Google Cries 'Antitrust' Over Internet Explorer

Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) has officially become the third browser vendor -- siding with Mozilla and Opera -- to join a European Union antitrust case against Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq: MSFT) and its Internet Explorer browser. The case asserts that Microsoft is killing competition by tying its browser to its Windows operating system. According to Microsoft, the EU is threatening the company with "a significant fine."

A blog written by Sundar Pichai, a vice president for product management at Google, explains Google's concern over the lack of competition in the browser market:

"Google believes that the browser market is still largely uncompetitive, which holds back innovation for users. This is because Internet Explorer is tied to Microsoft's dominant computer operating system, giving it an unfair advantage over other browsers."

That's right. Yet again, Google is complaining that Microsoft is stifling competition.

It sounds like, perhaps, some introductions are in order: Pot, this is Kettle; Kettle, meet Pot. Now. Could you two possibly stop suing each other?

This isn't the first time Google and Microsoft have engaged in battle -- legal, gladiatorial, and otherwise.

Google, as we well know, lobbied against Microsoft's attempt at acquiring Yahoo Inc. (Nasdaq: YHOO) last year, calling it a threat to competition in an area it dominates.

Microsoft, too, lobbied against Google's acquisition of DoubleClick and its attempt at an ad partnership with Yahoo -- which subsequently fell through.

Now Google is getting on board to complain that Microsoft holds too much market share, a stance that just sounds ever-so hypocritical in light of Google's stranglehold on search and advertising. In fact, back in April 2008, when you were first born, Internet Evolution readers voted Google the greatest Internet monopoly, with Microsoft coming in a distant second.

Further, while it is the case that Microsoft does tie its browser to its software package, it's also true that its share of the browser market has fallen from 80 percent to 68 percent over the past two years, suggesting that competition is working, and that this might be an inopportune moment to cry "antitrust."

In an interview with Internet Evolution earlier this year, Internet Explorer platform architect Chris Wilson suggested that the "Browser War" of yesteryear was, essentially, history.

"In the first round it was somewhat understandable why some people considered it a browser war: There were two clear competitors and one of them wanted to win," said Wilson. "I don't think of it that way anymore because we actually work together a lot better than we did in the past."

Turns out it might be time to buff up the old armor, yet again.

? Nicole Ferraro, Site Editor, Internet Evolution

'Normal People' Face Grave Threats Online

SAN FRANCISCO -- Web 2.0 Expo -- "The Internet cannot be safely used by normal people."

That was the message delivered by Alex Stamos, co-founder at iSEC Partners, yesterday in a session on cybersecurity.

Acknowledging his status as "a paranoid," Stamos made some unsettling statements about the current and future state of cybersecurity, which is today being challenged with new, sophisticated attacks.

Stamos stressed that most Web users shouldn't be trusted to make transactions online.

"We're past the point where I can recommend my mom use the Internet," says Stamos. "It's not possible to transact on a day-to-day basis with the level of trust you have in doing it in the physical world... Most people are not prepared to make technological decisions necessary to use the Internet."

"This is a bad problem," says Stamos. "People haven't realized yet. There's a lot of e-commerce going on, and online banking. There will be a reckoning when people realize they're not qualified to use the Internet safely."

Apart from e-commerce and banking, Stamos says that users are given way too much decision power when it comes to protecting their networks.

"It's time for us to stop asking users to make decisions they're not qualified to make," says Stamos. " 'Want to trust this SSL certificate?' There's absolutely no way 99 percent of people on this planet are qualified to make that decision.

"It's time for us to get past giving people choices. Choices are done... Software should work securely. If it's not, it should stop. Stop letting people do dumb things."

Further, despite the overall air of excitement surrounding social media here at the Web 2.0 Expo, Stamos says the new technology is making us much more vulnerable and setting users up for disaster.

"Social networks are ruining two-factor authentication," he says, suggesting that all of the questions banking sites use for authentication can likely be answered by checking someone's Facebook page.

" 'Where did you go on your honeymoon?' Hmm... Go to Facebook, pull the photos, and guess. The idea this is real secure authentication by banks is ridiculous. We're going to see some interesting ideas when it turns out that 500 to 600 people have access to data."

As cyber-attacks become more sophisticated, and users remain unqualified to handle them, Stamos believes, law enforcement and the security industry aren't doing nearly enough to help.

"We've had 20 years of people being security experts," says Stamos. "Things are even worse than they were."

Part of the problem, he says, is that people in the security industry who do valuable work aren't being rewarded.

"People are not getting rewarded for doing positive things. When people do come up with solutions they immediately go get a VC and sell the product for $500,000 to enterprises only. Lots of solutions out there are not affordable or usable by most people."

