But their search engine was not made for everything. There are quite a few areas where it has tried – and failed – to be the best choice.

This topic was brought up on Quora not too long ago. The top purpose voted by users of things not to use Google for was medical research information. Even Google Scholar isn’t that reliable, and they suggest Embase, Medline and Pubmed as the three primary resources for searching out medical studies. Though poster Erica Friedman points out that a comprehensive search will take quite a few more search engines.

Another answer that stood out to me was ‘people searches’. Suzanne Boland says what many of us have probably discovered: Google is useless for searching out people. You are better off doing a deep web search through a specific engine. For example, Spokeo or Pipl. These let you search by name, location, email, address, ect. They will bringWhat NOT to Use Google Search For up public information and social media profiles, respectively.

One thing I have found is terrible for finding results on Google is torrents. I don’t mean illegal ones, but those that are specifically authorized by creative content licenses. These are so difficult to find using a Google search, which gives preference to illegal download sites and trackers. Which is why I use legal torrent search engines and sites instead, which only track those that the creators have given as an open source project. You can find a list of these here.

What are some uses you think Google is useless for? Let us know in the comments!

Image Credit: 1.

Author information

Ann Smarty

Community Manager at Internet Marketing Ninjas

Ann Smarty is the pro blogger and guest blogger, social media enthusiast.

TwitterFacebookGoogle+LinkedIn

The post What NOT to Use Google Search For appeared first on SEO Chat.

Full disclaimer first: I was not one of the lucky ones who actually got to try Graph Search. When I finally got the Graph Search page to work, after multiple attempts, the button I got at the bottom of the page was for joining the waiting list. Instead, I sifted through a lot of commentary and reviews that demonstrated how the search worked and speculated on its future. I concluded that, in principle at least, Graph Search is neither better nor worse overall than Google; it’s simply different.

So how does it work? Facebook Graph Search taps into the various “likes” and other data that users have entered into the social network, and then returns answers based on what it knows about you and your friends, and what information has been made public. So if you typed in “friends who live in San Francisco,” for instance, you’d get a list of all of your Facebook friends who live in that city. That’s great if you’re planning a visit to the area.

Where the search shines, however, is with all of the modifiers you can attach to it. This reminds me ever so slightly of the search engine Blekko, which uses hash tags to modify its searches. Facebook Graph Search seems to use natural language, however, and seems to be trying to reach a different market.

So how would Graph Search work in a real life situation? I live in the Orlando area, but later this month I’m going to see the musical “Wicked,” which is playing in Tampa. I don’t get out to Tampa very often, but I do have a number of friends on Facebook who live there. I could use Graph Search to look for the restaurants in Tampa that my Tampa friends liked, so I can get a nice dinner before the show. Similarly, in a video posted on TechCrunch, Josh Constine demonstrated that one could use Graph Search to find dentists liked by your friends. That’s genuinely valuable information – much better than you can get from Google.

You can also use Graph Search to look for photos, posted by your friends or publicly available. You don’t have to limit yourself to recent photos, either. Remember that awesome Grand Canyon trip one of your beer buddies took five years ago that he keeps talking about? Search for photos taken at the Grand Canyon before 2008 and you just might find his pictures. Or perhaps you’d like to see pictures that are even older? Believe it or not, you can find those, too. The article I linked to recommends somewhat whimsical searches such as “photos of me taken before 1990” or “photos of my parents between 1970 and 1979” (if you’re wondering what they looked like when they were “cool”).

You can also search based on interests. So if you want to form a local bicycle club, say, you can search for people in your area who like bicycling. Or if you’re a big Star Wars fan, you can search for friends who share that interest. You can even combine interests, to search for friends who enjoy both Star Wars and costuming (to invade your next science fiction convention in group costumes, perhaps?).

And of course, you can search for places. This is why I said that Foursquare should be worried. You can search for places your friends have been. You can search for photos of places, as I’ve noted above. You can even just search for places by city.

But what if your filtered Facebook Graph Search doesn’t yield any results? The social network has negotiated a deal with Bing . Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that he would love to work with Google, but the search giant wasn’t quite flexible enough to protect Facebook’s members’ privacy. To do that, according to Zuckerberg, you need the infrastructure in place to quickly take down photos and such when users change their privacy settings. Apparently Bing offered that, and Google didn’t. (If any of this sounds more than a little fishy or laughable to you, well, you’re not alone).

