to Cutts' comments: http://www.threadwatch.org/node/13925 and http://www.threadwatch.org/node/13941
Aaron Wall at Thread Watch is a respectable fellow, and he tore into Google with a ferociousness that I had not anticipated. Matt Cutts tried to answer some of Aaron's questions, but it seemed that Cutts' rebuttals only added more fuel to the fire.
I would not have wanted to be in Matt Cutts' shoes that week. Oh my, it was brutal!
Even on Cutts' own blog where the "paid link" comment originally surfaced (http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/hidden-links/), Danny Sullivan posted a question that went unanswered, so Sullivan commented about it on his site: http://searchengineland.com/070420-111550.php
Search Engine Watch even mentioned this issue and linked to additional forums where the debate was raging: http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/070416-020746
What Most Readers Took From Cutts' Comments
There were only a few readers who took Matt Cutts' comments to be brotherly-advice.
The vast majority of people were screaming that Google intended to exercise their "monopoly control" over the Internet to run all of their competitors out of business.
Generally, I am not a "reactionary" type person. But for about an hour, even I had a ball in the pit of my stomach.
The ball passed from the pit of my stomach when I read a post that mirrored an opinion I have openly written about numerous times before: How does Google determine the "intent" of a person making a link? They can't!
Understanding The Nuances Of Similar Items
Some people suggest that I should be ashamed of myself for speculating about the future of Google's algorithms. There is even one clown, who has suggested that I should fear mentioning Matt Cutts' name in an article, because I am bound to draw Cutts' ire against me and my businesses. But, I am not worried.
I am simply laying out my "speculative" opinion about what Cutts' comments might mean to my business and yours. You are free to use your own brain to judge the value of my words.
Am I playing a double standard when I say that Google cannot determine the intent of the person placing a link, and then I comment on how I interpret the future of the Google search algorithms? I don't think so, and let me tell you why.
Google uses algorithms (software programs) to make distinctions about what a web page is about, how they value that page, and to judge the nature of a link.
I use my intellect (or as some would suggest, my lack thereof) to make a judgment about what Google has told us we should expect from them in the future.
I trust software to a certain extent, but software cannot always read the nuance that separates two very similar items. So, how can the Google algorithm be expected to determine the intent of a person who placed a link?
It has always been my contention that humans are "required" in any process that must make an interpretation of nuance. In my businesses, we refuse to trust computers to make judgments of nuance, because they can't. That is the reason we employ human beings to process orders.
What Is Google's Intent Behind The Paid Links Issue?
The whole of Cutts' argument seems to hinge on nixing "paid links" that are designed to manipulate or "game Google's PageRank" and to a lesser extent, their organic search results. Google seems to be really agitated that webmasters are "selling links based on the PageRank value of a page."
The problem is that webmasters are selling an intangible asset that is wholly owned by Google and maintained for "Google's benefit." Webmasters are selling this Google asset, but Google will not receive any of the proceeds from that sale.
As a result, Cutts suggested that webmasters should use some method that Google's spider can use to recognize and distinguish "paid links" from "given links." Since Google's algorithm is based on the theory that links are given to websites that deserve those links, the paid links on high PageRank pages can really skew Google's PageRank values and its organic search results.
Here Is Where It Gets Ugly
Both honest and dishonest people inhabit this Internet.
Google wants webmasters who are selling links to distinguish paid links from given links, so that Google can ignore "links purchased to influence PageRank."
If honest people distinguish paid links in a way that Google can recognize, then the market demand for those links will dry up. Once the PageRank value of a link is taken away from the buyer, the buyer will be forced to purchase links based only on the traffic that the specific web page receives. If all paid link decisions were based only on a web page's traffic, then the market value of a link would be decimated.
Once a webmaster tells his link-buying customers that his or her links will no longer carry PageRank value to the buyer's website, then the value of that link will drop in most cases by 80% or more. Why would a webmaster want to reduce the market value of his links by 80%?
Although Google's links do not pass PageRank to the websites that are in their index or paid listings, we have to ask ourselves one thing. Would Google be willing to take a step that would reduce the market value of their own links by 80%? They certainly would not do anything that would cut their own bottom line that deeply, yet they are asking webmasters to do just that.
This is the reason people are teed off at Google. At least 80% of the market value of a link is driven by the PageRank value of the web page where the link will be placed.
Dishonest people don't care to play by the rules; they will continue to sell their PageRank value, as long as they continue to have buyers. Only the honest will suffer.
Link Buyers Are Green With Envy
Link Buyers are envious of the PageRank value given to other web pages, and they want a bit of that value passed over to their own websites.
