Star Trek: The Sitcom
A few years old, but bumped into it again this week. Brilliant.
Papa John's Freakout
Pizza can never be completed quickly enough for college-age Veruca Salt.
Transformers: Dark of the Moon
Official trailer!
Google Zeitgeist 2010
How the world searched in 2010
Have a great weekend!
Showing posts with label Google. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Google. Show all posts
Friday, December 10, 2010
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Technology & Politics: Ur Doin it Wrong
In the past few years, and specifically the past few months, technology and those with public voices have not merged quite as well as some of us who work in tech think they should.
The Recent Past
Let's hit a couple popular examples of what we're talking about:
Series of Tubes
Classic, Senator Ted Stevens of AK:
(this was an official argument against Net Neutrality)
Internets
The origin of a meme in how politicians understand tech:
Net Neutrality
Aside from the above joy from Sen. Stevens, we've got more on Net Neutrality. In the last few months the American public has been bombarded by radio talk show hosts that have horribly mishandled the reality of the situation. I keep this blog away from politics as often as possible, but when people are not only misinformed but blatantly lying about how technology affects our lives, I get a little fired up (equal opportunity coming 2 sections down).
For the record, Net Neutrality is what we have. Now. Net Neutrality means that as a user, no matter what ISP you're using, internet access to websites - all websites - is equal. As fast as Google or Ebay or YouTube can send, you can receive (as long as you're not - God forbid! - still using dial-up).
But Telecom companies are trying to push the end of Net Neutrality. What if, for instance, Time Warner Cable changed its policy? What if they said "We're purposefully reducing the speed of all internet data transmission by 25%. BUT, if your company wants to write us a big, fat check, we'll let your traffic come through unimpeded."
So Net Neutrality exists now, Telecom companies want it to go away so they can make more money, and somehow it's being twisted into what I've heard on certain talk radio stations: "Net neutrality is going to be passed in Congress to limit your access to websites and control what you see on the internet." And that's not just getting confused or not understanding; it is a deliberately misleading LIE.
Here's a quick video primer on Net Neutrality:
Net Neutrality is a great example of how people are not just misunderstanding technology, but they're misrepresenting technology to those who haven't had the education or haven't done the research. Again: stating that Net Neutrality is a control mechanism is a LIE. The lack of control is the definition of the "neutrality."
Limbaugh on Adwords
You may have seen my post last month on how Rush Limbaugh was twisting the story of Goldmann Sachs and saying that they were controlling Google by purchasing ads on the words.
This is BS. And as an example of concept, I spent a couple hundred dollars purchasing those words to point to that blog post. And my ads were #1 most of the time.
Google Adwords is a very sophisticated system of bidding on keywords or phrases that are linked to ads you create. Anyone with a credit card can choose words, create ads, and have your ad show up at the top of the sponsored results. It does not mean that someone is "buying Google."
Olbermann on Adwords BP
To keep it even in the political spectrum, Keith Olbermann jumped on the same absurd train as Rush Limbaugh to make the claim a couple weeks ago that BP was purchasing the Google search engine.
No, Keith. They are buying Adwords. And anyone can do it. Check out my note above or hire someone who knows something about social media.
And an even worse betrayal of technology on that segment of Olbermann's Countdown was one of his interviewees stating that when they searched for "oil spill," they saw a bunch of stuff on BP. That man said "BP has purchased the algorithm of Google."
I'll allow a minute for you to stare dumbfounded or stop laughing hysterically.
BP is on top of organic searches because they've had years and years to build up relevant content about oil. Simple as that. The Google algorithm is more well protected than the recipe for Coca-Cola or Bush's Baked Beans (argh, save that two-timing talking dog...). Selling "the algorighm of Google" would be akin to selling your own child into slavery. And it's absurd to even suggest such a thing. And if it would ever occur to Google to betray the trust of its dedicated users and fans and "help" someone out, it wouldn't be a pollution-tainted, multi-billion dollar, non-sustainable-energy corporation.
Finally Starbucks is doing Wifi Free
I heard this in passing on a financial radio show last week. The implication was that you always had to pay for Wifi at Starbucks. Actually, if you have one of their rechargeable cards, register it, and have used it in the last 30 days, you get 2 free hours of Wifi every single day.
It wasn't a completely inaccurate statement; you do have to make a purchase in the last 30 days to get the wifi free. However, the inherent ignorance of the statement paired with the speaker's snide commentary made him sound like an uninformed tool. Which, at that moment, he was.
In today's 24-hour media cycle, there are an unfortunate abundance of people who are willing to speak on things that they - and their researchers - know nothing about, especially as it pertains to technology. And they sound silly at best, stupid at most, and lying at worst.
My advice: Hire someone who has a clue; otherwise, you're undermining your own positions. And there are many of us watching. And we will call you out.
The Recent Past
Let's hit a couple popular examples of what we're talking about:
Series of Tubes
Classic, Senator Ted Stevens of AK:
(this was an official argument against Net Neutrality)
Internets
The origin of a meme in how politicians understand tech:
Net Neutrality
Aside from the above joy from Sen. Stevens, we've got more on Net Neutrality. In the last few months the American public has been bombarded by radio talk show hosts that have horribly mishandled the reality of the situation. I keep this blog away from politics as often as possible, but when people are not only misinformed but blatantly lying about how technology affects our lives, I get a little fired up (equal opportunity coming 2 sections down).
For the record, Net Neutrality is what we have. Now. Net Neutrality means that as a user, no matter what ISP you're using, internet access to websites - all websites - is equal. As fast as Google or Ebay or YouTube can send, you can receive (as long as you're not - God forbid! - still using dial-up).
But Telecom companies are trying to push the end of Net Neutrality. What if, for instance, Time Warner Cable changed its policy? What if they said "We're purposefully reducing the speed of all internet data transmission by 25%. BUT, if your company wants to write us a big, fat check, we'll let your traffic come through unimpeded."
So Net Neutrality exists now, Telecom companies want it to go away so they can make more money, and somehow it's being twisted into what I've heard on certain talk radio stations: "Net neutrality is going to be passed in Congress to limit your access to websites and control what you see on the internet." And that's not just getting confused or not understanding; it is a deliberately misleading LIE.
Here's a quick video primer on Net Neutrality:
Net Neutrality is a great example of how people are not just misunderstanding technology, but they're misrepresenting technology to those who haven't had the education or haven't done the research. Again: stating that Net Neutrality is a control mechanism is a LIE. The lack of control is the definition of the "neutrality."
Limbaugh on Adwords
You may have seen my post last month on how Rush Limbaugh was twisting the story of Goldmann Sachs and saying that they were controlling Google by purchasing ads on the words.
