SEI is looking for bilingual instructors for our Spanish Program!

Solar Energy International (SEI) is a 501(c)3 non-profit education organization with a mission to provide industry-leading technical training and expertise in renewable energy to empower people, communities and businesses worldwide. Founded in 1991, SEI has trained more than 60,000 people from around the world. As an organization, we are committed to offering the highest quality, unbiased renewable energy training that we can. We are a group of people passionate about renewable energy and are continually striving to be the best training organization that we can be.

Since 2013 SEI has provided the same industry leading technical solar training for Spanish speakers within and outside of the USA, with a focus in Latin America. Over the past four years SEI has trained over 3,000 Spanish speakers from around the world.

As Spanish classes continue to grow, SEI is hiring two new bilingual instructors to be a part of our Training Team. Instructors combine their solar technical knowledge and vocation with their ability to effectively communicate concepts to various audiences to share knowledge and empower others. Instructors are contractors who must be available to teach a minimum of two classes per year, depending on course demand. SEI offers online and in-person classes, and hands-on lab classes in Spanish. We are looking for bilingual instructors who can teach either online and/or in-person Spanish language courses.

Instructors must be actively working in the industry installing or designing PV systems, taking classes and trainings, earning new certifications, and staying up-to-date with current codes and standards. These positions are contractual and instructors are not SEI employees.

For more information about SEI, and in particular, our Spanish course descriptions, please visit:

Calendario de cursos

Job Description:

• Teach one or more of the following class formats:
  • Grid-tied and/or battery-based online courses (FVOL101; FVOL203; FVOL202). Online courses are 6-weeks in length and average 10-15 hours/week of teaching.
  • Grid-tied and/or battery-based in person courses at locations throughout Latin America (FV101; FV203; FV202). In-person classes are one-week in length, Monday-Friday.
  • Grid-tied and/or battery-based hands-on lab classes in one of SEI ́s training facilities. In hands-on lab classes the instructor leads a group of 5-7 students through a real installations ending with commissioned, live PV systems. These are one-week in length, Monday-Friday.
• Explain technical concepts to students of all backgrounds, ages and learning styles.
• Incorporate your own personal solar installation and design experiences into the prepared curriculum when answering student questions.
• Communicate and uphold best practices and industry standards.
• Communicate with SEI staff and co-instructors in preparation, implementation, and evaluation of courses (in English).
• Prepare in advance for every course by taking time to review slides and notes in depth. Study SEI ́sdefined terminology and use it both online and in person.

Qualifications:

• Minimum of 4-years experience installing and designing PV systems and a strong technical understanding of best practices and industry standards.
• Experience with, and understanding of the US National Electrical Code (NEC) highly valued.
• Actively installing, designing and/or inspecting PV systems in your current job role.
• Teaching experience preferred.
• NABCEP certification preferred.
• Bilingual, English/Spanish. Fluent native Spanish speaker (preferably Latin America). Fluent in reading, writing and speaking English (you will be expected to audit technical courses in English as part of your training).
• For online classes: proficiency in Spanish spelling, grammar and punctuation
• For in-person classes: ability and disposition to talk in front of an audience for multiple hours a day, several days in a row.
• Experience with MS PowerPoint and MS Office Suite
• Ability to work self-directed in an online, virtual environment with a remote team
• Ability to communicate efficiently with co-workers via email and Skype
• Willingness to travel either throughout the Latin American region and/or to the US, and ability to obtain the proper tourist visas

Candidates will be asked to complete an application and a set of technical questions and must audit and pass
SEI’s PVOL101 class. Phone interviews will also be scheduled.

To apply, please complete the application below, where you’ll be able to attach you cover letter and resume in English, including three references:

Spanish Instructor Job Posting Application

The post SEI is looking for bilingual instructors for our Spanish Program! appeared first on Solar Training - Solar Installer Training - Solar PV Installation Training - Solar Energy Courses - Renewable Energy Education - NABCEP - Solar Energy International (SEI).

Our Spanish free online course on Renewable Energy is updated, enroll today!

At Solar Energy International (SEI) we are committed to providing the best possible education in renewable energy, which is why our curriculum is frequently updated by our team of IREC (Interstate Renewable Energy Council) certified instructors to always be at the forefront of the industry.

Our free online course RE100: Introduction to Renewable Energy  covers the basics of renewable energy, and is a great introduction for those new to the field, those who are looking to make a career change, or those who just want to learn more about renewable energy, energy efficiency, and the basics of electricity. Join over 25,000 individuals who have gotten their first taste of renewable energy in RE100 – you won’t emerge as an expert, but you will learn a lot about the different technologies and trends, what situations are more appropriate for one type of renewable energy system versus another, and how to make a difference with your own energy consumption.

Last month we updated our Spanish version of the free online course ER100: Introducción a las Energías Renovables to match our English version. Now all of our Spanish speaking student seeking to start a solar career can have access to the most advanced data and technologies in the industry. These are some of the updates:

• We updated the data and statistical graphs with the most recent research on the Latin America industry.
• We renewed all the presentations.
• We updated the resources and additional readings that we put at all students disposal as a complementary study.
• We included new resources in Spanish of the topics covered.
• We updated links to web pages of interest.
• We updated the references to the Spanish courses that we have recently launched.
• We standardized technical terms in Spanish so our students begin to familiarize with the lexicon of the renewable energy industry in Latin America.

Are you thinking on starting a career in the solar industry? This is the best starting point. Join one of the organizations with more trajectory educating in renewable energy, with more than 26 years in the industry and over 60k alumni all over the world. Start SEI’s free course at any time here, click below to enroll today!

Introduction to Renewable Energy

The post Our Spanish free online course on Renewable Energy is updated, enroll today! appeared first on Solar Training - Solar Installer Training - Solar PV Installation Training - Solar Energy Courses - Renewable Energy Education - NABCEP - Solar Energy International (SEI).

Gasoline Is Already Taxed Too Much

In a previous article, I explained that the federal gasoline tax was a very crude way to fund highways, because there is only a tenuous link between gasoline consumption and highway usage. Privatization, not tax hikes, would be a much better solution to fund infrastructure.

In this article, I’ll point out another problem with hiking the federal gas tax: Once you factor in state-level taxes on gasoline, you realize the fuel is already taxed far too much. Indeed, for the highest tax states, the proposal to raise the federal tax by 25 cents would mean the combined taxes would amount to almost a dollar per gallon (indeed it would be $1.02 for Pennsylvania!).

The fact that so many of our nation’s highways and local roads are in disrepair is evidence of government mismanagement, not of inadequate taxes. Indeed, the combined gas tax rate in is already at or well above the level one would set, using the “social cost of carbon” as reported by the EPA. It would be quite revealing if Republicans supported an unjustified tax on transportation that hits middle and lower income groups the hardest, so soon after they voted for an enormous reduction in corporate income taxes.

Gas Price Components

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) provides a handy graphic showing the components of the price of conventional gasoline:

 

As the figure shows, after crude oil, “federal and state taxes” are the largest component of the price at the pump—larger than distribution and marketing, and also larger than refining and profit margins.