Further, he says, software engineers are not taking advantage of the education available to help them do their jobs better, nor are they being forced to learn, with most entry-level software engineers not getting trained in security for the first few years on the job.

"The basic knowledge for building more secure systems is out there. If you choose to be an educated developer you have the ability to do things right." Nevertheless, "technological innovations to make software better are starting to drop off.

"Software engineering still sucks. It's not really engineering," says Stamos. "If bridges were engineered like software we'd all be dead."

? Nicole Ferraro, Site Editor, Internet Evolution

Stop the Madness: The Web Is Not Changing Leadership

With the birth of social media, enterprise social networking, micro-blogging, and all things Web Two-Dot-Ugh came this crazy idea that we were somehow "flattening the hierarchy" and recreating leadership.

This theory was abundant at the Web 2.0 Expo last week in San Francisco, where Web lovers of all stripes came to talk about the way the Web is changing our idea of the world and, particularly, who runs it.

"Technology was very important, and now I think it's swinging toward humanity," said John Maeda, president of the Rhode Island School of Design (RISD) in a talk entitled "Open Source Administration."

"That's why social media is so meaningful today. We want to be human again. It's a wonderful problem to have."

Maeda went on to describe the way he runs his (pardon me, not his, "everyone's!") university, which he considers a "social media campus" as exemplified by the screens placed across campus where students and faculty can post images or text for free -- and download any of the shots as screensavers.

He also has a blog and invites students to participate. Tuesday is "Anonymous Day," when students can post comments on the blog without revealing their name. "I found it's no longer my blog. It's the community's blog," Maeda gushed.

"With this kind of mechanism we're able to erode the idea of leadership in the 20th century. You all represent this new thing. This weirdness where suddenly you can talk to anybody now -- one of my VP's sons just Friended me on Facebook. It's strange but all possible!"

What's stranger, still, is that anyone buys into this hogwash.

I can't think of how many times I've heard vendor pitches suggesting that their social media products are "flattening the hierarchy" in the enterprise. Don't also forget that Web 2.0 is changing leadership, not just in the office, but in America. You know Barack Obama? Yeah, he's my Facebook Friend and, thereby, not the boss of me.

Has everyone gone mad?

OK. Sure. Things are a little different now. I've now been granted this unprecedented right to Poke my boss on Facebook. I can possibly even be a part of a conversation with our CEO on Twitter, or on our internal wiki. But does this really "erode the idea of leadership"?

Maybe there's a new accountability factor. Maybe it humanizes people in a way, connecting tech-savvy execs with the staff they would otherwise not come to know. And maybe that's a good thing.

But none of this changes who the leaders are or that they're in charge. When our execs sign off Twitter and retire to those boardrooms to determine who is next to get axed, we're still on the outside, in our cubes, disconnected. Online and off, the hierarchy remains intact.

All things considered, then, does the Web really "change" leadership, or does it just give it a friendlier guise?

? Nicole Ferraro, Site Editor, Internet Evolution

Google VP Talks Mobile, Sidesteps Twitter Speculation

SAN FRANCISCO -- Web 2.0 Expo -- Taking the stage today with Tim O?Reilly, Google?s vice president of engineering Vic Gundotra emphasized the world's move to mobile, calling mobile "the most personal of all personal computers."

"If you think back just as recently as a few years ago, if you wanted to get an app on a phone you had to get it through the OEM, maybe your carrier locked down the phone, maybe it was so complicated you couldn?t figure it out," said Gundotra. "All those barriers have started to fall. Leadership from people like Apple made it incredibly simple to install apps."

Gundotra called forth a poignant moment in his life that helped him realize the importance of mobile and his destiny at Google. When prompted with a question he didn't know the answer to, his four-year-old daughter asked him "Where?s your phone?"

"In her brief four years of life watching her dad she assumed anytime you didn't know the answer to a question you brought out your phone and Googled the question," he said. "To her the phone was the ultimate answering machine." (Sniff!)

But the future is about more than simply Googling for an answer.

"In five years these devices will do amazing things with the camera -- recognize objects, friends," said Gundotra. "We?ll start to get to a point where devices become our agents, our friends, will understand our calendars, will support us with advice, will take notes for us..."

Will clip our toenails, bathe us, carry out our hit jobs... wait, what?

Gundotra placed particular emphasis on the importance of using open Web standards in the mobile space. "The Internet is controlled by none of us, so it belongs to all of us. In the end if you can?t reach consensus, no one adopts the standard. No one controls the Internet."