This is BS. And as an example of concept, I spent a couple hundred dollars purchasing those words to point to that blog post. And my ads were #1 most of the time.
Google Adwords is a very sophisticated system of bidding on keywords or phrases that are linked to ads you create. Anyone with a credit card can choose words, create ads, and have your ad show up at the top of the sponsored results. It does not mean that someone is "buying Google."
Olbermann on Adwords BP
To keep it even in the political spectrum, Keith Olbermann jumped on the same absurd train as Rush Limbaugh to make the claim a couple weeks ago that BP was purchasing the Google search engine.
No, Keith. They are buying Adwords. And anyone can do it. Check out my note above or hire someone who knows something about social media.
And an even worse betrayal of technology on that segment of Olbermann's Countdown was one of his interviewees stating that when they searched for "oil spill," they saw a bunch of stuff on BP. That man said "BP has purchased the algorithm of Google."
I'll allow a minute for you to stare dumbfounded or stop laughing hysterically.
BP is on top of organic searches because they've had years and years to build up relevant content about oil. Simple as that. The Google algorithm is more well protected than the recipe for Coca-Cola or Bush's Baked Beans (argh, save that two-timing talking dog...). Selling "the algorighm of Google" would be akin to selling your own child into slavery. And it's absurd to even suggest such a thing. And if it would ever occur to Google to betray the trust of its dedicated users and fans and "help" someone out, it wouldn't be a pollution-tainted, multi-billion dollar, non-sustainable-energy corporation.
Finally Starbucks is doing Wifi Free
I heard this in passing on a financial radio show last week. The implication was that you always had to pay for Wifi at Starbucks. Actually, if you have one of their rechargeable cards, register it, and have used it in the last 30 days, you get 2 free hours of Wifi every single day.
It wasn't a completely inaccurate statement; you do have to make a purchase in the last 30 days to get the wifi free. However, the inherent ignorance of the statement paired with the speaker's snide commentary made him sound like an uninformed tool. Which, at that moment, he was.
In today's 24-hour media cycle, there are an unfortunate abundance of people who are willing to speak on things that they - and their researchers - know nothing about, especially as it pertains to technology. And they sound silly at best, stupid at most, and lying at worst.
My advice: Hire someone who has a clue; otherwise, you're undermining your own positions. And there are many of us watching. And we will call you out.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Google, Rush...What Happened Last Tuesday?
I've received emails and phone calls and it seems the question that keeps coming up is: what the heck was that?
That is, in reference to my post on Rush Limbaugh, Google Adwords, and Goldman Sachs. And if you haven't had the pleasure, click that link!
The Setup
A friend of mine called me and said "Turn on Rush. He's talking smack about Google or something." And low and behold - as explained in my post - he was. The unfortunate thing about mixing politics and technology is when one is relatively well-versed in one, they are generally deficient in the other. Case in point: Rush's implication was that links and placement were being purchased and there might even be an outright collaboration between Google and the White House.
The truth was simple enough: White House PR was buying Adwords phrases. Just like anyone else can do.
The Plan
Shameless promotion and exploitation. Something Rush said stuck with me: "If you type 'goldman sachs sec' into Google...'"
Rush Limbaugh has millions of listeners across the country and his show is syndicated and paced through every time zone so I can pretty much guarantee those words are going to be spoken every hour between 1pm EST and 3am PST.
A quick search (as Rush told me to do) displayed 2 ads: The White House ad and one more saying "Not just the Obama's Ad." In other words: Open field.
The Moderation
Step 1: Provide something that is both intelligible and educational. That was easy. A basic tutorial on what are paid ads and what are not with reference to the ease of creating an ad campaign is exactly what I was aiming for.
Step 2: Do not turn it political. That was a little more difficult. I have no problem staying away from the Goldman Sachs topic in the posting, but I have a solid peeve spot for people with very large audiences opening their mouths about things they know little or nothing about and making things up that support their end of an argument. And I knew if I directly attacked Rush Limbaugh for doing so, I'd be shifting from business to politics. I believe I succeeded.
The Numbers
I ran the ad nationwide from Tuesday at about 2 to 10pm. Then switched the geographical focus to Ohio only and Wednesday morning knocked it down to Greater Cincinnati.
As of this posting, in a little over 48 hours, I have over 7,500 impressions with over 760 clicks, pulling a CTR of a little more than 10%. Average CPC was $0.41, landing me at a little over $300 for this experiment.
Was it worth it?
Short answer is: if one of the 4 leads I now have pans out, then yes. If not, I've hopefully educated some people who may not have known how Adwords work, and for me the education of someone that prevents a later misunderstanding is worth every penny. Ounce of prevention and all that.
That is, in reference to my post on Rush Limbaugh, Google Adwords, and Goldman Sachs. And if you haven't had the pleasure, click that link!
The Setup
A friend of mine called me and said "Turn on Rush. He's talking smack about Google or something." And low and behold - as explained in my post - he was. The unfortunate thing about mixing politics and technology is when one is relatively well-versed in one, they are generally deficient in the other. Case in point: Rush's implication was that links and placement were being purchased and there might even be an outright collaboration between Google and the White House.
The truth was simple enough: White House PR was buying Adwords phrases. Just like anyone else can do.
The Plan
Shameless promotion and exploitation. Something Rush said stuck with me: "If you type 'goldman sachs sec' into Google...'"
Rush Limbaugh has millions of listeners across the country and his show is syndicated and paced through every time zone so I can pretty much guarantee those words are going to be spoken every hour between 1pm EST and 3am PST.
A quick search (as Rush told me to do) displayed 2 ads: The White House ad and one more saying "Not just the Obama's Ad." In other words: Open field.
The Moderation
Step 1: Provide something that is both intelligible and educational. That was easy. A basic tutorial on what are paid ads and what are not with reference to the ease of creating an ad campaign is exactly what I was aiming for.
Step 2: Do not turn it political. That was a little more difficult. I have no problem staying away from the Goldman Sachs topic in the posting, but I have a solid peeve spot for people with very large audiences opening their mouths about things they know little or nothing about and making things up that support their end of an argument. And I knew if I directly attacked Rush Limbaugh for doing so, I'd be shifting from business to politics. I believe I succeeded.
The Numbers
I ran the ad nationwide from Tuesday at about 2 to 10pm. Then switched the geographical focus to Ohio only and Wednesday morning knocked it down to Greater Cincinnati.
As of this posting, in a little over 48 hours, I have over 7,500 impressions with over 760 clicks, pulling a CTR of a little more than 10%. Average CPC was $0.41, landing me at a little over $300 for this experiment.
Was it worth it?