This might surprise some readers, who keep hearing about how allegedly paltry the federal gas tax is—currently 18.4 cents per gallon. The explanation is that the states and local governments have supplemented the federal tax with a taking of their own, which in some cases is enormous. The following chart from API illustrates the latest numbers:

 

Because gasoline taxes are built right into the price at the pump, most Americans don’t realize just how much money governments are various levels are collecting with every gallon sold.

What About Climate Change?

Interestingly, to the extent that one wants to justify gasoline taxes on climate change grounds, we are already above the “correct” level, according to the government’s own figures. Specifically, the so-called “social cost of carbon” right now is about $40/ton of CO₂ (using the 3% discount rate which is considered standard in policy discussions). Using a standard calculator, that translates into about a 36 cents per gallon tax on gasoline.

As API’s map above indicates, the total taxes on gasoline in just about every state in the Union are already above that level, and hiking them an additional 25 cents would of course make gasoline that much more “overtaxed” on climate change grounds.

Now in fairness, we should acknowledge that the theory of carbon taxes is supposed to be levied purely on the “negative externality” aspect, above and beyond the “normal” costs. Proponents of gas taxes could argue that the taxes are serving two separate functions: a portion for highway funding and a portion to account for negative externalities. My modest point in this section was to show that simply invoking “climate change” isn’t a trump card (no pun intended) that justifies any and all tax hikes. On their own terms, proponents of a gas tax for climate change reasons have some ‘splaining to do.

Conclusion

Despite claims to the contrary, gasoline is not “undertaxed.” Taxes are currently 21 percent of the total price at the pump, and combined taxes on gasoline are already higher than the “proper” amount for climate change reasons according to the government’s own numbers. Yes, there are many highways, local roads, and other forms of infrastructure that could use improvement, but this just shows that governments at all levels are the wrong entities to provide these products.

The post Gasoline Is Already Taxed Too Much appeared first on IER.

California’s Green Transportation Follies

California motorists drive almost 1 billion miles and consume about 40 million gallons of gasoline and 8 million gallons of diesel each day. To change these statistics, the state has had a zero emission vehicle (ZEV) program in place since 1990 that requires automakers to sell electric vehicles—the number required is based on the automaker’s overall sales within the state. If the automaker does not reach its quota, it must purchase credits from automakers that have sold more than their quota. California has a long-term goal of 1.5 million zero emission vehicles on the road by 2025.

Not only does California have a ZEV program but the state and cities are instituting other green transportation policies. For instance, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) leased electric vehicles that are either underutilized or misused because the electric vehicles cannot compete with gasoline or diesel vehicles regarding driving range, ease of refueling, and other vehicle needs. Further, the state has planned to build a bullet train the cost of which for one segment has increased by $4.6 billion—from an original cost estimate of $6 billion to a current cost estimate of $10.6 billion—a 77-percent increase.

LAPD Electric Car Fiasco

LAPD’s contract for electric cars was won by BMW, who is tasked to deliver 100 electric cars each year for three years to be used for administrative purposes. The department is leasing them for a cost of $10.2 million, including charging stations. An investigation of department records found some electric cars sitting idle with only a few hundred miles on them. With the use of hidden cameras, the investigation also found other cars being misused for personal business, such as driving to a nail salon for a manicure.

One reason that some of the electric cars are sitting idle is their limited range of only 80 to 100 miles on a charge. From records covering April 2016 through August 2017, the investigation found most of the electric cars had only been used for just a few thousand miles while others were driven for only a few hundred miles. As an example, one vehicle in service since May 27, 2016, had just 400 miles on its odometer, averaging 6 miles a week. The lease payment of a little over $418 a month results in a cost to taxpayers of over $15 a mile.

Bullet Train

The current estimated cost of building 119 miles of bullet train track in the Central Valley is $10.6 billion—an increase of $4.6 billion from the original estimate of around $6 billion. The increased cost is mainly due to higher costs for land acquisition, issues in relocating utility systems, the need for safety barriers where the bullet trains operate near freight lines and demands by stakeholders for the mitigation of myriad issues. On the first 31 miles from Madera to Fresno, the costs are expected to increase 35 percent to $3.4 billion—the biggest single geographical increase.

The intrusion barriers for the project are estimated to cost an extra $450 million; land buys, $400 million, delays for not acquiring land, $325 million; satisfying issues raised by localities, $250 million; and relocating wires, pipes, and cables used by utilities, $350 million. There is also is a $600-million contingency set aside to cover further unexpected problems that will be funded by unspecified cuts to future construction budgets. About a year ago, the Federal Railroad Administration warned that costs were increasing and that the Central Valley portion of the cost could reach $9.5 billion to $10 billion.

The increase in projected costs could require the state legislature to issue a supplemental appropriation from the bonds that voters approved in 2008. While the remaining bonds could cover the cost increases, using them would partly deplete funds for further construction beyond the Central Valley. The repayment of the existing bonds will cost around $18 billion in principal and interest over the next 30 years, which will come out of the state highway improvement fund.

It is unclear how the Central Valley cost increases will affect the total program, which is expected to cost $68 billion. The 77 percent increase in the Central Valley part of the project suggests the project estimates were vastly underestimated and did not adequately take into account the difficulties of buying land, obtaining environmental approvals, and navigating through complex litigation, among other issues. Further, there are even more difficult segments to the project, such as the long underground passage through the Tehachapi and San Gabriel Mountains and the route into the urban San Francisco Bay Area.

The task of building California’s bullet train will require drilling 36 miles of tunnels through the geologically complex mountains north of Los Angeles–the most ambitious tunneling project in the nation’s history. The tunnels are estimated to be finished by 2022 — along with 300 miles of track, dozens of bridges or viaducts, high-voltage electrical systems, a maintenance plant and six stations.

Support for the project has ebbed as cost estimates have increased. The $68 billion figure is more than double the $33 billion estimate made by the rail authority before California voters approved bonds for the project 10 years ago.

Conclusion

California, in its quest to lower its emissions, is funding projects that are expensive and wasteful. Taxpayers need to be aware of how the state and its cities are using their funds and determine whether such actions are beneficial to them.

The post California’s Green Transportation Follies appeared first on IER.

Google's Walled Garden: Are We Being Pushed Out of Our Own Digital Backyards?

Posted by Dr-Pete

Early search engines were built on an unspoken transaction — a pact between search engines and website owners — you give us your data, and we'll send you traffic. While Google changed the game of how search engines rank content, they honored the same pact in the beginning. Publishers, who owned their own content and traditionally were fueled by subscription revenue, operated differently. Over time, they built walls around their gardens to keep visitors in and, hopefully, keep them paying.

Over the past six years, Google has crossed this divide, building walls around their content and no longer linking out to the sources that content was originally built on. Is this the inevitable evolution of search, or has Google forgotten their pact with the people's whose backyards their garden was built on?

I don't think there's an easy answer to this question, but the evolution itself is undeniable. I'm going to take you through an exhaustive (yes, you may need a sandwich) journey of the ways that Google is building in-search experiences, from answer boxes to custom portals, and rerouting paths back to their own garden.

