Posts Tagged ‘Google’

Can we really rely on social media, Google or Facebook to drive change?

October 27th, 2011 by Daniel Young | No Comments | Filed in Media, Politics, Social media

When social media came into being it generated a significant groundswell of people that believed that it would be a positive thing for society and community.

By forcing businesses to become more transparent and distributing the means of media production it was argued that our society would change for the better.

This point of view probably peaked in 2006/7 but bubbled below the surface for a lot longer than that.

I fully subscribe to this point of view.  I still do.

But there are doubts and questions in my mind.

2011 hasn’t done anything to allay my fears.

Since 2008 we’ve seen major abuses of poor by power elites and institutions in almost every sphere of our existence. Yes, these abuses have been exposed but take the global financial crisis as an example and you can see that little has actually changed despite the exposure of the wrong doers.

Over the last few weeks, we’ve seen the Occupy movement spring up but I don’t believe that any Government is actually really listening.  Yes, they have a voice.  Yes, they’ve gained some media coverage for their struggle and point of view but to what end.  Will anything really change?  The strong arm tactics employed by the police in the UK, Australia and USA would suggest that the traditional institutions still have the right to operate in the way that they see fit.

Taking a slight tangent here the one thing that really concerns me is this.

The companies that are really benefiting from social media are not complying or furthering the principles of openness and transparency upon which their industry is supposedly based.  Companies like Google and Facebook are in fact operating in very shady and opaque ways when it comes to managing information and data.

What hope is there  for greater transparency in society when the companies at the forefront of social media are acting in this way?

Marx argued that religion is the opiate of the people. Will social media one day assume this moniker?

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Search engines are amazing but also suck

October 12th, 2011 by Daniel Young | No Comments | Filed in Social media, Technology

The other day Kate said: The Internet is Amazing.

It is amazing – bloody amazing.  Its very hard to remember what life was like before the Internet.  The amount of information and the things you can do on the Internet is mind-blowing.  Search engines are amazing too – simply by virtue of the fact that they can scan all of that information in a very very short amount of time.

Search engines are a big part of the Internet.

I think that search engines have achieved an incredible feat.  They are both incredibly incredible and yet more or less completely useless.  The problem is that the search begins when you get a search engine involved, they are what the say they are – a powerful engine for searching i.e. not find engines.

Social search is supposed to be the answer to this problem.  This is where you consult your networks for answers and recommendations.  Rather than chucking keywords into Google or Bing, you put out a tweet, or go to a forum or post a question on your Facebook.  Nice idea in theory but one that falls down unless your network of friends and their brains are equally distributed across the required range of topics and experiences (which is unlikely).

The other challenge is that its not very easy – unless you’re someone like Mike Arrington, Lady Gaga or Russell Crowe – to actually get people to respond.  In my experience the people that respond in social networks are tight connections (thanks guys).  It’s rare that a distant connection responds with an answer or piece of advice via a social network – even though you know they have answers and opinions.  Its good when they do.

It’s different in the real world. People will generally give you an answer if you ask them a direct question.  Its rare that you get a mute blank stare as a response to a question or request for advice although it has happened to me once or twice in France (I drove off).

This is probably why 80% of word of mouth still takes place offline.

What is the solution to this problem – I can’t foresee a future where I ask a question on Twitter and I receive 300,000 results in 0.24 seconds and neither would I want this.

I could probably do something with (a very) Advanced Search in Google but I am not convinced it would work that well.  Natural language processing isn’t the answer either as the real problem is the amount of dud, repetitive information on the Internet.

I’d like a search engine that trawled a limited number of trusted quality sources.  I would have to chose them, though I would be open to recommendations and lists (it would be dangerous to leave the selection process to any third party).  I should have complete control over my sources and should be able to add any that I please.  Could someone create this? Have they already?

Also, has any noticed that Google News is broken?

Tags: , , , , , ,

Ignorant, stupid, disinterested? The Web will help you stay that way

May 30th, 2011 by Daniel Young | No Comments | Filed in Politics, Public Relations, Social media, Technology

The average web site gathers 64 pieces of information about you and then shapes your future experience according to the topics, interests and biases that it believes appeal to you. In this video, Eli Pariser talks about his book, The Filter Bubble, in which he takes issue with the way that google, Yahoo!, Huff Post, Facebook and other online news sides and social networks help us stay stupid, ignorant and disinterested. Pariser has also featured as a TED speaker.

I doubt that most consumers of digital media are even aware of this phenomenon. The political implications are massive.

