About The Author
Barry Schwartz is Search Engine Land's News Editor and owns RustyBrick, a NY based web consulting firm. He also runs Search Engine Roundtable, a popular search blog on SEM topics.
Thursday, February 28, 2019
Google’s CTR answer just what you’d expect, and this is why SEOs go bananas
After the debate around CTR rekindled last week, we asked Google for a statement from their PR team we can share around click-through rate. In short, various Googlers have told us over the years that CTR data is not used within Google’s ranking algorithm.
Google’s statement. “As we’ve commented on before, we use interactions in a variety of ways, such as for personalization, evaluation purposes and training data. We have nothing new or further to share here other than what we’ve long said: having great, engaging content is the right path for success. We’d encourage site owners to focus on that big picture,” a spokesperson said.
Background. Googlers over the years, dating back to over 10 years ago have told us they don’t use CTR for ranking signals. Just a month or so ago, Google’s Gary Illyes said CTR for ranking is made up. Googlers have said time and time again, the data is noisy and easily spammable and thus it doesn’t make sense for them to use it.
But SEO’s have released studies that say CTR is a ranking signal and others have studies that show that it is not a ranking factor. Data is data, right?
The statement confuses things more. We were hoping Google would give us a clear statement that outright says it does not currently use CTR directly in their core search ranking algorithm. But Google instead said what it said above. They could have said that “interactions” are not factored in their ranking algorithm — but they did not. It could have also said it currently do not use it but reserve the right to use it in the future if it becomes a useful signal. Again, Google did not.
Does it matter? If you think about it, it really doesn’t. If they do use it you can bet they would have systems in place to detect manipulation of clicks in their search results. Either way, you still need to build a great site that people want to visit and that Google wants to rank well for relevant queries. But this is also a reminder that our industry is based on trying to open a black box that will never open. So we debate on Twitter, we look for gotcha moments, and we run with any morsel of info we do get from Google.
But that’s why we love it, right?
A Trucking Company Owner In Canada Was Just Jailed For a Collision – Here’s Why That Matters
On February 13, 2014, a transport truck operated by Ontario-based ABI trucking collided with the vehicle of an off-duty police officer. He died on-scene. Investigators quickly found that the accident could have been prevented – over the course of five days, the truck was driven for nearly one hundred fifteen hours.
That on its own was suspicious enough, without the fact that the truck’s brake and clutch weren’t engaged once during the accident. The driver was going at full throttle right up until he killed the officer. After news of the story broke, a former employee of ABI Trucking quickly games forward.
According to that employee, the company’s drivers frequently from Thunder Bay to Toronto and back with little or no sleep – a total of two straight days of driving. The driver involved in the collision, meanwhile, was discovered to maintain two logbooks, which he used to deliberately falsify his driving reports. The trucking company owner knew about this and did nothing to address it.
As a result, he has now been sentenced to six months in prison for being a party to dangerous driving.
“The evidence supports that Mr. Fummerton provided the drivers with the tools and ability to engage in this practice,” explained Justice Annalisa Rasaiah in a written statement. “He provided two log books and repeatedly paid the drivers for making these single driver delivery runs. It is necessary to make it clear to all persons in Mr. Fummerton’s position that they have a serious obligation to put the safety of their drivers and the public before their economic interests.”
“It needs to be made clear to persons such as Mr. Fummerton that calculated non-compliance that can lead to terrible consequences for innocent users of the highways will not be tolerated,” she added.
This is a huge step forward – and hopefully, one that sets a precedent for future prosecution of trucking companies, both within our neighbor to the north and here in the US. Too often, trucking owners put their own bottom line above road safety for both their staff and other people on the road.
Rulings like this set us along the road to changing that. But it won’t be an easy path. There’ll always be people who try to skirt the law for their own game.
And that’s where Bormaster Law will step in. We’ve got a long history of taking corrupt trucking companies to task and ensuring they don’t get away with it when their cut corners result in grievous injury or death. More importantly, we’re interested in helping our clients – not just taking their money.
If you’ve been injured in a trucking collision, contact us today for a free consultation, and take back your life.
Let us help you take back your life.
R.B. Bormaster & Associates, P.C.
2425 Fountain View, Ste. 300,
Houston TX 77057
Phone: (800) I -Am-Hurt
(713) 714-4000
Fax: (281) 652-5886
A Transport Truck Exploded In Ontario, Canada. How Could This Have Been Prevented?
In October, a terrible tragedy struck in Northern Ontario. A veteran truck driver and father of nine was among those killed in a devastating pileup which killed three people and set off a massive fireball on the highway. The incident, according to police, involved at least four transport trucks and three fuel tankers and spilled thousands of liters of fuel onto the road.
The highway was closed for more than 24 hours as a result of the explosive crash, and an environmental cleanup crew was sent to deal with the aftermath. As is often the case in these situations, the blame seems to lie with another truck driver, who crashed into slowing traffic due to distraction. Even though it was primarily truckers injured in this accident, it’s no less terrible.
And it still raises many questions about negligence, road safety, and trucking firms who simply push their drivers too hard.
It’s often easy to forget that truckers aren’t usually the ones to blame in incidents like this – at least, not directly. Rather, the lion’s share of responsibility lies with their employer. Trucking agencies frequently require their drivers to cut corners, to work long hours without breaks, and to push themselves to the edge to make their deliveries.
Not many people can handle that sort of stress – and even men and women who seem built for it can start to lag behind after being subject to it for too long.
This is just one of the many issues plaguing the trucking industry, both at home and abroad. Regulators know something needs to be done about it, mind you. That’s why there’s a constant push for tougher regulations, better penalties, and more oversight.
At the same time, that doesn’t help those who have already been injured by such tragedies. It doesn’t help those who’ve lost loved ones to a trucking firm’s desire for a better bottom line. It doesn’t provide reparation.
That’s where Bormaster Law comes in. We’ve made it our business to help the victims of corrupt, negligent, and careless trucking agencies. Whatever firm was responsible for your loss, however great, we’ll see that a due is paid.
We’ve a long history of taking firms to task, and we’re more interested in helping our clients than making bank. That’s why you don’t pay unless you win – and why consultations are free. So if you’ve been injured, call us today.
Let us help you take back your life.
R.B. Bormaster & Associates, P.C.
2425 Fountain View, Ste. 300,
Houston TX 77057
Phone: (800) I -Am-Hurt
(713) 714-4000
Fax: (281) 652-5886
Now Is The Time To Embrace Voice Search
Voice Search Ranking
How to adapt voice search in your SEO strategy and what are we doing for Voice Search Optimization.
Voice Search is undeniably growing at a rapid pace, and for good reason — it’s fast, convenient, allows you to search on the go, and it’s becoming part of the devices that consumers are using. It has taken a good percentage of total searches across the world. This is thanks in part due to AI assistants like Apple’s Siri, Amazon’s Alexa, Google Assistant, etc.
With mobile impacting desktop in terms of search queries, and home automation devices becoming mainstream, voice search will power many future local search queries. Optimizing for voice search conversational terms will be a key differentiator.
The good news is that we already have services in place according to Google’s priorities such as surveys and widgets to boost customer reviews in Google / Yelp / Facebook. We were one of the first agencies to adopt Voice Search optimization, where the content we create is more conversational and matches user’s natural language pattern.
Here’s a list of things were currently doing for Voice Search optimization:
- Verified and Accurate Google My Business Listing - Most voice search queries will ask for directions to your business address. We will make sure that your business is listed accurately on Google Maps. Without verification, it would be really difficult to rank for voice search queries.
