Jane’s Oak Web Design Blog

 Have you ever received an email similar to this one?

Many of my clients receive these emails on a regular basis, and then forward them on to me asking for my opinion.

So I feel it is worth including my latest reply to a customer about this issue.

Here is how I responded to my clinet who owns www.adelaidefurnishedrentals.com.au

There is no doubt that Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) is a vitally important part of web design and development.

SEO gets a lot of attention and rightly so - if your site does not rank well in searches then nobody can find it.

However, these random emails from overseas based companies are poorly thought out and, as the above example shows, clearly no prior research has been done before they are sent.

They are playing a numbers game - putting a lot of bait out in the water and hoping for a few nibbles.

And I should point out that there are dangers in using unreputable SEO companies too.

If you read this Whirlpool forum you will see that some clients have used SEO services with disasterous
and very expensive results.

There are even reports of sites being banned by Google for keyword spamming!

A post from a user called teegman puts it very well where she/he says in part:

“SEO is such a loose, undefined term to the extent that I feel it’s a completely inappropriate philosophy and approach
to any online marketing strategy.

At the end of the day, you’re building your site(s) to support and grow your business operations. To effectively do this
you need to have a holistic understanding of your marketing objectives (as well as fundamental marketing skills), your customer demographics and what drives them to use your services / buy your product.

Traditional SEO concepts are based around brute forcing your site to #1 for a keyphrase (which makes for an excellent
“I’m done” point for your SEO ‘expert’) which can deliver value, but often unbeknownst to the business is how unsustainable and untargetted the campaign is. Too bad that you’ve been blacklisted after hitting #1 for ‘melbourne accommodation’,
I guess it’s time to put those new high-rise apartments on hold… (read: short term success can cause long term damage to a company)

How to tackle this?

Basically, you need to have a base level understanding of SEO, what it entails and what your objectives are before you even begin talking to a consultant. You need to find out how the consultant plans on working with your business (to understand your business and customer base), what strategies they undertake and previous examples of successful, profitable campaigns.”

As I have said before, there is a lot of nonsense talked about SEO.

Attempting to get your site ranking at number one for every conceivable search query is an impossible task. Plus it will probably result in getting your site banned altogether from Google.

Getting your site to rank in the first 10 for appropriate search queries is both sensible and relatively easy. Any competent
web designer should be able to achieve this and include it as part of the site building budget.

If they don’t, or if they consider this to be a add-on service that they charge extra for, look for another designer!

Google Wave is an online tool for real-time communication and collaboration.

A wave can be both a conversation and a document where people can discuss and work together using richly formatted text, photos, videos, maps, and more.

What is a wave?

A wave is equal parts conversation and document. People can communicate and work together with richly formatted text, photos, videos, maps, and more.

A wave is shared. Any participant can reply anywhere in the message, edit the content and add participants at any point in the process. Then playback lets anyone rewind the wave to see who said what and when.

A wave is live. With live transmission as you type, participants on a wave can have faster conversations, see edits and interact with extensions in real-time.

All the above was from the Google site http://wave.google.com/help/wave/about.html#video where you can watch a video to see how it works.

You can become an early adopter by signing up here https://services.google.com/fb/forms/wavesignup/

I’m waiting patiently for my invitation as it’s still in the development satge and you have to wait and be invited.

I think this technology will be ideal for someone like me, to be able to keep “conversations” with my clients in one place, rather than in email folders.

HURRY UP GOOGLE - send me my invitation!!!

First, let me say I loved it.

It was a visual feast, exciting, funny, tragic and delightful, but…

I just don’t understand some of the changes, omissions and additions that were made to this film.

Starting at the beginning, what was the idea of having Harry sittining in a grimy cafe in Surbiton train station late at night?  The whole wizarding world now knows Voldemorte is out to kill Harry, so why is he left to wander aimlessly, unprotected, in the railway?

Why didn’t the movie stick to the scene where Dumbledore visits the Dursleys and takes Harry with him from there?  I felt cheated out of the beautifully written book scene where Dumbledore, oh so politely and with eloquent sarcasm, tells Vernon and Petunia what he really thinks of them and gives them a lesson in manners.