"But you want to try," quipped conference host and noted japester Tim O?Reilly.

When it came time in the Q&A to use Google Moderator, O?Reilly?s preferred method for getting questions from the audience, the question pool was quite shallow -- registering 19 votes on 7 questions (including three from me) from 11 people -- as were some of the answers.

Taking the first question (from yours truly) O?Reilly asked Gundotra the question on everyone's lips "Is Google buying Twitter?"

"I?m a big fan of Twitter and, yes, scaling would help there. But we don?t as a policy comment on rumor or speculation," he quasi-replied. (Read: We?re open? except when we?re not. LOL!)

"But it?s not a rumor anymore..." O?Reilly persisted.

"I'm friends with Michael [Arrington] and Kara [Swisher] and I?m enjoying their conversation but have no comment," said Gundotra.

? Nicole Ferraro, Site Editor, Internet Evolution

Web 2.0 Expo Ditches Twitter for Google

SAN FRANCISCO -- Web 2.0 Expo -- The new hot thing to do at tech conferences, despite the oft-scarce WiFi access, is gather questions and comments from the audience using the Web.

At the Web 2.0 Expo yesterday, ignoring the row of lonely microphones lining the keynote ballroom, Tim O'Reilly used Twitter to generate questions in advance of his interview with Steven Elop, president of the Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq: MSFT)'s Business Division. Tweeters with questions for Elop posted them online, adding the "hashtag" #w2e.

I've typically seen conferences use Twitter, so I was surprised this morning to read this Tweet from O'Reilly: "Live audience questions via twitter worked pretty well w @selop at #w2e yesterday, but we're trying Google Moderator today for @EllnMllr."

Immediately I wondered "Why?" and thought of all the angles I could take here on O'Reilly's newfound Twitter scorn (Tim O'Reilly Replaced by Twitter-Hating Doppelganger!), but he quickly followed up with: "Advantage of Google Moderator is voting up questions. Someone should build an app like this for twitter, or G should add to Moderator."

A valid point about the switch to Moderator: Using Twitter to generate questions doesn't really work if you're trying to do a crowdsourcing thing. For that, something like Google Moderator, where attendees can vote questions up or down, works better. (Although it didn't generate too much interest: The tool registered 314 votes on 22 questions from 36 people, with the most popular question generating a total of 11 positive votes.)

But this brings up one of the most interesting problems with Twitter: Without the effort of the community around it to make more of it, it's a pretty basic, if not nearly functionless, tool.

O'Reilly pointed out yesterday in his keynote that Twitter is a great example of the "power of less," calling it an "incredibly simple application that has led to all kinds of innovation as people rushed in to do the kinds of things Twitter themselves had not done."

In an interview over the summer, Twitter's lead API Alex Payne confirmed that the site had certainly been used in ways it wasn't intended or expected. The other day he said he's still amazed at the industry's obsession with making more of Twitter. "It's a weird industry around it. What's been really strange lately is a number of big companies that have their own products that have been working on Twitter side projects," said Payne. "That just wows me."

But it's also a wonder what we actually want Twitter to be and whether it can handle it. As Payne told us the other day, third-party applications demanding too much of its servers are largely responsible for its downtime. O'Reilly's distress that Twitter wasn't able to perform a function it was never intended to do sort of begs the question: Is it really Twitter everyone really loves? Or is it the fact that Twitter is so purposeless on its own that it can virtually be anything that makes it appealing?

? Nicole Ferraro, Site Editor, Internet Evolution

Most Readers Not Jumping on Google Voice

If you asked the Google-snuggling news media and bloggers who they thought would migrate to Google's new voice service, judging from their coverage, their answer would probably be, "Everyone, Duh!"

But a poll last week on Internet Evolution suggests otherwise.

According to our highly-unscientific, yet colorful, statistics, nearly 70 percent of our readers are not jumping on the Google bandwagon, with 40 percent taking a "wait and see" approach to the service, and 28 percent saying they wouldn't use Google Voice at all. Ever.

Also of note is that more than half of our poll respondents appear to be split on opposite sides of the spectrum, with the aforementioned 28 percent shunning the service entirely, and a separate 26 percent saying they're absolutely on board.

This split is also emphasized in message board comments where Internet Evolution readers have provided varied opinions about Google's jump into voice services.

"The sooner we can switch all calls to voice mail and re-route voice mail to e-mail the better," says a seemingly pleased Mike Acker.

"With all the emphasis [on unified communications] in the enterprise, Google Voice is a logical move and, for Google, a smart one," writes sbondy.

"Google belongs in the voice comm. business about as much as AT&T belongs in the Web Search game," suggests J DAmbrosio.

