Internet Marketing Company: Insurance Brokers Present The Top Factors That Influence Car Insurance Rates

LOS ANGELES, CA / ACCESSWIRE / September 8, 2019 / Cheapquotesautoinsurance.com has released a new blog post that explains the top influential factors for car insurance rates.

For more info and free car insurance quotes.

When it comes to determining rates and associated costs, insurance companies analyze a vast number of factors. These factors can be classified into 3 main categories: driver-related factors, car-related factors and coverage-related factors. Companies carefully analyze the following factors:

Driver's age. Teen drivers are more likely to get involved in an accident. Younger drivers, under 25 years old, pay higher premiums. Senior citizens that are in their 70s or 80s, also pay higher insurance rates based on their age. In this case, age-related medical problems will impair a person's driving capabilities.

Credit score. Most states, except California, Hawaii and Massachusetts, allow insurance companies to look at the driver's credit score. They will regularly charge more the drivers with poor credit score, while the ones that have good and excellent credit score will receive lower insurance rates.

Driving history. Drivers that were recently involved in accidents, received many tickets, or made previous insurance claims, should expect more expensive premiums. A really bad driving record will even determine whether the current insurer to drop the client. Safe drivers, on the other side, receive better rates.

ZIP code. The majority of car accidents happen close to home. People living in a densely populated neighbourhood, with more cars, are more likely to suffer a car accident, vandalism or theft. Parking the car in a garage will make coverage cheaper.

Car model. An insurer will ask about car make, model, car type, year of production, installed safety features, condition, etc. Some cars are cheaper to insure than others. Luxury, sports car or extremely customized cars are difficult to insure and regularly will need a specialized insurer.

For more car insurance info, money-saving tips and free online quotes, please visit http://cheapquotesautoinsurance.com.

Cheapquotesautoinsurance.com is an online provider of life, home, health, and auto insurance quotes. This website is unique because it does not simply stick to one kind of insurance provider, but brings the clients the best deals from many different online insurance carriers. In this way, clients have access to offers from multiple carriers all in one place: this website. On this site, customers have access to quotes for insurance plans from various agencies, such as local or nationwide agencies, brand names insurance companies, etc.

"Drivers should understand what influences the most their insurance bills," said Russell Rabichev, Marketing Director of Internet Marketing Company.

SOURCE: Internet Marketing Company
https://www.accesswire.com

Leveling Up: How an Online Game Became AWAL's Secret Marketing Weapon

In pop singer-songwriter Lauv's new online game Billy Meets World, players navigate a pixelated cityscape as an animated version of Lauv's real pet puppy. The free game, inspired by the fondly-remembered 2013 app Flappy Bird, is silly, fun and just the right level of challenging. But for Lauv's label, AWAL, it's also a way to boost his listener base as he prepares to release his debut album.
The game launched in conjunction with "drugs & the internet," the lead single from Lauv's debut album ~how i'm feeling~, which will be released track-by-track through 2020. Each single release will unlock a new level -- over the weekend, AWAL launched the brand-new level for Lauv's "fuck, I'm lonely" with Anne-Marie.
To play, users sign in through Spotify or Facebook, allowing the game to automatically follow Lauv from the player's account -- which, among other things, helps land Lauv on those Spotify users' customized Release Radar playlists. Players collect rewards, like an exclusive acoustic video performance or discount codes redeemable on Lauv's merch site, for completing levels. Meanwhile, players are directed to hit play on an embed of the artist's songs on Spotify, which streams as the game's background music.