Short answer is: if one of the 4 leads I now have pans out, then yes. If not, I've hopefully educated some people who may not have known how Adwords work, and for me the education of someone that prevents a later misunderstanding is worth every penny. Ounce of prevention and all that.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Google, Rush Limbaugh, Goldman Sachs
A friend of mine alerted me to Rush Limbaugh's show today where he was talking about Goldman Sachs and how if you typed "goldman sachs sec" you'd get Barack Obama's website. But the language Rush was using was a little troubling. He said "Google takes you there" and that President Obama (or, realistically, his PR folks) was buying links and making a strong insinuation that Google's search results were being influenced by the White House.
And as soon as I got back to the office, I realized the mundane truth: The President's PR force, in light of a drive towards financial reform, had bid on the phrase in an Adwords campaign. Just like anyone can do.
As a matter of fact, I just began a campaign myself for "goldman sachs sec" that you can see as well if you type those words into Google. Just to show you how easy it is - and take advantage of a happenstance spike.
[UPDATE: Either the unwanted attention from radio or an exhausted budget have caused the "Organizing for America" Ads to disappear.]
[UPDATE2: The ad is still there (just saw it), I believe cycling now that other folks have gotten in on the phrases.]
Search Engine Ads 101
For those of you who may not be aware, when you search for something in one of the main search engines like Google, Yahoo, or Bing, you actually get two types of results: organic and paid. Here's a screenshot from a search of "goldman sachs sec"
Now, pay close attention to the areas highlighted in red:
Those areas - the top and the right - are labeled "Sponsored Links." Those are Google Adwords or paid ads. Anyone can open an Adwords account, choose phrases, and pay for people to click on their ads. Mine are already running and leading back to this post. This is just how search engines work today.
The rest of the links on the page, the place where most people are drawn, are the news and video, etc. that are also listed. Those are organic listings.
In Closing
Unfortunately many people do not know how search results work (hopefully this helped for some) and even less will check the validity of the claims for themselves. The truth is not nefarious nor malicious nor collusive; it's actually a pretty clear case of Capitalism in action. Heck: even I got on board.
And as soon as I got back to the office, I realized the mundane truth: The President's PR force, in light of a drive towards financial reform, had bid on the phrase in an Adwords campaign. Just like anyone can do.
As a matter of fact, I just began a campaign myself for "goldman sachs sec" that you can see as well if you type those words into Google. Just to show you how easy it is - and take advantage of a happenstance spike.
[UPDATE: Either the unwanted attention from radio or an exhausted budget have caused the "Organizing for America" Ads to disappear.]
[UPDATE2: The ad is still there (just saw it), I believe cycling now that other folks have gotten in on the phrases.]
Search Engine Ads 101
For those of you who may not be aware, when you search for something in one of the main search engines like Google, Yahoo, or Bing, you actually get two types of results: organic and paid. Here's a screenshot from a search of "goldman sachs sec"
Now, pay close attention to the areas highlighted in red:
Those areas - the top and the right - are labeled "Sponsored Links." Those are Google Adwords or paid ads. Anyone can open an Adwords account, choose phrases, and pay for people to click on their ads. Mine are already running and leading back to this post. This is just how search engines work today.
The rest of the links on the page, the place where most people are drawn, are the news and video, etc. that are also listed. Those are organic listings.
In Closing
Unfortunately many people do not know how search results work (hopefully this helped for some) and even less will check the validity of the claims for themselves. The truth is not nefarious nor malicious nor collusive; it's actually a pretty clear case of Capitalism in action. Heck: even I got on board.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Friday Video: Google FTW, Media Crank, Raptors!
Google "Responds" to Buzz Feedback
(NSFW language bleeped)
CNN Jersey Prank
Raptor Devours Cheerleader
Have a great weekend!
(NSFW language bleeped)
CNN Jersey Prank
Raptor Devours Cheerleader
Have a great weekend!
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Google Shuts Down IE6? Hope hope?
Every developer's plea* of "Dear MS: Make IE6 die pls. k thx." was brought one more giant step towards fruition. In my inbox this morning was the following from Google:
In order to continue to improve our products and deliver more sophisticated features and performance, we are harnessing some of the latest improvements in web browser technology. This includes faster JavaScript processing and new standards like HTML5. As a result, over the course of 2010, we will be phasing out support for Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 as well as other older browsers that are not supported by their own manufacturers.Yes, this is where you smile and sigh and possibly float a little. It's okay. I'll wait.
We plan to begin phasing out support of these older browsers on the Google Docs suite and the Google Sites editor on March 1, 2010. After that point, certain functionality within these applications may have higher latency and may not work correctly in these older browsers. Later in 2010, we will start to phase out support for these browsers for Google Mail and Google Calendar.
Google Apps will continue to support Internet Explorer 7.0 and above, Firefox 3.0 and above, Google Chrome 4.0 and above, and Safari 3.0 and above.
But maybe you're saying "Wait a second, IE6 is just a little older. What's the big hubbub?
The Big Hubbub about IE6
The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is an international group that works to develop a set of standards for how websites should be coded. And if browsers followed their recommendations, all would be well: A website viewed in IE6 would look the same as IE7 and 8 and Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Opera...
But all has never been well in the world of internet browsers. As a matter of fact, until Firefox 3 and IE7, the land of web development was a sad and desolate place full of angry programmers yelling at their computers at how a website would show up in a particular version of a particular browser because that version didn't follow a W3C spec.
All is not milk and honey quite yet, but it's getting better. Word on the street is Opera is the most compliant, but if you develop in Firefox and fix for IE bugs, you'll probably be fine - just check it in all of them to be sure.
The IE6 Scent Lingers
The souring of development continues. Why? IE6 is still alive and remains the biggest W3C compliance mess out there. Based on the January 2009 numbers, the browser still has a little over 10% of the market share.
But there is hope with the note from Google. There is hope that IE6 will just die, will go away forever. How practical that hope is, only time will tell. All we can do is educate people and spread the word.
So what's your favorite browser? Do you stick with a version of Internet Explorer, shun all but Safari, give Google love on Chrome, or something else? I'd love to hear from you.
* I am personally aware that there are multi-million dollar corporations with active web apps that will not function properly in any browser except IE6. For those developers we weep, say a little prayer, and hope corporate gets on the stick with that, our small exception.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
A Tale of Google, Foolishness, and the MCC
I'm currently managing several Adwords accounts and it was about dang time to set up my own My Client Center. Google's My Client Center is a wonderful interface that allows you to manage several independent Adwords accounts in one place. Hey, I've already got an Adwords campaign set up for EJM Designs, so how hard could that be?
Yeah.
Turns out that if you have an Adwords account associated with a Google Account, you can't use that account to create an MMC. So along with my personal Gmail and my professional Gmail and my site running through Google Apps email, I was forced to create an entirely new account to handle my MMC.