It has significant implications for the PR and marketing industries. My first thought is that it steers marketers to advertising, which would add up given that this is the primary revenue stream for the sites in question.

http://m.democracynow.org/stories/11898

Tags: , , , ,

Mobile internet and the changing search experience

May 28th, 2011 by Daniel Young | No Comments | Filed in Search, Technology

We all expected mobile to change search and now we’re beginning to see this come to fruition. Via the seer Robert Scoble I recently learnt about two new and quite similar approaches to mobile search.

One is built into Microsoft’s l latest version of Windows Mobile, which is called Mango and the other – Do@ – is an app that will be available on multiple mobile platforms.

Both take a similar approach in that they produce results as opposed to links. Someone has already gone to the trouble if defining the best results for you.

At a macro level, google is presented with some significant challenges with its traditional approach to search, results are heavily polluted and the Google search engine leaves a lot of work with the searcher, hence the company’s  foray into social search. The other problem is that the traditional approach to search simply doesn’t lend itself to the mobile experience.

Check out these videos to learn more, that’s assuming you’ve learnt anything up to now!

Windows Mango

Do@

Tags: , , ,

Thoughts on Google Instant

September 13th, 2010 by Daniel Young | No Comments | Filed in Search, Technology

Google launched an updated search offering last week called Google Instant.

Search results appear in real-time with Google Instant, the user no longer needs to click the ‘Search’ button or press enter. Results are personalised based on search histories (if you’re signed in to a Google account).

Search results appear and are revised as search terms are entered letter by letter.

Some quick thoughts from me on what this means:

  1. Google Instant will improve search literacy – users will become adept at creating long strings of keywords.
  2. The top Google ranking positions become even more crucial for website owners. The aim for website owners has always been to rank on the first page of the Google search results.  Top ten was acceptable pre-Google Instant.  I reckon its all about the top five results now, as this is all most users will see as they modify their search terms.
  3. Companies with generic terms in their brand names may suffer as a result of Google Instant as they stand more chance of losing users along the way. The generic keyword (i.e. relating to your industry or category) will expose the user to a whole raft of competitors.
  4. Organisations need to review and improve their Search Listing (the copy that appears under each Search Results) as this may be the bait that catches the searchers eye resulting in the click you want.
  5. For advertisers, hmm…. I am not sure what this means but I don’t think its very good. It may be good for Google because it will generate more impressions but I think it means a reduced dwell time for ads overall, which I would assume is likely to drive down CTRs.
  6. Google Instant will deliver a better mobile experience, where users are typically hunting for something very specific and are less inclined to scroll – click – scroll – click.  It will work better with speech input.  This is important because mobile apps are circumventing search in some respects.  There is a need to improve the mobile experience.

Google Instant is coming to all Google properties in time.  The company is claiming that Instant will save time.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Facebook Must Change Search Engine in Order to Rival Google in Search and Discovery

February 20th, 2010 by Daniel Young | 4 Comments | Filed in Search, Social media

Recent data from Compete and comScore shows that Facebook has passed Google to become the top source of traffic to major portals.  The announcement and the resulting discussion prompted this post by Facebook, which includes the following section:

According to comScore, Google still has nearly two-thirds of the U.S. search market, but dropped a fraction of a percent from 65.7% in Dec 2009 to 65.4% in Jan 2010 [source: Information Week]. While Google is still the leader in the search space, and Facebook only accounted for just under 400 million searches in January, that is a gain of 13% over December. If this trend continues, Google may have ample reason to fear Facebook.   

The Compete data shows that Facebook is the second most popular site in the US with 134m unique visiter in January 2010, ahead of Yahoo! and just behind Google.

Facebook is in the ascendancy but the company must make changes to its own Search engine if it is to become a genuine rival to Google, the vastly dominant player in the space. 

Facebook, like other social networks, represents opportunity for brands because of the simple fact that this is where a lot of the action is taking place online, as demonstrated by slews and rising traffic.  Switched on brands are  already tapping into the Facebook community.  But Facebook Search serves marketers poorly today as a place of discovery.  Check out my search results for ‘mobile handset’:

mobile handset search

Not particularly useful.  Three users groups with 210 members between them.

No sign of the brand sponsored pages where Facebook Users can learn about new products, participate in competitions and promotions, chat with other users and potential customers, communicate directly with the company and link through to relevant pages on the Web.

The Sony Ericsson WorldPage has more than 445,ooo Fans (Sony Ericsson is a client) but the way that Facebook Search works prevents this page, which is clearly relevant to the search term, from appearing. 

This is an issue for Facebook.  

We see the same issue if we run a search for ’sneakers’:

sneakers search

The retailer Sole Provider Sneakers comes out on top here, simply by virtue of having the search term embedded in its company name (also the name of the Page).  Yet Sole Provider Sneakers sells a lot of Nike trainers and a search for ‘Nike’ would not have produced their Page in its results.