Link buyers are green with envy, because they can see that little green bar in the top of their browser that tells them how much value Google gives a web page in its algorithms.
If Google were to keep PageRank as a private value, known only to them, then "paid links" would not be an issue for them to manage.
If the public cannot see what a page's PageRank value is, then link buyers would not be able to use PageRank to influence their link buying decisions, and webmasters would not be able to market their PageRank value to other websites.
How Simple Is That?
All Google has to do to solve this problem of theirs, is to take away the indicator people use to buy and sell PageRank.
Someone suggested to me that Google would never do away with the PageRank indicator in their toolbar, because Google feels that it is the only thing that ensures that people will keep the Google toolbar in their browser. Personally, I will continue to use the Google toolbar for my searches, even if the PageRank indicator was not there, because I like the search results Google gives to me. But that is just my opinion, and I am only one person out of millions of Google toolbar users.
What it boils down to is this. If Google is serious about nixing schemes to buy and sell PageRank, then they would simply take their PageRank indicator away from us. But will they take it away? Only time will tell.
What Is DSL?
DSL stands for Digital Subscriber Line. It is a service that makes the use of existing copper telephone wires for delivering data services at extremely fast speed rates. It does not hamper the existing telephone line. You can surf the Internet and talk on the phone, simultaneously.
DSL offers speeds that are around 5 to 25 times higher than a typical 56Kb dial-up connection. It is an always-on type of connection. This implies that websites would load quickly, downloads would be faster, buffering of videos would be fast and smooth and the domain of Online games would be illimitable.
Based on the types of service, DSL can be can be categorized in three divisions which are ASDL, IDSL and SDSL.
ADSL stands for Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line. It offers download speed of 1.5 Mbps and upload speed of 384 K. In order to acquire a ADSL connection, your location has to be within 3 miles of your local telephone office. Also, a DSL router is needed for this type of connection.
IDSL is a ISDN Digital Subscriber Line service which requires an ISDN router. It provides a connection speed of 144 K. in this type of connection distance is not a component to be considered.
SDSL means Symmetric Digital Subscriber Line. The speeds available under this type of DSL connection depends on the distance between your location and your local telephone office. The speed of downloads and uploads can go up to 1.1 Mbps.
Advantages of DSL
No installation of new wires is required. DSL uses the present telephone line to connect to the Internet. It provides extremely fast connection. Depending on the offer, you would not even have to pay for the DSL modem installation charges, since it is provided free by some of the companies on selection of the appropriate plan. The download rate is much higher in DSL connections. Many business organizations have gained the benefits of DSL. A DSL connection is very secure.
Disadvantages of DSL
The quality of your DSL connection depends on the distance between the DSL providers office and your location. Nearer you are, the better quality connection would you get. So, consumers located far from the local DSL office may face some trouble. DSL provide high speeds for downloading stuff but upload speeds are not that good.
DSL vs Cable Modems
The services provided through a cable modem can sometimes slow down or get hanged. It depends on the number of users accessing that particular service. But, in a DSL connection there is no such problem. The speed of DSL is consistent and high. This does not allow any kind of conjunction on the network. It provides more security than the cable modem connections. The popularity of DSL has risen to new heights which has resulted in disconnections and up gradations of the cable modem connections.
DSL offers speeds that are around 5 to 25 times higher than a typical 56Kb dial-up connection. It is an always-on type of connection. This implies that websites would load quickly, downloads would be faster, buffering of videos would be fast and smooth and the domain of Online games would be illimitable.
Based on the types of service, DSL can be can be categorized in three divisions which are ASDL, IDSL and SDSL.
ADSL stands for Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line. It offers download speed of 1.5 Mbps and upload speed of 384 K. In order to acquire a ADSL connection, your location has to be within 3 miles of your local telephone office. Also, a DSL router is needed for this type of connection.
IDSL is a ISDN Digital Subscriber Line service which requires an ISDN router. It provides a connection speed of 144 K. in this type of connection distance is not a component to be considered.
SDSL means Symmetric Digital Subscriber Line. The speeds available under this type of DSL connection depends on the distance between your location and your local telephone office. The speed of downloads and uploads can go up to 1.1 Mbps.
Advantages of DSL
No installation of new wires is required. DSL uses the present telephone line to connect to the Internet. It provides extremely fast connection. Depending on the offer, you would not even have to pay for the DSL modem installation charges, since it is provided free by some of the companies on selection of the appropriate plan. The download rate is much higher in DSL connections. Many business organizations have gained the benefits of DSL. A DSL connection is very secure.
