racoma.com.phJ. Angelo Racoma on technology, economics, writing, problogging, and getting things done

Yesterday after noon mass I headed to the UP Shopping Center branch of RCPI, which was a western union agent, to withdraw my September Google AdSense earnings. I was disappointed. Apparently the branch didn’t have the form needed for Quick Cash. And the manager said I needed Google’s account number in order to withdraw the funds (not only the Money Transfer Control Number). I’ve read about complaints about the latest way to withdraw Google AdSense earnings on some blogs, and I was expecting some delays.

So the manager had to call up their head office to request a fax copy of the Quick Cash form.

I decided to forego withdrawing my AdSense earnings for now because of these reasons.

First, I left my other ID in the car. I didn’t want to waste my time walking all the way to the parking lot and back to the RCPI branch just to get my other ID. RCPI/WU needed two valid IDs, and I usually only carry my driver’s license in my wallet. My other IDs (technically no longer valid, actually) I usually leave in the car for when I need to leave something at the gates of those exclusive subdivisions or school/company compounds.

Also, I wasn’t so sure about the form I was being asked to fill up. For some reason, the wordings on the Google AdSense payment details said MCTN or Money Transfer Control Number and Western Union Quick Cash, but “MCTN” wasn’t written anywhere on the Quick Cash form. So this started me wondering whether I should just use the regular “receive money” form instead.

Also, the person ahead of me in the queue was arguing with the teller, so I was expecting the wait to be longer. Teller says her PRC (Professional Regulatory Commission) ID had already expired last August, and was asking her to submit another ID. The client, however, didn’t carry anything with her at the moment. Seemed like she was pissed, especially since she’d been a regular client for the past few months already.

Here’s what’s funny. During the argument, she said

Ilang buwan na akong nagwi-withdraw ng pera dito, bakit ayaw nyong tanggapin ang ID ko. Dalawang libo lang ‘yan! Hindi ko ipagpapalit ang dangal ko sa dalawang libo.

This loosely translates to:

I’ve been a client for some months now, so why won’t you accept my ID as valid. It’s just PhP 2,000. I won’t compromise my dignity for just PhP 2,000.

Or something to that effect.

Seems like the system got the better of that client.

I almost wanted to hear the teller answer the client:

Hindi naman po dangal niyo ang kelangan namin eh. Valid ID niyo!

Which loosely translates to:

We’re not after your dignity, but only your valid ID.

LOL.

Anyway, I think in these cases it’s an issue with very valid arguments from both sides. The remittance institution is just ensuring the security of transactions. The client, meanwhile, is asking reconsideration because it might be inconvenient at that time to produce another valid ID, probably given her circumstances. Her ID had been valid only a few months ago, and in all likelihood the person on her ID (name, picture, address, etc.) is still her!

Ah, life!

Later today or tomorrow, I’ll be heading to a different Western Union branch and I’ll be sure to fill up that yellow form, hoping it’s the right one.

I’ve switched my sidebar AdSense unit to mostly referral links by Google AdSense. So far, it looks promising. Clicks and conversions generally lead to better payouts, compared to the regular ads. At least that’s how it is in my experience.

One concern, though – you can only choose one country for your entire campaign (not per ad unit). So that might be limiting, since Google says you may not earn from conversions from ineligible countries.

We’ve read about horror stories all too often. AdSense checks get delayed, and before you know it, the check has already been deposited and the funds have cleared (the AdSense control panel gives you information on clearing date). In short, someone has stolen your AdSense check. They’re either from the postal service, or someone who was able to intercept your check en route to your mailbox. Chances are, they’re in cahoots with bank employees, or are able to create fake documents to impersonate you, in order to deposit these checks, which are crossed (marked for deposit to payee’s account only).

That was before, when Google sent checks directly from an office offshore. The alternative was courier service. You get the checks 3 days after being issued, but you have to pay $24 (about PhP 1,200). It sucks. I know—I’ve tried it, but that was after asking for a re-issue, when I suspected my check was lost or stolen. This is a good idea for those who put their checks on hold until the account accumulates money, or for those who get big amounts regularly.