Just how well will Graph Search work? Steve Cheney points out one of the social network’s stumbling blocks: dirty “Likes.” How many times have you wanted to compete in a contest or get a free sample from a company, but you could only do it if you “liked” the firm’s Facebook page? I’m pretty conservative about that myself, and I know I’ve done it a number of times. But those aren’t real “likes,” if you know what I mean. What kind of answers will Graph Search return when it’s full of dirty data like this? Not very good ones, I’m sure…which is one reason I said that it’s not a Google killer.

On the other hand, advertisers will no doubt appreciate Graph Search, once Facebook figures out how to monetize it. Right now, though, I’d look at it as one search method among many for finding the kind of information you need. Cheney said it best: “Offline we consult different places, people, and resources, and you will do the same with social networks and web services online.”

Author information

Terri

The post Facebook Graph Search Not a Google Killer appeared first on SEO Chat.

Search Engine Land explained that there are three parts to the settlement between Google and the FTC. First, Google will no longer be permitted to simply scrape third party content to be included in its own “specialized” search results. Second, Google will be required to make it easier to export AdWords campaigns to Bing and other platforms. And finally, the FTC ordered Google to stop playing games with Motorola’s “standards-essential” patents; the search giant must license them fairly and not use them to block products made by the competition.

It’s rather glaring, however, that the settlement doesn’t address the issues of “search bias” which concerned Google’s competitors the most. According to FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz, after “an exhaustive investigation into Google’s business practices,” the regulatory body could not find enough factual evidence to support such a complaint. In fact, the FTC was unanimous on this point. What little evidence of search bias Leibowitz and his colleagues did find in Google’s practices was comparable to the kinds of things the search engine’s rivals were doing – and most of what Google did was for the benefit of its users.

Judging from the various reactions to hit the media about this settlement, the only ones happy with it are Google and the FTC. Microsoft, for example, seems more than a little upset. Dubbing the situation “a missed opportunity” in a lengthy blog post, Microsoft vice president and deputy general counsel Dave Heiner stated that “We find it troubling that the agency did not adhere to its own standard procedures that call for the agency to obtain industry input on proposed relief and secure it through an enforceable consent decree.” Heiner also called the ruling “weak,” hinting that it didn’t even adequately address the areas with which it chose to deal.

FairSearch.org, described by Search Engine Land as an “anti-Google lobbying group,” was also highly critical of the settlement. In a statement on its website, the organization described the FTC’s decision as “disappointing and premature” and “by no means the last word in this case…The FTC’s inaction on the core question of search bias will only embolden Google to act more aggressively to misuse its monopoly power to harm other innovators.”

The FTC’s settlement with Google also doesn’t carry much weight abroad. The Guardian reported that the European Commission “has denied that the decision will affect its own investigation into the claims.” Specifically, EC spokesman Michael Jennings said that “We have taken note of the FTC decision, but we don’t see that it has any direct implications for our investigation, for our discussions with Google, which are ongoing.”

So was the FTC’s decision a mistake, or too weak? Information Week  interviewed David Wales, the former head of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, on the matter. Wales points out that the FTC’s other choice was to go ahead with litigation, and hope to win a claim in court against Google. That’s an expensive move with a real risk of failure – thus making a settlement the preferable move. And what if the FTC won? The court fight itself can take years, as we saw the Department of Justice’s antitrust case against Microsoft…by which time the competitive climate would likely have changed, making it very tricky to come up with an appropriate remedy for the anti-competitive behavior.

So does that mean that half a loaf is better than nothing? Perhaps. But Google is an international company, and while this battle has ended, the war may not be over – though one does wonder what the European Commission will do. Meanwhile, SEOs should have an easier time exporting their marketing campaigns from AdWords, at least. And Google…will just go on being Google.

Author information

Terri

The post FTC Ends Antitrust Case Against Google appeared first on SEO Chat.

The sentence that freaked out most people, as reported by PC World, fell under “Rights” and went like this: “To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, you agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos (along with any associated metadata), and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you.” If you’ve seen advertising on Facebook that shows one of your friends liking a certain product, well, this is more or less the same thing. And it’s not too surprising, considering that Facebook purchased Instagram.