---

I. The Knowledge Graph

In May of 2012, Google launched the Knowledge Graph. This was Google's first large-scale attempt at providing direct answers in search results, using structured data from trusted sources. One incarnation of the Knowledge Graph is Knowledge Panels, which return rich information about known entities. Here's part of one for actor Chiwetel Ejiofor (note: this image is truncated)...

The Knowledge Graph marked two very important shifts. First, Google created deep in-search experiences. As Knowledge Panels have evolved, searchers have access to rich information and answers without ever going to an external site. Second, Google started to aggressively link back to their own resources. It's easy to overlook those faded blue links, but here's the full Knowledge Panel with every link back to a Google property marked...

Including links to Google Images, that's 33 different links back to Google. These two changes — self-contained in-search experiences and aggressive internal linking — represent a radical shift in the nature of search engines, and that shift has continued and expanded over the past six years.

More recently, Google added a sharing icon (on the right, directly below the top images). This provides a custom link that allows people to directly share rich Google search results as content on Facebook, Twitter, Google+, and by email. Google no longer views these pages as a path to a destination. Search results are the destination.

The Knowledge Graph also spawned Knowledge Cards, more broadly known as "answer boxes." Take any fact in the panel above and pose it as a question, and you're likely to get a Knowledge Card. For example, "How old is Chiwetel Ejiofor?" returns the following...

For many searchers, this will be the end of their journey. Google has answered their question and created a self-contained experience. Note that this example also contains links to additional Google searches.

In 2015, Google launched Medical Knowledge Panels. These gradually evolved into fully customized content experiences created with partners in the medical field. Here's one for "cardiac arrest" (truncated)...

Note the fully customized design (these images were created specifically for these panels), as well as the multi-tabbed experience. It is now possible to have a complete, customized content experience without ever leaving Google.

---

II. Live Results

In some specialized cases, Google uses private data partnerships to create customized answer boxes. Google calls these "Live Results." You've probably seen them many times now on weather, sports and stock market searches. Here's one for "Seattle weather"...

For the casual information seeker, these are self-contained information experiences with most or all of what we care about. Live Results are somewhat unique in that, unlike the general knowledge in the Knowledge Graph, each partnership represents a disruption to an industry.

These partnerships have branched out over time into even more specialized results. Consider, for example, "Snoqualmie ski conditions"...

Sports results are incredibly disruptive, and Google has expanded and enriched these results quite a bit over the past couple of years. Here's one for "Super Bowl 2018"...

Note that clicking any portion of this Live Result leads to a customized portal on Google that can no longer be called a "search result" in any traditional sense (more on portals later). Special sporting events, such as the 2018 Winter Olympics, have even more rich features. Here are some custom carousels for "Olympic snowboarding results"...

Note that these are multi-column carousels that ultimately lead to dozens of smaller cards. All of these cards click to more Google search results. This design choice may look strange on desktop and marks another trend — Google's shift to mobile-first design. Here's the same set of results on a Google Pixel phone...

Here, the horizontal scrolling feels more intuitive, and the carousel is the full-width of the screen, instead of feeling like a free-floating design element. These features are not only rich experiences on mobile screens, but dominate mobile results much more than they do two-column desktop results.

---

III. Carousels

Speaking of carousels, Google has been experimenting with a variety of horizontal result formats, and many of them are built around driving traffic back to Google searches and properties. One of the older styles of carousels is the list format, which runs across the top of desktop searches (above other results). Here's one for "Seattle Sounders roster"...

Each player links to a new search result with that player in a Knowledge Panel. This carousel expands to the width of the screen (which is unusual, since Google's core desktop design is fixed-width). On my 1920x1080 screen, you can see 14 players, each linking to a new Google search, and the option to scroll for more...

This type of list carousel covers a wide range of topics, from "cat breeds" to "types of cheese." Here's an interesting one for "best movies of 1984." The image is truncated, but the full result includes drop-downs to select movie genres and other years...

Once again, each result links to a new search with a Knowledge Panel dedicated to that movie. Another style of carousel is the multi-row horizontal scroller, like this one for "songs by Nirvana"...

In this case, not only does each entry click to a new search result, but many of them have prominent featured videos at the top of the left column (more on that later). My screen shows at least partial information for 24 songs, all representing in-Google links above the traditional search results...

A search for "laptops" (a very competitive, commercial term, unlike the informational searches above) has a number of interesting features. At the bottom of the search is this "Refine by brand" carousel...

Clicking on one of these results leads to a new search with the brand name prepended (e.g. "Apple laptops"). The same search shows this "Best of" carousel...

The smaller "Mentioned in:" links go to articles from the listed publishers. The main, product links go to a Google search result with a product panel. Here's what I see when I click on "Dell XPS 13 9350" (image is truncated)...

This entity live in the right-hand column and looks like a Knowledge Panel, but is commercial in nature (notice the "Sponsored" label in the upper right). Here, Google is driving searchers directly into a paid/advertising channel.

---

IV. Answers & Questions

As Google realized that the Knowledge Graph would never scale at the pace of the wider web, they started to extract answers directly from their index (i.e. all of the content in the world, or at least most of it). This led to what they call "Featured Snippets", a special kind of answer box. Here's one for "Can hamsters eat cheese?" (yes, I have a lot of cheese-related questions)...

Featured Snippets are an interesting hybrid. On the one hand, they're an in-search experience (in this case, my basic question has been answered before I've even left Google). On the other hand, they do link out to the source site and are a form of organic search result.

Featured Snippets also power answers on Google Assistant and Google Home. If I ask Google Home the same question about hamsters, I hear the following:

On the website TheHamsterHouse.com, they say "Yes, hamsters can eat cheese! Cheese should not be a significant part of your hamster's diet and you should not feed cheese to your hamster too often. However, feeding cheese to your hamster as a treat, perhaps once per week in small quantities, should be fine."

You'll see the answer is identical to the Featured Snippet shown above. Note the attribution (which I've bolded) — a voice search can't link back to the source, posing unique challenges. Google does attempt to provide attribution on Google Home, but as they use answers extracted from the web more broadly, we may see the way original sources are credited change depending on the use case and device.

This broader answer engine powers another type of result, called "Related Questions" or the "People Also Ask" box. Here's one on that same search...

These questions are at least partially machine-generated, which is why the grammar can read a little oddly — that's a fascinating topic for another time. If you click on "What can hamsters eat list?" you get what looks a lot like a Featured Snippet (and links to an outside source)...

Notice two other things that are going on here. First, Google has included a link to search results for the question you clicked on (see the purple arrow). Second, the list has expanded. The two questions at the end are new. Let's click "What do hamsters like to do for fun?" (because how can I resist?)...

This opens up a second answer, a second link to a new Google search, and two more answers. You can continue this to your heart's content. What's especially interesting is that this isn't just some static list that expands as you click on it. The new questions are generated based on your interactions, as Google tries to understand your intent and shape your journey around it.

My colleague, Britney Muller, has done some excellent research on the subject and has taken to calling these infinite PAAs. They're probably not quite infinite — eventually, the sun will explode and consume the Earth. Until then, they do represent a massively recursive in-Google experience.