The there is Tonks and Lupin.  What happened to that sweet love story?  When we see them at the Burrow they are clearly a couple, so we miss all of Tonks’ lovelorn angst and Lupin’s noble sentiments that he is too dangerous for her to love and will ruin her socially.

Back to Harry’s security again - what was Dumbledore thinking leaving him in a bog somewhere close to the Burrow and the Weasleys not knowing to expect him?  Clearly Dumbledore is a busy man, but dumping Harry in the middle of the night and not even seeing if he made it safely to the Burrow seems, well, irresponsible at best.

But strangest of all was the fight at the Burrow.  It’s not in the book and it makes no sense, unless it is a device to tie in another plot point in one of the later movies.

Just how was it possible for those Death Eaters to attack the Burrow, and why could Harry and Ginny get through that ring of fire when Tonks the Auror, Lupin the brilliant wizard and Molly and Arthur, both brilliant too, could not get through?

I’m not sure how many Death Eaters attacked the Burrow; I only identified Bellatrix and Fenir Greyback, but I think there were more.  But once they got Harry alone out in that bog again, why did they hide from him? Why not attack?  Sorry, but that scene makes no sense whatsoever!

Another thing that irks me is that the book was called Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince.  The major focus of the book is on Harry, Ron and Hermione wondering who the Half Blood Prince could be.  Is he a brilliant former student or is he dangerous?

Yet the movie barely mentions it.  We get very little indication that the potions text book is helping Harry achieve great grades. We get almost no dialogue wondering about the identity of the Prince.  We don’t even see Snape using his occlumency powers to deduce that Harry has his old potions text book.  In fact, there is nothing in the movie to suggest that Snape has a clue Harry might have his old book.

So when Snape says during their final fight “I am the Half Blood Prince”, it’s not so much a revelation as a moment when the audience is reminded that this was what the novel was all about.

I’m sad that neither Chrlie or Bill Weasley have made an appearance in the movies and would have loved the “post Dumbldore’s death” scene in the hospital wing with Fleur and Molly to be included.  It also means there can’t be a wedding at the beginning of the next film which is sad.

And what about the Horcruxes?

If the information that Harry has learned in this movie is all he has to go on, how on earth is he going to know how many horcruxes to look for or what they might be?

I’m sure we all noted that scene where Dumbledore looked curiously at Harry’s scar, but that clue was only for the audience, not for Harry.

At he end of this movie all Harry knows is that Voldemorte may have made some horcruxes, Dumbledore had an unexplained ring that was one, the Riddle diary was one, but the locket was a fake.

Harry has no clue what to look for.  The locket is never mentioned as being Slytherin’s, the ring is not identified as Marvolo’s.  So just what information does Harry have to start his horcrux quest? None!  Not even the clue that the items may be related to the Hogwarts founders.

Ho hum, well maybe the next movie will just have to open with a letter from Dumbledore telling Harry all that he needs to know.

But overall it is a great movie and a fair adaptation from the book.  It’s just that, for any diehard Potter fan, the movies can never be the complete tapestry that the books are; stuff gets left out and plots need to be simplified and modified to suit the movie format.

I do so desperately hope that there are lots of deleted scenes that will eventually make it into the “directors cut” version of the films.  Frankly, if there aren’t then Warner Bros would be neglecting another Potter goldmine.

Things I Loved

Rupert Grint!!!! Gorgeous, kooky, geeky and just adorable.  It was great to see him able to flex his comedic muscles in this role.  I think he has a huge talent and the sort of shy/adorable that made Hugh Grant so famous.  I expect to see him in many future romantic comedies.

Jim Broadbent as Slughorn is exceptional!  An actor whose thoughts you can read on his face.  Breaking off Aragog’s fang was an amusing touch.

Daniel Radcliffe - gorgeous as ever, and what a relief to see him in a silly mood for once when he took the Felix Filicitus!

Hermione (Emma Watson) so smart with the books but so confused by love - aww!

Harry and Ginny - except that the anticipation was missing with that kiss, but then Ron saying “so did you and Ginny do it?” - well the audience just hooted with laughter!

McGonagall and the students pointing their wands to the sky - sigh!

This morning on ABC Radio, Turnbull is trying to convince listeners that he didn’t ask about the faked email until after Grech gave his evidence in Senate Estimates last Friday.

That is not true!