"One butt... too many chairs," says a succinct Mashka of Google's ubiquity.

Nevertheless, with 40 percent of our readers curious about Voice but more likely to wait until it actually takes off, we can speculate that plenty of people have seen the high and low points of Google's other beta projects, which simply could not sustain the hype.

And rightfully so: A Wall Street Journal reporter testing the service recently wrote that the voicemail-to-text feature, one of the most hyped attributes, translated only about 75 percent of the words accurately, with most of her messages confusing in text. (She writes that "Hey Courtney, it's Monique" read "Hey Connie, it's Bernie." She's splitting hairs there, I think.)

On the other hand, perhaps our poll takers are less concerned about Google's capability in Voice and just agree more with ThinkerNetter David Silversmith, who says, "I want a choice that says 'Yes. I trust Google implicitly with my voice communications as much as I trust my current vendors.' "

And we can all agree that kind of implicit trust is just plain bad for you.

? Nicole Ferraro, Site Editor, Internet Evolution

The End of the Web 2.0 Free-for-All

The latest moves by the Associated Press toward putting a stranglehold on its content online, making it unavailable to other online publications who aren't paying for it, signals the impending end to the free-for-all that's defined Web 2.0.

The backstory is that for months the AP -- a cooperative with more than 1,400 U.S. newspaper members -- has griped that its content is unfairly used online. The first publicized incident occurred in June when the AP sent the Drudge Retort a cease-and-desist letter for excerpting and linking to its content. The debate was heightened this week when in a statement and at its annual meeting the AP affirmed that it will pursue legal action against online publications that use its material without paying for it or at least sharing revenue.

"We can no longer stand by and watch others walk off with our work under some very misguided, unfounded legal theories," said Dean Singleton, AP chairman, in a statement. "We are mad as hell, and we are not going to take it anymore."

The AP's issue is with publications that excerpt and link to its content, and with search engines, like Google News, which aggregate news stories that may be using the AP's content without paying for it.

And while we know it's hard to take seriously anyone who quotes Network in an annual statement, there's good reason for concern.

Over the last few days there's been much back and forth contesting the AP's argument, with Google saying its search engine is good for news organizations, The New York Times questioning whether Yahoo is more of a friend to AP than Google is, and experts like ThinkerNetter Scott Hilton exploring the legal issues.

But regardless of the finger-pointing, the underlying theme is clear: AP does not want to share its content with those who aren't paying for it, and that changes things drastically.

The news organization is taking a lot of heat for not playing by the rules of the digital age, but it certainly isn't alone. YouTube has been dealing with similar anger from the large networks who, oddly enough, don't want their content stolen and uploaded on its site. Despite our collective delusion, the content of the world does not belong to everyone, and, yes, the people who pay for it do mind when you're making money on it and they aren't. Crazy, we know.

AP's harsh tactics and legal threats are out of step with how the Internet works, which is why this is such a big deal. Most organizations operate under the pretense that excerpting and linking back to content is fair game on the Web.

But, despite our cries, the facts are clear: If organizations like the AP take a stand against this whole free-for-all, where what's mine is yours and what's yours is ours, it will signal the end of Web 2.0.

We can stomp our feet as we like and call the AP out of touch, but we can't shun them completely and think the Web can otherwise survive. Without content from the big guys -- the news organizations, the networks -- the Web as we've come to know it does not exist. The large organizations operate as separate entities, and the underdogs who've been making some form of money off of them have to figure out how to stand on their own or share the little revenue they have for access.

When the people providing the content wake up to that fact, as the AP has, and start to pull it out from under the rest of us, that's when reality will settle in for those whose livelihood and business model rely on its availability.

? Nicole Ferraro, Site Editor, Internet Evolution
Channel: Digital content & entertainment, Web 2.0
Tags: Blogs, Google, RSS, Search ...

YouTube: Google's Not-So-Little Money Pit

Putting aside the fun of having one's logo associated with hours of mind-numbing online entertainment, what exactly is the point of Google (Nasdaq: GOOG)'s continued support of YouTube Inc. ?

The more we analyze these companies, the more it's apparent their relationship is mutually unsuccessful. Despite Google's power over search and advertising, YouTube has yet to see meaningful revenues; and for its support of YouTube, Google is losing up to $1.65 million per day.

Those are the numbers derived by ThinkerNet contributor David Silversmith in a blog today on Internet Evolution. Using data from Google, Bear Stearns & Co. Inc. , Credit Suisse , and comScore Inc. , Silversmith found that Google is spending up to $2,064,054 a day, or $753 million annualized, to support YouTube's traffic. This is alarming, considering YouTube's revenue projections fall somewhere between $90 million and $240 million, according to analyst estimates. In that sense, Google is spending $1 to $2 on each YouTube visitor.