- NAP (Name, Address, Phone) Consistency across Local Sites - Accurate map listing, in terms of name, address and contact number, across multiple map databases will also help search engines to be more confident about your location, and it is part of Google's ranking algorithm. We will ensure that your business information (NAP details) is consistent across other top tier and second tier local search engines, directories and review websites.
- Generating Positive Reviews - Customer Reviews are a critical part of the ranking algorithm for voice search. We can help you get positive reviews on Google for your business via our proprietary Plug and Play Review Widget. It is included in the free lead generation website we build for all of our Rapid Results lead generation clients.
- Mobile Friendly Website - Since most voice searches are done on mobile devices, you MUST have a mobile-friendly site. If your website isn't mobile friendly, we can help you setup a mobile friendly version with the help of our experienced team. In addition, the lead generation website we include with our lead generation service is mobile friendly.
- Conversational Content - Mobile voice searches will use natural language, which means long-tail keyword phrases are more important than ever. A way to add natural language to your website is by using words and phrases that people actually speak (versus words they type into a search box). The content used will be more conversational in tone, and the keyword phrases will probably resonate more with a person performing a voice search. We implement this for our lead generation and local SEO client's website content which will help their site rank for voice based queries.
- Microdata & Advanced Schema Markup - Google is using schema markup both as a site quality and richness indicator (i.e. affecting rankings), and for creating carousel-like results for certain searches, with Knowledge Graph-like summary data on each result in the list. We will help you setup structured data on your site.
- Rank Tracking - We have already started tracking rankings in mobile search results for voice based terms like "near me", "close to me", "around me", etc. around physical location across all verticals and reporting these rankings on our dashboard.
https://www.forlawfirmsonly.com/now-is-the-time-to-embrace-voice-search/
What tech gear do you use at your law firm, and how is it helpful to you?
Question of the Week
Image from Shutterstock.com.
In the 21st century, law firms no longer run on just paper and pencil. Legal technology is a booming industry, which is why lawyers and professionals come together annually for the ABA Techshow in Chicago. This year, from Feb. 27 to March 2, attendees will scour the expo floor and participate in educational sessions to discover the newest products and services that can support their law practices.
Whether or not you’re attending the conference, we want to know what legal gadget or software is your favorite?
This week, we’d like to ask: What tech gear do you use at your law firm, and how is it helpful to you? What product or service would you recommend to other law firms?
Answer in the comments and on social media. You can answer via Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.
Read the answers to last week’s question: Should defendants be forcibly medicated to be competent for trial?
Featured answer:
Posted by Ann Montgomery: “Tough question. If the defendant is found incompetent would s/he be released? If it’s a choice between a non-medicated and potentially dangerous person being released and forced medication, I’d reluctantly choose forced medication. If the defendant could go through a legal process to be placed in a mental health facility and not be released until s/he is competent and could face trial, then I’d vote no forced medication.”
Do you have an idea for a future question of the week? If so, contact us.
Posted February 27, 2019, 2:57 pm CST
Image from Shutterstock.com.
SCOTUS rules 6-3 for inmate whose lawyer refused to file appeal notice because of waiver
U.S. Supreme Court
Shutterstock.com.
U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh joined with Supreme Court liberals on Wednesday in ruling for an Idaho inmate who claimed ineffective assistance by his lawyer.
The court ruled 6-3 for Gilberto Garza Jr., who waived his right to appeal in two plea agreements, then changed his mind and told his lawyer to file an appeal.
The lawyer did not file the appeal notice because of the waiver, and the deadline passed. In a petition for post-conviction relief, Garza argued that his lawyer had provided ineffective assistance.
To prove ineffective assistance, defendants must show that their lawyer’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and that the deficiency was prejudicial to the defense.
The issue was whether Garza was entitled to a presumption that his lawyer’s failure to file the notice caused prejudice, a presumption that had been recognized in a 2000 case in which there was no appeal waiver. The prior case was Roe v. Flores-Ortego.
The Supreme Court said Garza could rely on the presumption. “We hold that the presumption of prejudice recognized in Flores-Ortega applies regardless of whether the defendant has signed an appeal waiver,” wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor for the majority.
An appeal waiver is not an absolute bar to all appellate claims, Sotomayor said. The language of appeal waivers can vary widely, and some leave many types of claims unwaived. Prosecutors may also forfeit or waive the waiver. And some waivers can be challenged; an unknowing or involuntary waiver is not enforced, for example.
“Accordingly, a defendant who has signed an appeal waiver does not, in directing counsel to file a notice of appeal, necessarily undertake a quixotic or frivolous quest,” Sotomayor said.
Sotomayor also said filing an appeal notice is purely a ministerial task, and substantive claims don’t have to be raised at this stage.
In an amicus brief, the federal government argued that a defendant who signs an appeal waiver should have to show there were nonfrivolous grounds to appeal. That argument can’t be squared with Supreme Court precedent, Sotomayor said.
“This court has already rejected attempts to condition the restoration of a defendant’s appellate rights forfeited by ineffective counsel on proof that the defendant’s appeal had merit,” Sotomayor wrote.
“The more administrable and workable rule, rather, is the one compelled by our precedent: When counsel’s deficient performance forfeits an appeal that a defendant otherwise would have taken, the defendant gets a new opportunity to appeal.”
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented in an opinion joined by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch and partly joined by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.
Thomas said Garza’s lawyer “quite reasonably declined to file an appeal,” recognizing that it could jeopardize the plea bargain. The majority opinion finding per se deficient performance and per se prejudice creates a “defendant-always-wins” rule, he said.
Alito did not join a section of Thomas’ opinion that said there is little evidence that the original meaning of the Sixth Amendment extended beyond the right to counsel to encompass the right to effective counsel and the right to government-funded counsel.
The case is Garza v. Idaho.
Hat tip to SCOTUSblog.
Posted February 27, 2019, 1:09 pm CST
Shutterstock.com.
Compliance Agencies Are Cracking Down On Trucking Firms – But Is That Enough?
In mid-January, a transport truck carrying ethanol crashed and burst into flames near Newcastle, Australia. The fire quickly spread to the nearby bushland, taking out nearly 15 hectares and raging for more than four hours after the crash. The driver, tragically, perished in the accident, which involved three trucks and one car.
According to officials, a truck driving southbound hit the back of a truck parked on the side of the road. A third truck then crashed into the two, which were then struck by a car. The other three drivers survived but were taken to the hospital for blood and urine tests.
While investigating the incident, inspectors and police officers looked into the company that employed the deceased driver. What they found was upsetting, but hardly surprising. As it turns out, the Sydney-based company had at least one trailer with an expired registration, and one of its drivers was without driving privileges due to traffic violations.
Two other trucks owned by the company had defective engines, and another had a major defect with one of its seatbelt. Investigators also uncovered a range of other mechanical and compliance issues, including broken brakes, busted headlights, and faulty suspension systems. At the time of writing, it’s not clear if any of the trucks involved in the crash were also faulty – but it does seem likely.
“The operation is another warning to operators to be aware that they will be targeted and they will be removed from our roads if they are found to be unsafe,” explained Roads and Maritime Services Director of Compliance Roger Weeks, speaking to The Australia Herald. “The recent tragic crashes involving trucks are unacceptable and we will continue to work closely with NSW Police to ensure drivers and companies improve their safety and compliance.”
That’s heartening to hear, certainly. But I question whether that will be enough on its own. Even though regulatory agencies are constantly working to take down trucking firms that don’t play by the rules, they always seem to do so after an accident has occurred. What we need is to empower these organizations to investigate and address the issues with these firms on their own – before accidents happen.
We’ve made great strides in that regard – but we’ve still got ways to go. In the meantime, Bormaster Law will step up to help fill the gap. We have a long history of taking corrupt trucking agencies to task for their crimes and ensuring they’re held responsible for the injuries and destruction caused by their carelessness.