In parliament back on June 4, Turnball said  “I ask the Treasurer: were there any discussions or communications regarding Mr John Grant’s interest in seeking finance from OzCar between himself and the Prime Minister or between their respective offices?” source: http://blogotariat.com/node/174445

Why is nobody commenting on the time-line of this story?

On ABC Radio this morning I heard Turnbull saying he “acted responsibly in reaction to Grech’s testimony”, but it is clear from the question he asked on 4 June that he was already building a case based on the fake email.

Turnbull should apologise immediately for trying to remove our 2 top politicians from their positions while relying on an unsubstantiated email, which he says he never even saw, and which is now shown to be a fake.

Is any person who can set this chain of events in action, based on a rumour about an email that he never even asked to see,  a suitable person to hold high office?

How much time has been wasted on this stupidity while the government should have been sorting out the emmissions trading scheme?

Taxpayers should be furious! 
Don’t forget that we are paying these people to do their jobs.

How much has this fiasco cost us?

How many hours have Rudd, Swan and Turnbull spent working on this issue?
How many hours have their personal staff, various senators, IT staff and treasury staff dedicated to it?
How many hours have the Australian Federal Police put in since they were asked to investigate it?

Turnbull should be apologising to all Australians for the enormous waste of time and money this stupid diversion has cost at a time when we really cannot afford to be wasting either.

Initially I dismissed this story as a storm in a teacup.  It just seemed so ridiculous.

If PM Kevin Rudd actually did ask someone in his office to check that his mate John Grant was getting fair treatment from the OzCar scheme, I thought, well so what?

Any taxpayer surely has the right to ask their MP to follow up on something governmenty, don’t they?  Isn’t that why we have MPs?  John Grant lives in Kevin Rudd’s electorate and, friend or not, he has the same rights as the rest of us to ask for representation.

As I said, a storm in a teacup. 

But now I see a much bigger picture emerging, and it is quite disturbing.

The whole fiasco has blown up in Malcolm Turnbull’s face now that he cannot produce the email he claims was at the centre of this controversy.

So it begs the question, how did this all begin and why?

It is interesting to read John Grant’s (he is the car dealer friend of the PM) statement in The Australian where he was quoted as saying he had made some initial enquiries about the OzCar scheme :

“like most dealers did” …”When GMAC (Financial Services) and GE decided to pull out of the country, dealers didn’t know what was going on” … “The government came up with a package, and vehicle dealers wanted to know what was happening with it. I did ring to find out what the program was about and I found out that it couldn’t be drawn down by the dealers; it could only be drawn down by the finance companies and banks.  They were the only people who could access the fund, so me as a dealer could get no favours at all. I didn’t ask for any favours, and quite frankly I’m still with the financier I started with so nothing’s changed for me in my life.” source : http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25662824-5013871,00.html

So, assuming John Grant is telling the truth, there was really nothing for him to ask Kevin Rudd to look into anyway.

Therefore, whatever evidence or innuendo is produced as a result of this ongoing saga, it’ based on an entirely false premise to begin with - individual dealers don’t apply for OzCar assistance to the government, they apply through Credit Suisse.

Normally I would classify my interest in current affairs as a ”half-attentive while eating dinner news watcher”, and I reckon most Australians would probably say the same.  The trouble is, from this limited perspective, the message we get is that there is some new government handout and Kevin Rudd is accused of helping a mate get his fingers into the pie.

That’s the message that Malcolm Turnbull and the Opposition hope most people will half hear, and our 30 TV news second stories won’t explain much more than that.  But this scandal goes so much deeper and it is a symptom or the nasty disease that infects Australian politics today.

How many people will spend time researching the details of this story? How many will simply hear the basics as Malcolm Turnbull might hope?

Well, to begin at the beginning, I looked into OzCar and discovered this:
Car Dealer Financing Support: OzCar Enquiries
Any enquiries relating to the operation of the OzCar Special Purpose Vehicle should in the first instance be directed to Credit Suisse in Sydney who are the Australian Government’s appointed managers of the OzCar facility.Enquiries should be directed to Mr Patrick Eng, Director of the Asset Backed Capital Markets Group, Credit Suisse, 02 8205 4536 or Mr Will Farrant on 02 8205 4891.
source: http://www.treasury.gov.au/contentitem.asp?NavId=&ContentID=1536.