---

V. Videos & Movies

One particularly interesting type of Featured Snippet is the Featured Video result. Search for "umbrella" and you should see a panel like this in the top-left column (truncated):

This is a unique hybrid — it has Knowledge Panel features (that link back to Google results), but it also has an organic-style link and large video thumbnail. While it appears organic, all of the Featured Videos we've seen in the wild have come from YouTube (Vevo is a YouTube partner), which essentially means this is an in-Google experience. These Featured Videos consume a lot of screen real-estate and appear even on commercial terms, like Rihanna's "umbrella" (shown here) or Kendrick Lamar's "swimming pools".

Movie searches yield a rich array of features, from Live Results for local showtimes to rich Knowledge Panels. Last year, Google completely redesigned their mobile experience for movie results, creating a deep in-search experience. Here's a mobile panel for "Black Panther"...

Notice the tabs below the title. You can navigate within this panel to a wealth of information, including cast members and photos. Clicking on any cast member goes to a new search about that actor/actress.

Although the search results eventually continue below this panel, the experience is rich, self-contained, and incredibly disruptive to high-ranking powerhouses in this space, including IMDB. You can even view trailers from the panel...

On my phone, Google displayed 10 videos (at roughly two per screen), and nine of those were links to YouTube. Given YouTube's dominance, it's difficult to say if Google is purposely favoring their own properties, but the end result is the same — even seemingly "external" clicks are often still Google-owned clicks.

---

VI. Local Results

A similar evolution has been happening in local results. Take the local 3-pack — here's one on a search for "Seattle movie theaters"...

Originally, the individual business links went directly to each of those business's websites. As of the past year or two, these instead go to local panels on Google Maps, like this one...

On mobile, these local panels stand out even more, with prominent photos, tabbed navigation and easy access to click-to-call and directions.

In certain industries, local packs have additional options to run a search within a search. Here's a pack for Chicago taco restaurants, where you can filter results (from the broader set of Google Maps results) by rating, price, or hours...

Once again, we have a fully embedded search experience. I don't usually vouch for any of the businesses in my screenshots, but I just had the pork belly al pastor at Broken English Taco Pub and it was amazing (this is my personal opinion and in no way reflects the taco preferences of Moz, its employees, or its lawyers).

The hospitality industry has been similarly affected. Search for an individual hotel, like "Kimpton Alexis Seattle" (one of my usual haunts when visiting the home office), and you'll get a local panel like the one below. Pardon the long image, but I wanted you to have the full effect...

This is an incredible blend of local business result, informational panel, and commercial result, allowing you direct access to booking information. It's not just organic local results that have changed, though. Recently, Google started offering ads in local packs, primarily on mobile results. Here's one for "tax attorneys"...

Unlike traditional AdWords ads, these results don't go directly to the advertiser's website. Instead, like standard pack results, they go to a Google local panel. Here's what the mobile version looks like...

In addition, Google has launched specialized ads for local service providers, such as plumbers and electricians. These appear carousel-style on desktop, such as this one for "plumbers in Seattle"...

Unlike AdWords advertisers, local service providers buy into a specialized program and these local service ads click to a fully customized Google sub-site, which brings us to the next topic — portals.

---

VII. Custom Portals

Some Google experiences have become so customized that they operate as stand-alone portals. If you click on a local service ad, you get a Google-owned portal that allows you to view the provider, check to see if they can handle your particular problem in your zip code, and (if not) view other, relevant providers...

You've completely left the search result at this point, and can continue your experience fully within this Google property. These local service ads have now expanded to more than 30 US cities.

In 2016, Google launched their own travel guides. Run a search like "things to do in Seattle" and you'll see a carousel-style result like this one...

Click on "Seattle travel guide" and you'll be taken to a customized travel portal for the city of Seattle. The screen below is a desktop result — note the increasing similarity to rich mobile experiences.

Once again, you've been taken to a complete Google experience outside of search results.

Last year, Google jumped into the job-hunting game, launching a 3-pack of job listings covering all major players in this space, like this one for "marketing jobs in Seattle"...

Click on any job listing, and you'll be taken to a separate Google jobs portal. Let's try Facebook...

From here, you can view other listings, refine your search, and even save jobs and set up alerts. Once again, you've jumped from a specialized Google result to a completely Google-controlled experience.

Like hotels, Google has dabbled in flight data and search for years. If I search for "flights to Seattle," Google will automatically note my current location and offer me a search interface and a few choices...

Click on one of these choices and you're taken to a completely redesigned Google Flights portal...

Once again, you can continue your journey completely within this Google-owned portal, never returning back to your original search. This is a trend we can expect to continue for the foreseeable future.

---

VIII. Hard Questions

If I've bludgeoned you with examples, then I apologize, but I want to make it perfectly clear that this is not a case of one or two isolated incidents. Google is systematically driving more clicks from search to new searches, in-search experiences, and other Google owned properties. This leads to a few hard questions...

Why is Google doing this?

Right about now, you're rushing to the comments section to type "For the money!" along with a bunch of other words that may include variations of my name, "sheeple," and "dumb-ass." Yes, Google is a for-profit company that is motivated in part by making money. Moz is a for-profit company that is motivated in part by making money. Stating the obvious isn't insight.

In some cases, the revenue motivation is clear. Suggesting the best laptops to searchers and linking those to shopping opportunities drives direct dollars. In traditional walled gardens, publishers are trying to produce more page-views, driving more ad impressions. Is Google driving us to more searches, in-search experiences, and portals to drive more ad clicks?

The answer isn't entirely clear. Knowledge Graph links, for example, usually go to informational searches with few or no ads. Rich experiences like Medical Knowledge Panels and movie results on mobile have no ads at all. Some portals have direct revenues (local service providers have to pay for inclusion), but others, like travel guides, have no apparent revenue model (at least for now).

Google is competing directly with Facebook for hours in our day — while Google has massive traffic and ad revenue, people on average spend much more time on Facebook. Could Google be trying to drive up their time-on-site metrics? Possibly, but it's unclear what this accomplishes beyond being a vanity metric to make investors feel good.

Looking to the long game, keeping us on Google and within Google properties does open up the opportunity for additional advertising and new revenue streams. Maybe Google simply realizes that letting us go so easily off to other destinations is leaving future money on the table.

Is this good for users?

I think the most objective answer I can give is — it depends. As a daily search user, I've found many of these developments useful, especially on mobile. If I can get an answer at a glance or in an in-search entity, such as a Live Result for weather or sports, or the phone number and address of a local restaurant, it saves me time and the trouble of being familiar with the user interface of thousands of different websites. On the other hand, if I feel that I'm being run in circles through search after search or am being given fewer and fewer choices, that can feel manipulative and frustrating.

Is this fair to marketers?

Let's be brutally honest — it doesn't matter. Google has no obligation to us as marketers. Sites don't deserve to rank and get traffic simply because we've spent time and effort or think we know all the tricks. I believe our relationship with Google can be symbiotic, but that's a delicate balance and always in flux.

In some cases, I do think we have to take a deep breath and think about what's good for our customers. As a marketer, local packs linking directly to in-Google properties is alarming — we measure our success based on traffic. However, these local panels are well-designed, consistent, and have easy access to vital information like business addresses, phone numbers, and hours. If these properties drive phone calls and foot traffic, should we discount their value simply because it's harder to measure?