Facebook has to play a delicate balancing act here.  Ultimately, user activity, personal profiles, user content, sharing and discussion are the currency of social networks such as Facebook.  The company needs to avoid giving users the impression that they are being marketed to via the network, failure to do this could well become its undoing.

One way around this could be for Facebook to adopt a model similar to Google’s Universal Search, which would allow users to chose and filter the types of results that are presented to them via Facebook Search.  This could be built into the privacy settings that Facebook has been so keen to promote recently.

Interestingly, Google listed Facebook as a formal competitor for the first time in a recent 10K filing, as reported by SearchEngineLand:

Our business is characterized by rapid change and converging, as well as new and disruptive, technologies. We face formidable competition in every aspect of our business, particularly from companies that seek to connect people with information on the web and provide them with relevant advertising. We face competition from:

  •   Traditional search engines, such as Yahoo! Inc. and Microsoft Corporation’s Bing.
  • Vertical search engines and e-commerce sites, such as WebMD (for health queries), Kayak (travel queries), Monster.com (job queries), and Amazon.com and eBay (commerce). We compete with these sites because they, like us, are trying to attract users to their web sites to search for product or service information, and some users will navigate directly to those sites rather than go through Google.  
  • Social networks, such as Facebook, Yelp, or Twitter. Some users are relying more on social networks for product or service referrals, rather than seeking information through traditional search engines. (my emphasis)

Some subtle and simple changes to Facebook Search would accelerate the trend towards Facebook and other social networks as a primary channel for Search. 

The challenge for marketers will (continue to be) to resist the tempation to sell via social networks and to engage with social networking users in a way that adds value, build relationships, earns trust and facilitates creativity and connectivity.  Facebook will have to manage the sensitivities of its users delicately but if managed well Facebook could become a natural home to Search, delivering value to users and marketers alike. 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Microsoft takes the bait, enters discussions with News Corp

November 23rd, 2009 by Daniel Young | No Comments | Filed in Media, Search

It was pretty obvious that Rupert Murdoch’s recent announcement that News Corp would prevent its content being indexed by Google was an appeal to other search engines to step up to the plate.  I have half expected other publishers to make their own ‘anti-Google indexing’ announcements but it seems that they are keeping quiet for the time being to see what eventuates.

The FT reported today that News Corp and Microsoft are in ‘discussions’.  Microsoft is determined or desperate to catch up with Google in search, the latter being streets ahead.  Microsoft has made it clear that it will invest heavily to achieve its goals. 

Could Microsoft turn the tide in search through exclusive partnerships with publishers? 

Update: Some interesting perspectives on today’s developments…  

Tom Foremski at SiliconValleyWatcher: Is Murdoch Setting Up a Bidding War for News Corp. Index?

Danny Sullivan at Search Engine Land: Why an Exclusive WSJ Deal Wouldn’t Help Bing

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Google Sidewiki causes a PR headache

November 21st, 2009 by Daniel Young | 2 Comments | Filed in Public Relations, Social media

Julian Lee at the Sydney Morning Herald interviewed me a week or so ago for a story on Google Sidewiki and the implications for PR advisers and businesses, more generally. The story also ran in the The Age, the Melbourne daily.

Julian posed the question: Is Google Sidewiki a threat or an opportunity? I think that it is both and made the point that active participation in conversation via Sidewiki provided another PR opportunity for organisations to communicate with their customers.

I also suggested that businesses develop a policy for Sidewiki and that they publish this so that customers know what to expect when using this form of feedback. Brian Giesen makes a great suggestion when he says that companies should ‘claim’ their Sidewiki by making the first comment (if possible).

A quick scan of major corporate websites highlights the fact that Sidewiki is yet to take off in a big way. Potential commenters need the latest version of the Google Toolbar and they also need to be aware of the service. The digerati set will be well aware of this but I am not convinced that Joe Bloggs has this on their radar. There is more activity around social media related news sites and social networks, check out Facebook as an example of a active Sidewiki.

Google Sidewiki is an extension of an existing service from Google; which is the ability to place comments on search results.  This didn’t take off or hasn’t taken off as yet (it continues to be available – check out the speech bubble icon below organic search results in Google).

search resultsRadian6 announced last week that it now offers the ability to monitor Sidewiki, an important development for businesses that need now to be aware of conversation in a wide range of digital tools.

I think Sidewiki represents a major PR opportunity for small businesses, who may not necessarily want to invest in discussion boards, recommendation and feedback mechanisms for their websites but are provided a free infrastructure for exactly that via Google Sidewiki.

Sidewiki causes a PR headache

JULIAN LEE

November 13, 2009

ALREADY struggling with the mountain of blogs, forums and social networks, public relations consultants are weighing up whether a new Google tool that enables consumers to leave comments next to a brand’s website is a threat or a challenge.

