I’ve been meaning to write a post for awhile about how outdated and damaging the Neilsen rating system is for television programming.  It’s killed many a good show, including the brilliant Joss Whedon show, Firefly.

When Whedon debuted his new show, Dollhouse, I suspected the same might occur.  Considering it’s time slot (9pm on Friday) and it’s audience (young-ish, geeky, hip Whedonites) it seemed that it would likely only be watched online…not via one of those “television” things that the mysterious “Neilsen Families” have.

I’ll skip what would be about four paragraphs here and just say: Dollhouse has captured my heart. Like all Whedon shows it snuck up on me. When the inevitable and depressing debate over a second season began, I was not hopeful. Thankfully, Fox apparently wised up somewhat and paid attention to the number of Dollhouse viewers on Hulu (which is where I watched the entirety of the season, save the first episode). The show was renewed, and all of us Whedonites breathed a sigh of relief.

Except we all know that the fight isn’t over.

Rumor has it that Whedon has been asked to cut costs on the second season of Dollhouse, and I’m sure that Fox will be less forgiving in regards to the total number of TV viewers this season.  Perhaps, then, this is why they have rushed the Dollhouse: Season One DVD set out the door.

Fox may be still wising up to the fact that online TV programming is going to be the next big thing, as evidenced by The Simpsons making more money per thousand viewers on Hulu than on TV. But they have for some time paid attention to DVD sales, resurrecting Family Guy and even Firefly (in the form of Serenity) based on successful DVD sales.

So the path is clear: those of us who want to see Dollhouse continue and grow into the brilliant series it is promising to become need to buy the Dollhouse: Season One DVD. Consider it an investment – by buying this DVD you get at least one more season of Whedon-brilliance, with fewer commercials and available anytime you want via Hulu.

Let’s prove to them that we don’t need a TV to watch, love, and save a good show.

I understand that TechCrunch needs to stir the pot to get readers.  I won’t even address the fact that they chose to publish this abomination. But I will take a swing at the writer.

I think it’s clear why the author is anonymous – because he doesn’t want to be laughed out of his CEO role.

He’s proposing that Google is “unfair” and “mysterious” in what it puts on it’s Search Engine Results Pages (SERPs).

Newsflash: Google can be as unfair as it wants

…as long as it doesn’t break any of the agreements it’s made in it’s legal agreements.

The author, from up on his high horse, compares this to a Country or a City:

Suppose the paradigm is the streets of Los Angeles. Let’s imagine that in order to enter the city you had to pass through a single gate. And once you entered that gate, the streets you were or were not allowed to go down — and thus the businesses you were or were not allowed to visit — could be randomly blocked from your access.

Sigh. Google is NOT A COUNTRY

They’re not a city.  They’re not a government.  They are a business.

Let’s look at a REAL example, shall we?  Let’s compare Google to a supermarket.  My local supermarket blocks off aisles all the time.  Maybe it’s restocking, maybe it’s got a spill.  I don’t necessarily get to know, and I certainly don’t get to say “THIS IS UNFAIR.  I DEMAND ALL PATHS THROUGH YOUR STORE BE OPENED TO MYSELF.”

The second factor is that the search engine can, at any time, determine that either company A or company B may or may not buy traffic within its index.

Oh really?  Let’s go back to the supermarket, shall we?  Should we prevent them from ditching your company’s brand of cornflakes because they think they’re not selling well?  Or because they don’t like how you do business?  Do they even have to tell you why?  No.  That’s courtesy – not law.  To suggest that a business can’t decide who it does business with is just obnoxiously short-sighted.

Yes, he may have some points about arbitrariness of paid search account administration.  I have heard stories of accounts being unceremoniously shut down without explanation, and that’s something of concern that is completely separate from this concept of private companies having to reveal how they do business and change to be “more fair”.

Let’s keep in mind that I’m a liberal, here.  I’m all for more restrictions on giant financial institutions – in fact, I think we should prevent them from ever getting so giant that they “can’t fail”.  But that’s because those institutions affect, as we’ve seen so clearly, the stability of our country.  Google ain’t that.

Lastly, to say that “search engine optimization is more voodoo than science” is just asinine.

Do you also think that airplanes are magic?  Just because you haven’t taken the time to learn from the best and keep yourself educated doesn’t mean something is voodoo.

There are plenty of intelligent folks out there devoting their days to understanding search engine optimization.  None of them will tell you it’s easy.  But none of them will tell you it’s voodoo – it’s a science that involves a lot of knowledge, research and hard work.  Don’t diminish their work just because you don’t have the patience to do it yourself.