"We really find that with younger fans and with pop fans, having the direct ask of 'follow an artist on Spotify,' they're less likely to engage in that," says AWAL vp marketing Justin Macchio, who developed the game alongside associate director digital marketing Kelsey Miller.
The day Billy Meets World went live in July, AWAL says that the number of Lauv's Spotify followers per day doubled. To date, the game has been played more than 100,000 times by some 10,000 individual users. The average player spends eight minutes per game session -- much longer, Macchio notes, than someone might spend looking at an advertisement or even reading a news story.
Miller thinks the game concept particularly hit home for Lauv's fans, who are deeply connected to internet culture. The 25-year-old posts a steady stream of selfies and memes to Instagram for his 1 million followers, and Lauv even made an Instagram for the real-life Billy, with 23,000 followers and counting.
"The origin of this was really from 'drugs & the internet,' which had a very Windows 98 feel to me," Miller says. "I've been trying to figure out, on the digital side, how to activate those fans that love his personality into being a bigger part of his artistry. The game connects those dots."
AWAL tapped London-Based digital agency The Creative Corporation, which has worked on virtual games for The Gorillaz and Bombay Bicycle Club, to develop Billy Meets World. Lauv recorded all the game's voiced instructions (including the introductory "prepare your paws"), and the team took headshots of Billy to render the digital dog avatar.
Of course, all this can be both time-consuming and expensive for artists and their teams. The Creative Corporation founder and managing director David Stansbie says it took three months to get Billy Meets World's first level ready for launch (part of a 12-month deal with AWAL for Lauv's game), and though he declined to divulge the project's cost, he says similar games can cost upwards of $100,000 to develop.
Even so, "If the game ties into the artist and the campaign effectively, and you've got this extra layer of rewards which AWAL came up with, it's brilliant," Stansbie says. "You'd be questioning it if Lady Gaga came out with a game, or Ed Sheeran. Lauv is perfect."
Stansbie predicts that more labels will soon seek out opportunities at the intersection of music and gaming: "Games are big business." Back in February, Marshmello's virtual concert within online video game Fortnite drew upwards of 10 million attendees, driving a surge in streaming and sales gains. In October, Drake and new Big Machine Label Group boss Scooter Braun became co-owners of competitive e-sports organization 100 Thieves (after Drake made headlines with several viewership-record-breaking gaming sessions of his own), while Universal Music Group's Berlin-based division entered a multi-year partnership with ESL, the world's largest e-sports organizer and production company.
Meanwhile, Lizzo just rolled out an online "DNA test" quiz that will tell users exactly what percent "that bitch" they are, referencing the lyrics to her chart-topping hit "Truth Hurts" -- after, of course, they log in through Spotify.
Over the next year, AWAL hopes to livestream a Billy Meets World session on leading gaming platform Twitch -- where in July, nearly 1.3 million people simultaneously tuned in to the finale of the first annual Fortnite world cup. As album release day approaches, players will need to ramp up their support for Lauv to unlock further levels, through actions like pre-saving the album on DSPs or pre-ordering a copy. Miller and Macchio also hope to rope in support from online influencers.
"A game launches in several different stages, and that's what builds success, which is so different from a song rollout," Miller adds. "We're able to give this thing new life for months and months to come."

Internet Marketing Company: How To Prevent Online Car Insurance Scams With The Help Of Quotes

LOS ANGELES, CA / ACCESSWIRE / September 8, 2019 / Compare-autoinsurance.org has launched a new blog post that explains how online quotes can help drivers prevent car insurance scams.

For more info and free quotes, visit https://compare-autoinsurance.org/can-online-quotes-help-you-prevent-car-insurance-scams.

Having car insurance is very important for many drivers. If an accident happens, only car insurance can protect a driver from a large financial loss. However, there are many drivers that choose to not purchase car insurance because they think is too expensive, even though car insurance is mandatory in most states. To avoid being scammed when buying car insurance, drivers should know what are the most common scams.

Fake insurance sites. Drivers can be tricked by deceiving ads that promise very cheap coverage. By clicking the ad, drivers are redirected to a fake website where they can apply for coverage and agree to pay monthly for that coverage. The money then directly goes into the fake's agent pocket. This scam is discovered when the victim tries to call for a claim.

Fake insurance calls. This scam involves calls from people that explains the driver they were selected for a very cheap coverage offer, due to their clean driving record. All the drivers had to do is to provide sensitive private info to the callers. Personal info, like credit card info, should never be given to strangers.

Manipulative insurance agents. These are real insurance agents that will try to inflate the driver's premium in order to increase their commissions. Some will even recommend drivers to change their current policy to one that is more expensive because it offers better coverage.

Drivers need to do some research before signing an insurance contract. By visiting the state's insurance department website, drivers will know what insurance agency is legally licensed.

Brokerage websites will offer true choices for people that apply for their services. They usually provide insurance offers from multiple auto insurance providers. To avoid insurance scams, drivers should get quotes from reliable sites that have plenty of users.