(Check out Silversmith's blog here: Google Losing up to $1.65M a Day on YouTube.)

Some of our readers and staffers have been discussing this on the message boards today, providing their version of what exactly this means for Google and the future of YouTube. While some suggest that this is just another example of Google failure outside the search and advertising space, others insist the YouTube model is strategic and that a real revenue plan will eventually come.

Regardless of how firm your faith in Google is, one thing is clear: When you watch a YouTube video, it is costing Google money. The more popular YouTube gets, the more money Google will lose. Somehow I don't think that's how a successful business is supposed to work.

Apart from making a dramatic shift in how YouTube works -- i.e., charging users to upload/watch videos -- Google's hopes of turning a profit on the site seem bleak.

So it might, in theory, be time for Google to rid itself of YouTube, a company it paid $1.65 billion for in 2006 -- but how? At this point, YouTube has proven to be something of a mess, acquiring one lawsuit after another, unprofitable partnerships, failed attempts at advertising, and the burden of paying for and supporting every wannabe Internet star's maniacal rants set to video. What company could afford to acquire YouTube's mess, and why would it want to?

As we dig ourselves deeper into this Web two-dot-hole, defined by building an audience without worrying about the revenue factor, it's becoming apparent -- all over again -- that this just doesn't work. If it did work, then YouTube wouldn't be currently backpedaling, seeking out network partnerships, ? la Hulu LLC , which had its revenue model from the start.

Does YouTube offer value to its users? Absolutely. But is that value enough to make it a sustainable, profitable business? Sadly, the numbers speak for themselves.

? Nicole Ferraro, Site Editor, Internet Evolution
Channel: Consumer Internet, Digital content & entertainment, Web 2.0
Tags: Blogs, Google, Video

New Models for YouTube as Google Revenues Decline

News of a decline in Google's revenues, new partnerships for YouTube, and the prospect of subscriptions for premium video content all point to the heavy burden the profitless, money-sucking YouTube has injected into Google's balance sheet.

While Google (Nasdaq: GOOG)'s first quarter '09 revenues rose 6.2 percent to $5.51 billion from $5.19 billion a year ago, they declined 3 percent from the fourth quarter of '08, marking Google's first revenue decline in consecutive quarters since the company went public.

Internet Evolution reported earlier this week that Google is losing up to $1.65 million per day on YouTube, effectively paying for each visitor that comes to the site. With its first decline in revenues in five years, and pressure from video competitors like premium content site Hulu LLC , Google is feeling the combined effects of the economy and its very expensive, not at all profitable pet, YouTube Inc. (Thanks to Mashka for the metaphor!)

And recent news from both Google and YouTube suggests they sense the urgency as well.

Yesterday YouTube said it has rolled out a Hulu-like channel for full-length content -- television shows and movies -- through a deal with some Hollywood studios, including Sony, Lions Gate, and MGM, to share advertising revenues. The site will run in-stream ads against full-length content.

Further, in an interview with The New York Times, Google CEO Eric Schmidt said his firm may, in the future, ask users to pay for other premium content (not necessarily the content on that channel) via subscriptions or micropayments.

But it's questionable how well this will actually work. At this point, YouTube's new content channel has an odd array of shows and movies to choose from, including The Addams Family, I Dream of Jeannie, and Married With Children. (I'm not exactly hearing "cha-ching" here...)

A subscription model could work, but Schmidt said the site would only charge a fee for some premium content, and would exclude all user-generated content (UGC). Surely no one would pay to watch kitty clip puppy's toenails, but without UGC, analysts estimate that monetizable content on YouTube makes up only 3 to 10 percent of its database.

It's unclear whether there is a profitable model for YouTube. And as the site shifts its focus to premium content, the You that made YouTube so popular in the first place may just get lost in the mix.

? Nicole Ferraro, Site Editor, Internet Evolution

Seeking More User Data, Google Targets Egomaniacs

Obsessed with yourself, much? Ever curious about what the online masses have to say about you? Google is well aware of your egomania and, with a new product release called Google Me, is using it against you.

Before we get into details, let's take a moment to acknowledge that most, if not all of us, have Googled ourselves. I admit it. I regularly scan the Web to find out who is mad at me and how I'm ranking in comparison to other Nicole Ferraros out there.

People search hasn't been a strong point for Google. Self-obsessed Web users are always complaining that their search results may portray them unfavorably and/or turn up the wrong person with the same name. Rude!

