Sky Blues in the Community get grant to support grass roots coaches Sky Blues in the Community have been successful with accessing a grant from Sport England to support coaches from local grass roots football clubs, who are members of the CCFC Partnership Club scheme. The CCFC Partnership is an initiative to further develop the relationship between the Sky Blues Academy, Sky Blues in the Community, the football club and local junior teams. The scheme provides a pathway for players, group ticket schemes and a number of opportunities for clubs to observe Academy training sessions through open evening events. The arrangement also includes the John Bryan Coventry Minor League; which sees the Coventry City Academy and Sky Blues in the Community both sponsoring local junior cup competitions. The grant of £8,875 from the Sport England Small Grant Scheme allows Sky Blues in the Community to fund a variety of FA courses for coaches at partner clubs including Level One and Level Two qualifications, youth module awards and coaching disabled performers courses. The ‘Sky Blues Coach Development Scheme’ will officially launch in November and will fund places on courses throughout the 2012-13 season. Joint Head of Sky Blues in the Community David Busst said: “The coach development scheme is a great addition to the club partnership portfolio. We are delighted to be able to help contribute to coach and club development in the local area and help drive up the standards of coaching and playing at the grass roots level. “Coaching qualifications can be quite expensive, so we are really pleased to be able to remove this barrier to the coaches at clubs that also support our initiatives, such as our Player Development Centres, which have nearly 500 people attending every week.” Visit there website which was designed and developed by Seo Go.

Should we pay for links?

The web as we know it could be in jeopardy Should you have to pay to link? Sadly, it's a question we keep having to ask, because organizations and lawmakers keep giving us reason to. If you're a longtime reader, you probably already know my stance on this: the web is based on pages freely linking to each other, and when barriers are set up that impede that, it makes for a broken web. Should any person, organization or aggregation service have to pay to link to content for any reason? Let us know what you think in the comments. Search Engine Regulation Opposed by Citizens, According to National Taxpayers Union - Watch the Video >> In October, web pro news ran an article with the title: "Should You Have To Pay To Link?" Back then, it was about Central European News (CEN), a media organization that provides news, images, research, etc. to various media outlets, for money. CEN had sent payment invoices to The Huffington Post, simply because the site was linking to sources (such as The Daily Mail), which had paid for CEN's content. A couple years ago, there was the whole thing with News Corp. blocking search engine/news aggregator NewsNow.co.uk from using/linking to its content. NewsNow founder Struan Bartlett had this to say at the time: It also led to the creation of the "Right To Link campaign". A more recent example of some interesting linking policy would be this one from Lowe's. They require sites that link to Lowes.com (I'm not sure what the legal grounds here are) to fill out a form and get permission first. This is done by fax. Yes, fax. The latest incident comes in the form of proposed legislation from German lawmakers, who reportedly seek to enable content creators to charge aggregation services for using snippets, for as long as lone year. The Register points to an official document about the proposed law (in German). It's unclear whether we're only talking about the actual snippets, or if that includes the titles. According to the Register's report, aggregators may be forced to pay license fees, but if if the titles (which are essentially links), aren't included, aggregators should be able to display titles/links without snippets, without having to pay. If such a law goes into effect, it would probably make more sense to do this, for most aggregation services, though user experience could be damaged. Of course, there's one news aggregation service that we know is all about user experience (at least at the PR level) -- Google (and Google News). Would Google pay to provide snippets? If titles/links are included, that's a whole different ballgame, and in fact is really where the bulk of this threat to the web comes in. If we're talking about titles, which are essentially links, we're talking about having to pay to link to something. Even if this is only at a news aggregation service level, it's a dangerous precedent to set, given that the web at large is based on linking. There are no clear lines when you're talking about the subject of news aggregation -- particularly in the age of user-generated content and social media. I mean, what if you create a Twitter list of accounts from news agencies, and share that with your friends, for example? For that matter, the lines between what should actually be considered a news source are pretty gray too, when you're talking about blogs, social media and citizen journalism. Laws like this would have to be governed by interpretation, and any interpretation -- right or wrong -- could have tremendous effects on the web, and really, society. And let's not forget, that while a law may be designed to govern the people and companies of a country, the web is worldwide. Linking knows no geographical boundaries. When you're talking about how an aggregator like Google News delivers results, how is it any different than how Google itself delivers results. It's still about snippets and links. Such government control could not only jeopardize current news aggregation practices, but how search, as we know it, works. Matthew Ingram, who writes for GigaOm these days writes a lot about this kind of stuff, and often makes great points about the state of journalism, and the whole citizen journalism/traditional media debate. As he presents it, aggregation and curation are synonyms, for all intents and purposes, and I agree. But curation can not only come from a system like Google News or a Techmeme. It can come from a news publication itself. It can come from a single person using any publishing format on the web. That means it could be a blog, a Google+ account, a Twitter account, a Twitter list, a Facebook account or whatever. It's all about the following you have, as to how much that contributes to content being consumed by its audience. So laws like this could jeopardize how we use social media too and Seo Coventry sources . But more than that -- they could jeopardize how people use the web. It's why the publishing world wants the paid app model (like The Daily) to succeed so well, but that model will never pan out to its full potential as long as that pesky web is around -- a tap away via your phone or tablet's browser. Perhaps news organizations should start lobbying for the death of the web browser. That would go over well. Links are the web. The web is links. Links are what keeps the web alive, and are the reason we have not all been completely consumed into closed app ecosystems (though we certainly spend more of our time there than ever). One thing that continues to baffle me, is that so many publishers and news organizations are still so opposed to how the web works. Links gain you more exposure. There are legitimate points on the other side of the argument, but the fact is that links give more people more opportunities to read your content, and if they're not reading your content, they're just going to read someone else's -- someone that has figured out a better way to monetize their content -- perhaps someone that doen't care about monetizing their content. Regardless, it's not benefiting you. Of course, all efforts to see "aggregators" paying to link aren't being driven by governments. News organizations (The AP, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Gazzette, McClatchy, and numerous others) have banded together to form NewsRight, a collaboration designed to find ways of getting aggregators to pay. I haven't heard a lot of success stories about that one yet.

New Clients

SEO Go are proud to announce that we are currently working on a complete branding package for a newly formed Coventry based children's dance company. We can confirm that the company is to be called Twirling Toddlers. SEO Go will be doing all of the website design and branding to help Twirling Toddlers get the best start.

Seo Go Reach top ten for Designer Menswear.

Seo Go have been working with National Designer Menswear company Chameleon Menswear. Chameleon came to us after their previous 2 champaign with other SEO companies were unsuccessful. Seo Go designed a campaign that would not only prove we could achieve their goals, it would help with their lack of belief in Search engine optimisation companies. Unfortunately Seo Go is fully aware of the miss selling of Seo and lack off results by some companies and are well on our way to prove that we are one of the leaders in our field. Chameleon Menswear are now in the top 10 on google for Designer menswear, this was achieved in 3 months, less than half the time spent by other companies and with no results.