For additional info, money-saving tips and free car insurance quotes, visit https://compare-autoinsurance.org/.

Compare-autoinsurance.org is an online provider of life, home, health, and auto insurance quotes. This website is unique because it does not simply stick to one kind of insurance provider, but brings the clients the best deals from many different online insurance carriers. In this way, clients have access to offers from multiple carriers all in one place: this website. On this site, customers have access to quotes for insurance plans from various agencies, such as local or nationwide agencies, brand names insurance companies, etc.

"The best way to protect from car insurance scams, is the use of reliable brokerage websites," said Russell Rabichev, Marketing Director of Internet Marketing Company.

CONTACT:

Company Name: Internet Marketing CompanyPerson for contact Name: Gurgu CPhone Number: (818) 359-3898Email: cgurgu@internetmarketingcompany.bizWebsite: https://compare-autoinsurance.org/

SOURCE: Internet Marketing Company

View source version on accesswire.com:https://www.accesswire.com/558856/How-To-Prevent-Online-Car-Insurance-Scams-With-The-Help-Of-Quotes

From Holocaust Denial To Hitler Admiration, Google’s Algorithm Is Dangerous

If you Google “Was the Holocaust real?” right now, seven out of the top 10 results will be Holocaust denial sites. If you Google “Was Hitler bad?,” one of the top results is an article titled, “10 Reasons Why Hitler Was One Of The Good Guys.”

In December, responding to weeks of criticism, Google said that it tweaked it algorithm to push down Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic sites. But now, just a month later, their fix clearly hasn’t worked.

In addition to hateful search results, Google has had a similar problem with its “autocompletes” — when Google anticipates the rest of a query from its first word or two. Google autocompletes have often embodied racist and sexist stereotypes. Google image search has also generated biased results, absurdly tagging some photos of black people as “gorillas.”

The result of these horrific search results can be deadly. Google search results reportedly helped shape the racism of Dylann Roof, who murdered nine people in a historically black South Carolina church in 2015. Roof said that when he Googled “black on white crime, the first website I came to was the Council of Conservative Citizens,” which is a white supremacist organization. “I have never been the same since that day,” he said. And of course, in December, a Facebook-fueled fake news story about Hillary Clinton prompted a man to shoot up a pizza parlor in Washington D.C. The fake story reportedly originated in a white supremacist’s tweet.

These terrifying acts of violence and hate are likely to continue if action isn’t taken. Without a transparent curation process, the public has a hard time judging the legitimacy of online sources. In response, a growing movement of academics, journalists and technologists is calling for more algorithmic accountability from Silicon Valley giants. As algorithms take on more importance in all walks of life, they are increasingly a concern of lawmakers. Here are some steps Silicon Valley companies and legislators should take to move toward more transparency and accountability:

1. Obscure content that’s damaging and not of public interest.

When it comes to search results about an individual person’s name, many countries have aggressively forced Google to be more careful in how it provides information. Thanks to the Court of Justice of the European Union, Europeans can now request the removal of certain search results revealing information that is “inadequate, irrelevant, no longer relevant or excessive,” unless there is a greater public interest in being able to find the information via a search on the name of the data subject.

Such removals are a middle ground between information anarchy and censorship. They neither disappear information from the internet (it can be found at the original source) nor allow it to dominate the impression of the aggrieved individual. They are a kind of obscurity that lets ordinary individuals avoid having a single incident indefinitely dominate search results on his or her name. For example, a woman in Spain whose husband was murdered 20 years ago successfully forced Google Spain to take news of the murder off search results on her name.

Such removals are a middle ground between information anarchy and censorship.

2. Label, monitor and explain hate-driven search results.

In 2004, anti-Semites boosted a Holocaust-denial site called “Jewwatch” into the top 10 results for the query “Jew.” Ironically, some of those horrified by the site may have helped by linking to it in order to criticize it. The more a site is linked to, the more prominence Google’s algorithm gives it in search results.