Is this fair to businesses?

This is a more interesting question. I believe that, like other search engines before it, Google made an unwritten pact with website owners — in exchange for our information and the privilege to monetize that information, Google would send us traffic. This is not altruism on Google's part. The vast majority of Google's $95B in 2017 advertising revenue came from search advertising, and that advertising would have no audience without organic search results. Those results come from the collective content of the web.

As Google replaces that content and sends more clicks back to themselves, I do believe that the fundamental pact that Google's success was built on is gradually being broken. Google's garden was built on our collective property, and it does feel like we're slowly being herded out of our own backyards.

We also have to consider the deeper question of content ownership. If Google chooses to pursue private data partnerships — such as with Live Results or the original Knowledge Graph — then they own that data, or at least are leasing it fairly. It may seem unfair that they're displacing us, but they have the right to do so.

Much of the Knowledge Graph is built on human-curated sources such as Wikidata (i.e. Wikipedia). While Google undoubtedly has an ironclad agreement with Wikipedia, what about the people who originally contributed and edited that content? Would they have done so knowing their content could ultimately displace other content creators (including possibly their own websites) in Google results? Are those contributors willing participants in this experiment? The question of ownership isn't as easy as it seems.

If Google extracts the data we provide as part of the pact, such as with Featured Snippets and People Also Ask results, and begins to wall off those portions of the garden, then we have every right to protest. Even the concept of a partnership isn't always black-and-white. Some job listing providers I've spoken with privately felt pressured to enter Google's new jobs portal (out of fear of cutting off the paths to their own gardens), but they weren't happy to see the new walls built.

Google is also trying to survive. Search has to evolve, and it has to answer questions and fit a rapidly changing world of device formats, from desktop to mobile to voice. I think the time has come, though, for Google to stop and think about the pact that built their nearly hundred-billion-dollar ad empire.

Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!

Repealing the RFS Is Still the Best Answer

Following a meeting on Friday, reports are that Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt have put together a four-part proposal to address some of the damaging effects of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). The proposal seeks to resolve a months-long standoff between Senators like Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Pat Toomey (R-PA), who represent states harmed by RFS mandates, and the small coalition of Midwestern Senators whose biofuel manufacturers subsist because of this illogical, market-distorting program.

A jolt to get this proposal put together came last month with the bankruptcy of Philadelphia Energy Solutions (PES), a Philadelphia-area refiner who blamed the prices of RINs (Renewable Identification Number) for their bankruptcy. RINs are the compliance mechanism for the RFS: in order to meet mandated levels, every refiner must collect sufficient RIN credits, whether by producing biofuel or purchasing RINs from other sources. RIN prices have increased in recent years, putting strains on refiners. For example, in its bankruptcy announcement, PES noted that the company spends more on RINs (meaning compliance with government edict) than it does on all payroll costs for its employees.

The four components of the plan drafted by Secretary Purdue and Administrator Pruitt discussed below are: capping the price of RIN credits; providing a year round waiver from an environmental standard for 15 percent ethanol fuel; allowing exported ethanol to generate RIN credits for domestic compliance; and transparency measures for the RIN trading marking.

Capping RIN Prices

The idea of capping prices for RINs has been promoted by Sen. Cruz; he has frequently suggested a cap at 10 cents. For comparison, last Friday RIN prices for ethanol traded at 60 cents, while prices have exceeded $1.50 at times during the last few years. RIN prices fluctuate based on a variety of factors, but the limited number of customers and opaque trading mechanisms make the RIN market highly volatile. RFS Protectors like Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) have rejected such a cap out of hand. RFS supporters seem very concerned that this cap would distort the market for RINs, a “market” that itself is a government-created distortion. Capping the price of RINs would essentially change a RIN credit from a salable instrument in its own right to a simple fine for every gallon of non-compliance with RFS.

This proposal may work as short-term relief for refiners and the fuel consuming public. Certainly the aggressive opposition of the biofuel industry and their senators indicated that they see such a proposal as harmful to the mandate that gives their industry life. However, the problem with RINs is not the price, per se, rather it is the entire premise of the RFS. RINs were created by the RFS and thus only exist because of the baleful effects of that mandate. Ultimately, the only fix for the problems of the RIN market is eliminating the RFS.

Year-Round Waiver for E15

In return for a cap on RIN prices, the Perdue-Pruitt proposal would give the biofuel industry something that it has lobbied for extensively for many years: a year-round waiver for the sale of E15 fuel. The waiver would apply to what is known as Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP), a measure of the volatility (meaning evaporation characteristics) of fuels. The EPA regulates the RVP of fuel sold because evaporating fuel contributes to ground level ozone. Ethanol blended fuel is more volatile than 100 percent gasoline. Thus, in order for ethanol blend fuels mandated by the RFS to be sold, an RVP waiver had to be granted for fuels up to a 10 percent ethanol blend (E10).

As the RFS mandate increased, even as US fuel demand has held steady, in recent years E10 alone, which is now nearly all retail fuel sold, is no longer sufficient to meet the government mandate. This has prompted the increased sale of 15 percent ethanol blended fuel (E15). However, while EPA has allowed E15 to be sold, it has not been able to grant E15 an RVP waiver. This has the effect of prohibiting the sale of E15 in many parts of the country during the summer season. The biofuel industry has thus lobbied Congress and the EPA for several years to grant E15 a year round RVP waiver, which the Perdue-Pruitt proposal would seek to do administratively.

One hiccup to this idea, however, is the question of whether EPA in fact has the authority to administratively grant E15 a year round waiver. The RVP waiver for E10 was granted by Congress, and is specifically written into the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545 (h)(4)). EPA otherwise is given no statutory authority to grant RVP waivers beyond levels set by Congress. The biofuel industry asserts that EPA has implicit authority to expand this waiver, however the EPA has disagreed in the past, and the plain text of the Clean Air Act does not seem to allow for the biofuel industry’s interpretation.

Credits for Exported Ethanol

The Perdue-Pruitt proposal also revives an idea from 2017 from the EPA to allow for exported quantities of ethanol to generate RIN credits that can be counted toward domestic compliance with the RFS. Under current regulation, if a gallon of ethanol is exported, the RIN credit that was generated by the production of that ethanol is no longer valid. The United States is currently exporting more than 1 billion gallons of ethanol per year, so allowing those credits to be used for domestic compliance would likely have a significant impact on RIN prices.

The problem here is that the biofuel industry has already vehemently rejected this proposal when the EPA was considering it last year. After scorched earth threats from Senators Grassley and Ernst (R-IA) in particular, Administrator Pruitt was forced to write a letter disowning the minor reforms under discussion. It remains to be seen if the biofuel industry reaction this time will be any different.

