Navtej Kohli

Navtej Kohli

If you’ve been online as long as I have, you’ll remember the days of Web 1.0. The days when the internet was as controlled and inaccessible to the public as television still is today. The days when getting your content published necessitated that you were a media mogul, a mainstream media employee or very good with HTML.

Thank God those days are over. We all complain about how easy it is for the populous at large to get online: have you ever clicked through to someone’s MySpace or Bebo account and been assaulted by moving images, loud music and slow-loading videos? It’s terribly annoying. However, I’m of the opinion that, despite the annoyances of Web 2.0, the fact that the web is now largely controlled and influenced by the public is a great thing.

I’m not talking about awful networking sites here; I’m talking about sites like Associated Content, which bills itself as “The people’s media company.” There, users can create and publish content in a responsible, user-friendly, well designed context. This content isn’t produced and censored by CNN, Reuters or the like. It’s created by “real people.”

Now, you may say that everyone can now create a blog, which is essentially a website where you can post your thoughts and opinions. However, a small Blogspot or Wordpress blog is difficult to advertise and build a readership for. Publishing your content on a site like Associated Press, while it’s not on your own domain, exposes your writing to so many people without you having to market your own website or maintain it, fix its bugs, pay for it, etc.

When the net was dominated by those with money, power and knowledge, we were living in a far more closed climate than we are today. The example of the massive Digg revolt of a few weeks ago highlights the power that we users now have online. I’ll put up with dreadful MySpace atrocities in order to feel the sense of democracy and user-control that we now have on the internet. Contributing to sites like Associated Content only ensures that we maintain the control we now have.

Navtej kohli

Navtej Kohli

I’ve been reading a few more SEO blogs lately. I like to be part of the community on these sites, and I usually make a point to create a profile and become part of the discussion. Some subject matters can be found in abundance online, and one that gets more than its fair share of coverage is that of Search Engine Optimization, or SEO. For anyone who doesn’t know what SEO is, it’s basically the practice of “optimizing” websites so that they rank as well as possible in search engines like Yahoo!, Google and Microsoft’s Live Search.

SEO is usually broken down into three different types: white hat, grey had and black hat SEO. These terms refer to the tactics Search Engine Optimizers use in order to better their rankings. White hats engage in Google-approved, above-board tactics. Black hats aren’t concerned with abiding by the rules and often employ tactics that the search engines consider to be wrong. Grey hats play in both areas, using whatever tactics they feel are needed at any one time.

Internet marketing and SEO are different in that SEO focuses mainly on obtaining and building the number of links a website has. Internet marketing often focuses more on traditional advertising, yet the ads appear online. Many SEO firms do a bit of both, however, and the link-building side of the industry has been of particular interest to me lately.

I don’t suppose that a lot of web users know exactly how search engines rank the websites they see when they search for something. Before I had much experience online, I didn’t think about it too much either. I imagine that most people just assume that Google somehow knows which sites are the most relevant. On learning that rankings were largely based upon the number of inlinks to a site, I gained a new perspective on what I see when I search for a particular item.

I honestly think that it would be good for the general public to develop a better understanding of the way search works, especially given the fact that people look for some highly important information online, such as information about political figures and medical issues. Learning about search could help people make more informed decisions and help them interpret what they see on Google’s results page.

Navtej Kohli

Consumer advocacy has always been a part of our commercial landscape. Long before the internet and long before user-generated-content, there were outlets for people to review and discuss their experiences with businesses. Nowadays, however, committing commercial blunders is potentially more dangerous.

More and more often, people are visiting sites such as Yelp in order to make decisions about their lives. Which restaurants should they try, which gyms should they join, where should they live? People are reporting their experiences online and if you are a business-owner, you’d better hope that your web-savvy customers leave your premises with a good taste in their mouths.

Because if they don’t, there’s a good chance your name and reputation will be damaged in the online social landscape. Online, people seem to put a lot of trust in the reviews of others, and if someone has written that your restaurant is home to rude staff, bland food and overpriced drinks, a potential customer is likely to go elsewhere.

Of course, you should not just play nicely in the offline world in order to save your online reputation. Customer service should be on everyone’s mind at all times. However, you should now be wary that now, even one bad experience could negatively effect your business for a long time. So serve the correct food, give correct change and be polite to your clients and customers, because you never know which one of them is carrying his or her laptop and is about to write about you!