Because in our eyes, ignorance is no excuse for causing pain. If you or a loved one has been critically injured in a trucking accident, contact us today for a free consultation. We’ll help you take back your life.
R.B. Bormaster & Associates, P.C.
2425 Fountain View, Ste. 300,
Houston TX 77057
Phone: (800) I -Am-Hurt
(713) 714-4000Fax: (281) 652-5886
Avoiding The Three Biggest Law Firm Marketing Mistakes
Look, I get it – you’re a legal expert, not a marketing professional. Your job is to understand the law and help your clients benefit as much as possible from it. You’re not supposed to understand stuff like metrics, KPI, or SEO, right?
Yes and no.
Like every other industry, legal services has undergone a steep upturn in competition with the advent of the Internet. Billboard and bus ads aren’t the way to reach clients anymore – not on their own. Now that everyone’s online, even the smallest firm can gain an impressive amount of reach if they know how to tap into the web.
The first step in knowing how to do that is understanding what not to do.
Don’t Ignore Local Search
Try something for me – go to Google, and type “accident attorney” into the search bar. Look at how many results there are. Climbing to the top of that heap is an impossibility unless you’re a massive firm with an equally-large marketing budget. And you shouldn’t be trying to get to the top of that results page, anyway – you should have a much narrower focus on your efforts. Generally speaking, if your firm is based in Chicago, you won’t be serving clients in Austin. If someone from Texas does come across your site, it probably won’t be of much use to them. They’ll bounce and go to a law firm that’s actually based in their city. In that same vein, if a client from your region cannot easily find your website, the chance that they’ll instead choose a competitor is all but certain. That’s precisely why local search is so important. By including location-based keywords and your practice area on your website’s pages and blogs, you’ll make yourself findable for the people who will actually work with you.Don’t Forget To Create Profiles
Two of the most easily-accessible low-hanging fruits that I frequently see law firms forget is Google Places Business Pages and legal directory profiles. These are both easily-searchable databases, and both could be used by prospective clients to learn more about your firm. Yet many lawyers don’t bother with them – either because they aren’t aware they exist or because they don’t know why they’re important. Be the exception to that rule. Create a well-written, professional-looking business page, complete with a photo of your venue, your address, contact information, and what services you provide. You might be surprised at how well it works to bring in new clients. To that end, don’t ignore social media. Create a Facebook page and LinkedIn profile. Reach out to and interact with your clients,Don’t Misunderstand Your Audience
I’ve noticed a lot of businesses – and not just law firms – seem to think that just because content marketing is highly-effective, they can bring in new clients simply by having enough content. It doesn’t work that way, though. Not even in the slightest. As a lawyer, you know what your clients are looking for. An accident and injury lawyer, for example, wouldn’t be writing pieces on their site about divorce law. A real estate lawyer wouldn’t be droning about copyright law on their blog. Stick to your area of expertise, especially when blogging. Because that’s what your clients are coming to you for. Online marketing can be tough, especially for someone unfamiliar with it. By knowing the biggest pitfalls you can stumble into, you’ll be one step closer to mastering it. And if all else fails, you can always bring in a marketing agency – though I’d still advise that you endeavor to understand what they’re doing even so.https://www.forlawfirmsonly.com/avoiding-the-three-biggest-law-firm-marketing-mistakes/
Why Are Incidents Like The Truck Crash In Pittsburgh Still Happening?
On Friday, November 17, a trucker lost all power to his brakes and plowed into nine vehicles. Eleven people were injured, and nine were transported to the hospital with injuries. Mercifully, no one was killed – but it could have been far, far worse.
According to police chief Roch Kujava – who has been an officer in Churchill since the late 70s – this is the worst crash he’s ever seen.
“We’re very lucky,” explained Kujava. “The size of the vehicle, the tractor hitting these cars, we’re very lucky we didn’t have any fatalities. People are injured, but hopefully, they’ll be okay.”
To his credit, the driver was cooperative. He spoke to investigators and was open about what happened in the minutes leading up to the incident. Likelier than not, he isn’t the one at fault.
Rather, it’s his employer – Hinkle Trucking, based in Riverton, W.Va. The firm had a conditional safety rating, to begin with (meaning it wasn’t up to compliance standards). Not only that, it has been involved in ten crashes in the past two years, five of which involved injuries.
Finally, it has a record of multiple traffic violations, including speeding and reckless driving.
Yet in spite of all these safety issues, the company is still in business. In spite of the fact that it’s evidently refused to comply with multiple safety regulations, it still has drivers on the road. Why, exactly?
And what can we do to stop other companies like Hinkle – and make no mistake, there are others – from showing the same callous disregard for road safety that they have?
I’ve no doubts that investigators will be contacting the company’s ownership. I’ve also no doubts that unless the firm is hit with some serious penalties, they’re not going to bother cleaning up their act. In all honesty, even if they are penalized, I still have my doubts.
Until something can be done about organizations like Hinkle Trucking, all we can really do is be ready for the possibility that we or one of our loved ones might be involved in a catastrophic collision. All we can really do is have a plan. And that’s where Bormaster Law comes in.
We’ve got a long history of taking trucking companies who don’t practice proper safety to the task. We’ll do everything it takes to ensure that firms like this one don’t get away with cutting corners, especially where it causes grievous injury or death. More importantly, we aren’t in it for the money – we’re in it to help our clients..
You don’t pay a cent unless we win your case. Consultations are free. Contact us today to chat.
Let us help you take back your life – and hold yet one more corrupt agency accountable for its misdeeds.
R.B. Bormaster & Associates, P.C.
2425 Fountain View, Ste. 300,
Houston TX 77057
Phone: (800) I -Am-Hurt(713) 714-4000
Fax: (281) 652-5886
Wednesday, February 27, 2019
Judge asked for ladder to climb Statue of Liberty and was denied request for safety concerns
Posted February 26, 2019, 11:04 am CST
A federal magistrate judge who wants a firsthand look at a Statue of Liberty protest site will likely have to stay on the observation deck. U.S. Magistrate Judge Gabriel Gorenstein of the Southern District of New York had asked whether he could be provided with a site visit and a ladder so he could “better appreciate the risks and hazards” of the protester’s conduct, report ABC News, NBC News and the New York Law Journal. The protester, Therese Patricia Okoumou, had climbed the base of the Statue of Liberty on July 4 of last year to protest President Donald Trump’s family separation policies. Gorenstein will sentence Okoumou on March 19 for her conviction on trespassing and other misdemeanor charges. She faces up to 18 months in prison, according to the New York Law Journal. In his Feb. 20 order, Gorenstein said he would like the National Park Service to investigate the feasibility of his request and to provide the ladder if it is “deemed possible and safe.” Gorenstein asked for accommodation for others to make the site visit, including two defense lawyers, Okoumou, possibly law clerks and a court reporter. Prosecutors replied in a partially redacted Feb. 22 letter. The U.S. Park Police discussed the ladder idea internally and determined “it is not possible to set up a ladder in such a way as to ensure the court’s safety,” the letter said. The Park Police instead recommended a visit to an observation deck outside visiting hours.DC Circuit rejects challenge to Robert Mueller’s appointment as special counsel
Constitutional Law
Special counsel Robert Mueller.
A three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously rejected on Tuesday a challenge to the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller.
The D.C. Circuit ruled in a challenge by Roger Stone aide Andrew Miller, report the National Law Journal, the Washington Post and Politico. It was the first appellate level opinion to uphold the special counsel’s authority.
