Google just bought Bump, the app for iPhone and Android that transfers files, photos, and videos between your phone and your laptop. Terms of the deal were not released. The app allows you to selec...
Via Ken Morrison
Build engaged audiences through publishing by curation.
|Current selected tag: Google. Clear.|
Your new post is loading...
Google Inc.'s profit and sales are under pressure as the operator of the largest search engine struggles to wring advertising dollars from the growing number of people who surf the Web on tablets and smartphones.
A WebmasterWorld thread has several Google AdSense publishers reporting they received a message from Google to place ads at the top left of their content in order to increase ad exposure, clicks and obviously earnings...
Now, if you listen to this advice, which says, "Highlighted above is an area on the page where we think a new unit would have the greatest return," it can and should lead to a Google penalty.
I know they are separate departments, with no ties. But in no way should one Google department be telling you something that can hurt your search rankings.
Quick, think of a major tech company where top talent has been heading for the exits over the last year or more. Chances are you thought of Yahoo, right? Well, you're not wrong. But here’s the surprising thing: Google’s brain drain number is exactly the same, minus 11.
Roger McNamee says Apple became successful by betting against the Internet.
While Google adopted the cultural norms of the wired (HTML4) web by making its mobile operating system free and commoditizing content, Apple changed the game by keeping a closed system, focusing on brands and enabling paid apps.
Great infographic showing the cascading waterfall of SEO and Google's river responds to a changing Internet.
See the original at: http://www.seobook.com/learn-seo/collateral-damage.php
Via Martin (Marty) Smith
Whether you are looking to buy a power tool or neon jeans online, chances are you start your search on Google or Amazon.com. But which one?
Trying to stave off the competition from Amazon, Google has recently changed Google Shopping to require e-commerce companies to pay to be included in shopping results, so product listings are now ads. Inclusion used to be free. Seems like a bad move to me ...
In 2009, nearly a quarter of shoppers started research for an online purchase on a search engine like Google and 18 percent started on Amazon, according to a Forrester Research study. By last year, almost a third started on Amazon and just 13 percent on a search engine. Product searches on Amazon have grown 73 percent over the last year while searches on Google Shopping have been flat, according to comScore.
Robin Good: Though I had seen and scooped this article before, I must have not done a very good job of really reading it from back to back. Paul Kedroski, who wrote this over a year and half ago, really captured the historical essence of content curation on the web.
This is an absolutely must-read article for anyone wanting to grasp what is happening with content curation on the web, hwile seeing things in proper perspective.
He wrote: "What has happened is that Google's ranking algorithm, like any trading algorithm, has lost its alpha.
It no longer has lists to draw and, on its own, it no longer generates the same outperformance -- in part because it is, for practical purposes, reverse-engineered, well-understood and operating in an adaptive content landscape.
Search results ...so polluted by spam that you often started looking at results only on the second or third page...
There are two things that can happen now.
a) We could get better algorithms, which is happening to some degree, with search engines like Blekko and others.
b) Or, we could head back to curation, which is what I see happening, and watch new algos emerge on top of that next-gen curation again.
Think of Twitter as a new stab at curation, but there are plenty of other examples.
Yes, that sounds mad. If we couldn't index 100,000 websites in 1996 by hand, how do we propose to do 234-million by hand today?
The answer, of course, is that we won't -- do them all by hand, that is. Instead, the re-rise of curation is partly about crowd curation -- not one people, but lots of people, whether consciously (lists, etc.) or unconsciously (tweets, etc) -- and partly about hand curation (JetSetter, etc.).
We are going to increasingly see nichey services that sell curation as a primary feature, with the primary advantage of being mostly unsullied by content farms, SEO spam, and nonsensical Q&A sites intended to create low-rent versions of Borges' Library of Babylon.
The result will be a subset of curated sites that will re-seed a new generation of algorithmic search sites, and the cycle will continue, over and over.
In short, curation is the new search. It's also the old search."
Must read. 9/10
Via Robin Good
When Google+ was released on June 28, 2011, one question was at the forefront of every social media aficionado’s mind: has Facebook finally met its match?
But as the social networking service approaches its first birthday with 170 million-plus users, it seems that the question merits more than a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer. And through countless arguments as to whether Google+ is or is not a “Ghost Town,” one thing has become apparent: these two social network giants have amassed very different followings.
When it comes to personally connecting with old friends and scattered family members, Facebook is still the reigning champion
This Infographic, highlights some of the key differences between Google+ and Facebook pages and sharing a few tips on formulating a marketing strategy for each.
By Molly Hoffmeister – http://bit.ly/MNfdKR