Navtej Kohli

More and more these days, I’m seeing philanthropic sites pop up. Whether they’re dedicated to the environment, poverty, education or a combination of all three, these sites are a great way of getting the philanthropic message into the public eye and yet another way.

Call it what you like, charity, philanthropy or donations-based causes often need all the publicity they can get. People are often skeptical of philanthropists, believing that most are “in it for the attention” or that they money raised is being spent on advertising, “expenses” or other things not directly helping people.

I am passionate about philanthropy: I believe that helping others is an important part of how we build and maintain a structured society. Thus, I was pleased to come across this list yesterday that features six prominent philanthropic sites.

My favourite in this list is probably “Donor Choose” because it focuses on education. Education is a large part of breaking the poverty cycle, and my (Navtej Kohli) foundation is dedicated to providing educational opportunities for impoverished children in South America.

Navtej Kohli

A couple of days ago, an American friend of mine expressed the opinion to me that cricket was a rather silly sport. She did not understand how the sport had become so popular in former British Empire nations such as Australia, India and South Africa. She said that, to her, cricket appeared to involve a group of guys standing around on a big round field, rocking back and forward on the soles of their feet all day long.

Ricky Ponting, a famous Australian cricket player

At first, I was a bit offended. Cricket isn’t stupid! I played cricket for my school and it’s a highly technical, skillful game that requires high levels of physical fitness and endurance. The name “Navtej Kohli” has appeared in several record books for the sport and I’m defensive about it! But I digress…

It’s not like this is the first time I’ve heard people talk about how they do not like or understand cricket, but this instance made me think about the sentiment more than I do usually. In thinking about it, I have come to the conclusion that, rather than just cricket, all sports are inherently stupid.

This is not to say that I don’t like sport. Far from it. I love sport. When I visit Digg, I usually digg nothing but sports stories. I love NFL, NBA and Major League Baseball. I’ll try and watch as much of the summer and winter Olympics as possible. But yes, friends; sports are silly. Let me elaborate…

Cricket
Cricket is enthralling. As I mentioned in my introduction, it’s involves physical fitness, mental endurance, natural talent and practiced skill. But despite my love of cricket, I can see why it is indeed silly.

Firstly, let’s look at the names given to the positions in cricket. There are about 92471 positions that players can take on the field (okay, more like fifty), but some of them have names that make even true cricket fans crack a grin. Here are some of the best:
• Silly mid-off
• Silly mid-on
• Fly slip
• Short fine leg
• Straight fine leg
• Wide long on
• Fine leg
• Short third man
• Square leg
• Fine leg
• Short leg
• Straight long off

Try explaining that to an American who’s used to hearing “center field” and “pitcher.” Even the position that baseball would name “catcher” is called a “wicket keeper”, which means very little if you don’t know what a wicket is.

What’s a wicket? Three sticks, stuck into the ground with two little sticks on top of them. If the ball hits the sticks, the batter is out. If the batter doesn’t manage to hit the ball and the batter’s leg is in front of the sticks, the umpire (referee) can decide that the ball would have hit the sticks had the leg not been there, and the batter will be out. You look up “subjective” in the dictionary and there’s a picture of this offense, known as “leg-before-wicket” or LBW.

Cricket is best served in one-day format, which means that the match only takes one day to complete. Old-fashioned cricket matches take three to five days and often end in a draw. The draw, however, does not involve both teams arriving at the exact same score, but rather indicates that neither team can win due to the time constraints of the game. That is, the game would have to take even longer in order to determine a winner. This is always very frustrating if your team is the one that’s been doing the best and, given a chance to finish, your team would undoubtedly win.

One-day cricket was invented to negate the traditional lengthy matches. This form of the game involves both teams being bowled to (or pitched at, in baseball lingo) fifty times. The only instance in which a team would not face all fifty balls is if their players were all out before fifty balls had been bowled.

So, I can see why many people think cricket is silly. It goes on too long, its names are very traditional British labeling masterpieces (i.e. silly) and many cricket outfits look like preppy boys’ schools’ uniforms. However, I still love the game and would love to have my American friends sit down and watch a closely-contested international one-day game with me. Once you’re hooked, cricket’s silliness doesn’t matter anymore.