Okay, I understand that. It's not ideal in any sense, but if that's how they're driving the bus, that's how they're driving the bus.
But then I tried to adjoin an existing account I was managing to my MCC. And I got a message to the effect: In order to link this account to your MMC, you will have to Contact Us. Hrm?
So I emailed and contacted them and about 4 days later got this back:
Hello Eric,
[sic] for emailing me to link a client account (Customer ID xxx) to your MCC (xxx). You weren't able to link the accounts because the would-be client account is using a beta billing interface, which makes it unable to be managed by an MCC. The new interface is being tested on just a limited number of new accounts, and we're working to give them full functionality as soon as possible. I'm sorry for the inconvenience, and I wanted to offer you a couple of options. Please reply to this email and let me know which you'd prefer.
OPTION 1: You can create a new account through the link in your My Client Center
...
OPTION 2: Ask us to move this client account to the previous billing interface
...
Please let me know which option you'd like to take, and we'll continue from there.
Thanks for your understanding.
Sincerely,
[CSR] B.
The Google AdWords Team
(I picked option 2 because I'm not reinventing an already well-oiled wheel.)
But what? When I initially created the account, there was no mention of "Hey, we're testing a new Billing Interface!"
So this post is not intended to poo-poo the Google that I know and love, just to bring some of those more interesting glitches and hoops to light so when you're about to do the same thing, you don't wonder why something didn't work or get fired up about WTF is going on.
Short version: Have Adwords? Don't try to add MCC to that account, and always add new accounts through your MMC to guarantee compatibility.
Oh, and I guess this came to light last year, but Google Adwords is not supported on the Opera Browser. Looks like all other Google applications are fine, but just not Adwords. Again: weird.
So what are your thoughts about my tale? Have you run into this? Do you have any other advice for others, your own warnings, so to speak?
Thursday, January 14, 2010
MSN Tech-NO: The Microsoft-Google Synchronized FAIL Team
So if I go to Google - as I am wont to do - and were to type in, for instance, tech gadgets I get to see this:
Note that the #2 non-sponsored link is MSN's Tech Page. Okay, that's cool. Maybe I should check that out. *click*
BOO! MSN! Google! Boo!
FYI, the timed redirect goes to MSNBC's Tech page. This is an absolute SEO FAIL in a couple ways and both are to blame:
For someone who is in the industry and knows what they're doing, this is saddening and disheartening. It's an obvious glitch on a prominent sample in a system that says that listing should not exist. I'm not saying I don't expect goofs and oversight every once in a while. But goofs and oversights are small. This is pretty big. And it's either saying "Google and MSN not only trip but sometimes even fall" or "If you're big enough and talk to the right people, you don't have to follow the rules."
I hope it's the former.
[sidenote: Good on Google for banging the drums against China!]
What're your thoughts?
Note that the #2 non-sponsored link is MSN's Tech Page. Okay, that's cool. Maybe I should check that out. *click*
BOO! MSN! Google! Boo!
FYI, the timed redirect goes to MSNBC's Tech page. This is an absolute SEO FAIL in a couple ways and both are to blame:
- Google is listing at #2 a page that no longer exists.
- Google is listing at #2 a page that has a timed redirect.
- Microsoft did not post a 301 permanent redirect.
For someone who is in the industry and knows what they're doing, this is saddening and disheartening. It's an obvious glitch on a prominent sample in a system that says that listing should not exist. I'm not saying I don't expect goofs and oversight every once in a while. But goofs and oversights are small. This is pretty big. And it's either saying "Google and MSN not only trip but sometimes even fall" or "If you're big enough and talk to the right people, you don't have to follow the rules."
I hope it's the former.
[sidenote: Good on Google for banging the drums against China!]
What're your thoughts?
Thursday, December 10, 2009
How Google Wave Hasn't Changed My Life
I was jonesing like many of you, geek-grade salivating over the prospect of getting in on The Wave. I sent out innocuous queries, suggestions with a tone of *wink-wink* and then resorted to all-out begging. And then a friend of mine sent me the invite. A week later, I just about jumped out of a gathering and ran all the way home like Charlie Bucket with the Golden Ticket when I saw the invite appear in my inbox on my Palm Pre.
And I got home and I opened the email and I clicked the link - BUT NOT before watching the 80 minute video of the presentation so I could get in there and hit the ground running and I got in and set some profile bits so everyone could see my pic and knew who I was.
And then I went "Hrm? What now?"
It was like this whiteboard image I later found on a wave:
So what's the problem with Google Wave?
Well, aside from it being a little slow and draggy and buggy (but not that much), the primary problem is finding people to collaborate with. But I digress. Allow me to begin with...
What is Google Wave?
Google Wave is an online collaboration platform created as a thought experiment by Google as "What would email look like if it were created today?"
One person creates a wave. They can then add people to that wave. Those people can add others, etc. Anyone attached to that wave can edit any message inside that wave or insert their own addition at any point, all in real time. You can drag and drop documents, images, etc., and edit those in real time. You can embed a wave in a webpage. And you an add "public" as a member of the wave and open it up to public search so the world can join in.
Beginning Moments
So still, there I was, looking expectantly at the interface like it was going to solve world hunger or something, but I saw nothing. Just the welcome wave sent to me by Google. Okay. So how do I turn this thing on? Turn it into the collaborative juggernaut it's meant to be?
The Floodgates
With help from the interwebs I was able to figure out the "with:public" search and BLAMMO! The floodgates opened! Dozens - nay, hundreds - of waves popped in and out of most recently updated popularity and ...many of them were of little interest to me, many in languages I could not read.
So I did a search and followed (added myself to the wave) of a couple public waves like Ohio and Cincinnati and SEM. I even found one contact to add me to a New Media Cincinnati wave.
Glorified Chat
So right now, as I've found, Wave is existing primarily as a glorified chat engine. I love the layout and immediacy of it, but for the most part it's "Hey, I'm from Cincinnati and this is what I do! Hello World!" like back in the early 90's when you entered chat rooms in AOL.
I log on every day or two and see if any of the waves I'm following have any updates. I read them. And that's about all.
So, um... About That Collaboration
In an effort to truly do some collaboration, I used one of my invites to add my brother. We're working on a script about my Grandfather who came over to the US in '21 and his early life and subsequent entrance into WWII. Granted, he's got a Google Account, so we could just about do the same thing with Google Docs (where the script will live), but we'll give Wave a try in this regard and see how it works.
Closing Comments
Google Wave has a ways to go. First off, the people you might want to collaborate with need to be on it and they have to be willing to join yet another online service. The most interesting aspect of this is to get in there and just watch: What will Google Wave turn into? What will it eventually do? How will it change how we do things? Will it ever work properly on my Palm Pre?