Disadvantages of DSL
The quality of your DSL connection depends on the distance between the DSL providers office and your location. Nearer you are, the better quality connection would you get. So, consumers located far from the local DSL office may face some trouble. DSL provide high speeds for downloading stuff but upload speeds are not that good.
DSL vs Cable Modems
The services provided through a cable modem can sometimes slow down or get hanged. It depends on the number of users accessing that particular service. But, in a DSL connection there is no such problem. The speed of DSL is consistent and high. This does not allow any kind of conjunction on the network. It provides more security than the cable modem connections. The popularity of DSL has risen to new heights which has resulted in disconnections and up gradations of the cable modem connections.
High Speed Internet Connection
Internet has almost become a lifeline for the new generation. Many businesses now depend entirely on the Internet. People residing in different parts of world are able to talk to each other via the medium of Internet. Video conferencing is a live example of it. Many marriages are also made with the help of the Internet. The list of benefits that Internet provides is limitless.
But, what would you do when you have a slow speed internet connection that takes a lot of time? That internet connection would simply be useless to you.
The speed at which you are connected to the Internet plays a very important role in enjoying the advantages offered by it. For example, suppose one of your relatives who is residing overseas, has sent you a holiday clip. Now, if your Internet speed is slow then first of all it would take a long time to load the mail website. Then you would enter your user name and password. It would again take extra time to verify it. Also, downloading the clip would be very slow, even if its size is very small. Overall, you can say that having a low speed Internet connection (dial-up connection) is not a good thing.
There are many choices available for a high speed Internet connection. DSL, Cable and Satellite are some of them. You can select the best one from them. Here are some of the common benefits that all these high speed Internet connections provide.
* Viewing of streamlining clips or videos is very easy and fast in these connections. Dial-up connections may not even allow their access. * You can upload web pages and download any kind of information or software with more than twice the speed of dial-up connection. * Downloading of images and huge e-mail files can be done almost promptly. * High speed Internet connection has proven to be a boon for all businessmen. They can now access the world wide web within a few seconds. Their businesses have been highly benefited through efficient and quick video conferencing which would have been impossible in a slow dial-up connection. * For those people who work from home, a high speed Internet connection can assist them in increasing their overall work efficiency and output. * On a long term basis, the high speed Internet connection can prove to be highly economical.
DSL: The best choice for high speed internet connection Now-a-days, DSL has become the leading choice for a high speed Internet connection. DSL works on existing telephone lines. With a DSL connection you can browse the web and talk on the phone at the same time. Generally, a DSL connection requires a DSL router, a dedicated phone line and a network card or a modem for each system. The installation of DSL at your location is the responsibility of the service provider. Last but not the least, this high speed Internet connection is offered at very affordable prices.
But, what would you do when you have a slow speed internet connection that takes a lot of time? That internet connection would simply be useless to you.
The speed at which you are connected to the Internet plays a very important role in enjoying the advantages offered by it. For example, suppose one of your relatives who is residing overseas, has sent you a holiday clip. Now, if your Internet speed is slow then first of all it would take a long time to load the mail website. Then you would enter your user name and password. It would again take extra time to verify it. Also, downloading the clip would be very slow, even if its size is very small. Overall, you can say that having a low speed Internet connection (dial-up connection) is not a good thing.
There are many choices available for a high speed Internet connection. DSL, Cable and Satellite are some of them. You can select the best one from them. Here are some of the common benefits that all these high speed Internet connections provide.
* Viewing of streamlining clips or videos is very easy and fast in these connections. Dial-up connections may not even allow their access. * You can upload web pages and download any kind of information or software with more than twice the speed of dial-up connection. * Downloading of images and huge e-mail files can be done almost promptly. * High speed Internet connection has proven to be a boon for all businessmen. They can now access the world wide web within a few seconds. Their businesses have been highly benefited through efficient and quick video conferencing which would have been impossible in a slow dial-up connection. * For those people who work from home, a high speed Internet connection can assist them in increasing their overall work efficiency and output. * On a long term basis, the high speed Internet connection can prove to be highly economical.
DSL: The best choice for high speed internet connection Now-a-days, DSL has become the leading choice for a high speed Internet connection. DSL works on existing telephone lines. With a DSL connection you can browse the web and talk on the phone at the same time. Generally, a DSL connection requires a DSL router, a dedicated phone line and a network card or a modem for each system. The installation of DSL at your location is the responsibility of the service provider. Last but not the least, this high speed Internet connection is offered at very affordable prices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)