Google Me offers the chance to change that by giving people the opportunity to determine what others find when they search for them... sort of.

I say "sort of" for a couple of reasons. First off, in order to beef up one's Google presence, Google is asking people to create Google Profiles. A Google Profile is essentially a spot where Web users can list some information about themselves and links to their other online presences. (See mine here.)

Google's new push for people to create Profiles is being seen as an attempt for Google to steal thunder from sites like LinkedIn, where people typically go to search for basic information: job titles, contact information, etc.

Further, once you create that Profile, a search for your name will place the Profile at the bottom of the page, not the top. So the searcher will be privy to a string of other search results before even getting to your Profile with your desired information. (Defeating the purpose much?)

That is... of course... if your Profile actually shows up. Google will only display four Profiles for one name on the main page. If you have a common name, like... Bob Smith, you will have to compete with all the other Googleable Bob Smiths out there for the top four slots. And how do you do that? Why, by giving Google more data, of course!

Yes, that's the catch: The more data you provide in your Profile, the more likely it is to show up. And that's why the name of this game is Evil.

Here's what else is irritating: A Google Profile is a Web page and therefore has a URL. Rather than giving users the opportunity to create their own URL names, users either are stuck with a loooong string of numbers or a "vanity URL" -- better known as their personal Gmail address.

We can stop short and bow down at Google for giving us the tools to bolster our Web presence... or we can dig a little deeper and recognize the sneakery here. In order to boost that presence, you need a Google Profile. In order to make that Profile visible, you need to provide more information about yourself.

In the end it's up to the user to decide whether shining up their Web presence is worth forking over more data to Google. My cynical guess is that most interested users will consider that an acceptable tradeoff. I'd love to be proven wrong.

? Nicole Ferraro, Site Editor, Internet Evolution

Survey Uncovers Apathy for Facebook Governance

In an attempt to appease its critics by feigning democracy, Facebook gave users a week to vote on a set of governing documents for the site. The results are in and... survey says... no one actually cares all that much about Facebook's Terms of Service.

About a week ago, in keeping a promise to give users the opportunity to help govern the site, Facebook put two sets of its terms up for a vote: the September 2008 version, and a revised set of terms based on user feedback.

The voting closed yesterday, and, after all was said and done, the Facebook terms were voted on by a whopping 0.32 percent of the Facebook population, or 600,000 users. (Facebook claims a population of over 200 million.) Out of that barely half of a percentage who voted, 74.4 percent cast their vote for the revised set of terms.

According to the rules originally proposed by Facebook, the site was not going to abide by the vote unless at least 30 percent of its user base bothered to participate. "Facebook has an international user base, and we didn't want a vocal minority to be driving any decisions," Facebook spokesperson Barry Schnitt told Internet Evolution in March of the decision to require 30 percent.

Well it looks like that's exactly what is happening. Going against its own word, Facebook is respecting the vote of the 0.3 percent who weighed in and considering throwing out the 30 percent rule.

According to a Facebook blog:

We'd hoped to have a bigger turnout for this inaugural vote, but it is important to keep in mind that this vote was a first for users just like it was a first for Facebook. We are hopeful that there will be greater participation in future votes. In the meantime, we're going to consider lowering the 30-percent threshold that the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities establishes for a user vote to be binding.

Ugh. Facebook. Can we say missed opportunity?

Facebook has every right to govern its site however it wants. From a business standpoint, requiring 30 percent of its users to vote was smart, as it set Facebook up for an opportunity to take power back from its whiny users once they proved to be apathetic.

Instead, rather than sticking to its guns, Facebook has backtracked on the 30 percent requirement. Perhaps this was an attempt to avoid further media backlash, which would have surely pinned Facebook as evil for not catering to the 600,000 users who bothered to participate.

But maybe it's time Facebook stops pandering to its every critic and focuses on building a business.

Apart from shining light on Facebook's weakness, this whole experiment just proves how little the majority of Web users actually care about activism. We're all very good at complaining, pointing fingers, going stark raving mad in 140 characters or less. But when it comes down to actually doing something, well, we just can't be bothered.

? Nicole Ferraro, Site Editor, Internet Evolution

What an Open Stream API Means for Facebook

Lovers of the open Web rejoiced yesterday when Facebook rolled out its Open Stream API, giving developers the opportunity to create third-party applications that tap into the Facebook "activity stream" of user updates. But whether this is just another step into the abyss for Facebook remains to be seen.

Thanks to the Open Stream API, Facebook users will be able to use third-party clients to access and post Facebook updates -- including new photos, videos, pertinent changes to one's status, etc. -- all without ever having to go to Facebook.com.

