Dale Tincher of Consultwebs.com, Inc., says recent changes by the search engine giant have ‘firmly linked’ Google+ accounts and reviews from clients.
Raleigh, N.C. (PRWEB) June 16, 2012
In a newly published blog article, law firm Web marketing consultant Dale Tincher says that Google+ and Google profiles have become “a must for collecting positive reviews that show up in Google’s local listings.”
Tincher is the CEO and President of Consultwebs.com, Inc., a company that specializes in law firm website design and search engine optimization (SEO) marketing for attorneys.
The company features a team that is dedicated to developing law firm social media campaigns involving Google+ as well as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, HubPages and other social networking sites.
His article, “Google+ is No Longer Optional for Law Firm Marketing; Reviews Are Increasingly Important,” was released this week on the Consultwebs.com, Inc., blog, LawWebMarketing.com, which provides helpful tips and other information on law firm Web marketing trends.
In the article, Tincher reflects on Google’s May 30 announcement that it would replace Google Places with Google+ Local. In his view, this change means that Google accounts and client reviews are now “firmly linked,” and those reviews may be as crucial as ever to a law firm’s Internet marketing campaign.
“Reviews are an integral part of Google+ Local, and you’ll want your firm listed there – with positive comments from satisfied clients – for search engine visibility,” Tincher writes.
However, Tincher strongly cautions law firms to stay away from gimmicks that are aimed at manipulating search engine rankings, such as fake reviews or other tactics used by “review mills” and “reputation management” firms.
“We frequently advise law firms on the proper way to obtain law firm testimonials and client reviews,” he says. His article provides a list of those techniques, including:
- Asking clients for reviews at the conclusion of a successful case.
- Advising clients to join Google+ (reviews can only be posted by Google account holders).
- Maintaining a database of past clients and reaching out to them for reviews.
- Using the firm’s website to encourage reviews, and providing an easy way for clients to provide those reviews.
“If two law firms appear to be equal, a Web visitor is likely to choose the firm with the best reviews,” Tincher writes.
About Consultwebs.com, Inc.
Since its founding in 1999, Consultwebs.com, Inc., has built a reputation for being a national leader in law firm Web marketing. Consultwebs.com provides law firm Web marketing consultation and strategy and a wide array of products and services, including website audits, website design, website hosting, website domains, law firm reputation management, search-engine optimization (SEO) marketing, pay-per-click (PPC) services, Internet systems setup, website editorial and content services (including substantive content, press releases, legal blogs, satellite sites and law firm videos), online chat products, social media marketing (including Facebook, Twitter and Google+), call tracking and legal directories.
Consultwebs.com has offices at 114 Main Street, Berea, KY, 40403, and at The Forum I, 8601 Six Forks Rd., Suite 400, Raleigh, NC, 27615. The company works with law firms across the country. For more information, call Marketing Director Tanner Jones at (800) 872-6590 or (859) 353-7720 or use the convenient Consultwebs.com online contact form.
For the original version on PRWeb visit: http://www.prweb.com/releases/prweblaw-firm-web-marketing/google-plus-local-reviews/prweb9611595.htm
Source: www.chron.com
West Sussex put on flood alert ahead of weekend - thisissussex.co.uk
The Environment Agency is preparing for more heavy rain and potential flooding problems in West Sussex.
The Met Office issued a yellow warning for heavy rain for today with up to 20mm expected in the area from midday Friday.
-
More rain is forecast in West Sussex over the weekend
Crews are using pumps to lower river water levels to provide capacity for even more rain that is expected over the next 48 hours.
A flood warning remains in force in various locations in Bersted. Eight flood alerts were in place earlier in the week and though this has been reduced, the Environment Agency said that more could be issued if there is further significant rain.
West Sussex saw major flooding problems earlier in the week, in particular at Littlehampton and Bognor and the surrounding areas. 250 homes in the village of Elmer were flooded by around six foot of water and residents had to be rescued by boat and taken to temporary accommodation.
Other areas that saw floods were Worthing Hospital, Havens' Church Farm holiday camp, near Chichester and access to Butlins in Bognor Regis was prohibited. Several schools and colleges in the area were also shut.
Peter Quarmby, South East flood and coastal risk manager, said: "We are focusing all efforts in working in areas that have been affected by flooding over the past few days to lower river levels and will continue to work alongside our emergency partners to assist flooded communities with immediate response and recovery.