This change, and certain others, to Instagram’s privacy policy, sparked outrage among its users, and many people chose to quit the service rather than submit to the policies. Before the new rules could go into effect on January 16, however, Instagram backtracked, at least a little. In a new blog post this week, Instagram co-founder Kevin Systrom said that “we’re going to modify specific parts of the terms to make it more clear what will happen with your photos.” He insisted that “it is not our intention to sell your photos,” though they will be probably be used in “innovative advertising that feels appropriate on Instagram.” Furthermore, he emphasized that “Instagram users own their content and Instagram does not claim any ownership rights over your photos.”

But just how well is Instagram really listening to what people are saying about how they handled this? Ian Paul , writing for PC World, pointed out a number of things the photo-sharing social site could learn from the debacle.

First, Instagram should try to remember that, though it has been purchased by Facebook, it is not Facebook, and it would behoove them not to act like their new parent company. This privacy policy move, according to Paul, smacks of Facebook all over: “revise your policies or services, wait for the backlash, and then backtrack a little,” he explained. “The result is that while many people use Facebook because of its popularity, very few people seem to trust the company’s motives.” Instagram has built up a ton of goodwill with its service, and it would be a shame if it squandered it in this way.

There’s another way in which Instagram is not Facebook: it has a lot of competition which is just as good, depending on what you want to accomplish. Remember Flickr? How about Photo Shack? Picasa? And then of course there’s Pinterest. For heaven’s sake, Wikipedia lists nearly 40 “major” photo sharing sites, and admits that its list is non-exhaustive. “Unlike Facebook, which dominates the social networking world, Instagram is a popular choice among many for adding filters and sharing photos online.”

Since Instagram is NOT Facebook, it needs to remember that it shouldn’t ACT like Facebook. In other words, don’t get uppity or condescend to your customers. Paul called on the company to “drop the hubris,” and fixated on one sentence from Systrom’s blog post: “Legal documents are easy to misinterpret.” According to Paul, “The subtext of that statement is: ‘you’ve totally got it all wrong, but we’re changing the parts you didn’t like anyway.’” Again, Instagram seems to be imitating Facebook “by apologizing for how things were perceived instead of for the issues themselves,” according to Paul.

That action, taken by Instagram, is patronizing, almost to the point of willful ignorance. Come on, guys; Facebook, at least, has been down this road before, and you can’t claim you haven’t seen it happen before. You MUST have known what would happen!

This very fact – that Instagram should have known what kind of reaction their new privacy policy would get – means that they should be able to do better next time. Heck, Instagram should have done better THIS time. Instead of coming out with a short blog post saying its terms of service had changed, followed a much longer, more explicit blog post when the tide of reaction on the Internet got too loud to ignore, Instagram should have done it right the first time. “Next time, Instagram should skip the outrage phase by clearly explaining its plans the first time.” That’s exactly what you do if you want to build a business that’s more respected than Facebook – you respect your customers enough to not act like you’re trying to sneak something past them. Here’s hoping that having Facebook for a parent won’t prevent Instagram from learning that valuable lesson.

Author information

Terri

The post Instagram Policy Changes: Backtracks, Lesson Learned appeared first on SEO Chat.

You can read Google’s official blog post summarizing the report, or go directly to the user data requests  section of the full transparency report. You might also be interested in the government removal requests  section of the report.

Just how bad has it gotten? Requests for data from governments have shown a steady increase, from 12,539 when Google began reporting them in 2010 to 20,938 in this week’s report. The number of requests doesn’t quite tell the full story, though, since one “request” can ask for multiple pieces of information. Those 20,938 requests “were for information from about 34,614 accounts,” according to Google.

The trend from governments to request removal of material from Google, on the other hand, looks a little more complicated. Google says that it “was largely flat from 2009 to 2011.” It jumped in this reporting period, however. The search engine’s chart showed 1,048 removal requests for the six-month period ending in December 2011. From January through June 2012, “there were 1,791 requests from government officials around the world to remove 17,746 pieces of content.”

Google’s transparency report includes some nice interactive elements. For example, the table that lists removal requests can be sorted by country, number of requests, percentage of compliance, and more. Not too surprisingly, the United States heads the list for number of court-ordered requests for removal, as well as items requested to be removed – however, the search engine complied with less than half of these court-ordered requests. Its compliance was much higher for certain other countries.