And for those of you who found this looking for invites, I've got a dozen or so to hand out. Email me at eric AT ejmdesigns DOT com.
And if you're already on the Wave, I'd love to talk to you. I'm emarschall@googlewave.com.
What thoughts do you have? Interest in or fear of Google Wave? Let me know!
And I got home and I opened the email and I clicked the link - BUT NOT before watching the 80 minute video of the presentation so I could get in there and hit the ground running and I got in and set some profile bits so everyone could see my pic and knew who I was.
And then I went "Hrm? What now?"
It was like this whiteboard image I later found on a wave:
So what's the problem with Google Wave?
Well, aside from it being a little slow and draggy and buggy (but not that much), the primary problem is finding people to collaborate with. But I digress. Allow me to begin with...
What is Google Wave?
Google Wave is an online collaboration platform created as a thought experiment by Google as "What would email look like if it were created today?"
One person creates a wave. They can then add people to that wave. Those people can add others, etc. Anyone attached to that wave can edit any message inside that wave or insert their own addition at any point, all in real time. You can drag and drop documents, images, etc., and edit those in real time. You can embed a wave in a webpage. And you an add "public" as a member of the wave and open it up to public search so the world can join in.
Beginning Moments
So still, there I was, looking expectantly at the interface like it was going to solve world hunger or something, but I saw nothing. Just the welcome wave sent to me by Google. Okay. So how do I turn this thing on? Turn it into the collaborative juggernaut it's meant to be?
The Floodgates
With help from the interwebs I was able to figure out the "with:public" search and BLAMMO! The floodgates opened! Dozens - nay, hundreds - of waves popped in and out of most recently updated popularity and ...many of them were of little interest to me, many in languages I could not read.
So I did a search and followed (added myself to the wave) of a couple public waves like Ohio and Cincinnati and SEM. I even found one contact to add me to a New Media Cincinnati wave.
Glorified Chat
So right now, as I've found, Wave is existing primarily as a glorified chat engine. I love the layout and immediacy of it, but for the most part it's "Hey, I'm from Cincinnati and this is what I do! Hello World!" like back in the early 90's when you entered chat rooms in AOL.
I log on every day or two and see if any of the waves I'm following have any updates. I read them. And that's about all.
So, um... About That Collaboration
In an effort to truly do some collaboration, I used one of my invites to add my brother. We're working on a script about my Grandfather who came over to the US in '21 and his early life and subsequent entrance into WWII. Granted, he's got a Google Account, so we could just about do the same thing with Google Docs (where the script will live), but we'll give Wave a try in this regard and see how it works.
Closing Comments
Google Wave has a ways to go. First off, the people you might want to collaborate with need to be on it and they have to be willing to join yet another online service. The most interesting aspect of this is to get in there and just watch: What will Google Wave turn into? What will it eventually do? How will it change how we do things? Will it ever work properly on my Palm Pre?
And for those of you who found this looking for invites, I've got a dozen or so to hand out. Email me at eric AT ejmdesigns DOT com.
And if you're already on the Wave, I'd love to talk to you. I'm emarschall@googlewave.com.
What thoughts do you have? Interest in or fear of Google Wave? Let me know!
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Googling Out Tech Thursday
I'm a Google addict. I admit it. I use Gmail, Google Apps for my website email, Google Voice for my local number, and I've got a Google Wave invite coming from a friend as soon as Google gets on the stick and plops it in my inbox. I even occasionally drop Firefox for some Chrome browser time. So today we'll just talk a little about Google.
I just mentioned Google Chrome. How about a Google Chrome OS? "What's that?" you ask.
That's what that is. And today they open sourced Chromium OS a year before the OS is targeted for release. Sheesh!
If image search and vision technology are your thing, check out this info on Swirl, Google's new Labs pet that groups visually similar images. Sweet.
And while I could write thousands of words on Google stuff I'd like to close today that those of you waffling between iPhone and Android (Palm Pre's pretty sweet too, guys!), hold on to your panties. Reports this week reignite the hopes we all had what seems so long ago and it appears Google and HTC are Wonder Twin Powers activating a Google Phone. For reals. But what does that mean for the Droid?
I just mentioned Google Chrome. How about a Google Chrome OS? "What's that?" you ask.
That's what that is. And today they open sourced Chromium OS a year before the OS is targeted for release. Sheesh!
If image search and vision technology are your thing, check out this info on Swirl, Google's new Labs pet that groups visually similar images. Sweet.
And while I could write thousands of words on Google stuff I'd like to close today that those of you waffling between iPhone and Android (Palm Pre's pretty sweet too, guys!), hold on to your panties. Reports this week reignite the hopes we all had what seems so long ago and it appears Google and HTC are Wonder Twin Powers activating a Google Phone. For reals. But what does that mean for the Droid?
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Reasons Bing Will not Dominate Google
It looks like Bing is here to stay. For those of you that have somehow made it to this blog post without encountering Bing online or through the media blitz, Bing is Microsoft's new pet search engine - I'm sorry; they call it a decision engine. They also call it a Google Killer.
And while I have been tweaking this post for a few days now, and today a deal was sealed between Yahoo and Microsoft, I believe the argument still stands. Here are a couple reasons that Bing/Yahoo will not overrun Google.
The Raw Numbers
The last Neilsen Online numbers for search engine usage (May 2009), Google was over 63%. Yahoo and MSN/Live together were less than 27%. And while Google and Yahoo (and even AOL and Ask) total users had increased from last year, MSN dropped by almost 15%.
Familiarity
We all know Google. The simplicity of its home page is a beautiful thing and a psychological comfort to many of us. People are creatures of habit and while novelty may lead some to seek out Bing, most will go back to what they're used to.
Mystery Meat Home Page
What the hell?
One of the reasons that Google is successful is the simplicity of it: one box, two buttons. The Bing home page is variable. There is an image of some sort littered with invisible boxes with information mildly relevant to the image. (note the one on the American Flag in the image above.)
This is mystery meat in the worst way: not only do you have to mouse over the boxes to see information that may or may not relate to the piece of the picture you are mousing over, you actually have to hunt for the boxes because they do not appear until you mouse over (or near) them.
Why is this bad? A large part of good design is abundant clarity that allows visitors to intuitively navigate to or use your page to gain the information they are looking for. Without distraction. On the contrary, Microsoft is employing design elements that are tried and true examples of worst practice.
Microsoft's MSN/Live Debacle History
First it was MSN. Then it was Live, but MSN was still there, bumming around with its hands in its pockets. Then MSN was still there but running the Live engine. And now it's calling itself Bing. Oh, MSN is still there, just running the Bing engine. And Live is still there linking you to Hotmail and Spaces (hehe, yes the MySpace wannabe is still extant).