So,  if a car dealer called the PM’s office or the Treasury, they would be directed to Credit Suisse which seems to be widely known on the various motor trade websites I have looked at.

Another thought that occurs to me is this: love him or hate him, you have to admit Kevin Rudd is intelligent and knows about politics.  He cannot have risen to the post of PM without being aware of the nasty tricks and traps that are always lurking in the wings.

Is it even conceivable that such an experienced politician would be caught up in something as fundamentally dumb as trying to get unfair preferential treatment for a mate?  Are we to assume he was home sick on the first day of Politics 101?

In my opinion, there is very little likelihood that Rudd and Grant ever discussed OzCar, and even less that Rudd tried to somehow manipulate things for his friend.

So what about this missing email?

According to The Age, the email was from  a Rudd economic adviser Dr  Andrew Charlton to Gowin Grech in Treasury  and said:

“Hi Godwin, the PM has asked if the car dealer financing vehicle is available to assist a Queensland dealership, John Grant Motors, who seems to be having trouble getting finance. If you can follow up on this one asap that would be very useful. Happy to discuss. A.” source: http://www.theage.com.au/national/rudd-in-car-dealer-crisis-20090619-cr9e.html?page=1

In the Senate inquiry Grech said: “My recollection may well be totally faulty, but my recollection is that there was a short email from the PMO (prime minister’s office) to me, which very simply alerted me to the case of John Grant. I don’t have the email.” (ibid)

Anyone who has ever worked for a company that relies on email communications will tell you that emails don’t just go missing.  Any well run company will ensure that back-up copies of all emails are kept on the email server for a period of time so that they can be referred to if required in the future.  Surely we can expect that our own government follows this most basic code of practice, can’t we?

So, if the email existed, why hasn’t it been produced, along with the email headers to show what machine it was sent from and when?

I was shcoked when I heard Opposition’s Tony Abbott on ABC1’s Lateline say “I hate to sound cynical, but there are such things as searches designed to lose the evidence.”
source http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/

This is surely dirty politics at its dirtiest.

WHAT??? The evidence cannot be found, therefore the accused must have destroyed the evidence.  What an appalling assertion to make.  What happened to the innocent until proved guilty concept?

Next, I think we need to go back to last Wednesday (17/6/09) when:
Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull was accused of bullying … economic adviser Andrew Charlton.
The opposition believes Mr Charlton wrote the document to Mr Grech.
“This whole OzCar issue will be very damaging for you,” Mr Turnbull reportedly told Mr Charlton.
“Let me give you some friendly advice. You should not lie to protect your boss. You know and I know there is documentary evidence that you have lied.” source: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/national/national/general/turnbull-denies-pm-staffer-threat/1545570.aspx

Here we have an incident that appears to have occurred before the Grant/OzCar questioning ever even began in parliament.  If true, it looks suspiciously like Malcolm Turnbull was trying to intimidate Charlton and make him fearful of backing Rudd when the story broke.

So a storm in a teacup turns into a poison chalice - for someone.

If the email turns up, it will be claimed that Rudd, Swan or both, mislead Parliament.
If the email is a fake Malcolm Turnbull’s integrity is shot to hell.

So far it is looking to me as if this email will not be produced.  I feel sure it would have been by now, if it really existed, and various independent experts would have been asked to look at it to determine what the headers revealed about source and date.

Without the email  Turnbull is going to be looking a right wally.

Sooooooooooooooooo….

Why did Malcolm Turnbull start  all this?  He has admitted that he has not personally seen the email. source: http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,27574,25665217-5006009,00.html

Surely now the onus is on  Turnbull to provide full detail of who told him about this email.

Is it possible that this whole fiasco is actually internal Liberal Party politics?

Is it just possible that Turnbull has been set up by someone within his own party?

Is it a coincidence that this story broke the same week Peter Costello announced he was leaving politics?

Is there perhaps a faction within Turnbull’s own party who have “leaked”  false information to him to make him look a fool?

If he was willing to put his credibility on the line based on an email he never ever asked to see a copy of, then whoever was behind this Machiavellian plot to destroy his credibility, was probably quite right to expose him for the fool he must be.