I often use Heather Armstrong’s tirades against her bosses as a conversation starter during my social media courses. Her rants never named her bosses nor the company for whom she worked.

That didn’t stop her from being sacked!

Compare that with Steve Yegge’s rant about his employer, Google. He not only names the company but also goes on to name the big bosses. If the reaction of most people who attend my courses are anything to go by he should be sacked. But that hasn’t happened.

Instead Yegge sought advice from Google’s internal PR department, then posted a retraction of sorts on Google+. He explains that the post was meant to be seen only by his team and not the public. Of course the damage – if you’d call it that – was already done. Others on G+ had already shared his post and it was summarised and shared further on other web sites.

In a sign of their maturity and tendency towards transparency Google allowed people to leave the post published in it’s entirety. And that takes a lot of corporate self-confidence.

Here’s some of what Yegge said about Google+.

Google+ is a knee-jerk reaction, a study in short-term thinking, predicated on the incorrect notion that Facebook is successful because they built a great product. But thats not why they are successful. Facebook is successful because they built an entire constellation of products by allowing other people to do the work. So Facebook is different for everyone. Some people spend all their time on Mafia Wars. Some spend all their time on Farmville. There are hundreds or maybe thousands of different high-quality time sinks available, so theres something there for everyone.

In response to Google’s announcement today that their new +1 button was available for inclusion on websites, the team at thehomepage.com.au have moved quickly to make the social sharing button available throughout their site.

According to Google “the +1 button makes it easy for visitors to recommend your pages to friends and contacts exactly when their advice is most useful – on Google search.”

Now, in addition to other social sharing options, the +1 button gives visitors to thehomepage another way to share properties of interest with their networks.

According to thehomepage spokesperson, Ben Stockdale, social media is a big part of the way buyers, sellers and agents interact with real estate and the web.

“Our recent site redesign saw us add a sharing bar right at the top of almost every page”, he said.

“Individuals looking at property are increasingly sharing their recommendations on Facebook and Twitter and Google’s +1 button just makes sense and we implemented it immediately.”[tweetmeme]

And it appears thehomepage has stolen a march on the competition. As of the publication of this post none of the other major portals have included the +1 button on their property profile pages.

“We’re looking forward to seeing great things from Google +1 but only time will tell if the new service will compete with the Facebook Like or Twitter buttons”, concluded Stockdale.

The new Google +1 button on thehomepage.com.au

The web we see today is shaped by Google. The way this page is constructed – the way this site and most others are constructed – maximises the chance of it being found on a Google search.[tweetmeme]

The holy grail of search engine marketing is page 1 of a Google search. Even better it’s page 1 position 1. To be found on page 2 or beyond is to be virtually invisible.

Marketers and SEO specialists spend their time figuring out how Google’s search algorithm works. Once they do they then produce an almost endless supply of content that gets picked up by Google. That leads to traffic and traffic produces sales.

This content is not always good quality. Sometimes it’s downright rubbish. But marketers often care little. Their only interest is to sell stuff or, in many cases, to sell advertising space on high traffic sites. And for that they need lots and lots of Google traffic.

But Google’s interests are quite different. They want people to do more searches, not less. With each search they get to display more advertising. Each ad is potential revenue. If they don’t deliver quality search results their users head off to another search engine and Google’s revenue stream falls. That doesn’t make for happy campers around the Google boardroom table.

And so Google spends lots and lots of time tweaking its search algorithms to eliminate low quality content from their search results.

With every tweak there are winners and losers. Sites that produce quality content may rocket up the rankings. Others disappear into obscurity.

But one thing remains constant: Google favours fresh, original content. So do customers.

The message is simple. Deliver what your customers want and the Google juice will flow your way.

By allowing Google to track my web browsing, Google becomes a more effective knowledge management platform.

Privacy International lodged a complaint with a number of privacy regulators around the world about targeted advertising in Gmail.

Official Google Blog: Google search privacy: Plain and simple

Search queries saved in logs: Misspelled search terms, prompts for “did you mean”.

IP address: Search results returned to the correct computer. Can tell which provider and general location.

Cookies: Small file stored on computer. Reminds of preferences from last time. Search results per pages and language preference

Log of visit: Receipt of visit. Search term, IP address, cookie ID, browser version, operating system, date and time of search.

Some parts of IP address and cookie will be deleted after 18 months.

De Landa proposes the concept of the Panspectron (p. 206). Whilst referring to Bentham’s Panopticon, which is he points out, a powerful tool for political and societal control through the perception of continuous surveillance, he suggest the Panspectron gathers all the available information about all subjects all of the time. Through a systems of filters and key word matching matters of interest are identified and this results in the subject being brought into focus.

Put this in a modern context and we have the system of robots (bots) employed by search engines that continually search the internet, reporting their findings of information and information linkages back to central points. Data is then analysed through a system of algorithms, such as Google’s Page Rank system and this results in the searches we use today. It’s only when someone searches (employees the Panspectron’s keywords and filters) does the relevant data appear.

A quick post to a piece on the Google Public Policy blog from Peter Fleischer about Google and the EU policy on data retention. Will probably be worth coming back to this one.

Google Public Policy Blog: Data retention: the right balance between privacy and security:

“Citizens should have a right to privacy online. And governments have an obligation to keep their citizens safe. Finding the right balance between privacy and security is a delicate balancing act. Europe’s recent experience with data retention holds interesting lessons for everyone concerned with this balance.”

Are individual privacy rights at greater risk as a result of Google’s privacy practices?

I found this on Peter Fleischer’s blog. It’s Eric Scmidt, CEO of Google, urging the nations of the world to adopt new privacy regulations. Although it sounds good in theory, the cynic in me believes that it’s a diversionary tactic to take attention away from the Google/DoubleClick deal. The comment by Anne Cavoukian tends to reinforce this thought. Ms Cavoukian suggests Google adopts a set of privacy standards her organisation has already developed.