Tuesday, November 30, 2004
I Can't Help It
I've tried to behave myself. I really have. But, what the heck, this one is too good to let go.
Jack O'Dwyer in his Nov. 24 Newsletter writes about Google rankings and how they "are as credible a source of the attention being garnered by various companies and subjects as anything these days." He had written a story on page 7 about the top 100 rankings for the term "public relations." He spotlights PRSA, which is number one and Institute of PR, UK, which is number three, Edelman, which is number 4 and the PR Museum of New York, which is number five. Notice a number missing there? He then goes on to give rankings of a number of other firms, including O'Dwyer's Newsletter, which is number 13.
I read the story and idly wondered if my site online-pr.com might be represented in the top 100. The site has been in existence since 1997 as a resource to the industry, and I have tried to update it daily. I figured I would be in the 90s somewhere. So, I went to Google and entered "public relations." Online-pr.com comes up as number two!
Well, I thought Jack must be using a different ranking for "public relations," because why would he see fit to deliberately ignore my site when he mentions all the other top five and sites as low as 96? Then, I thought that maybe he did so because I'm not important enough to mention in the same paragraphs with Edelman and other PR firms. Nah, Jack wouldn't do that, would he? Not when he is careful to note he is no. 13, some 11 positions below online-pr.com.
So, I am befuddled. Why would Jack O'Dwyer ignore online-pr.com, if indeed it is number two, as Google appears to show? Maybe Jack could let me know. I'm just wondering.
Jack O'Dwyer in his Nov. 24 Newsletter writes about Google rankings and how they "are as credible a source of the attention being garnered by various companies and subjects as anything these days." He had written a story on page 7 about the top 100 rankings for the term "public relations." He spotlights PRSA, which is number one and Institute of PR, UK, which is number three, Edelman, which is number 4 and the PR Museum of New York, which is number five. Notice a number missing there? He then goes on to give rankings of a number of other firms, including O'Dwyer's Newsletter, which is number 13.
I read the story and idly wondered if my site online-pr.com might be represented in the top 100. The site has been in existence since 1997 as a resource to the industry, and I have tried to update it daily. I figured I would be in the 90s somewhere. So, I went to Google and entered "public relations." Online-pr.com comes up as number two!
Well, I thought Jack must be using a different ranking for "public relations," because why would he see fit to deliberately ignore my site when he mentions all the other top five and sites as low as 96? Then, I thought that maybe he did so because I'm not important enough to mention in the same paragraphs with Edelman and other PR firms. Nah, Jack wouldn't do that, would he? Not when he is careful to note he is no. 13, some 11 positions below online-pr.com.
So, I am befuddled. Why would Jack O'Dwyer ignore online-pr.com, if indeed it is number two, as Google appears to show? Maybe Jack could let me know. I'm just wondering.
Comments:
Jim - Kevin Dugan here. Congrats on ranking #2 on a search that yields 21.3 MILLION results.
As the only other blog to rank in the top 25 (by the seat of my pants at #25), I'll avoid wondering why he neglected to mention you and focus on his approach for the story.
Using Google as a primary mode of research is dangerous at best and lazy at its worst. Sure, we should all use it to find sources, research and background material for a story. But to use it to prove out an assertion is not a good idea.
Cheers,
Kevin Dugan
Strategic PR
www.prblog.typepad.com
As the only other blog to rank in the top 25 (by the seat of my pants at #25), I'll avoid wondering why he neglected to mention you and focus on his approach for the story.
Using Google as a primary mode of research is dangerous at best and lazy at its worst. Sure, we should all use it to find sources, research and background material for a story. But to use it to prove out an assertion is not a good idea.
Cheers,
Kevin Dugan
Strategic PR
www.prblog.typepad.com
# posted by 
: 1:57 AM
: 1:57 AM
Post a Comment