Microsoft is already a target for being The Evil Empire. Toss in a history of confusion and failure as the basis of continuing confusion in branding and that's just untrustworthy business.
I'm guessing Bing will be around for a while - at least until MS takes a different tack. And I will work with it as a web developer because that's just good business practice. But even with this new Yahoo/Microsoft marriage of internet nobility, they are going to have a hard time getting their numbers to stabilize, let alone rise, let alone creep up on Google as a search engine.
But there's also that: Bing will always be the #1 decision engine.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Google Calendar Integration
I recently added a calendar page to the EJM Designs Limited website that allows people to track some of the "in person" events I attend. I used Google Calendar to embed the piece. (I'll have a DIY post on this in the future.)
From a social marketing angle, is this something you, as a reader, find interesting? Useful? Are there better ideas or implementations that you've seen or used?
Thursday, May 28, 2009
DIY: XML Sitemap Submission and Validation
Tuesday I went through the process of creating an XML sitemap and demystifying autodiscovery. Today, as promised, we will delve into getting those sitemaps into the figurative hands of the search engines.
"Hey," you might say, "but if I've created my sitemap and bolstered it with autodiscovery, can't Google find it on their own?" Of course. But since no one except Google knows their own schedule, would you prefer to rely on a blind run or say "Hey Google! Over here!"
And while I am talking about Google in generalized terms, we will be covering validation and submission with the Big 4: Google, Yahoo, Microsoft Live, and Ask.
The Setup
The basic setup for most of these is the same: you will validate that you have control over the site and submit a "feed" or sitemap. The validation process is either adding a validation meta tag to your home page or dropping a validation file in your root directory. Whether a tag or file, it's just an alphanumeric validation string so Google et. al. can prove that you own or have direct access to the site. The secondary part is telling them where your site is.
Google
You will need a Google Account for this one. Once you have that, go to http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools. Add a site. Validate your site by adding a meta tag to your home page or uploading a file to your root directory. Post the link to your sitemap. You're done!
Yahoo
You will need a Yahoo login for this one as well. Go to https://siteexplorer.search.yahoo.com/mysites. Just like Google, you're going to validate with a file or meta tag and post your XML sitemap "feed."
Microsoft Live
Again, you'll need a Microsoft login, hotmail or the like, to get into this site. Go to http://webmaster.live.com/. Rinse and repeat: upload a file to your site for validation and list your sitemap. Blammo!
No work yet on how bing.com will handle the issue.
Ask
This one's easy. Simply put this string into your browser:
And that will ping the site to tell it your sitemap is ready for viewing and crawling.
Is sitemap submission a necessity? No, it is not; eventually the search engines will pick up on your sitemap or autodiscovery and get to crawling. But if you're a "cover all bases" and "ASAP" person like I am, go ahead and spend the half hour it takes to knock out all four of these and go to sleep a little easier.
I'm happy to take any questions or comments in, well, the comments area.
"Hey," you might say, "but if I've created my sitemap and bolstered it with autodiscovery, can't Google find it on their own?" Of course. But since no one except Google knows their own schedule, would you prefer to rely on a blind run or say "Hey Google! Over here!"
And while I am talking about Google in generalized terms, we will be covering validation and submission with the Big 4: Google, Yahoo, Microsoft Live, and Ask.
The Setup
The basic setup for most of these is the same: you will validate that you have control over the site and submit a "feed" or sitemap. The validation process is either adding a validation meta tag to your home page or dropping a validation file in your root directory. Whether a tag or file, it's just an alphanumeric validation string so Google et. al. can prove that you own or have direct access to the site. The secondary part is telling them where your site is.
You will need a Google Account for this one. Once you have that, go to http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools. Add a site. Validate your site by adding a meta tag to your home page or uploading a file to your root directory. Post the link to your sitemap. You're done!
Yahoo
You will need a Yahoo login for this one as well. Go to https://siteexplorer.search.yahoo.com/mysites. Just like Google, you're going to validate with a file or meta tag and post your XML sitemap "feed."
Microsoft Live
Again, you'll need a Microsoft login, hotmail or the like, to get into this site. Go to http://webmaster.live.com/. Rinse and repeat: upload a file to your site for validation and list your sitemap. Blammo!
No work yet on how bing.com will handle the issue.
Ask
This one's easy. Simply put this string into your browser:
http://submissions.ask.com/ping?sitemap=http%3A//www.the URL of your sitemap here.xmlAnd that will ping the site to tell it your sitemap is ready for viewing and crawling.
Is sitemap submission a necessity? No, it is not; eventually the search engines will pick up on your sitemap or autodiscovery and get to crawling. But if you're a "cover all bases" and "ASAP" person like I am, go ahead and spend the half hour it takes to knock out all four of these and go to sleep a little easier.
I'm happy to take any questions or comments in, well, the comments area.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Chat Widgets for Your Website
Because not everyone has Trillian running on their system with 9 different accounts funneled into it (seriously, I do), I wanted to make the time investment to make sure people could chat with me whenever they wanted to. I have succeeded on the EJM Designs Limited Chat page.
The bonus to providing this service is that while you need an active AIM, Google, or Y!M login, your website visitor does not.
AIM WIMZI Widget
Visit AIM's WIMZI page and sign in next to the orange question mark in the grey area above the options section (or it will not give you the source code). Then fill out your specs and click the "Create it" button to get the source code. Paste into your website.
Mine looks like this:
Pluses: easy setup, shows I'm connected when using Trillian. No minuses so far. Must stick to my webpage to chat, but with tabs today (I have 10 open now), not a biggie.
Google Talk Widget
Log into your Google Account and head on over to the Google Talk Widget Page. Set your Preferences, update the code, copy, paste into your website, and voila! You get this:
Visitor will click on the link which will open a separate chat window. Pluses: Easy setup, simple styling, and even though stuck on the page isn't a detraction, I like the separate window. Flexibility. And ALT-Tab is easier than CTRL-Tab. Go about your business. Chat with me. Minuses: Because Trillian does not gobble up Google Talk, I need to be logged into this account to hear from you on my site. That happens for about 25% of the day.
Yahoo Messenger Pingbox
Go to the Pingbox studio, enter your parameters, copy and paste. Looks like this:
Pluses: Easy setup. Minuses: FAIL. When you get to the second page of setup, every time you change the dimensions, the object id attribute changes as well, which wouldn't be an issue at all if the characters didn't change to include - 75% of the time - Chinese and other definitively unicode characters that show up as boxes and don't paste as anything other than question marks.
(sidenote: tweaks to the widget size have a lower limit of 180x320 and will repeatedly reset in the interface despite no stated limits, though change in pasted code to 160 width shows up fine.)
