It’s certainly not our personal mission to make Google a cause célèbre, but we have a special place in our hearts for any company that challenges Nielsen Media Research, the bumbling audience analytics firm headed toward further catastrophe by David Calhoun, the former General Electric vice chairman. Google recently unveiled Google Ad Planner, a new framework that combines website metrics with media buying, which is supposed to replace the guesswork employed by companies like Nielsen and comScore, which use a complicated and mostly flawed mixture of audience panels and computer logging to tell clients how many people visit a website, and what type of people they are. Google, which collects metrics data itself, directly from websites that carry its tracking code, wants to challenge these industry leaders in a market they’ve long owned, and which media buyers have always had to rely on to know where best to spend their millions in ad buys. Except now that the service has debuted and the biggest media agencies have had a look, it appears Nielsen isn’t in much danger of no longer holding clients hostage.

CONTINUED »

You know who would’ve benefited from seeing this pair of creative ads for Porn Blocker software? Clinton Raymond McCowen, who’s on trial in Florida for distributing porn that qualifies, prosecutors are arguing, as “obscene,” that nasty over-the-line definition that means whatever the hell you’re doing is not protected by the First Amendment.

(This is not to be confused with a similar obscenity trial underway in Los Angeles, where pornographer Ira Isaacs is defending his human-on-animal flicks, and where the Hon. Alex Kozinski recused himself after he was found out for posting some of his own borderline-acceptable porn on what he thought was a private web server.)

McCowen is on trial for producing group sex porn, raking in an estimated $1 million per year from 5,000 subscribers who pay $30/month for their orgy fix. (Also, prosecutors say paying the “actors” amounts to prostitution.)

What constitutes obscenity hinges on the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision, which puts forth a 3-part test to determine if material is obscene based on “contemporary community standards”; that is, does the community think the material is obscene? And to argue that it’s not, McCowen’s attorney is turning to Google — and its cache of data on your search history.

CONTINUED »

Need a place to cool off this summer? You could always visit one of those public pools, which are teaming with children’s pee and, worse, children. Or you could turn to Google Earth, which will helpfully identify your neighbor’s swimming pools courtesy satellites floating around the planet. Then, when you find one that’s deep enough for canon balls, you can alert your friends on Facebook that you’re planning a pool party at someone else’s home, like these jerks in Britain. The technology is also helpful for locating trampolines, bouncy houses, and Slip’N'Slides that don’t belong to you, too.

That will do nothing to boost productivity:

CONTINUED »

Apparently, tricking people into signing up for fee-riddled cell phone ringtone services does not sit well with some customers. Which is why search giant Google – which is sporting a brand new “fav icon” lately – is on the hook for letting advertisers attach the word “free” to their text ads, getting visitors to enter their mobile numbers, and then surreptitiously billing them for that hot new T.I. tone. And so comes the lawsuit, from a New Jersey woman who claims “Google accepts deceptive ads for ringtones in violation of its stated policy of only allowing ads for mobile content if the landing page ‘clearly and accurately displays price, subscription, and cancellation information.’” [MP] And ya know, we’re kinda all for this lawsuit; nobody should be tricked into paying for lame ringtones and phone wallpapers when they’re advertised as free. (AT&T just paid $2.5m for something similar.) But we also have the same level of sympathy to those who see those awful television commercials advertising free ringstones, where half the screen is filled with unreadable fine print, and the other half is asking you to text “SXXXY” to 430459.

The real winner of the Democratic primary race? Google, which has collected about $2.8 million this year in ad dollars from Barack Obama’s campaign. [ClickZ] True to form, Barry Diller probably doesn’t care.

Cranky former Democrat Joe Lieberman last week called on YouTube to remove videos from what he called Islamic terrorist organizations. If they can keep The Daily Show clips off the site, why not calls for the end of the Western world?

YouTube has at last publicly answered the politico’s request, and it reads something like this: Go away.

Funny, coming from a company owned by Google, which has no problem turning in its users when international authorities come calling.

CONTINUED »

“An Indian man was arrested over the weekend for allegedly posting derogatory and vulgar content about Indian politician Sonia Gandhi on Google’s social networking site, Orkut. 22-year-old Rahul Krishnakumar Vaid had posted his comments in an Orkut community called “I hate Sonia Gandhi” through an Orkut account associated with his Gmail account. With Google’s help, local authorities were able to verify Vaid’s identity and make the arrest.

“Vaid was charged under the Indian Penal Code as well as the Information Technology Act, according to expressindia. Perhaps surprisingly, the creator of the “I hate Sonia Gandhi” group was left alone, as hating prominent politicians is not illegal in India. Posting vulgar comments about that someone is, however, leading authorities to pursue Vaid.