Miller had challenged Mueller’s appointment when appealing a civil contempt order imposed for refusing to testify before a grand jury in the special counsel probe. The appeals court upheld the contempt order along with the special counsel appointment.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had appointed Mueller as special counsel after then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from any investigations of the 2016 presidential campaign. Rosenstein cited his power as “acting attorney general” to make the appointment under department regulations.
Miller had argued that the special counsel is a “principal officer” under the appointments clause who should have been nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Miller also contended that Congress didn’t authorize the appointment by law, and Rosenstein was not the acting attorney general with authority to make the appointment.
Circuit Judge Judith Rogers wrote the panel opinion rejecting those arguments.
Mueller is an inferior officer rather than a principal officer under the appointments clause because his office was created by a regulation, and his appointment can be revoked, Rogers wrote. The appointments clause authorizes the appointment of inferior officers by department heads.
Congress did authorize the appointment under a statute giving the attorney general the power to appoint subordinate officers, Rogers said. And “the statutory and regulatory scheme demonstrate” that Rosenstein was a department head when he appointed Mueller, she said.
Miller’s lawyer is Paul Kamenar. “We are disappointed with the decision and will be considering further legal action, whether before the full court of appeals or the Supreme Court,” Kamenar told Politico.
Stone, an adviser to President Donald Trump, has been accused of making false statements to a House committee and trying to persuade a witness to provide false testimony to obstruct investigations of Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election.
Stone told Politico that Miller is a house painter who handled only menial duties for him. Kamenar told the Washington Post that Miller handled Stone’s website and administrative tasks.
Posted February 26, 2019, 2:52 pm CST
Special counsel Robert Mueller.
14 SEO Predictions for 2019 and Beyond, as Told by Mozzers
1. Answers will drive search
People Also Ask boxes exploded in 2018, and featured snippets have expanded into both multifaceted and multi-snippet versions. Google wants to answer questions, it wants to answer them across as many devices as possible, and it will reward sites with succinct, well-structured answers. Focus on answers that naturally leave visitors wanting more and establish your brand and credibility.Further reading:
2. Voice search will continue to be utterly useless for optimization
Optimizing for voice search will still be no more than optimizing for featured snippets, and conversions from voice will remain a dark box.Further reading:
3. Mobile is table stakes
This is barely a prediction. If your 2019 plan is to finally figure out mobile, you're already too late. Almost all Google features are designed with mobile-first in mind, and the mobile-first index has expanded rapidly in the past few months. Get your mobile house (not to be confused with your mobile home) in order as soon as you can.Further reading:
4. Further SERP feature intrusions in organic search
Expect Google to find more and more ways to replace organic with solutions that keep users on Google’s property. This includes interactive SERP features that replace, slowly but surely, many website offerings in the same way that live scores, weather, and flights have.Further reading:
5. Video will dominate niches
Featured Videos, Video Carousels, and Suggested Clips (where Google targets specific content in a video) are taking over the how-to spaces. As Google tests search appliances with screens, including Home Hub, expect video to dominate instructional and DIY niches.Further reading:
6. SERPs will become more interactive
We’ve seen the start of interactive SERPs with People Also Ask Boxes. Depending on which question you expand, two to three new questions will generate below that directly pertain to your expanded question. This real-time engagement keeps people on the SERP longer and helps Google better understand what a user is seeking.Further reading:
7. Local SEO: Google will continue getting up in your business — literally
Google will continue asking more and more intimate questions about your business to your customers. Does this business have gender-neutral bathrooms? Is this business accessible? What is the atmosphere like? How clean is it? What kind of lighting do they have? And so on. If Google can acquire accurate, real-world information about your business (your percentage of repeat customers via geocaching, price via transaction history, etc.) they can rely less heavily on website signals and provide more accurate results to searchers.Further reading:
8. Business proximity-to-searcher will remain a top local ranking factor
In Moz’s recent State of Local SEO report, the majority of respondents agreed that Google’s focus on the proximity of a searcher to local businesses frequently emphasizes distance over quality in the local SERPs. I predict that we’ll continue to see this heavily weighting the results in 2019. On the one hand, hyper-localized results can be positive, as they allow a diversity of businesses to shine for a given search. On the other hand, with the exception of urgent situations, most people would prefer to see best options rather than just closest ones.Further reading:
9. Local SEO: Google is going to increase monetization
Look to see more of the local and maps space monetized uniquely by Google both through Adwords and potentially new lead-gen models. This space will become more and more competitive.Further reading:
10. Monetization tests for voice
Google and Amazon have been moving towards voice-supported displays in hopes of better monetizing voice. It will be interesting to see their efforts to get displays in homes and how they integrate the display advertising. Bold prediction: Amazon will provide sleep-mode display ads similar to how Kindle currently displays them today.11. Marketers will place a greater focus on the SERPs
I expect we’ll see a greater focus on the analysis of SERPs as Google does more to give people answers without them having to leave the search results. We’re seeing more and more vertical search engines like Google Jobs, Google Flights, Google Hotels, Google Shopping. We’re also seeing more in-depth content make it onto the SERP than ever in the form of featured snippets, People Also Ask boxes, and more. With these new developments, marketers are increasingly going to want to report on their general brand visibility within the SERPs, not just their website ranking. It’s going to be more important than ever for people to be measuring all the elements within a SERP, not just their own ranking.Further reading:
12. Targeting topics will be more productive than targeting queries
2019 is going to be another year in which we see the emphasis on individual search queries start to decline, as people focus more on clusters of queries around topics. People Also Ask queries have made the importance of topics much more obvious to the SEO industry. With PAAs, Google is clearly illustrating that they think about searcher experience in terms of a searcher’s satisfaction across an entire topic, not just a specific search query. With this in mind, we can expect SEOs to more and more want to see their search queries clustered into topics so they can measure their visibility and the competitive landscape across these clusters.Further reading:
13. Linked unstructured citations will receive increasing focus
I recently conducted a small study in which there was a 75% correlation between organic and local pack rank. Linked unstructured citations (the mention of partial or complete business information + a link on any type of relevant website) are a means of improving organic rankings which underpin local rankings. They can also serve as a non-Google dependent means of driving traffic and leads. Anything you’re not having to pay Google for will become increasingly precious. Structured citations on key local business listing platforms will remain table stakes, but competitive local businesses will need to focus on unstructured data to move the needle.Further reading:
14. Reviews will remain a competitive difference-maker
A Google rep recently stated that about one-third of local searches are made with the intent of reading reviews. This is huge. Local businesses that acquire and maintain a good and interactive reputation on the web will have a critical advantage over brands that ignore reviews as fundamental to customer service. Competitive local businesses will earn, monitor, respond to, and analyze the sentiment of their review corpus.Further reading:
We’ve heard from Mozzers, and now we want to hear from you. What have you seen so far in 2019 that’s got your SEO Spidey senses tingling? What trends are you capitalizing on and planning for? Let us know in the comments below (and brag to friends and colleagues when your prediction comes true in the next 6–10 months). ;-)https://www.businesscreatorplus.com/14-seo-predictions-for-2019-and-beyond-as-told-by-mozzers/
Tuesday, February 26, 2019
Chemerinsky: Do religious symbols on government property infringe on First Amendment?
U.S. Supreme Court
Erwin Chemerinsky. Photo by Jim Block.
Few issues predictably divide liberals and conservatives, including those on the U.S. Supreme Court, as much as the First Amendment’s prohibition on the government making any law respecting the establishment of religion.
Liberals think this provision creates, as President Thomas Jefferson put it, a wall that separates church and state. Conservatives reject that notion and seek to accommodate religion and government; they think the government violates the establishment clause only if it coerces religious participation. And to make things even more complicated, there are moderate justices who see the Establishment clause as forbidding the government from endorsing religion.