Why would Google not comply with a content removal request? “Some requests may not be specific enough for us to know what the government wanted us to remove…and others involve allegations of defamation through informal letters from government agencies, rather than court orders,” Google explained. Also, the search engine noted in its FAQ that they sometimes receive falsified court orders, “and if we determine that a court order is false, we will not comply with it.”

User data requests from governments may be more worrisome. All countries seem to be showing an up trend here, with the United States leading the pack. In the six-month period covered in the report, the US government made 7,969 requests for user data covering 16,281 accounts – and Google fully or partially complied with these requests ninety percent of the time. These numbers represent more than a third of all user data requests made worldwide – and close to half of the accounts covered in user data requests.

So if you have a Gmail or other Google account, should you be worried? That depends on whether you’ve committed a crime, or have a close association to someone who has. According to Stewart Baker, a former assistant secretary at the US Department of Homeland Security, “The government can’t just wander through your emails just because they’d like to know what you’re thinking or doing.” As he explained to the Associated Press, though, “[I]f the government is investigating a crime, it has a lot of authority to review people’s emails.” Even so, the trend is very clear: governments want more information about you, and may be beginning to rein in some of the free-flowing data online. Still, given the sheer size of the Internet, there’s no need to get paranoid yet.

Author information

Terri

The post Google: Government Surveillance Increasing appeared first on SEO Chat.

Unlike searching for erotic content in Google, however, Search.xxx lets users search only those sites that end in .xxx. This particular global top-level domain, just approved by ICANN in March of last year, has been designated for adult-themed content. The general public began registering .xxx TLDs for their websites in December 2011. As you might guess, ICM Registry administers the .xxx TLD.

The Search.xxx search engine differs in another important way from Google: its goal isn’t to make money with ads – not directly, anyway. The registry’s plan involves driving traffic to the search engine. When purveyors of adult content see the engine receiving lots of searchers, so the theory goes, they might become interested in buying .xxx domain names. These names, which typically go for $75 a pop, serve as ICM Registry’s main source of revenue. “The more customers we get searching Search.xxx, the more providers we will have registering,” noted Stuart Lawley, the CEO of ICM Registry.

While most of ICM Registry’s names go for a set price, about 1,000 names the company considered “high value” got held in reserve, to be sold for a correspondingly higher price. How high? Fetish.xxx fetched $300,000, while Gay.xxx brought a cool half million dollars into the company’s coffers.

Users of the Search.xxx search engine must click a button stating that they are 18 and older before proceeding to the site – standard protocol with adult sites online. Once through this barrier, searchers view a clean, Google-like interface, which they can filter by language and orientation. Those trying to practice safe surfing habits may be reassured by the notes on the bottom left stating that all XXX sites appearing in the search engine have been scanned by McAfee and labeled by MetaCert. The former presumably keeps them free of malware, while the latter allows parents to block them from their children.

Indeed, ICM Registry seems to care very much about the user experience. Lawley explained that “This is a safer, responsible environment where users aren’t subjected to potentially annoying images and offers that plague some porn portals…The site is also free of pop ups, pop unders and other unwelcome distractions. It’s just a better user experience.”

Search.xxx faces a lot of competition; a Google search on the phrase “search engine for porn” yields about 42 million hits. Still, as of yesterday afternoon, the site had received 100,000 unique visitors and fielded 500,000 search queries – not a bad start. If the site truly does offer a better, safer experience to users, word of mouth could raise those numbers over time.

For more on this, check the Huffington Post story.

Author information

Terri

The post ICM Registry Launches XXX Search Engine appeared first on SEO Chat.

This change didn’t happen all at once. In fact, it’s pretty recent, dating to mid-August. Like many browsers, Qihoo’s offers a search box that lets users choose which search engine to use. Forbes notes that the company changed its search box, “giving users the choice of using Baidu, Google or Qihoo to search the web.” Guess what? Within a week, Baidu captured more than 10 percent of online search traffic in China – not bad in a country where Baidu holds an 80 percent market share.

In short, the fight is on. And Qihoo’s CEO Zhou Hongyi sounds more than ready for it. “Only through competition can the quality of search engines be improved, thus benefiting the users,” he wrote recently. Strangely, though, Qihoo’s results aren’t much different from Baidu’s. It is, however, the default search engine on its browser – and I trust I don’t need to tell my readers about the power of a default choice!