“Google admitted today that it had forked over Vaid’s information after it was requested by Indian law enforcement. A spokesperson for Google told IDG News Service that, while the company is committed to protecting user privacy, it must obey local laws and legal processes.” [ArsT]

So this is sort of interesting. The first Google News result for “Sue Simmons,” the WNBC anchor who let it fly during a live promo, is her apology: “I have to acknowledge an unfortunate incident : I used a word that many people find offensive. It was a mistake I made and I’m truly sorry.” [Google News]

A whiny guy with a Twitter account who wasn’t allowed to take a photo of a Google booth gets an apology from the search giant, and is dubbed a hero. BECAUSE HE WROTE ONE LINE OF TEXT ON THE INTERNET COMPLAINING. Are these the type of stories Forbes hopes to hunt down by hiring a new media reporter? [Forbes]

Google had registered the domains GoogleTimeWarner.com, GooglePersonals.com, and, most unsurprisingly, GoogleReligion.com, because that’s practically what the company has become. [TC]

Why Google ranks LAMag.com as the first result for “Los Angeles magazine” searches, but also lists the website with a “malware” warning, claiming the site may infect your computer. As such, Google won’t even automatically link you to the site; you have to enter the web address manually and assume the risk. Maybe they know something we don’t? Copy/paste if you want to visit: http://www.lamag.com/

Western Pennsylvania couple Aaron and Christine Boring only want privacy. Why else do you think they bought a home with a long, private driveway to keep snoops away? Then Google, with its Street View mapping feature, went and allegedly violated their privacy, by sending a camera-equipped van on the Borings’ private road and snapping pics of their house.

Google’s talking heads say any homeowner’s request to have images removed from their database would be honored, but it’s unclear whether the couple ever made such a request.

Instead, they’ve filed a lawsuit against the search giant.

“Isn’t litigation the only way to change a big business’ conduct with the public?” asks attorney Dennis Moskal. Perhaps. It’s also the best way not to stay out of the public eye.

In February, Barack Obama spent $1 million on Internet advertising, much of it devoted to Google search terms. It’s a decent tactic: Replace organic search results with paid listings.

Jason Binn appears to be doing the same.

A Google search for his name used to show this Copyranter blog post as the first result. Now it’s an ad for the luxe mag guru’s Niche Media. Even more troublesome: That pushes Jossip down from 7th to 8th.

The Obama campaign spent $1 million on Google search terms, compared to Clinton’s $67,000. From what we can tell, most of the money was spent making search searches for “Obama” or “Clinton” turned up the candidate’s website, which Google’s standard search results already offered. Search terms “economy,” “recession,” “Iraq,” and “health care” were not advertised on. [MP]

Viacom sued Google for $1 billion over copyright infringement charges, claiming all those Daily Show clips were posted illegally. So sad news for Viacom chief Philippe Dauman: A judge ruled he’s entitled to exactly zero dollars punitive damages. The only award he can receive are for the actual costs of infringement. Meanwhile, wasn’t Viacom one of those big media companies arguing they weren’t making any cash from their online content? The full ruling follows.

CONTINUED »

JuicyCampus.com, the website that is a definitive example of why you should not have sex in college, is looking at dire financial straits. So controversial is the site – where university students post sex gossip about their peers and answer complicated questions like “Who is the sluttiest girl??????” – that Google has banned it from its contextual advertising program AdSense, leaving GlaxoSmithKline to find another outlet to push its herpes-fighting wonder drug Valtrex. [Daily Skiff]

Google Docs is here to remind you:

Thanks, Google! Without you, we may have forgotten all about our fear of dying alone.

ANTI-TRUST, SHMANTI-TRUST Yahoo! must really hate Microsoft. Following Microsoft’s unsolicited, inflated bid, Yahoo! has been chatting it up with its chief rival, Google. Everything is on the hush-hush, but it’s likely the talks center around giving Google reign over its advertising. But a deal would ultimately about Yahoo! hating Microsoft. It’s so nice that rivals like Google and Yahoo! are able to connect over a common enemy. [LAT]

DEALS THAT DON’T MAKE SENSE Microsoft wants to buy Yahoo!, you know that other search engine/email provider. Yeah, the one that’s not Google. Microsoft is willing to pay $44.6 billion, a 62 percent premium, for a company that is becoming obsolete. We get that Microsoft and Yahoo! share an enemy, but this deal seems like it will end in tears. Then again, if we understood how deals like this work, we wouldn’t be working from home in our pajamas in deep Brooklyn. [NYT]