Not surprisingly, the law of the establishment clause is confusing and recently was described by the 11th Circuit as a “hot mess.” This is especially so concerning when religious symbols on government property violate the First Amendment. For example, on the same day in June 2005, the high court decided two cases involving Ten Commandments displays. In McCreary County v. ACLU, the court declared unconstitutional a county ordinance requiring that the Ten Commandments be posted in county buildings. But in Van Orden v. Perry, the court, in a case that I argued and lost, rejected a constitutional challenge to a 6-foot-high, 3-foot-wide Ten Commandments monument that sits directly at the corner between the Texas State Capitol and the Texas Supreme Court. Both were 5-4 decisions; only Justice Stephen G. Breyer was in the majority in both and saw a meaningful difference between the Ten Commandments displays.
Commentators have noted that ever since Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. replaced Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in 2006, there appear to be five justices to change the law of the establishment clause and to adopt the conservative vision that only government coercion violates the Constitution. But that hasn’t happened yet, although the Roberts court has rejected every establishment clause challenge to come before it. In its most recent establishment clause case, Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014), the court split 5-4 along ideological lines and rejected a constitutional challenge to a town board having invited almost exclusively Christian clergy members to deliver prayers before meetings over a 10-year period.
But the court did not change the overall test for the establishment clause. Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, wrote a concurring opinion arguing that the government violates the establishment clause only if by law it coerces religious participation and imposes punishment for those who do not comply. Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion ruled in favor of Town of Greece but without changing the test used for the establishment clause.
The establishment clause has now returned to the Supreme Court in American Legion v. American Humanist Association, set to be argued Wednesday. The case is the first about the establishment clause to be heard since Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh joined the high court.
The case involves a 40-foot-tall cross located at a busy intersection in Bladensburg, Maryland. The cross was erected in 1925 as a monument to 49 soldiers from Prince George’s County, Maryland, who died during World War I. In 1961, the state government acquired the cross and the land it sits on, in part because of concerns about traffic safety.
A lawsuit was brought challenging the cross as violating the establishment clause. The district court ruled for the government, seeing the cross as a memorial to war dead. But the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Richmond, Virginia, reversed, concluding that the cross violates the establishment clause because it “has the primary effect of endorsing religion and excessively entangles the government in religion.” The 4th Circuit said is impossible to “ignore the fact that for thousands of years the Latin cross has represented Christianity.” The 4th Circuit explained that the average citizen “would fairly understand the cross to have the primary effect of endorsing religion.”
The American Legion, which joined the case to defend the cross, argues to the Supreme Court that it is a symbol of war dead, and that its longtime presence on government property makes it constitutional. It expressly analogizes to the Ten Commandments monument that the court allowed in Van Orden. But the American Legion goes further and urges the high court to change the law of the establishment clause, so that there is no violation of the clause unless the government “coerce religious belief or observance.”
The American Humanist Association, which brought the lawsuit, argues that a cross is an unmistakable Christian religious symbol and, thus, the large cross is an impermissible establishment of religion. At an oral argument several years ago in Salazar v. Buono (2010), which involved a large cross in a federal park, Scalia asserted that a cross is a universal symbol for war dead. Peter Eliasberg, representing the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California in that case, replied that he had been in many Jewish cemeteries and never saw a cross on a headstone.
The American Humanist Association points out that if the Supreme Court was to adopt the “coercion test,” there would be no limit on religious symbols on government property. A city could put a large cross atop city hall or in front of its meeting room. No longer would the test be whether the symbol is an endorsement of religion or a particular religion.
At the very least, American Legion v. American Humanist Association is important in providing the high court the opportunity to clarify when religious symbols on government property violate the First Amendment. But the case also might be the vehicle for a much greater change in establishment clause jurisprudence. Will there be five votes for the view that nothing violates the clause other than government coercion of religious belief or conduct? If so, decades of precedent will be overruled, and little ever will violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
In a term where the Supreme Court has stayed away from the most divisive social issues, such reproductive rights and LGBTQ rights, American Legion v. American Humanist Association is an unusual case because of the intense division in society and on the court about the proper relationship between religion and government.
Posted February 26, 2019, 6:00 am CST
Erwin Chemerinsky. Photo by Jim Block.
Google ends mandatory arbitration of workplace disputes and ban on employee class actions
Labor & Employment
Photo by antb/Shutterstock.com.
Google will end mandatory arbitration of employment disputes beginning March 21, expanding its previous decision to end forced arbitration only in cases of alleged sexual harassment or assault.
Google announced the policy change last week, report the New York Times, Axios, Slate, the Associated Press, Bloomberg, Wired and the San Jose Mercury News Silicon Beat Tech News Blog.
Besides ending forced arbitration, Google also will stop forcing employees to waive their rights to bring class action claims.
Employees still can opt for arbitration, but it will not be required. The policy change doesn’t apply to disputes that already have settled or to former employees with unresolved disputes, but it will apply to employee disputes currently in arbitration.
The policy change extends to Google’s contracts with outside contract employees, although contractor and third-party staffing companies won’t have to follow the policy in their own contracts.
Google took its first step to end forced arbitration in November after 20,000 workers walked out to protest the company’s handling of sexual misconduct claims. At that time, Google decided to ban forced arbitration only in cases alleging sexual harassment and assault.
Facebook, Uber, Lyft and Microsoft also have ended mandatory arbitration of sexual harassment and assault claims.
Several large law firms also dropped mandatory arbitration for at least some employee disputes after pressure from students at Harvard Law School.
The ABA House of Delegates voted in August to urge legal employers not to require mandatory binding arbitration of sexual harassment claims.
In January, the House of Delegates went further when it urged legal employers not to require mandatory arbitration of unlawful discrimination, harassment or retaliation claims “based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, genetic information or status as a victim of domestic or sexual violence.”
Posted February 25, 2019, 4:33 pm CST
Photo by antb/Shutterstock.com.
Order says judge can’t bring weapons to work and must go through metal detectors
Posted February 25, 2019, 1:10 pm CST
The chief judge of a Detroit court has issued an order barring a colleague from bringing weapons to work and requiring her to go through the courthouse metal detectors. Judge Kahlilia Yvette Davis will have to go through the same security screening as courthouse employees and lawyers, 36th District Court Chief Judge Nancy Blount said in her order Friday. The Detroit News has coverage. No reason was given for the order. State Court Administrator Milton Mack told the Detroit News he concurred with Blount’s decision “for everyone’s safety.” Davis was elected in November 2016 and missed the first few months on the bench. The absence led to clashes with Blount, who told Fox 2 Detroit that she didn’t have a satisfactory statement from Davis’ doctor explaining why she was unable to work. Davis currently fills in for other judges and maintains business license and commercial motor vehicle dockets, according to the Detroit News. Although she is apparently on the bench now, she was previously removed from hearing cases, Davis revealed in a lawsuit filed in November 2017. Davis’ suit asked a higher court to take control of the 36th District Court and rescind the removal order. Davis had contended that Blount was punishing her for trying to uphold litigants’ rights in court, according to prior coverage by the Detroit News and CBS Detroit. Davis’ 2017 suit said some proofs of service were being forged, violating litigants’ due process rights in landlord-tenant court. She ordered one process server jailed for contempt, but Blount released the process server. Blount had said in 2017 that Davis’ suit was meritless. Mack, the state court administrator, had added that Blount was supporting standards that require competence and “a day’s work for a day’s pay.” Previous coverage by Fox 2 Detroit said Davis had sought time off at the beginning of her term in January 2017 so she could take a trip to Germany. Blount denied the request. Then Davis told the judge that she had surgery and could not come to court. According to the Fox 2 Detroit story, when asked why she wasn’t working, Davis said she had an open wound from the surgery, and she didn’t want to spread a “staph infection all over the courthouse.” On days when Davis was absent, she had gone to Sam’s Club, the credit union and the gym, Fox 2 Detroit had reported.Monday, February 25, 2019
We Dipped Our Toes Into Double Featured Snippets
This post was originally published on the STAT blog.