What kind of numbers are we talking about here? The Wall Street Journal notes that Qihoo’s browser reached about 270 million monthly users in the first quarter, and repeated the company’s estimate that its website entertained 77 million unique users per day. Those are respectable numbers to build on, especially when your search engine is less than a month old.

To judge from a recent story from PC World, however, Baidu is not taking incursions from this upstart search engine lying down. Like any search engine, Qihoo sends robots out to crawl the web and index sites. It even indexed Baidu’s products, which include question-and-answer sites and encyclopedia pages. And that’s where Qihoo ran into trouble: it ignored Baidu’s robot exclusion protocol, which allows only a few search engine bots to index its site – and Qihoo’s weren’t among those permitted entry.

As a result, Baidu blocked Qihoo users from accessing these products, redirecting them to Baidu’s home page instead, where they’d have to re-enter their search data. Qihoo responded to this by replacing the redirected links with cached page views of Baidu’s sites.

Could the situation degenerate further? Well, there does seem to be a bit of name-calling going on, and at least one Chinese legal expert weighed in to say Baidu could sue Qihoo for violating Baidu’s robot exclusion protocol; the charges would be copyright infringement and competing unfairly. Will Baidu sue Qihoo over this? It’s hard to say. But things could get very interesting in search in China for a while.

If you’re involved in the Chinese search engine market in some way, should you start trying to rank on Qihoo? Well, if you try to rank on Google in China, you probably should, as Qihoo now gets more search traffic in China than Google. Otherwise, though, break out the popcorn; you’ll simply want to keep an eye on how this develops.

Author information

Terri

The post News of Qihoo, China`s Newest Search Engine appeared first on SEO Chat.

Mayer arrived at Google back in 1999 with a master’s degree in computer science from Stanford. A math whiz with a photographic memory, she managed the launch of more than 100 features and products at Google, including Google News and Gmail. If you like Google’s clean, uncluttered look and feel, you can thank Mayer.

One would expect someone with that kind of energy and ability to get tapped for a “C” level position, but about a year and a half ago, Google moved her to mapping and location services – away from search. Many saw this as a demotion. As the NY Times explains, the year after she became vice president of that group, “Google promoted another executive, Jeff Huber, to be the senior vice president for local and commerce, putting him one level above Ms. Mayer’s post.” To Mayer, that must have felt like a slap in the face.

So now she’s bringing her energy and ability to Yahoo. With the challenges she’s going to face, she’ll need everything she can bring to bear. Wish her luck; today is her first day on the new job. She resigned from her post at Google yesterday, by phone.

The company and position she’s moving into brings a lot of agonizing history with it. The Associated Press offers a timeline of Yahoo’s pain, starting with co-founder Jerry Yang agreeing to step down as CEO in late 2008 – something that many shareholders had been demanding ever since he refused to sell the company to Microsoft. What followed was a parade of CEOs, layoffs, reorganizations, unhelpful (at best) deals, and lies. In the midst of it all, it seemed as if no one really understood what Yahoo was or what unique value it had to offer the world.

In point of fact, Yahoo started out as a product and service company. It offered the best directory on the web. If anyone can help it reconnect with this shining past and bring it up to date for the future, it’s Mayer; she’s a products innovator herself. Going forward with  Yahoo, the NY Times notes that Ms. Mayer wants “to focus on the Internet company’s strong franchises, including e-mail, finance and sports. She also hopes to do more with its video broadband and its mobile businesses, tapping into its significant base of users.”

But could this challenge be too much even for Mayer? Shar Van Boskirk, an analyst at Forrester Research, notes that “Yahoo has too many products. I fear the challenge, is that by putting a former product person in the C.E.O. Role they won’t have somebody who has the ability to create a clear, unified vision and strategy for the Yahoo brand.”

It’s true that Mayer has never been a CEO before. But at least one co-founder seems to think she’s exactly what Yahoo needs. “In the last few years, given the turnover, there has been a lack of attention on the user experience,” observed David Filo. He should know; unlike fellow co-founder Jerry Yang, he still works at the company. “We need to get back to basics,” he continued, adding that he was very excited about the new CEO.

Steve Jobs proved that one person can make a difference in a company’s destiny, if they’re the right person in the right position with the right skills and vision. If Yahoo is very, very lucky, Mayer could be that person.