Google responded to complaints by adding a headline at the top of the page entitled “An explanation of our search results.” A web page linked to the headline explained why the offensive site appeared so high in the relevant rankings, thereby distancing Google from the results. The label, however, no longer appears. In Europe and many other countries, lawmakers should consider requiring such labeling in the case of obvious hate speech. To avoid mainstreaming extremism, labels may link to accounts of the history and purpose of groups with innocuous names like “Council of Conservative Citizens.”

In the U.S., this type of regulation may be considered a form of “compelled speech,” barred by the First Amendment. Nevertheless, better labeling practices for food and drugs have escaped First Amendment scrutiny in the U.S., and why should information itself be different? As law professor Mark Patterson has demonstrated, many of our most important sites of commerce are markets for information: search engines are not offering products and services themselves but information about products and services, which may well be decisive in determining which firms and groups fail and which succeed. If they go unregulated, easily manipulated by whoever can afford the best search engine optimization, people may be left at the mercy of unreliable and biased sources.

Better labeling practices for food and drugs have escaped First Amendment scrutiny in the U.S. Why should information itself be different?

3. Audit logs of the data fed into algorithmic systems.

We also need to get to the bottom of how some racist or anti-Semitic groups and individuals are manipulating search. We should require immutable audit logs of the data fed into algorithmic systems. Machine-learning, predictive analytics or algorithms may be too complex for a person to understand, but the data records are not.

A relatively simple set of reforms could vastly increase the ability of entities outside Google and Facebook to determine whether and how the firms’ results and news feeds are being manipulated. There is rarely adequate profit motive for firms themselves to do this — but motivated non-governmental organizations can help them be better guardians of the public sphere.

4. Possibly ban certain content.

In cases where computational reasoning behind search results really is too complex to be understood in conventional narratives or equations intelligible to humans, there is another regulatory approach available: to limit the types of information that can be provided.

Though such an approach would raise constitutional objections in the U.S., nations like France and Germany have outright banned certain Nazi sites and memorabilia. Policymakers should also closely study laws regarding “incitement to genocide” to develop guidelines for censoring hate speech with a clear and present danger of causing systematic slaughter or violence against vulnerable groups.

It’s a small price to pay for a public sphere less warped by hatred.

5. Permit limited outside annotations to defamatory posts and hire more humans to judge complaints.

In the U.S. and elsewhere, limited annotations ― “rights of reply” ― could be permitted in certain instances of defamation of individuals or groups. Google continues to maintain that it doesn’t want human judgment blurring the autonomy of its algorithms. But even spelling suggestions depend on human judgment, and in fact, Google developed that feature not only by means of algorithms but also through a painstaking, iterative interplay between computer science experts and human beta testers who report on their satisfaction with various results configurations.

It’s true that the policy for alternative spellings can be applied generally and automatically once the testing is over, while racist and anti-Semitic sites might require fresh and independent judgment after each complaint. But that is a small price to pay for a public sphere less warped by hatred.

We should commit to educating users about the nature of search and other automated content curation and creation. Search engine users need media literacy to understand just how unreliable Google can be. But we also need vigilant regulators to protect the vulnerable and police the worst abuses. Truly accountable algorithms will only result from a team effort by theorists and practitioners, lawyers, social scientists, journalists and others. This is an urgent, global cause with committed and mobilized experts ready to help. Let’s hope that both digital behemoths and their regulators are listening.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The WorldPost reached out to Google for comment and received the following from a Google spokesperson.

Search ranking:

Google was built on providing people with high-quality and authoritative results for their search queries. We strive to give users a breadth of content from a variety of sources, and we’re committed to the principle of a free and open web. Understanding which pages on the web best answer a query is a challenging problem, and we don’t always get it right.
When non-authoritative information ranks too high in our search results, we develop scalable, automated approaches to fix the problems, rather than manually removing these one-by-one. We are working on improvements to our algorithm that will help surface more high quality, credible content on the web, and we’ll continue to improve our algorithms over time in order to tackle these challenges.

Autocomplete:

We’ve received a lot of questions about Autocomplete, and we want to help people understand how it works: Autocomplete predictions are algorithmically generated based on users’ search activity and interests. Users search for a wide range of material on the web ― 15 percent of searches we see every day are new. Because of this, terms that appear in Autocomplete may be unexpected or unpleasant. We do our best to prevent offensive terms, like porn and hate speech, from appearing, but we don’t always get it right. Autocomplete isn’t an exact science, and we’re always working to improve our algorithms.