Opening up its activity stream is another move by Facebook that mimics the look and feel of its younger, hipper cousin, Twitter Inc. , whose API has been open from day one, leading to innumerable third-party clients for mobile (TwitterBerry), desktop (TweetDeck), and niche (StockTwits) interests. One analysis shows that 55 percent of Twitter's traffic comes from third-party applications.

Twitter application TweetDeck recently updated its client to include Facebook status updates, allowing TweetDeck users to stay abreast of short, mundane updates from their Facebook Friends alongside those same sorts of brain burps from their Twitter Followers. But now, with the Open Stream API, developers will be able to take the process a step further, allowing Facebook users to also update their Facebook accounts from the comfort of an external application. (Woo! Stop me now before I get too excited!)

Third-party applications for Twitter have largely contributed to its newfound growth and popularity -- but they've also contributed to its regular downtime. While Facebook doesn't appear to have the scalability problems Twitter has, Facebook's still struggling with monetization.

For a company that's looking for a business model that works, deflecting traffic from its home page -- where advertisers buy retail space -- seems counter-intuitive. Attracting fewer eyeballs could be detrimental to both Facebook and to the advertisers that invest time and money in marketing to an audience that may not be there anymore.

This shift could make for a bad experience for users as well. As Facebook diverts attention away from its homepage, it may have to compensate by figuring out new revenue models, such as in-stream advertisements.

Some have tossed around the idea of in-stream ads for Twitter as well, but Twitter adamantly opposes the idea, thinking ads detrimental to the user experience and potentially ineffective.

Twitter's Alex Payne told Internet Evolution this month that simply committing to the "tried and true" advertising model on Twitter, which is sure to upset users, doesn't seem like the right move, particularly considering the lack of success other social media sites are having in that vein. "We have five to 10 things we could do," he said. "We just don't want to alienate our users."

In an editor's blog yesterday, we discussed the potential for the free Web 2.0 model to survive and thrive in the future. As the Web opens up, with highly trafficked sites like Facebook diverting eyeballs away from their home pages, the monetization problem is only bound to get more complicated. It may not be long before we see Facebook and others recognize the need to explore revenue models beyond advertising in order to survive.

? Nicole Ferraro, Site Editor, Internet Evolution

Google Puts the Brakes on Saving the World

The screeching halt of Google (Nasdaq: GOOG)'s "Project 10 to the 100th," suggests that, for Google, saving the world is just too time consuming.

Project 10 to the 100th (or Project 10100), launched last September, was an effort by Google to both celebrate its 10th birthday and -- while they were at it -- save the world. (All in a day's work...) Prompting people with the missive "How many people could your idea help?" the project commissioned ideas for changing the world and offered $10 million in funding to the best ones to help make them a reality.

Here's a pretentious fun video promoting the project:

While we tend to pick on Web users for their apathy, it turned out that lots of people actually did care enough to share their philanthropic ideas. So many, in fact, that Google simply can't handle reviewing them.

The deadline for submissions was October 20, 2008. Semifinalists were to be announced in late January, after which the Internet public would get a chance to vote for their favorites, which were then to be narrowed down by an advisory board and revealed to the Earth as winner by mid-February -- the scheduled date for ultimate world-saving on Google's dime.

Well... let's hope the ideas weren't time-sensitive, because it seems this project has come to a halt. After first delaying the semifinalist announcement until March, Google then posted verbiage putting off the vote indefinitely:

Thank you to everyone who submitted an idea. We received over 150,000!

Due to the enthusiastic response we received, it's taking us longer than we expected to review all the ideas. Check back later, or sign-up to receive an email update when we've announced the top ideas.

You got that, needy folk? "Check back later" -- oh, and try not to die until then. Bad for our image.

Responding to an inquiry from Internet Evolution as to how far along Google is in the judging process and when the winner(s) would be announced, a Google spokeswoman provided no date, instead telling us the following:

We unfortunately have had to delay announcing the top ideas for Project 10^100 for a while longer. We've never managed a project like this and it's taken more time than we ever imagined possible. We apologize for our over optimistic assumptions about how quickly we could analyze all the ideas that we've received, and thank everyone for their patience. We'll continue posting updates on the Official Google Blog.

Isn't it convenient that, for its 10th birthday, Google got its usual gift: Endless love from the media, which it used to flaunt its latest fruitless endeavor in changing the world. As far as the delivery on that promise goes, however, well, Google will have to get back to you.

Perhaps in the meantime, then, Google could do its part to save the world by shutting down, thereby eliminating the carbon emissions from its private jet?

Just a suggestion.