Transparency Measures for the RIN Market

Unlike the other three prongs of the Perdue-Pruitt proposal, there is general agreement among both biofuel producers and refiners about increasing transparency in the RIN system. The opaqueness of the system has left an opening for extensive fraud as well as speculation from entities outside the fuel industry looking to make a quick buck. A cynic might say that this is an unsurprising outcome in an artificial market that only exists because of government engineering.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the Perdue-Pruitt proposal is fairly innocuous. If fully undertaken, it should reduce some of the costs of complying with the RFS. These costs are not just in lost jobs in the refining industry, but are passed on to ever American in the form of higher fuel costs at the pump. To the degree that these costs are reduced, it is to the good. However, the ultimate problem with the RFS is that the government is mandating the purchase of a product that Americans don’t need and most Americans don’t want. The original justifications for the harm imposed by the RFS have long since been made obsolete by developments since the imposition of the program. The Perdue-Pruitt proposal will not save Americans from the RFS; only full repeal can achieve that.

The post Repealing the RFS Is Still the Best Answer appeared first on IER.

Global Investment in Renewable Energy Stalled Due to Subsidy Cuts

Since 2011, global investment in renewable energy was almost flat as countries cut their renewable subsidies. Investment in 2017 increased by just one percent in the United States, but declined in many areas of the globe. In Japan, investment was down by 16 percent, in India by 20 percent, in Germany by 26 percent, and in the United Kingdom by 56 percent. China is the anomaly where renewable energy investment increased by around 30 percent. Despite that increase, total global investment in renewables increased by just 3 percent in 2017.

Source: Daily Caller

Countries are investing less because renewable projects are heavily dependent upon subsidies that are being cut as countries face rising electricity prices and large subsidy bills. Residential electricity prices are twice the U.S. price in Spain and three times the U.S. price in Denmark and Germany—countries that subsidized renewable investment early on. Their electric customers are suffering under heavy utility bills despite renewable energy supplying 30 to 60 percent of their electricity.

While China spent $133 billion on renewable energy technologies in 2017, the country has yet to determine a mechanism to collect the subsidies that has caused the price increases in Spain, Germany, and Denmark. Chinese state-owned developers and investors are building renewables assuming the government will find a way to pay the subsidies owed them. The Chinese government has been working to control the solar boom by curbing utility-scale projects built outside of allocated quotas. As a result, energy-intensive companies are building solar in industrial parks to cover some of their own demand and reduce their operating costs.

Source: Bloomberg

Growth of Renewable Energy

Subsidies for renewable energy have included feed-in tariffs, renewable portfolio standards, renewable grid priority, and other subsidies and mandates. Some countries enacted carbon taxes or carbon trading to impose costs on fossil fuels to make renewable energy more affordable. These policies created huge investment in renewable energy. Between 2004 and 2011, global renewable energy investment increased 26.7 percent annually. At the end of 2012, over 200,000 wind turbines were operating around the world and Germany had over one million solar rooftop installations as part of their energy transformation (Energiewende) movement.

Europe invested $850 billion dollars in renewables between 2000 and 2014. In 2010 and 2011, Europe’s investment in renewable energy was more than $100 billion, tapering to $57.4 billion in 2017—down 50 percent from the record years of 2010 and 2011. These investments were spurred by feed-in tariffs and other subsidies. For example, German consumers pay an EEG levy in their electric bills, totaling €25 billion ($31 billion) a year. It is estimated that by 2040, cumulative renewable subsidies paid by German consumers will reach one trillion euros ($1.25 trillion).

Countries Cut Subsidies

Some countries such as Spain began cutting their renewable subsidies as early as 2010. Other countries that have reduced their subsidies or mandates include Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. Bulgaria, Greece, and Spain made retroactive cuts to their feed-in-tariffs. Germany cut feed-in tariff subsidies by 75 percent for new rooftop solar installations because non-solar customers were subsidizing solar customers and other renewable generation. Germany also levied grid fees on residential solar owners to update and expand grid infrastructure, both for transmission lines and distribution grids, as well as for smart metering and technologies to support advanced strategies such as virtual power plants. In 2015, the UK government suspended all new subsidies for onshore wind farms and reduced subsidies for residential solar installations, resulting in a drop in investment in both 2016 and 2017.

In the United States, renewable subsidies are also being phased out. The wind Production Tax Credit (PTC) is being phased out between 2016 and 2019. Investment tax credits (ITC) for solar are being lowered from a 30 percent ITC to a permanent 10 percent ITC for commercial projects and phased out completely for residential projects by 2022.

Renewables Are a Small Fraction of Global Energy

According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, global energy consumption more than tripled to 13.3 billion tons of oil equivalent since 1965. Despite the investment, subsidies, and mandates, wind and solar provided just 2.2 percent of total global energy consumption and 5.2 percent of total global electric generation in 2016. Advocates, who believe that wind and solar can account for 100 percent of our energy needs, need to face reality. How much more investment needs to be spent before they realize that the world needs more stable sources of supply that can operate on a 24/7 basis and not just when the sun shines and the wind blows?

Source: Daily Caller

The post Global Investment in Renewable Energy Stalled Due to Subsidy Cuts appeared first on IER.

MozCon 2018: Making the Case for the Conference (& All the Snacks!)

Posted by Danielle_Launders

You’ve got that conference looming on the horizon. You want to go — you’ve spent the past few years desperately following hashtags on Twitter, memorizing catchy quotes, zooming in on grainy snapshots of a deck, and furiously downloading anything and everything you can scour from Slideshare.

But there’s a problem: conferences cost money, and your boss won’t even approve a Keurig in the communal kitchen, much less a ticket to a three-day-long learning sesh complete with its own travel and lodging expenses.

What’s an education-hungry digital marketer to do?

How do you convince your boss to send you to the conference of your dreams?

First of all, you gather evidence to make your case.

There are a plethora of excellent reasons why attending conferences is good for your career (and your bottom line). In digital marketing, we exist in the ever-changing tech space, hurtling toward the future at breakneck speed and often missing the details of the scenery along the way.

A good SEO conference will keep you both on the edge of your seat and on the cutting-edge of what’s new and noteworthy in our industry, highlighting some of the most important and impactful things your work depends on.

A good SEO conference will flip a switch for you, will trigger that lightbulb moment that empowers you and levels you up as both a marketer and a critical thinker.

If that doesn’t paint a beautiful enough picture to convince the folks that hold the credit card, though, there are also some great statistics and resources available:

• HubSpot's statistics showing the value of meeting face-to-face and networking
• Rand's excellent deep-dive into the reasons for and against attending marketing conferences
• The ROI of investing in employee education

Specifically, we're talking about MozCon

Yes, that MozCon!

