Something else they do is run a blog that deals with web traffic, and there is some really interesting and eye opening info on it. If you want insights into what browsers, OSs, and devices are being used to get to your content, this is a must read from time to time: http://blog.quantcast.com/
For example, the day the iPad came out, it immediately was responsible for 5% of all mobile web consumption... pretty amazing.
]]>So what is my point? Google search needs to change - they need to change their results more often, refreshen the index more, give new and news site more credence, and at some point and for some topics they need to admit that the "algorithm" does not know all and do some human, qualitative analysis of their search results. And stuff like Twitter results and in the future perhaps Facebook, etc. (anywhere that is as important as those sites are to millions of web users) should be at the top of the page as an option for a user to search or not - not show up when Google feels like it.
Keep developing, keep striving, but don't forget what brought you to the dance.
]]>TECHNOLOGY Ads Posted on Facebook Strike Some as Off-Key By BRAD STONE Published: March 4, 2010 From mainstream companies to others that are more off-putting, advertisers on Facebook are a motley bunch.
There is a lot of crap on Facebook - they should definitely be paying more attention to this kind of stuff.
]]>"Going forward, the network will rely more heavily on so-called "digital journalists" who produce, record and edit much of their material."
This is it - this is the beginning of the digital/web revolution (okay not really the beginning, it started when Tim Berners-Lee figured out HTML). I am sure there have already been similar cases in the print and TV news world like this, but here it is laid out plain. This is terrible news for employment - not simply because of the actual people getting laid off at ABC, but the precedent. If people like ABC news have figured out that today's technology means a reporter can now write, report, shoot, and edit their own pieces - then all the networks will be right behind them. Hundreds of thousands of jobs may have just disappeared.
Confirmed: Time Inc. Buys Personal Shopping Engine StyleFeeder
The Times to Charge for Frequent Access to Its Web Site
So what is going on here? I am going to guess you have never heard of Stylefeeder. The genius who started it up a few years ago is walking with perhaps tens of millions (the article says, "well into eight figures."). This site (to my recollection) was started up so his girlfriend could more easily share stuff she found online with her friends. Of course now it is called a fancy "personal shopping engine". What it is is pure genius - no inventory, very low cost, community based, and churning out cash sending shoppers to online stores.
And then, the NY Times, instead of ever going forward - stepping back in time and again thinking they are going to charge for content. Really? Why have the people at the Times failed to morph/grow/invent anything new with all the web traffic they have? Why do all these dead tree companies let others innovate, and then pay through the nose (hello About.com!) to try to... to try to do I don't know what. What in the world did the Times ever think it was going to do with About.com? And now you have Time Inc. paying for Stylefeeder, which they'll probably screw up and drive people away from.
But the richest part to me is the absolute hubris of people like Bill Keller (the Times executive editor) - here is how he sees the plan:
"It underscores the value of what we do -- trustworthy, aggressively reported professional journalism, which is an increasingly rare and precious thing," Mr. Keller said. "And it gives us a second way to sustain that hard, expensive work, in addition to our healthy advertising revenue."
This is flat our crazy talk. "trustworthy, aggressively reported professional journalism"? I got two words for you Bill - Judith Miller.
So where am I meandering to? Time Inc. should have been developing properties like Stylefeeder for years now. Again, they already had a huge online presence, well known brands, etc. and instead of having anyone with vision, they are now going out and straddling themselves no doubt with more debt in a race to compete.
The NY Times is even worse - they are absolutely deluded in their thinking that their reporting has unique value because it is done by reporters. That ship has sailed. People are and will continue to get more and more of their news online, for free, from passionate writers who know about their subjects (yes - that dreaded word - bloggers!). The Times should be fostering an independent, vetted, global writing team, sans salaries, that gets paid a portion of advertising revenue based on the revenue their reporting generates. Yes it will need editors and controls, but could you imagine the quality and insights gained from people writing about subjects they know about? (I am sure you can because if you are reading this drivel you probably read other blogs too!).
Something has got to give in the dead tree, brain dead corporate news and infotainment world. Hashing out what and when to charge for your content every few years isn't going to make it!
]]>That being said, it is new and they are trying to keep up. There have been a lot of questions on their list from people struggling to grasp how to integrate AdSense into their BlogSherpa accounts. I wrote the below to help out any people having trouble with the set up:
Log into your AdSense account - you'll see your publisher ID in the upper right hand corner - make sure LP has this number.]]>
Click the "AdSense Setup" tab, and then click "Channels". Under the "AdSense for Content" tab, click "URL channels" and then click "+ Add new URL channels" and enter lonelyplanet.com (this step just sets up your tracking so you can see if people click on your AdSense ads on the LP site).Finally, click on "Allowed Sites" on the right hand side of the main menu tabs - if "Allow any site to show ads for my account " is selected, you are fine. If "Only allow certain sites to show ads for my account" you need to add the LP URL in the field below.
That's it - just make sure LP has your correct Publisher ID. Sometimes you won't see ads from Google in a spot where you expect for a lot of reasons - your geographical location, your time on the site, your browsing history, etc. It doesn't mean other people are not seeing them. That is why setting up the URL channel is good so you can see the stats for your ads on the LP site.
Hope this helps everyone a bit.
I prefer to focus on things that hold an interest to me personally and fit in with my expertise - destination travel, the Caribbean, Italy, wine, etc. For example, I don't want to make a website for a candle shop - anywhere. We specialize in travel and tourism marketing/destination content, with a sprinkling of food and wine, and some art, architecture and history sprinkled on top.
We prefer to use available tools, are into LAMP, like to try to code to standards, and must work in an environment with a CMS (preferably Movable Type). We can give you everything you need, but we'll work to keep the price real. We can start small and grow with you, from a flat site with a few pages, to dynamic sites with all the latest tools, bells, and whistles. E-commerce is also available at various levels of sophistication. SEO is built in. Reporting is by Google Analytics. Social networking is available.
If you have any interest we opened up a business card type of site here with an example of our work and contact info - I will be adding links to more client work soon.
Happy 2010 -
Anthony
]]>It includes this handy list, which should be indispensable for all web marketers:
- Business Wire]]>
- PR Newswire
- PRWeb
- 24-7 Press Release
- PR Zoom
- PR Leap
- I-Newswire
- Webwire
- ClickPress
- PR.com
- PR Log
- eReleases
- MarketWire
Answer - I don't want to. I don't want everyone's searched customized - I don't want my searches customized! I want to know what the best, most relevant site is - but I don't want it influenced by each and every person in the world! This has always been an issue for me with Google. I would love to see Google results more qualitative (from a human editorial standpoint) and fresher (I hate searching for an event or something newsworthy and constantly getting things from 3, 4 or 5 years ago - that is ridiculous) - but I want Google to do that. With all the money they make, why can't they let some real people make some editorial decisions? I think they need to stay relevant.
But - what I don't want, is every person in the world getting a different, customized result based on their own past behavior. I can't see how in the long term this doesn't end up making individual searches less relevant, as all you are doing with your searches (by what you eventually click on) will be preaching to the converted (you!). How will you then break out of your own habits and find things that are new?
Anyway - I think this is a can of worms for Google and that letting people opt out of it is disingenuous - they know that 90% of users have no idea how to do anything other than point and click - configuring their Google settings isn't going to happen...
]]>