Image search:

Our image search results are a reflection of content from across the web, including the frequency with which types of images appear and the way they’re described online. This means that sometimes unpleasant portrayals of subject matter online can affect what image search results appear for a given query. These results don’t reflect Google’s own opinions or beliefs.

Source:-  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/holocaust-google-algorithm_us_587e8628e4b0c147f0bb9893

Pennsylvania court orders Google to give up customer emails stored on overseas servers

Google is being ordered by a federal court in Pennsylvania to give up customer emails stored on overseas servers. Curiously enough, a similar case involving Microsoft some time back was overturned. Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled that the customer emails in question were not protected and Google must surrender the emails.

Transferring data electronically from a server in a foreign country to Google’s data center in California does not amount to a seizure because “there is no meaningful interference with the account holder’s possessory interest in the user data,” and Google’s algorithm in any case regularly transfers user data from one data center to another without the customer’s knowledge, Judge Rueter wrote.
He added that when Google produces the electronic data in accordance with the search warrants, and the government views it, the invasion of the account holder’s privacy – the searches – will take place in the U.S.

The court’s reasoning for the ruling is due to the way Google stores information and how it is recompiled. The customer emails in question aren’t in whole stored on overseas servers, some of the data could be stored in the U.S. and yet other portions of it overseas. The judge says because of this, the warrants could not be considered seizures nor searches of the target’s data in a foreign country.

“Google admits that the location of the data could change from the time the Government applies for legal process to the time when the process is served upon Google,” the Judge wrote.

In the Microsoft case, Microsoft was able to defend it’s position because the data the government wanted was wholly stored on servers in Ireland so that kept the government from accessing that data.
What do you think of the court ordering Google to give up these emails? Let us know in the comments below or on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+.

Google Updates Gmail with User Snooping

Google has updated their Gmail app to support “single sign-on,” so that being logged in to the Gmail app will also log you in to Google Maps, Google Drive, YouTube, and Chrome. This sounds convenient, but a closer look [via The Loop] at what’s happening might make some people reconsider.

It sounds great to not have to sign in to all those apps individually, sure. But why would Google do something that makes things better for users? Because it makes things even better for Google. As a Google user, you aren’t paying for things like Gmail or YouTube. Remember (say it with me), if you aren't paying for the product, you are the product.

Google’s bread and butter is scooping up all that data about little old you and your surfing habits and using that to sell ads to all those places. That’s why a couple of Google searches give you the same sidebar ads on every website for months.

On your mobile devices, all those things are separate, so if you saw an ad at the start of a YouTube video on your iPad, and researched it later on your phone or computer, Google has no way of tracking that so they can show advertisers which ads are effective. Or at least, they didn’t until this update.

I’ve updated the apps, but I don’t use YouTube on my phone that much so when I launched it, I was asked what I which account to use and managed to skip having to sign in at all. Here's what that looked like:

First launch of YouTube on iOS. Select another account.

Hooray! Use YouTube without a Google Account!

Successfully signed out!

As it happens, this is only a concern for those running iOS 7, which happens to be about 80-90%, depending who you ask. Since Google mentions that this works using background app refresh—one of the new “conveniences” of iOS 7—there’s a good chance a lot of people won’t notice the difference because they already have it enabled.

Right now I can’t find a way to “officially” opt out of this aside from the YouTube app, but I do have app refresh disabled and don’t use many Google apps, so I think I’m OK for now, but I’ll continue to review and if I find out differently, expect more info here on TMO.

Google Updates Its Privacy Policy

You may have noticed Google’s Privacy Policy has been updated as of March 31, with a red letter “Updated” call-out the site’s home page preceding Google’s Privacy & Terms link.

This is the first time the company has updated the policy this year, following an update in December of 2013. There were only two updates last year, one occurring on June 24 and the other on December 20.

Google posted a “Comparison” page to outline the most recent Privacy Policy updates, along with an archive of updates dating back to June 9, 1999.

“As you use our services, we want you to be clear how we’re using information and the ways in which you can protect your privacy,” claimed Google on the page listing its new Privacy Policy.