Author information

Terri

The post Yahoo CEO Search Ends With Marissa Mayer appeared first on SEO Chat.

You can read Google’s blog post about the new offering. Google Analytics Content Experiments lets you quickly and easily offer your visitors different variations of your website, and check to see which ones lead to more conversions. For example, if you want to try out different versions of a product page to see which one leads to more conversions, you can test up to six variations of a specific page.

Assuming you already use Google Analytics, you won’t need to do much (aside from creating the page variations) to use this new feature. Google Analytics provides a wizard to guide you through creating the experiment. A video in the blog post explains all the details. You can control what percentage of visitors see the new page(s), and the goal on which you wish to focus. You can monitor the data and the results from the experiment while it’s in progress, and even view predictive data to see which pages you can expect to convert better.

What this means, as Mike Fleming notes, is that if you’re not testing your website to see which versions of your product pages perform better, you’re telling everybody that you think you’re making enough profit. “Your site exists to persuade visitors to take actions, right? Well, you don’t know how good it is, or how good it could be, until you fully embrace experimentation and testing with it,” he pointed out.

Even if you’ve built your website with all of the “best practices” to be as good as it can be, and you’ve learned all you think you can from examining and dissecting other websites (especially those in your own field), you may be missing one vital point: your business is unique. “The truth is that what works for one business doesn’t necessarily work for another, even if they sell the same thing,” Fleming explained. You need to build pages that are informed by your own understanding of your individual audience.

For example, assume that you and I both sell electronic devices. If we’re going after a different demographic, different kinds of pages will perform better. Even if we’re both selling iPads, if you’re selling them to college students, you’re going to use a different approach than I would if I’m selling them to people like my neighbors in the “active adult” community in which I live!

Or let’s look at this idea just a bit differently. You and I sell the same electronic devices to different audiences. We both make assumptions based on what we know about those audiences as to what kinds of pages will perform better. But we could BOTH be wrong. And we’ll never know unless we replace those assumptions with data. Google Analytics Content Experiments offers what could be the cheapest and easiest way of getting that data. What are you waiting for?

Author information

Terri

The post Google Content Experiments: Test Your Site for Free appeared first on SEO Chat.

You can check out the Endangered Language Project at its web site. Personally, I had no idea that more than 7,000 languages are spoken throughout the world – and more than 3,000 could die in just three or four generations. That’s really sad.  Any translator will tell you that there are some words that don’t translate well between languages. Every language reflects the culture that uses it; an entire perspective on the world and what’s important is woven into the words that people use. Every time we lose a language, we lose a point of view…forever.

On its website, the Endangered Languages Project expresses this fact even more strongly. “The disappearance of a language means the loss of valuable scientific and cultural information, comparable to the loss of a species,” it notes. Google and the Alliance for Linguistic Diversity hope to reverse or at least slow down this loss. The collaborative project is trying to develop a comprehensive database of at-risk languages that includes important statistics, high quality audio recordings of language samples, and more.

Users can browse the site either by using the search engine in the upper right hand corner or clicking on the world map. Colored dots reveal locations where endangered languages are spoken; a language can be “at risk,” “endangered,” “severely endangered,” or “vitality unknown.” There are apparently levels within these main four; for example, on the page for each language, you might find terms like “threatened” or “critically endangered” (that last was used for a language that had only a few elderly speakers). Some languages listed might have a million or more native speakers; others may have thirty or less.

Clicking on the dots on the world map brings up the name of the language; click on the name brings you to a page about the language that includes the number of native speakers worldwide, language meta data (such as other names it goes by,  its classification, variants, etc). You might also learn the language’s “context of usage,” which will let you know where it is used and how much support there is for its continued usage. If available, you may also hear audio or see video of the language being spoken. If you’re really lucky, you’ll find a few songs in the endangered language as well. Or you might find a botanist explaining how certain plants are used in that culture (the Koro language features such samples).

As you’d expect for a collaborative project, it’s set up so that others can contribute samples; Google may be overseeing it to start with, but hopes to put it entirely into the hands of linguistic experts, educational organizations, and others with an interest in preserving endangered languages. You can check out Google’s blog post for more information about this project.

Author information

Terri

The post New Google Project to Save Endangered Languages appeared first on SEO Chat.