Let’s just take a moment to address the elephant in the room here: you all know why we wrote this post. We want to see your smiling face in the audience at MozCon this July (the 9th–11th, if you were wondering). There are a few specific benefits worth mentioning:

• Speakers and content: Our speakers bring their A-game each year. We work with them to bring the best content and latest trends to the stage to help set you up for a year of success.
• Videos to share with your team: About a month or so after the conference, we’ll send you a link to professionally edited videos of every presentation at the conference. Your colleagues won’t get to partake in the morning Top Pot doughnuts or Starbucks coffee, but they will get a chance to learn everything you did, for free.
• Great food onsite: We understand that conference food isn’t typically worth mentioning, but at MozCon you can expect snacks from local Seattle vendors - in the past this includes Trophy cupcakes, KuKuRuZa popcorn, Starbucks’ Seattle Reserve cold brew, and did we mention bacon at breakfast? Let’s not forget the bacon.
• Swag: Expect to go home with a one-of-a-kind Roger Mozbot, a super-soft t-shirt from American Apparel, and swag worth keeping. We’ve given away Roger Legos, Moleskine notebooks, phone chargers, and have even had vending machines with additional swag in case you didn’t get enough.
• Networking: You work hard taking notes, learning new insights, and digesting all of that knowledge — that’s why we think you deserve a little fun in the evenings to chat with fellow attendees. Each night after the conference, we'll offer a different networking event that adds to the value you'll get from your day of education.
• A supportive network after the fact: Our MozCon Facebook group is incredibly active, and it’s grown to have a life of its own — marketers ask one another SEO questions, post jobs, look for and offer advice and empathy, and more. It’s a great place to find TAGFEE support and camaraderie long after the conference itself has ended.
• Discounts for subscribers and groups: Moz Pro subscribers get a whopping $500 off their ticket cost (even if you're on a free 30-day trial!) and there are discounts for groups as well, so make sure to take advantage of savings where you can!
• Ticket cost: At MozCon our goal is to break even, which means we invest all of your ticket price back into you. Check out the full breakdown below:

Can you tell we're serious about the snacks?

You can check out videos from years past to get a taste for the caliber of our speakers. We’ll also be putting out a call for community speaker pitches in April, so if you’ve been thinking about breaking into the speaking circuit, it could be an amazing opportunity — keep an eye on the blog for your chance to submit a pitch.

If you’ve ever seriously considered attending an SEO conference like MozCon, now’s the time to do it. You’ll save actual hundreds of dollars by grabbing subscriber or group pricing while you can (think of all the Keurigs you could get for that communal kitchen!), and you'll be bound for an unforgettable experience that lives and grows with you beyond just the three days you spend in Seattle.

Grab your ticket to MozCon!

Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!

The United States Is Dependent on Other Nations for Critical and Strategic Minerals

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the United States is 100 percent import dependent for at least 20 critical and strategic minerals (not including the “rare earths”), and between 50 percent and 99 percent dependent for another 30 key minerals. For example, the United States is totally dependent on imports for vital strategic metals that are necessary components for military weapons systems, cellphones, solar panels, lithium ion batteries, and many high-technology products. The reason for this dependency is not due to geologic impediments, but due to politics. Large portions of public lands in the West have not been sufficiently explored, and permitting in the United States takes seven to ten years compared to two or three years in Australia and Canada.

In fact, the United States is much more dependent upon the key imported minerals that are essential for making the electric cars and renewable energy sources advocated for by opponents of fossil fuels than the United States was ever dependent on imported fossil fuels.

President Trump plans to reverse this trend. On December 20, 2017, he issued a policy directive, “A Federal Strategy to Ensure Secure and Reliable Supplies of Critical Minerals,” which directs the development of a strategy to reduce reliance on foreign sources for critical minerals, such as rare-earth elements, and promoting policies to increase U.S. critical mineral development. The goal is to open up federal lands and streamline the permitting process so that the United States can mine these resources. The U.S. Mining Association estimates that the United States is endowed with over $6 trillion in these resources, which could add $50 billion to the economy every year.

The day after President Trump issued his directive, Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke issued a secretarial order, “Critical Mineral Independence and Security,” to direct his staff to take the following actions: 1) identify new sources of critical minerals, 2) develop a list of critical minerals by February 18, 2018, 3) improve the topographic, geological, and geophysical mapping of the United States and make these data accessible to support private sector mineral exploration of critical minerals, and 4) improve access and streamline permitting of mining operations.

According to Secretary Zinke, “The fact that previous administrations allowed the United States to become reliant on foreign nations, including our competitors and adversaries, for minerals that are so strategically important to our security and economy is deeply troubling. As both a former military commander and geologist, I know the very real national security risk of relying on foreign nations for what the military needs to keep our soldiers and our homeland safe.”

As a former Navy SEAL, Zinke was interested in an analysis prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) that identified the critical minerals that would be components of a Navy SEAL’s combat equipment. Night-vision goggles have five critical mineral elements, communications gear and a Global Positioning System have 13, and an M4 rifle has three.

Countries that supply critical minerals to the United States include China, Russia, South Africa, Brazil, and Canada. The USGS report indicates that 20 out of the 23 critical minerals that the United States needs come from China. For some of these minerals, China has flooded the market with low prices, and raised them later when their competitors were out of business.

Rare-earth elements, needed for almost all high-end electronics, are produced almost entirely in China. While the United States has reserves of rare-earth elements in California and other Western states, those reserves have been “undercut” by low-production costs in China due to far less environmental regulation. In fact, a former California rare-earth mine has been idled due to financial difficulties and bankruptcy.

According to the deputy associate director of the Geological Survey, the United States has “deposits of every element in the periodic table” but faces economic and regulatory hurdles to production. The United States was ranked as the world’s largest producer of these minerals until 1995, when China took its place.

The United States has bountiful supplies of critical and strategic minerals necessary for all technologies, including energy. It is a good thing that the Trump Administration is looking to change policies to accommodate the production of more of those minerals in the United States.

The post The United States Is Dependent on Other Nations for Critical and Strategic Minerals appeared first on IER.

How (and Whether) to Invest in and Structure Online Communities - Whiteboard Friday

Posted by randfish

Building an online community sounds like an attractive idea on paper. A group of enthusiastic, engaged users working on their own to boost your brand? What's the hitch?

Well, building a thriving online community takes a great deal of effort, often with little return for a very long time. And there are other considerations: do you build your own platform, participate in an existing community, or a little of both? What are the benefits from a brand, SEO, and content marketing perspective? In this edition of Whiteboard Friday, Rand answers all your questions about building yourself an online community, including whether it's an investment worth your time.

Click on the whiteboard image above to open a high-resolution version in a new tab!

Video Transcription

Howdy, Moz fans, and welcome to another edition of Whiteboard Friday. This week, we're chatting about how and whether to invest in and structure online communities.

I want to say a thank you to @DaveCraige on Twitter. Dave, thank you very much for the question, an excellent one. I think this is something that a lot of content marketers, web marketers, community builders think about is, "Should I be making an investment in building my own community? Should I leverage someone's existing community? How can I do that and benefit from an SEO perspective and a content marketing and a brand awareness perspective?" So we'll try and tackle some of those questions today on Whiteboard Friday.

Strategy first!

First off, before you go and invest anywhere or build anything, I urge you to think strategy first, meaning your business has goals. You have things that you want to accomplish. Maybe those are revenue growth or conversions. Maybe they have to do with entering a new sphere of influence or pursuing a new topic. Maybe you're trying to launch a new product. Maybe you're trying to pivot the business or disrupt yourself, change with technology.

Whatever those business goals are, they should lead you to marketing goals, the things that marketing can help to accomplish in those business goals. From that should fall out a bunch of tactics and initiatives. It's only down here, in your marketing goals and tactical initiatives, that if online communities match up with those and serve your broader business goals, that you should actually make the investment. If not or if they fall below the line of, "Well, we can do three things that we think this year and do them well and this is thing number 4 or number 5 or number 10," it doesn't make the cut.