And once you tease it enough to hand you basic ascii, logging in through Trillian or logging in through Yahoo Mail still shows you are not logged in on the widget. Bad widget!
My only guess on this one is that you actually need to be logged in through Yahoo Messenger, though I'm not sure why as Trillian's login to Yahoo always upsets the messenger-through-mail. And because I won't download Yahoo Messenger to test this theory...FAIL!
Why do you think I've got Trillian installed? 9 IM accounts. Duh. Removed from page.
Snark aside, and Yahoo aside, the Google and AIM widgets are lovely and it's only because of the Google login that I must go with AIM FTW!
Let me know your thoughts on whether website widgets are a good idea or a pain. Should we allow anyone to contact us anywhere anytime? Ups and downs?
The bonus to providing this service is that while you need an active AIM, Google, or Y!M login, your website visitor does not.
AIM WIMZI Widget
Visit AIM's WIMZI page and sign in next to the orange question mark in the grey area above the options section (or it will not give you the source code). Then fill out your specs and click the "Create it" button to get the source code. Paste into your website.
Mine looks like this:
Pluses: easy setup, shows I'm connected when using Trillian. No minuses so far. Must stick to my webpage to chat, but with tabs today (I have 10 open now), not a biggie.
Google Talk Widget
Log into your Google Account and head on over to the Google Talk Widget Page. Set your Preferences, update the code, copy, paste into your website, and voila! You get this:
Visitor will click on the link which will open a separate chat window. Pluses: Easy setup, simple styling, and even though stuck on the page isn't a detraction, I like the separate window. Flexibility. And ALT-Tab is easier than CTRL-Tab. Go about your business. Chat with me. Minuses: Because Trillian does not gobble up Google Talk, I need to be logged into this account to hear from you on my site. That happens for about 25% of the day.
Yahoo Messenger Pingbox
Go to the Pingbox studio, enter your parameters, copy and paste. Looks like this:
Pluses: Easy setup. Minuses: FAIL. When you get to the second page of setup, every time you change the dimensions, the object id attribute changes as well, which wouldn't be an issue at all if the characters didn't change to include - 75% of the time - Chinese and other definitively unicode characters that show up as boxes and don't paste as anything other than question marks.
(sidenote: tweaks to the widget size have a lower limit of 180x320 and will repeatedly reset in the interface despite no stated limits, though change in pasted code to 160 width shows up fine.)
And once you tease it enough to hand you basic ascii, logging in through Trillian or logging in through Yahoo Mail still shows you are not logged in on the widget. Bad widget!
My only guess on this one is that you actually need to be logged in through Yahoo Messenger, though I'm not sure why as Trillian's login to Yahoo always upsets the messenger-through-mail. And because I won't download Yahoo Messenger to test this theory...FAIL!
Why do you think I've got Trillian installed? 9 IM accounts. Duh. Removed from page.
Snark aside, and Yahoo aside, the Google and AIM widgets are lovely and it's only because of the Google login that I must go with AIM FTW!
Let me know your thoughts on whether website widgets are a good idea or a pain. Should we allow anyone to contact us anywhere anytime? Ups and downs?
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Google Chrome Goes to Teevee
The sad thing about keeping 8-15 tabs open at a time is that I sometimes forget the reference from whence they came. So, to that person: thanks.
This is a Japanese Google Chrome Ad. Apparently their first commercial?
The blatant stop-motion format is as 70/80's nostalgic as the Arkanoid theme is 80/90's while introducing an "aughts" browser.
Brilliant or fail?
This is a Japanese Google Chrome Ad. Apparently their first commercial?
The blatant stop-motion format is as 70/80's nostalgic as the Arkanoid theme is 80/90's while introducing an "aughts" browser.
Brilliant or fail?
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Google Latitude: I Know Where You Are
Today cnet scared the heck out of me for a few seconds.
Realistically, I see this as a good thing, as an extension of some people already remotely tweeting their location with an open invite to join them for lunch or meet up at a Starbucks. Leveraging social media for the in-person parts of your life is the way to make real connections. Face-to-face builds trust and meaningful relationships. It can also give you more of an insight into the type of people you relate with, an insight that cannot come from blog posts or tweets or Facebook status updates.
Of course, this could be another move towards Google's eventual goal of universal domination.
[Google] plans to launch software called Latitude on Wednesday that lets mobile phone users share their location with close contacts. Google hopes it will help people find each other while out and about and to keep track of loved ones.Of course, this is an opt-in service. You'll have to sign up and allow people to view your location using cell tower triangulation. If you haven't given much thought to the fact that the government can do this without such an opt-in program: they can.
"What Google Latitude does is allow you to share that location with friends and family members, and likewise be able to see friends and family members' locations," said Steve Lee, product manager for Google Latitude. For example, a girlfriend could use it to see if her boyfriend has arrived at a restaurant and, if not, how far away he is.
Realistically, I see this as a good thing, as an extension of some people already remotely tweeting their location with an open invite to join them for lunch or meet up at a Starbucks. Leveraging social media for the in-person parts of your life is the way to make real connections. Face-to-face builds trust and meaningful relationships. It can also give you more of an insight into the type of people you relate with, an insight that cannot come from blog posts or tweets or Facebook status updates.
Of course, this could be another move towards Google's eventual goal of universal domination.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Underscores and Hyphens: One Important, Often Ignored Rule
I recently ran into someone on LinkedIn who was asking about some best practices when it comes to information architecture. I put in my two cents and, as an afterthought, added that he should make sure that he use dashes instead of underscores in page names when separating words.
The gentleman replied in a mildly irritated manner, asking how I knew that and if I was right that it would be bad for many of his colleagues who use underscores.
I've known this for a couple years, so in searching for a solid reference for the man, I stumbled upon a reference from Mr. Guru himself, Matt Cutts.
The thinking goes something like this: because of geek programming roots, Google wanted to be able to index the character "_" and still does. What does this mean?
Say you have a page on your website explaining your web design services and title that page
The name of that page will only be indexed by Google as the string "web_design" because the underscore is judged as a relevant character, just as if you put a "9" in there instead. It's people-readable, not Google-readable.
Note: this is not to say that the content on that page, title tags, etc. would not provide enough relevance for the page to be listed. It might. But we are talking strictly page name indexing.
Of course you know what's coming. You're going to create that same page but name it
Now Google gets that extra nugget of relevance that the page is named with the words "web" and "design." Ostensibly, the name itself will be triggered by searches for "web," "design," and "web design" whereas the previous name was bound with the "_" character.
It may just be a part of your overall relevance, but as anyone who works in web design and search engine marketing knows, leverage is leverage and every bit of weight on your side helps.