Featured snippets, a vehicle for voice search and the answers to our most pressing questions, have doubled on the SERPs — but not in the way we usually mean. This time, instead of appearing on two times the number of SERPS, two snippets are appearing on the same SERP. Hoo! In all our years of obsessively stalking snippets, this is one of the first documented cases of them doing something a little different. And we are here for it. While it’s still early days for the double-snippet SERP, we’re giving you everything we’ve got so far. And the bottom line is this: double the snippets mean double the opportunity.
Not yet launched, details on the feature were a little sparse. We learned that they’re “to help people better locate information” and “may also eventually help in cases where you can get contradictory information when asking about the same thing but in different ways.”
Thankfully, we only had to wait a month before Google released them into the wild and gave us a little more insight into their purpose.
Calling them “multifaceted” featured snippets (a definition we’re not entirely sure we’re down with), Google explained that they’re currently serving “‘multi-intent’ queries, which are queries that have several potential intentions or purposes associated,” and will eventually expand to queries that need more than one piece of information to answer.
With that knowledge in our back pocket, let’s get to the good stuff.
What this means is that you can leapfrog more competitors in a double-snippet situation than when just one is in play.
And when we dug into who’s answering all these questions, we discovered that 5.70 percent of our double-snippet SERPs had the same domain in both snippets. This begs the obvious question: is your content ready to do double duty?
Because these headers effectively turn ambiguous statements into clear questions, we weren’t surprised to see words like “how” and “what” appear in more than 80 percent of them. This trend falls in line with keywords that typically produce snippets, which we touched on earlier.
So, not only does a second snippet mean double the goodness that you usually get with just one, it also means more insight into intent and another keyword to track and optimize for.
While Google’s order of preference is the same for both — paragraphs, lists, and then tables — paragraph formatting was the clear favorite on our two-snippet SERPs.
It follows, then, that the most common pairing of snippets was paragraph-paragraph — this appeared on 85.68 percent of our SERPs. The least common, at 0.31 percent, was the table-table coupling.
We can give two reasons for this behavior. One, if a query can have multiple interpretations, it makes sense that a paragraph answer would provide the necessary space to explain each of them, and two, Google really doesn’t like tables.
After testing six variations, Google decided to stick with the first two snippets. Whether this is a matter of top-of-the-SERP results getting the most engagement no matter what, or the phrasing of these questions resonating with searchers the most, is hard for us to tell.
The multiple snippets appearing for left us scratching our head a bit:
Our best hypothesis is that searchers in Florida, NYS, Minnesota, and Oregon have more questions about full-time employment than other places. But, since we’d performed a nation-wide search, Google seems to have thought better of including location-specific snippets.
Featured snippets, a vehicle for voice search and the answers to our most pressing questions, have doubled on the SERPs — but not in the way we usually mean. This time, instead of appearing on two times the number of SERPS, two snippets are appearing on the same SERP. Hoo! In all our years of obsessively stalking snippets, this is one of the first documented cases of them doing something a little different. And we are here for it. While it’s still early days for the double-snippet SERP, we’re giving you everything we’ve got so far. And the bottom line is this: double the snippets mean double the opportunity.
Google's case for double-snippet SERPs
The first time we heard mention of more than one snippet per SERP was at the end of January in Google’s “reintroduction” to featured snippets.
Not yet launched, details on the feature were a little sparse. We learned that they’re “to help people better locate information” and “may also eventually help in cases where you can get contradictory information when asking about the same thing but in different ways.”
Thankfully, we only had to wait a month before Google released them into the wild and gave us a little more insight into their purpose.
Calling them “multifaceted” featured snippets (a definition we’re not entirely sure we’re down with), Google explained that they’re currently serving “‘multi-intent’ queries, which are queries that have several potential intentions or purposes associated,” and will eventually expand to queries that need more than one piece of information to answer.
With that knowledge in our back pocket, let’s get to the good stuff.
The double snippet rollout is starting off small
Since the US-en market is Google’s favorite testing ground for new features and the largest locale being tracked in STAT, it made sense to focus our research there. We chose to analyze mobile SERPs over desktop because of Google’s (finally released) mobile-first indexing, and also because that’s where Google told us they were starting. After waiting for enough two-snippet SERPs to show up so we could get our (proper) analysis on, we pulled our data at the end March. Out of the mobile keywords currently tracking in the US-en market in STAT, 122,501 had a featured snippet present, and of those, 1.06 percent had more than one to its name. With only 1,299 double-snippet SERPs to analyze, we admit that our sample size is smaller than our big data nerd selves would like. That said, it is indicative of how petite this release currently is.Two snippets appear for noun-heavy queries
Our first order of business was to see what kind of keywords two snippets were appearing for. If we can zero in on what Google might deem “multi-intent,” then we can optimize accordingly. By weighting our double-snippet keywords by tf-idf, we found that nouns such as “insurance,” “computer,” “job,” and “surgery” were the primary triggers — like in and . It’s important to note that we don’t see this mirrored in single-snippet SERPs. When we refreshed our snippet research in November 2017, we saw that snippets appeared most often for “how,” followed closely by “does,” “to,” “what,” and “is.” These are all words that typically compose full sentence questions. Essentially, without those interrogative words, Google is left to guess what the actual question is. Take our keyword as an example — does the searcher want to know what a general liability insurance policy is or how to get one? Because of how vague the query is, it’s likely the searcher wants to know everything they can about the topic. And so, instead of having to pick, Google’s finally caught onto the wisdom of the Old El Paso taco girl — why not have both?Better leapfrogging and double duty domains
Next, we wanted to know where you’d need to rank in order to win one (or both) of the snippets on this new SERP. This is what we typically call “source position.” On a single-snippet SERP and ignoring any SERP features, Google pulls from the first organic rank 31 percent of the time. On double-snippet SERPs, the top snippet pulls from the first organic rank 24.84 percent of the time, and the bottom pulls from organic ranks 5–10 more often than solo snippets.
What this means is that you can leapfrog more competitors in a double-snippet situation than when just one is in play.
And when we dug into who’s answering all these questions, we discovered that 5.70 percent of our double-snippet SERPs had the same domain in both snippets. This begs the obvious question: is your content ready to do double duty?
Snippet headers provide clarity and keyword ideas
In what feels like the first new addition to the feature in a long time, there’s now a header on top of each snippet, which states the question it’s set out to answer. With reports of headers on solo snippets (and “People also search for” boxes attached to the bottom — will this madness never end?!), this may be a sneak peek at the new norm. Instead of relying on guesses alone, we can turn to these headers for what a searcher is likely looking for — we’ll trust in Google’s excellent consumer research. Using our example once more, Google points us to “what is general liabilities insurance” and “what does a business insurance policy cover” as good interpretations.
Because these headers effectively turn ambiguous statements into clear questions, we weren’t surprised to see words like “how” and “what” appear in more than 80 percent of them. This trend falls in line with keywords that typically produce snippets, which we touched on earlier.
So, not only does a second snippet mean double the goodness that you usually get with just one, it also means more insight into intent and another keyword to track and optimize for.
Both snippets prefer paragraph formatting
Next, it was time to give formatting a look-see to determine whether the snippets appearing in twos behave any differently than their solo counterparts. To do that, we gathered every snippet on our double-snippet SERPs and compared them against our November 2017 data, back when pairs weren’t a thing.