"Latest forecasts indicate that heavy rainfall is again expected to cross the South East on Friday and into the weekend. We urge everyone to remain vigilant."
Frank Saunders, chief forecaster at the Met Office, said: "We are working closely with colleagues in the Environment Agency and other agencies to ensure that we are all aware of the latest weather forecast."
Arun District Council is holding information days for communities in areas that have experienced the worst of the flooding. They are being held at Felpham, Elmer, Littlehampton, Barnham, Wick and South Bersted, from Friday until Wednesday, visiting one location each day.
Source: www.thisissussex.co.uk
Possible outcomes in pivotal health care law case - The Guardian
RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR
Associated Press= WASHINGTON (AP) — Some are already anticipating the Supreme Court's ruling on President Barack Obama's health care law as the "decision of the century." But the justices are unlikely to have the last word on America's tangled efforts to address health care woes. The problems of high medical costs, widespread waste, and tens of millions of people without insurance will require Congress and the president to keep looking for answers, whether or not the Affordable Care Act passes the test of constitutionality.
With a decision by the court expected this month, here is a look at potential outcomes:
---
Q: What if the Supreme Court upholds the law and finds Congress was within its authority to require most people to have health insurance or pay a penalty?
A: That would settle the legal argument, but not the political battle.
The clear winners if the law is upheld and allowed to take full effect would be uninsured people in the United States, estimated at more than 50 million.
Starting in 2014, most could get coverage through a mix of private insurance and Medicaid, a safety-net program. Republican-led states that have resisted creating health insurance markets under the law would face a scramble to comply, but the U.S. would get closer to other economically advanced countries that guarantee medical care for their citizens.
Republicans would keep trying to block the law. They will try to elect presidential candidate Mitt Romney, backed by a GOP House and Senate, and repeal the law, although their chances of repeal would seem to be diminished by the court's endorsement.
Obama would feel the glow of vindication for his hard-fought health overhaul, but it might not last long even if he's re-elected.
The nation still faces huge problems with health care costs, requiring major changes to Medicare that neither party has explained squarely to voters. Some backers of Obama's law acknowledge it was only a first installment: get most people covered, then deal with the harder problem of costs.
---
Q: On the other hand, what if the court strikes down the entire law?
A: Many people would applaud, polls suggest.
Taking down the law would kill a costly new federal entitlement before it has a chance to take root and develop a clamoring constituency, but that still would leave the problems of high costs, waste, and millions uninsured.
Some Republicans in Congress already are talking about passing anew the more popular pieces of the health law.
But the major GOP alternatives to Obama's law would not cover nearly as many uninsured, and it's unclear how much of a dent they would make in costs. Some liberals say Medicare-for-all, or government-run health insurance, will emerge as the only viable answer if Obama's public-private approach fails.
People with health insurance could lose some ground as well. Employers and insurance companies would have no obligation to keep providing popular new benefits such as preventive care with no copayments and coverage for young adults until age 26 on a parent's plan. Medicare recipients with high prescription drug costs could lose discounts averaging about $600.
---
Q: What happens if the court strikes down the individual insurance requirement, but leaves the rest of the Affordable Care Act in place?
A: Individuals would have no obligation to carry insurance, but insurers would remain bound by the law to accept applicants regardless of medical condition and limit what they charge their oldest and sickest customers.
Studies suggest premiums in the individual health insurance market would jump by 10 percent to 30 percent.
Experts debate whether or not that would trigger the collapse of the market for individuals and small businesses, or just make coverage even harder to afford than it is now. In any event, there would be risks to the health care system. Fewer people would sign up for coverage.
The insurance mandate was primarily a means to an end, a way to create a big pool of customers and allow premiums to remain affordable. Other forms of arm-twisting could be found, including limited enrollment periods and penalties for late sign-up, but such fixes would likely require congressional cooperation.
Unless there's a political deal to fix it, the complicated legislation would get harder to carry out. Congressional Republicans say they will keep pushing for repeal.
Without the mandate, millions of uninsured low-income people still would get coverage through the law's Medicaid expansion. The problem would be the 10 million to 15 million middle-class people expected to gain private insurance under the law. They would be eligible for federal subsidies, but premiums would get more expensive.