Google Sidewiki gives a new and very transparent avenue for disgruntled customers to air their grievances against companies.

Travel websites already carry customer reviews of hotels and resorts.

Google says it is all about ”facilitating the conversation on the internet” between general users and experts but the PR industry is watching closely to see if Sidewiki will become as popular and as powerful a tool for opinionated internet users as Twitter and Facebook.

Gabriel McDowell, the managing director of Res Publica, said companies that failed to understand Sidewiki risked damage to their image and reputation. ”This is going to sort out the wheat from the chaff when it comes to managing corporate reputation,” Mr McDowell said.

Although Sidewiki presented ”yet another channel for them [corporations] to manage”, Daniel Young, the digital director of Burson-Marsteller, said it could be a useful tool. ”If one person has a complaint and you respond to it then, in a way you are answering others before the question has even been asked,” he says.

Brian Giesen, who heads the digital consultancy in the Asia-Pacific for Ogilvy PR, says Sidewiki could prove to be a handy way to spot potentially hot issues and the pressure groups pushing them.

”It just reinforces the need for brands to listen to such media. This is also a useful way for companies to find out who are the people who are making the comments and then to reach out to them,” said Mr Giesen, who recommends companies race to be the first to make a Sidewiki comment on a page, a privilege Google extends to website owners.

Mr McDowell said Sidewiki could also provide an avenue of redress by corporations that felt they misrepresented in the mainstream media. For example, a public relations consultant could post the entire statement given to a journalist, rather than the truncated version that might appear in an article. ”One of the major complaints about the media is the time it takes to get a correction up. This could go some way to rectifying that.”

But there are concerns that because Sidewiki is ”completely unregulated and uncontrollable”, as Mr Young put it, it will be harder for companies to sort out the legitimate complaints from the serial sledgers. Deciding on whether to answer was going to be key, he said.

Mr Giesen said Google ”needs to take greater responsibility for the comments that appear on Sidewiki”.

A spokeswoman for Google Australia said it had not received any concerns from Australian publishers. ”Website owners and publishers here and abroad have told us that they see this as another way to connect with their users, similar to conversations they’re already having on their blogs, YouTube channels, Twitter feeds and Facebook pages.”

Tags: , , , , , ,

Revenue streams for Twitter – Will Google and Microsoft provide an answer

October 9th, 2009 by Daniel Young | 1 Comment | Filed in Social media

Twitter is in advanced talks with Google and Microsoft to provide them with access to its data, according to a report in All Things Digital.  If successful, this would provide Twitter with a sizeable revenue stream, which would prevent it having to clutter the interface or alienate users by introducing advertising.

On the other hand, Twitter needs to be sensitive to perceptions around privacy of information.  Twitter uses may not be entirely comfortable with Twitter selling information about their preferences, interests, habits etc. to third parties – particularly to Microsoft and/or Google.   

Twitter would gain added legitimacy if it were added as a Vertical Search option in Google alongisde Images, News, Blogs, Maps etc.  Ultimately, Google and Microsoft are attempting to improve their access to the worldwide Web and extend the usefulness and reach of their search engines. For more on the Real-Time Web check this post by ReadWriteWeb.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Tools for understanding keyword usage and improving site rankings

August 15th, 2009 by Daniel Young | No Comments | Filed in Search

It’s a glorious morning here in Sydney and I am going to crank out a quick post before I go out for the day.

Saturday MorningLots of discussion this week about Google Caffeine and the impact that it will have on search results. There is a useful post by Matt Cutts, a Google software engineer.

Back links are one part of the search equation. Keywords are another.

Here are a few tools for assessing keyword density and usage. They can help you analyse your competitors (i.e. the people that rank higher than you) and inform your own keyword strategy. Thanks to @jimboot for some of these tips – Jim puts out a series of very useful search videos, which can be found on YouTube.

Here goes:

  • To understand what the most often used keywords within a specific website use TagCrowd. This can help you identify the words that are ranking for a competitive site.
  • For a different angle on keyword density use Keyword Counter.  You can run an analysis of an entire website.
  • For identifying related keywords use the Google Wonder wheel, which can be found in the left hand options column on any Google search results page. The Wonder wheel link can be found under ‘Standard View’. It creates a clickable spider diagram of keywords related to your original search term.
  • To check comparative results in the hottest search engines go to Bing vs. Google. Pre-Caffeine results.
  • The Google sandbox for running test searches against the new Caffeine code.

There are a plethora of tools for analysing and optimising keywords, we use Keyword Discovery and have trialled Market Samurai.

Google Wonder wheel

Tags: , , , , , , ,