While Google’s order of preference is the same for both — paragraphs, lists, and then tables — paragraph formatting was the clear favorite on our two-snippet SERPs.
It follows, then, that the most common pairing of snippets was paragraph-paragraph — this appeared on 85.68 percent of our SERPs. The least common, at 0.31 percent, was the table-table coupling.
We can give two reasons for this behavior. One, if a query can have multiple interpretations, it makes sense that a paragraph answer would provide the necessary space to explain each of them, and two, Google really doesn’t like tables.
We saw double-snippet testing in action
When looking at the total number of snippets we had on hand, we realised that the only way everything added up was if a few SERPs had more than two snippets. And lo! Eleven of our keywords returned anywhere from six to 12 snippets. For a hot minute we were concerned that Google was planning a full-SERP snippet takeover, but when we searched those keywords a few days later, we discovered that we’d caught testing in action. Here’s what we saw play out for the keyword :
After testing six variations, Google decided to stick with the first two snippets. Whether this is a matter of top-of-the-SERP results getting the most engagement no matter what, or the phrasing of these questions resonating with searchers the most, is hard for us to tell.
The multiple snippets appearing for left us scratching our head a bit:
Our best hypothesis is that searchers in Florida, NYS, Minnesota, and Oregon have more questions about full-time employment than other places. But, since we’d performed a nation-wide search, Google seems to have thought better of including location-specific snippets.
Share your double-snippet SERP experiences
It goes without saying — but here we are saying it anyway — that we’ll be keeping an eye on the scope of this release and will report back on any new revelations. In the meantime, we’re keen to know what you’re seeing. Have you had any double-snippet SERPs yet? Were they in a market outside the US? What keywords were surfacing them?https://www.businesscreatorplus.com/we-dipped-our-toes-into-double-featured-snippets/
Sunday, February 24, 2019
The facts about the 21st-century fax—and how lawyers can use it to their advantage
Law Practice Management
Nicole Black
Faxes—they’re so 1995. No one even uses them anymore, right? Wrong. While many industries have abandoned faxes, lawyers are nevertheless sometimes required to send or receive a fax, whether by courts, other governmental offices, insurance companies or even other lawyers.
Given that my focus tends to be on more forward-facing technologies, fax options for lawyers isn’t a subject that I typically write about. But recently I’ve been reminded that finding the right fax solution is often a pain point for lawyers. This topic has come up time and time again over the past year. I’ve seen lawyers post about it in online forums; there have been active discussions about it during the Solo and Small Firm Section meetings at my local bar association; and I’ve even had lawyers email me and seek my recommendations for online fax options. So I figured it was high time that I wrote an article on this very topic.
The good news is that just as times have changed since fax machines became commonplace in the 1980s, so, too, has the technology behind the transmission of faxes. With the rise of the internet and email, all aspects of communication have been affected, including faxes. The end result is that lawyers who find it necessary to fax documents in 2019 have much more affordable and flexible options than they did in 1995.
So if your antiquated fax machine is on its last legs or if you’re just hanging your shingle and would like to have the ability to send and receive faxes in your fledgling firm, then this article is for you.
If you’re not familiar with online fax services, here’s how they work: Unlike traditional fax machines, you send and receive documents in digital form. Depending on the service, documents can be sent and received via email, an online portal or via a smartphone app.
This does mean that the online fax company you choose will be hosting your law firm’s confidential data. And because you have an ethical obligation to ensure that client data remains confidential, you must ensure that you understand how the data will be handled by that company. That ethical duty includes knowing where the servers on which the data will be stored are located, who will have access to the data, and how and when it will be backed up, among other things.
Because documents are sent in a digital format, prior to faxing a paper document, you’ll have to scan it and convert it into a digital document. This can be accomplished using any type of scanning device, whether it’s your law firm’s copier or printer, a desktop scanner or even a smartphone app. And if you’re already working with a digital document on your computer, there’s no need to print it out to fax it. You can simply send the digital document using your online fax service. Some services allow you to pay per use, while others require you to commit to a monthly or annual fee.
One thing to keep in mind when choosing an online fax provider is the issue of porting your current fax number into the service. Some providers will allow you to transfer your current fax number into the service for free or for a fee. But if you decide to cancel the online fax service, they won’t always return your fax number to you. So that’s an issue to research prior to committing if you intend to transfer your current fax number into an online fax service.
Without further ado, here are some of the more popular online fax options used by your fellow lawyers. All of these companies provide multiple methods for faxing, including via email, an online web app/portal and a smartphone app.
First, there’s eFax, which was one of the first online fax services to launch. It rolled out in 1988 and has since acquired many other popular online fax services. It provides annual and monthly subscription pricing—the annual plan includes two free months—and its cost is on the higher end. Pricing starts at $16.95 per month with a $10 setup fee, and this fee includes the ability to send 150 pages per month and receive 150 pages per month.
Another affordable option that is popular with lawyers is MetroFax. This service provides a 30-day free trial, annual and monthly plans. Monthly plans start at $7.95 per month for 500 pages.
MyFax is another affordable option to consider and offers monthly and annual plans. A 30-day free trial is available, and monthly plans start at $10 per month to send 100 pages and receive 200 pages.
Another option often used by lawyers is Nextiva. It also offers a 30-day free trial as well as monthly and annual plans. Monthly plans start at $8.95 per month for 500 pages per month.
One of the most affordable services is SRFax, which provides annual and monthly plans. The most affordable option starts at $3.29 per month for 25 pages, but that plan does not include a free trial. If you want a free trial for 60 days, then consider the more robust plans, which start with the Basic Plus. The Basic Plus monthly plan includes 200 pages at $6.95 per month.
Finally, there’s SmartFax, another affordable option that provides one option: a monthly plan. A 30-day free trial is available, and the monthly plan costs $6.95 per month for 250 inbound or outbound pages, with additional pages costing 8 cents per page.
You also can obtain online fax services from certain voice over internet protocol providers. VoIP phone systems allow you to use the internet as the means for transmitting phone calls and can be cost-effective and convenient for law firms. In my next column, I’ll cover the ins and out of VoIP phone systems and will share the details on a few of the more popular providers. Check back next month to learn more.
Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York, attorney, author, journalist and the legal technology evangelist at MyCase, legal practice management software for small firms. She is the nationally recognized author of Cloud Computing for Lawyers and is co-author of Social Media for Lawyers: The Next Frontier, both published by the American Bar Association. She also is co-author of Criminal Law in New York, a Thomson Reuters treatise. She writes regular columns for ABAJournal.com, Above the Law and the Daily Record, has authored hundreds of articles for other publications, and regularly speaks at conferences regarding the intersection of law and emerging technologies. Follow her on Twitter @nikiblack, or she can be reached at niki.black@mycase.com.
Posted February 22, 2019, 6:30 am CST
Nicole Black
Judge to Roger Stone: ‘How hard was it to come up with a photograph that didn’t have crosshairs?’
