A recent post at ZDNet shows a screen shot from a Google Maps search for “Microsoft” displaying an unexpected image. The image depicted the windows logo with a slash through it.

How did this happen? Apparently Google automatically associated this image with Microsoft’s name using geographically targeted image processing. In this case a “Sara B” from Yelp.com had uploaded the image along with a review of the company. While likely unintentional, this could be a new form of “Google bombing” that could cause some serious problems.

The image has since been removed from the search, but one is left wondering where this may lead. If it is possible for Microsoft, what is stopping something like this from happening to other companies out there?

Danny Sullivan and Barry Schwartz provide a more detailed review of how this happened at Search Engine Land

For quite some time Google has provided a keyword tool for advertisers with search volume represented by a green bar. While this green bar did help to indicate the popularity of a specific term, there was no way to know the actual number of searches.

Over the past few weeks I have seen accounts where some have reported seeing the introduction of actual search figures appearing along side the search volume green bar.

Barry Schwartz posted earlier this month at search engine land and referenced an adamap.com post and screenshot, but he was also unable to see the figures at that time. It appears as if Google is testing out the feature for consideration of a future roll-out.

Displaying the actual search figures rather than a general green bar will certainly make their tool more valuable to advertisers in the future. I for one welcome the release, whenever it may be.

There have been reports at search engine land and Search Engine Roundtable that MSN UK has been pre-filling their search box with “The Apprentice BBC”. I went to uk.msn.com to see for myself and sure enough, there it was:

I am not sure how I feel about this form of advertising, or how large of an impact it would have on searches. And what happens if the BBC Apprentice site slips from the number one ranking spot? Is their top ranking also being influenced by this?

I do not see this technique catching on as it would likely just irritate searchers forcing MSN to pull the idea. I for one do not want search engines telling me what to search for, but I am curious to know what the BBC has paid for this.

Okay, so I said it all in the title. Perhaps you need not even read this article as you may start off not believing it.

Today I read an article written by an unknown name in the SEO industry (at least unknown to me). It had a number of points focused on improving search rankings and provided a bunch of tips on how to improve the overall standings for a site. Sounds like a useful article, and for many who read it, I am sure it was – or at least seemed that way. Read more…

Danny Sullivan wrote an article today describing Flash optimization and how it is unlikely that Flash will be a completely spiderable medium anytime soon. The article is sobering for those of us who were hoping for a 100% optimizable version of Flash, but at the same time I must stress that there are ways to optimize around Flash if no other alternative is possible. Danny points to a blog describing Flash workarounds that I had not previously seen and I enjoyed a great deal. Read more…

In my review of today’s SEO and search engine headlines I came across a few posts of interest that I would like to share with you:

• Barry Schwartz at The Search Engine Roundtable wrote that Yahoo removed directory shortcuts found under its search engine result pages (SERPs). Read more…

China is a nation of strict censorship and the country has been rightfully dealt a wealth of criticism for this fact. As many of you know the Internet is carefully screened by China to ensure the proper ‘facts’ of life are fed to its people. So I wonder, what exactly does China consider worthy of censorship?

Does your website fall into China’s wastebasket?
The Great Firewall of China is a website that is designed to tell you if your website is blocked in China. Try it yourself and see if your website is a banned substance. Although it is not now, I expect that the StepForth SEO Blog will be banned very soon thanks to this posting.

Here is just a sampling of sites that are completely blocked in China:

• Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.com)
• The New York Times (nytimes.com)
• The BBC News (news.bbc.co.uk)
• Amnesty International (amnesty.org)

I found other site examples but they were not always banned, it seems site-wide censorship may occur only at certain times or connectivity issues are to blame. The other possibility is China is providing a slightly kinder viewpoint for users of the greatfirewallofchina.org. After all, they are bound to have noted this site’s existence and heightened popularity.

- Thanks to Jeremy Zawodny’s blog for the heads up on the great wall website.

More details are now available on selected searches as Google unveils “Plus Box”. Wherever you see the plus box icon “ ” clicking on it will provide you with additional information on the link. A search for Microsoft, with the plus box clicked shows the following:

Currently there are two types of plus box results being displayed. The above stock example for Microsoft, as well as maps for appropriate local results, such is the case with a search for “Babbo”, a restaurant in New York.

This information is not available for all businesses but Google is working on increasing its availability.

If you would like to find a search for your business including this extra information, ensure your full business address is located on your webs site in a textual format and then visit Google’s Local Business Center to add or update your information.

Tuesday, Matt Cutts posted a status update for the KinderStart / Google lawsuit filed by KinderStart more than a year ago. The judge in the KinderStart cases granted Google’s motion to dismiss without leave to amend.

“The instant case has been intensively litigated for more than eleven months. Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that there is no reasonable likelihood that KinderStart will cure the defects in the SAC [second amended complaint] by further amendment. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss will be granted without leave to amend.”

The judge ruled that KinderStart will be responsible for some of Google’s legal fees, a practice common with frivolous lawsuits.

Last year KinderStart accused Google of “downgrading” its search-ranking without reason or warning.