When I got my check in the mailbox yesterday, though, I was surprised to see a local return address attached to the envelope: APCEI Logistics, Inc. It was printed on sticker paper, and slapped on top of the Google Mountain View, CA address. Also, the postmark says April 23, 2007—just two days from the date of my receipt (and almost a full month after my check was issued by Google). This indicates that Google is likely sending checks to the Philippines in bulk, and then someone here is handling the mailing for them.

Here’s the return address.

And here’s the postmark.

I’ve sent an email to Aileen Apolo, Google’s country consultant here, to ask whether there are changes in how Google handles AdSense checks here. Hopefully this will mean we can have more options soon, like cheaper courier service (anything cheaper than $24 a pop would be great) or even electronic funds transfer like what they have in the US.

Heck, even receiving the checks via regsitered mail would be okay with me. At least this way, your check doesn’t have to be carried by the postman and left at your door/mailbox/gate. Instead, you would have to claim it at the post office by presenting a valid ID. I know this is still not as secure as EFT or DHL. Even having a courier service handle your packages/letters/checks isn’t a 100% surefire way to be safe. But at least these add a few more layers of protection.

I also emailed APCEI, and I’m waiting for their response as I type this. I do hope this is good news for AdSense publishers in the Philippines who are worried about the safety of their checks. And I do hope there’s more in store for us.

It started as an idealistic move to help combat spam in blogs, websites and comment threads. But today, some bloggers feel that the rel=nofollow microformat is not a good solution to a widespread problem. Some thoughts here:

• Lorelle VanFossen on the Blog Herald
• Jack of All Blogs
• Google Tutor

The idea behind the nofollow technique was to take away all the “link juice” comment spammers wanted, thus encouraging them to stop spamming. Google introduced the nofollow tag to discourage comment spam from flooding their search indexes, and blogging programs added it to avoid being penalized and jump on the anti-comment spam bandwagon. WordPress and many blogging programs and forums added a nofollow by default for all links within comment areas. This instructed search engines not to follow the link as they crawled the page, taking away the credit search engine page rank gives to incoming and outgoing links. Recently, while late to the party, in an effort to discourage comment spam, Wikipedia has added nofollow to their outgoing links.

The argument against rel=nofollow basically revolves around the idea that Google is penalizing even the legitimate bloggers and commenters (e.g., if nofollow is automatically enabled on blog software), and that spammers still keep on spamming.

Here’s one of the sites that’s actively advocating against nofollow: No Nofollow. Here are 11 reasons why nofollow is not effective, and expanded explanations on these (and 5 more).

Do you think it’s time to retire rel=nofollow? I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Why didn’t I think of that before?

Anyway, what brought me to this realization is a recent issue of a lawsuit threat because a blog ranks higher than a business site for a Google search. Search Engine Journal has the skinny.

An online shoe store owner is threatening to sue a blogger Dean Hunt (DeanHunt.com) unless the blogger ‘lowers his Google ranking” for a keyword phrase that the store owner feels he deserves.
...

I have been running the site for over two years and we have been ranked very highly for the search term [edited].

On Thursday morning I checked our google positions and your site is now above us for this term. I haev checked your blog and it has nothing to do with [edited], so I think it would be best all round if you remove your blog from google for this search term.

Please understand that we make our living from this, and you are just writing a blog that has nothing to do with [edited].

If you do not remove yourself from google for this search, then I will call them myself and have you removed.

...

You have to understand Dean that an online business should be higher in Google than a blog.

Don’t forget that Google is a business as well, they obviously make more money from other businesses than they do from blogs, so it is in their interest that I am higher than you for certain searches.

I have also contacted my lawyer about this issue, so you should expect a letter in the post very soon.

Wow. That’s stupid, with a capital S! (That makes it Stupid, then.)

This is why I often advocate the use of blogs by businesses and companies. It helps with the image and helps boost search rankings, as well. “BLOG” standing for “better listings on Google” is very appropriate, don’t you think?

I dread the day the owners of racoma.com come knocking on my door demanding I de-optimize my blog for my surname. Or rather, I think I should look forward to that day. Maybe I can charge a gazillion bucks for racoma.net and racoma.com.ph.