Posted February 21, 2019, 4:51 pm CST
A federal judge on Thursday put indicted Republican political consultant Roger Stone under a full gag order after he posted a photo of her with a crosshairs in the background near her head. U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson was unmoved by Stone’s courtroom apology, saying she thought his Instagram post with the hashtag #fixisin was done to “denigrate this process and taint the jury pool.” The National Law Journal, the Washington Post and Politico have coverage. Stone told Jackson he had multiple images of her on his phone, and he’s not sure how he obtained the crosshairs photo. A group of about five volunteers and staff have access to his phone, he said. “Do you know how to do a Google search?” Jackson asked Stone. “How hard was it to come up with a photograph that didn’t have crosshairs in the corner?” Stone said he didn’t even notice the crosshairs in the background until a reporter brought it to his attention. He attributed the Instagram post about a “show trial” before Jackson to emotional and financial stress. Stone said he is trying to earn money by selling T-shirts and signed rocks dubbed “Roger” stone paperweights. Stone was indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller’s office last month for allegedly making false statements to Congress and trying to persuade a witness to provide false testimony to obstruct investigations of Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election. Stone had posted the photo of Jackson along with this comment: “Through legal trickery Deep State hitman Robert Mueller has guaranteed that my upcoming show trial is before Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama appointed judge who dismissed the Benghazi charges against Hillary Clinton and incarcerated Paul Manafort prior to his conviction for any crime.” Jackson had called the Thursday hearing to determine whether she should change Stone’s release conditions or alter what had been a limited gag order that prevented him only from making statements to the media at the courthouse. While Jackson expanded the gag order, she did not revoke bail. “I want to be clear today,” she said. “I gave you a second chance. But this is not baseball. There will not be a third chance.”Saturday, February 23, 2019
Parole process puts too many people back behind bars, Missouri lawsuit says
CRIMINAL JUSTICE
The state of Missouri doesn’t provide parolees with lawyers they’re entitled to, according to an ongoing lawsuit. Shutterstock photo.
Stephanie Gasca was eight months pregnant when Missouri parole officials took her to jail. She had recently left a drug rehab program early, but she says she didn’t know there was a rule against that. She says she didn’t know she had the right to an attorney. She did know she was desperate not to have her baby in jail and wanted to go home. So when days later her parole officer handed her a form to waive the first of two hearings, she signed it, thinking it would speed the process. It didn’t. Instead, she was transferred to prison.
When she gave birth to her son Noah in July 2017, she was still in state custody. Noah went to Gasca’s mom, and Gasca went back to prison, where she stayed for five more months, only to come out and be sent back again last summer on yet another parole violation, her sixth. She’s locked up still, waiting to see the parole board again.
The U.S. Supreme Court has said that jailing someone for a parole violation requires certain minimum standards of due process. Gasca is the lead plaintiff in an ongoing lawsuit in Missouri which argues that the state’s parole violation process meets almost none of them. The suit, which a judge last month certified as a class action, says the state has “created a procedural vortex from which people on parole cannot escape and are at continual risk of being rearrested and reentered into the prison system.”
The state pressures people to waive hearings, doesn’t provide them with lawyers they’re entitled to and presents them with paperwork that is so confusing sometimes they don’t even know what they’re accused of, the suit said. The parole board sends too many people to prison for petty violations and holds them there for too long, it argued.
“If the goal of prisons is to try to prevent crime, I don’t think this is doing that, when people are being locked up for things other than committing crimes,” said Amy Breihan of the MacArthur Justice Center in St. Louis, one of the attorneys who brought the suit.
A spokeswoman for the Missouri Department of Corrections declined to comment, citing the ongoing litigation, but referred the Marshall Project to a criminal justice reform package the state enacted last year. The law includes some changes to the parole revocation process, including requiring the board “preserve finite prison capacity” and “develop effective strategies for responding to violation behaviors.”
The state filed a brief in Gasca’s case last month, conceding that it hadn’t been providing parolees with a constitutional process. In court documents, the state said it is changing its policies and procedures, including developing a system to provide parolees lawyers and simplifying forms and notices. Federal Judge Stephen Bough is expected to rule in the coming weeks on whether the board’s fixes are good enough.
Across the country, tens of thousands of people are returned to prison each year from parole—some for committing new crimes, but many for missteps like missing appointments, not having a job or failing a drug test. About 19 percent of the 600,000 people entering the nation’s prisons in 2016 were there for violating their parole, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. In Missouri that year, parole violators accounted for a third of new prison admissions, or about 6,000 people.
Probation and parole—originally designed as an alternative to incarceration—have instead become “a significant contributor to mass incarceration,” said 35 probation and parole officials in a statement last year. They cite overlong lists of rules and excessive lengths of time under supervision as contributors to the problem.
Posted February 22, 2019, 1:55 pm CST
The state of Missouri doesn’t provide parolees with lawyers they’re entitled to, according to an ongoing lawsuit. Shutterstock photo.
PAROLEES SENT BACK TO PRISON FOR TECHNICAL VIOLATIONS
Of the 13,000 adults in Missouri who left parole in 2016, more than a quarter were returned to prison for a parole violation rather than a new sentence. Nationwide, 16.3 percent of those ending parole were imprisoned for parole violations. Many of the problems in Missouri’s system are replicated across the country, said several experts interviewed for this article. “These are such kangaroo courts,” said Vincent Schiraldi, a Columbia University research scientist and former New York City probation commissioner. “It’s an ugly world largely devoid of due process.” In a pair of 1970s-era cases, the Supreme Court said parolees are entitled to some key rights if they’re accused of a violation, such as a preliminary and a final revocation hearing. The preliminary hearing is meant to give parole officials a chance to stop the process early if there isn’t enough evidence. Both the preliminary and final hearings should happen relatively quickly, the court said, and the parolee should be able to see the evidence against them, present a defense and cross-examine witnesses. In many cases, the person is entitled to a lawyer. One of the plaintiffs in the Missouri suit was in prison for almost a year before he got a clear explanation of why his parole was violated. When Gasca arrived in jail, her parole officer told her she was being charged with missing one of their meetings, according to court papers. Weeks later, Gasca learned she was being charged with failing to complete drug treatment. Gasca said she had checked herself into drug treatment voluntarily, so she thought it was unfair to be penalized for checking out. But without a hearing or an attorney, she couldn’t push back on the charge or argue why it didn’t warrant prison time. Missouri parole processes “certainly are not in very good shape,” said Carl Wicklund, who recently stepped down as the longtime executive director of the American Probation and Parole Association, an industry group. Wicklund reviewed court documents from this case for the Marshall Project and called the information “damning.” “It looks like their system needs a total evaluation and overhaul.” More than 90 percent of parolees in Missouri waive their hearings, according to court papers. The suit argues they don’t do it willingly or knowingly. Jesse Neely, another plaintiff in the suit, had his parole violated when he was caught breaking into an abandoned house to use heroin. Neely remained in jail for almost a year—including for four months after he pleaded guilty to the break-in and was sentenced to time served—signing whatever seemingly contradictory forms his parole officer handed him, according to the lawsuit. “Mr. Neely remains utterly befuddled about the procedural posture of his parole revocation matter,” the suit says. In Missouri, as in most states, parole revocations are handled by the parole board, which is exempt from state open meetings and public records laws. Missouri is one of 14 states in which meetings and records are closed to the public, according to a 2015 Marshall Project investigation. In 2016, the state correction department’s inspector general discovered that a board member and a staffer were making a game of parole board hearings: They would choose a “word of the day” like “hootenanny” or “armadillo” and earn points by making unsuspecting inmates repeat it. The board member ultimately resigned. One of the plaintiffs in the suit wrote the board to ask whether that board member conducted his review, and the board refused to tell him. “We’ve seen how the Missouri parole board operates when there’s no oversight,” said Breihan, the parolees’ attorney. “Part of what’s required here is a change in culture.” Breihan said they will ask the judge for an independent monitor to oversee whatever reforms are ordered. Gasca is waiting to learn how long the parole board plans to keep her on her latest violation. Deep into a decadelong addiction, Gasca is rarely out more than six months before she’s back again—for sleeping in abandoned buildings, missing appointments or other petty violations. “I have an illness,” she said in a phone call from prison. “That’s not going to go away by sticking me in prison and then letting me out.” This article was originally published by the Marshall Project, a nonprofit news organization covering the U.S. criminal justice system. Sign up for the newsletter, or follow the Marshall Project on Facebook or Twitter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)