So now you're either saying "whew!" or "OMG! How do I fix this!" Relax. Take a breath. Have a cocktail. It is Saturday. Whatever you do, don't just rename all your files. That would be BAD. Yes, all-caps BAD.
On Monday morning we'll discuss information architecture restructuring and permanent redirects in order to minimize any ranking damage.
The gentleman replied in a mildly irritated manner, asking how I knew that and if I was right that it would be bad for many of his colleagues who use underscores.
I've known this for a couple years, so in searching for a solid reference for the man, I stumbled upon a reference from Mr. Guru himself, Matt Cutts.
The thinking goes something like this: because of geek programming roots, Google wanted to be able to index the character "_" and still does. What does this mean?
Say you have a page on your website explaining your web design services and title that page
web_design.phpThe name of that page will only be indexed by Google as the string "web_design" because the underscore is judged as a relevant character, just as if you put a "9" in there instead. It's people-readable, not Google-readable.
Note: this is not to say that the content on that page, title tags, etc. would not provide enough relevance for the page to be listed. It might. But we are talking strictly page name indexing.
Of course you know what's coming. You're going to create that same page but name it
web-design.phpNow Google gets that extra nugget of relevance that the page is named with the words "web" and "design." Ostensibly, the name itself will be triggered by searches for "web," "design," and "web design" whereas the previous name was bound with the "_" character.
It may just be a part of your overall relevance, but as anyone who works in web design and search engine marketing knows, leverage is leverage and every bit of weight on your side helps.
So now you're either saying "whew!" or "OMG! How do I fix this!" Relax. Take a breath. Have a cocktail. It is Saturday. Whatever you do, don't just rename all your files. That would be BAD. Yes, all-caps BAD.
On Monday morning we'll discuss information architecture restructuring and permanent redirects in order to minimize any ranking damage.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Google Street View Goes Wrong
Because Fridays are a little more aloof...
Run, Bambi, Run!
This is one of the images captured by the Google Street View truck. The rest are not so great. Hit the link below to see the sad story unfold.
Yes, it's as bad as you think.
h/t to Peng Xiao
Run, Bambi, Run!
This is one of the images captured by the Google Street View truck. The rest are not so great. Hit the link below to see the sad story unfold.
Yes, it's as bad as you think.
h/t to Peng Xiao
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Google Pushes Into Washington
From the LA Times:
Network Neutrality
Network neutrality is basically the maintenance of things the way they are: When it comes to an ISP feeding the customer, no website's data streams get preference or get in the way of any other. If this is not solidified quickly, providers all over the US could jump in together and begin extorting all the big boys. "Everyone slows down. You pay $x, we keep your stream flowing to the customer. If not, they might just go somewhere else. Capice?"
Google, being the 800lb. gorilla, stands to pay the most from this shady practice. But it's bad for everyone. The big boys pay up and every small business site is suddenly dealing with degraded data getting to their potential customer. Smaller entities lose, as well as the consumer.
Expansion of High-Speed Service
This is a no-brainer. More access means more customers to use Google's services.
But it's also important because the connectivity many of us take for granted, the opportunities we have because of the availability of the internet is absent from much of American life in areas of lower socio-economic status. Grow the infrastructure there, present more opportunity, and you provide a potential solution for anyone who is willing to grab it and run.
Interestingly, the Pope made a plea for just this thing in his comments about Social Communication released the other day.
While Google is using it's power and proximity to ultimately get what it wants, I don't believe its goals are so different from our own. And it's nice to have the 800lb. gorilla on our side for once.
Its employees supported Obama, and four Googlers served on his transition team. Now the Internet giant hopes to win support for network neutrality and expanding high-speed Internet access.Of course, Google is not just hanging out in Washington for purely humanitarian reasons. Both these goals will benefit Google in the long run. A quick look at both:
Network Neutrality
Network neutrality is basically the maintenance of things the way they are: When it comes to an ISP feeding the customer, no website's data streams get preference or get in the way of any other. If this is not solidified quickly, providers all over the US could jump in together and begin extorting all the big boys. "Everyone slows down. You pay $x, we keep your stream flowing to the customer. If not, they might just go somewhere else. Capice?"
Google, being the 800lb. gorilla, stands to pay the most from this shady practice. But it's bad for everyone. The big boys pay up and every small business site is suddenly dealing with degraded data getting to their potential customer. Smaller entities lose, as well as the consumer.
Expansion of High-Speed Service
This is a no-brainer. More access means more customers to use Google's services.
But it's also important because the connectivity many of us take for granted, the opportunities we have because of the availability of the internet is absent from much of American life in areas of lower socio-economic status. Grow the infrastructure there, present more opportunity, and you provide a potential solution for anyone who is willing to grab it and run.
Interestingly, the Pope made a plea for just this thing in his comments about Social Communication released the other day.
While Google is using it's power and proximity to ultimately get what it wants, I don't believe its goals are so different from our own. And it's nice to have the 800lb. gorilla on our side for once.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Nielsen Online Search Share Numbers
Last week, Nielsen Online came out with the search share numbers for December 2008 (PDF).
Guess who's on top?
% share of total searches
Google - 62.9%
Yahoo - 16.8%
Microsoft Live/MSN - 9.8%
AOL - 4.1%
Ask - 2.0%
While the number of searches overall jumped 19.6% from December '07, the only one of the top 5 above to lose out was Microsoft, dumping at -15.5% from the previous year.
I can't say I'm surprised. Ever since Microsoft slowly and cripplingly attempted a crossover from MSN to Live and dumped resources into mirrors of Google apps (that no one wanted because, hey, Google's already got an app for that), I've been watching the steady, systematic decline of what can only be looked at as: as X approaches infinity, Y approaches zero. We will never reach infinity in reality just as Microsoft will never reach zero. Because they're Microsoft.
Which provides a long, slow tail in which to enjoy Google walk away with their numbers like a thief in the night.
Guess who's on top?
% share of total searches
Google - 62.9%
Yahoo - 16.8%
Microsoft Live/MSN - 9.8%
AOL - 4.1%
Ask - 2.0%
While the number of searches overall jumped 19.6% from December '07, the only one of the top 5 above to lose out was Microsoft, dumping at -15.5% from the previous year.
I can't say I'm surprised. Ever since Microsoft slowly and cripplingly attempted a crossover from MSN to Live and dumped resources into mirrors of Google apps (that no one wanted because, hey, Google's already got an app for that), I've been watching the steady, systematic decline of what can only be looked at as: as X approaches infinity, Y approaches zero. We will never reach infinity in reality just as Microsoft will never reach zero. Because they're Microsoft.
Which provides a long, slow tail in which to enjoy Google walk away with their numbers like a thief in the night.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