Online communities fit here if...

1. A passionate group of investment-worthy size exists in your topic.

So if, for example, you are targeting a new niche. I think Dave himself is in cryptocurrency. There's definitely a passionate group of people in that sphere, and it is probably of investment-worthy size. More recently, that investment has been a little rocky, but certainly a large size group, and if you are targeting that group, a community could be worthwhile. So we have passion. We have a group. They are of sizable investment.

2. You/your brand/your platform can provide unique value via a community that's superior to what's available elsewhere.

Second, you or your brand or your platform can provide not just value but unique value, unique value different from what other people are offering via a community superior to what's available elsewhere. Dave might himself say, "Well, there's a bunch of communities around crypto, but I believe that I can create X, which will be unique in ways Y and Z and will be preferable for these types of participants in this way." Maybe that's because it enables sharing in certain ways. Maybe it enables transparency of certain kinds. Maybe it's because it has no vested interest or ties to particular currencies or particular companies, whatever the case may be.

3. You're willing to invest for years with little return to build something of great long-term value.

And last but not least, you're willing to invest potentially for years, literally years without return or with very little return to build something of great long-term value. I think this is the toughest one. But communities are most similar in attribute to content marketing, where you're going to put in a ton of upfront effort and a lot of ongoing effort before you're going to see that return. Most of the time, most communities fail because the people behind them were not willing to make the investments to build them up, or they made other types of mistakes. We'll talk about that in a second.

Two options: Build your own platform, or participate in an existing community

You have two options here. First, you can build your own platform. Second, you can participate in an existing community. My advice on this is never do number one without first spending a bunch of time in number two.

So if you are unfamiliar with the community platforms that already exist in interior decorating or in furniture design or in cryptocurrency or in machining tools or in men's fashion, first participate in the communities that already exist in the space you're targeting so that you are very familiar with the players, the platforms, the options, and opportunities. Otherwise, you will never know whether it's an investment-worthy size, a passionate group. You'll never know how or whether you can provide unique value. It's just going to be too tough to get those things down. So always invest in the existing communities before you do the other one.

1. Build your own platform

Potential structures

Let's talk quickly about building your own platform, and then we'll talk about investing in others. If you're deciding that what matches your goals best and your strategy best is to build your own platform, there are numerous opportunities. You can do it sort of halfway, where you build on someone else's existing platform, for example creating your own subreddit or your own Facebook or LinkedIn group, which essentially uses another community's platform, but you're the owner and administrator of that community.

Or you can actually build your own forum or discussion board, your own blog and comments section, your own Q&A board, your own content leaderboard, like Hacker News or like Dharmesh and I did with Inbound.org, where we essentially built a Reddit or Hacker News-like clone for marketers.

Those investments are going to be much more severe than a Facebook group or a Twitter hashtag, a Twitter chat or a LinkedIn group, or those kinds of things, but you want to compare the benefits and drawbacks. In each, there are some of each.

Benefits & drawbacks

So forums and discussions, those are going to have user-generated content, which is a beautiful thing because it scales non-linearly with your investment. So if you build up a community of people who are on an ongoing basis creating topics and answering those topics and talking about those things in either a Q&A board or a forum discussion or a content leaderboard, what's great is you get that benefit, that SEO benefit of having a bunch of longtail, hopefully high-quality content and discussion you're going to need to do.

Mostly, what you're going to worry about is drawbacks like the graveyard effect, where the community appears empty and so no one participates and maybe it drags down Google's perception of your site because you have a bunch of low quality or thin pages, or people leave a bunch of spam in there or they become communities filled with hate groups, and the internet can devolve very quickly, as you can see from a lot of online communities.

Whatever you're doing, blog and comments, you get SEO benefits, you get thought leadership benefits, but it requires regular content investments. You don't get the UGC benefit quite like you would with a forum or a discussion. With Facebook groups or LinkedIn groups, Twitter hashtags, it's easy to build, but there's no SEO benefit, usually very little to none.

With a Q&A board, you do get UGC and SEO. You still have those same moderation and graveyard risks.

With content leaderboards, they're very difficult to maintain, Inbound.org being a good example, where Dharmesh and I figured, "Hey, we can get this thing up and rolling," and then it turns out no, we need to hire people and maintain it and put in a bunch of effort and energy. But it can become a bookmarkable destination, which means you get repeat traffic over and over.

Whatever you're choosing, make sure you list out these benefits and then align these with the strategy, the marketing goal, the tactics and initiatives that flow from those. That's going to help determine how you should structure, whether you should structure your own community.

2. Participate in existing communities

Size/reach

The other option is participating in existing ones, places like Quora, subreddits, Twitter, LinkedIn groups, existing forums. Same thing, you're going to take these. Well, we can participate on an existing forum, and we can see that the size and reach is on average about nine responses per thread, about three threads per day, three new threads per day.

Benefits & drawbacks

The benefit is that it can build up our thought leadership and our recognition among this group of influential people in our field. The drawback is it builds our competitor's content, because this forum is going to be ranking for all those things. They own the platform. It's not our owned platform. Then we align that with our goals and initiatives.

Four bits of advice

1. If you build, build for SEO + owned channels. Don't create on someone else's platform.

So I'm not going to dive through all of these, but I do want to end on some bits of advice. So I mentioned already make sure you invest in other people's communities before you build your own. I would also add to that if you're going to build something, if you're going to build your own, I would generally rule these things out — LinkedIn groups, Facebook groups, Twitter hashtag groups. Why? Because those other platforms control them, and then they can change them at any time and your reach can change on those platforms. I would urge you to build for SEO and for an owned media channel.

2. Start with a platform that doesn't lose credibility when empty (e.g. blog > forum).

Second, I'd start with a platform that doesn't lose credibility when it's empty. That is to say if you know you want to build a forum or a content leaderboard or a Q&A board, make it something where you know that you and your existing team can do all the work to create a non-graveyard-like environment initially. That could mean limiting it to only a few sections in a forum, or all the Q&A goes in one place as opposed to there are many subforums that have zero threads and zero comments and zero replies, or every single thing that's posted, we know that at least two of us internally will respond to them, that type of stuff.

3. Don't use a subdomain or separate domain.

Third, if you can, avoid using a subdomain and definitely don't use a separate domain. Subdomains inherit some of the ranking ability and benefits of the primary domain they're on. Separate domains tend to inherit almost none.

4. Before you build, gather a willing, excited crew via an email group who will be your first active members.

Last, but not least, before you build, gather a willing, excited group of people, your crew, hopefully via an email group — this has served me extremely well — who will be those first active members.

So if you're building something in the crypto space, as maybe Dave is considering, I might say to him, hey, find those 10 or 15 or 20 people who are in your world, who you talk to online already, create an email group, all be chatting with each other and contributing. Then start your Q&A board, or then start your blog and your comments section, or then start your forum, what have you. If you can seed it with that initial passionate group, you will get over a lot of the big hurdles around building or rolling your own community system.

All right, everyone. Hope you've enjoyed this edition of Whiteboard Friday, and we'll see you again next week. Take care.

Video transcription by Speechpad.com

Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!