Taxes, Medicare cuts and penalties on employers not offering coverage would stay in place.
---
Q: What if the court strikes down the mandate and also invalidates the parts of the law that require insurance companies to cover people regardless of medical problems and that limit what they can charge older people?
A: Many fewer people would get covered, but the health insurance industry would avoid a dire financial hit.
Insurers could continue screening out people with a history of medical problems; diabetes patients or cancer survivors, for example.
That would prevent a sudden jump in premiums. But it would leave consumers with no assurance that they can get health insurance when they need it, which is a major problem that the law was intended to fix.
Obama administration lawyers say the insurance requirement goes hand in hand with the coverage guarantee and cap on premiums, and have asked the court to get rid of both if it finds the mandate to be unconstitutional.
One scenario sends shivers through the health care industry: The Supreme Court strikes down the mandate only, and delegates other courts to determine what else stays or goes.
---
Q: What happens if the court throws out only the expansion of the Medicaid program?
A: That severely would limit the law's impact because roughly half of the more than 30 million people expected to gain insurance under the law would get it through the expansion of Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance program for low-income people.
But a potentially sizable number of those low-income people still might be eligible for government-subsidized private insurance under other provisions. Private coverage is more expensive to subsidize than Medicaid.
States suing to overturn the federal law argue that the Medicaid expansion comes with so many strings attached it amounts to an unconstitutional power grab by Washington. The administration says the federal government will pay virtually all the cost and that the expansion is no different from ones that states have accepted in the past.
---
Q: What happens if the court decides that the constitutional challenge is premature?
A: The wild card, and least conclusive outcome in the case, probably also is the most unlikely, based on what justices said during the arguments.
No justice seemed inclined to take this path, which involves the court's consideration of a technical issue.
The federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., held that the challenge to the insurance requirement has to wait until people start paying the penalty for not purchasing insurance. The appeals court said it was bound by the federal Anti-Injunction Act, which says that federal courts may not hear challenges to taxes, or anything that looks like a tax, until after the taxes are paid.
So if the justices have trouble coming together on any of the other options they could simply punt.
The administration says it doesn't want this result. Yet such a decision would allow it to continue putting the law in place, postponing any challenge until more of the benefits are being received. On the other hand, it might give Republicans more ammunition to press for repeal in the meantime.
---
Online:
Supreme Court: http://tinyurl.com/3zukoc4
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Bogus traders warning to West Sussex flood victims - BBC News
People affected by severe flooding in West Sussex are being warned against falling victim to rogue traders.
West Sussex County Council said trading standards had received reports of cold callers offering to carry out repairs to damaged properties in Littlehampton.
"Whenever an emergency of this nature occurs, it seems to bring unscrupulous traders out of the woodwork," said Councillor Christine Field.
The council said it had a list of approved and reputable builders.
"If you do need emergency work done to your property, ignore the claims of bogus callers if they turn up at your door," said Ms Field.
On Saturday, only two flood alerts remained across the whole of South East England, with six flood warnings and alerts lifted by the Environment Agency (EA) in the last 24 hours.
However, it said further rain could lead to more flooding in areas already vulnerable.
Butlins blockedThe EA set up an incident command centre at Bracklesham Lane car park in Bracklesham Bay to co-ordinate its response after many hundreds of people were affected by flooding.
About 250 homes in Elmer were flooded, with residents rescued by boat and taken to rest centres and temporary accommodation.
More than 20 people, including several children, were rescued from flooded caravans at two holiday parks in Bracklesham Bay and flood waters also reached the Manorfield care home in Earnley.
Havens' Church Farm holiday camp, near Chichester, was also flooded and access roads to Butlins in Bognor Regis were closed.
Worthing Hospital's basement and lift shaft was flooded, several schools and one college were shut and many roads were impassable.
An emergency channel had to be dug through sea defences to release flood waters and firefighters used pumps to lower river levels.
Arun District Council officers are continuing to staff a flood recovery vehicle to give advice to residents.
It is stationed in Elmer's shopping area on Saturday until 21:00 BST.
It will be in South Terrace, Littlehampton on Sunday, in Barnham near the railway station on Monday, Wick on Tuesday and South Bersted on Wednesday.
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
No comments:
Post a Comment