Check out some of the questions I’ve answered about cricket at here – Navtej Kohli – Answers Profile

Swimming
Swimming is the most passive aggressive of all sports. Every competitor is isolated in their own lane, unable to tamper with competitors’ races. This immediately makes swimming less interesting than sports like running, where shoving your competition off the track and attempting to cut the backs of their legs with the spikes on the soles of your shoes is a well-loved pastime.

For a sport that involves racing (as opposed to accumulating points), it seems very odd to have people sprint up and down a body of water in order to get back to the place where they started. Running is often guilty of this, too. Some events, such as the very short sprints, make more sense, as the swimmers’ goal is to get from one end of the pool to the other as quickly as possible. It would make even more sense if there were treasures, money or tasty snacks at the other end. However, there usually aren’t.

The dumbest thing about swimming is the four different styles in which a swimmer can compete. “Freestyle” (more accurately called crawl stroke or over-arm) is the fastest style, but someone invented three others, including backstroke, butterfly and breaststroke. Why would you invent slower ways of getting back to where you started from? Including a style (butterfly) that no one apart from national-level swimmers can do properly? And why invent breaststroke – the least hydrodynamic way of traveling through the water known to man?

Netball
Netball is, like cricket, a sport that is primarily played by former British colonies. It’s especially popular in England, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the West Indies. Its defining characteristic, however, is that is almost always played by women and not by men. The reason for this is ambiguous; I’ve heard a couple of stories about boys not being allowed to participate in netball in various schools in which the game is popular. While this doesn’t seem fair, one has to ask, “why would they want to play in the first place?”

Netball is a dumbed down, rule-intensive, whistle-blowing version of basketball. Some examples of netball’s ridiculous rules include that which prohibits players from running with the ball. You may say, “So what? You can’t run with the ball in basketball, either!” You would be correct; however, one can dribble the ball when playing basketball. So long as the ball is bouncing up and down in between your hand and the ground, you can take it wherever you so choose. But not in netball.

The furthest a player can move when in possession of a netball-ball is three steps. That is, if a player catches the ball mid-air, they can land, put the other foot on the ground, and then step with the foot on which they landed. After that, they have to either bounce or throw the ball to another player, otherwise they are sited for “stepping.”

Needless to say, this makes for a game that resembles a badly composed, staccato-laden piece of music. Another very annoying thing about netball is the rule that prohibits obstructing another player. I never understood this. Seeing as the point of the game is to stop the other team from scoring goals, it confused the heck out of me why it was wrong to jump up and down in front of someone who was trying to throw the ball into the net. All of that dancing and waving that you see in basketball is not allowed in netball. The most the defense can do is stand there and hold up a passive arm in front of the opposing player.

Combine that with the constant whistle-blowing from the referees and the fact that spectators are also primarily girls (and girls scream) and you have the makings of a thoroughly annoying game.

Soccer (Football)
The game of soccer, which many countries refer to as “football”, is best known for its brawls. English fans, in particular, are infamous for fighting each other and for picking fights with foreign nationals when they travel across the Channel to Europe. Hosting the football World Cup is an honor; however countries’ police forces must shudder upon hearing the happy news that their nation is the next to host the competition.

There are three things that are ridiculous about soccer. First is the fact that players can’t touch the ball with their hands. The goalkeeper can, but no one else is allowed to lay a hand on the ball unless they’re chucking it into the field of play from the sidelines. This makes soccer the Irish Jig of sports. I’d love to see a soccer game played where the players’ arms must be stock-still at their sides. That would be fun to watch.

The second silly thing about soccer is the Hollywood aspect. Upon falling over, many players love to grasp their ankles, knees or various other delicate body-parts and pretend that a) a player on the other team is responsible for their fall, and b) that they are inconsolably injured. Other sportspeople have been known to engage in similar tactics, but soccer players are the prime offenders when it comes to Hollywoods.

The third thing that makes soccer silly is actually one of the things that people like about it the most. No one ever scores. When someone does score, it’s like the second coming of Christ. Many games, especially ones involving top-level teams, end in scores like 0-1, 1-2 or, one a big day, 3-2. Thus, fans spend ninety minutes watching an average of three goals take place. It’s not wonder they go nuts when someone managed to kick the ball into the net.

Navtej Kohli