But, yes, do take your time, Google. It's not as if anyone's lives are at stake or anything.

Oh, wait...

? Nicole Ferraro, Site Editor, Internet Evolution

Optimizing Across the Web April 15th, 2009

Articles can be used for SEO purposes to create a ?brand? in a relatively short period of time. It increases the information posted on the web about your company, making more people aware of your website and encouraging them to learn more about it.

Every article you write can be distributed across the web. Many websites will host articles for free, or you can publish them on your own website. In one case your are adding new content; ion the other, you are getting a one-way link from the article.

Every article you publish online should have a section about the author (you) and an active link. Several article sites even allow you to embed links in the article.

Articles also add fresh, new content to the web, so you may want to repurpose your work for each site, rewriting for the same information so you don?t end up with mass duplication. You should structure your articles naturally but still include selected keywords for SEO. This will put you in the running for top rankings on the search engines for your keywords.

You can use an article submission site, article submission software, or manually submit articles to sites that cover your topic of interest. Manual submissions of rewritten articles to different sites is the best, as you can rest assured there are no glitches. A million submissions won?t help you unless they are targeted - by picking only the largest venues you save time and get your articles in a place with the most visibility.

You can also become involved in discussions and question and answer sites, promoting yourself as a reliable expert in the process. ?Mini-articles? written as a quick answer can be a terrific way to inform potential customers about a specific product or service - in fact, most shoppers turn to online sources before buying, so this is your excellent prospect fro free marketing with targeted customers.

If you build a Hub, a Squidoo lens, a portfolio of articles on different sites, etc, you can also rake in a little extra cash from ad revenue - which can help offset the costs of rewrites if you decide to hire a fledgling SEO to provide you with original content to post.

Top Ten Content Tips to SEO Your Site: April 23rd, 2009

There are a series of things you can do with your content to make your site more search engine friendly. Don?t ever sacrifice user friendliness, but do find ways to combine visitor helpfulness with search engine accessibility.

1.Research your keywords and develop a niche market. Targeting your audience is half the battle.

2.Write landing page copy that reminds visitors of their problem, offers a solution and presents a call to action. That is the other half of the battle.

3.Provide helpful, to the point information that is on topic and that will generate interest in the rest of your site as well.

4.Use keywords naturally in your text ? if you can, pinpoint one primary (to be used in the title, the first and the last paragraph) and several secondary phrases (to be sprinkled in where appropriate and unobtrusive).

5.Add content often. You can get indexed more often if you add content more often.

6.Make sure your content is readable, and doesn?t contain too much flash. High concentrations of textual content help the spiders know what your site is about.

7.Share your content, and become an expert. Be helpful to people, and your site will become viewed as helpful.

8.Spread content across the web, through articles sites, blogs, Squidoo lenses, etc.

9.Remember that content does no-one any good if no-one sees it. Publicize yourself and people will read your content.

10.Content is King. Content is information. That is what the Internet is ? the information superhighway. Never forget that your content is for people to search for and benefit from.

Do a good job optimizing your content, and people will start regarding your site as a wealth of information!

Video Optimization May 26th, 2009

Online video content has increased rapidly in popularity, and users are now learning to conduct visual searches. Website owners can produce home based videos in order to reach their target audience; when marketed properly with correct SEO strategies then you will get quick results with such videos and jump to the top of these visual search engines (such as Viewzi)



Most search engines are designed to index text and assess web pages - they cannot read images or videos. Your answer? Place your video in the middle of the page, surrounded by as much text as possible. The text around the video should be keyword rich. This is the place to optimize your title and the transcript (some sites have flash based transcripts of the images or videos - this is bad when it comes to SEO. You should put the transcript in a format that can be ready by the search engines.

Now, this one may seem like a no-brainer - but when people search for videos they nearly always add the word video in their search. For example, ?kitchen sink install video? might be entered. The text that you are using around the video should contain this word as one of the main keywords, and you should also target it in your description, page title and keywords list in the meta data.

Point to your video with as many link as possible both internally from your website as well as other locations. Don?t forget to add a video sitemap so search engines know where to look for video content; this will get your videos indexed faster. Put the main keywords in the URL when you upload the video file, rather than using a random naming system - you don?t want ambiguous URLs. When you upload videos, store all video files in a single directory for speed and convenience for both you and the search engines

When you have your videos on a page with competing videos, include an attention getting thumbnail so that your video attracts the users. Allow users to add reviews about your video, comment on it and leave feedback. You should moderate the user feedback and reviews, and glean what info you can about the customer base. This also adds fresh content to your site!

Use videos wisely - they can be a powerful tool!

Google Wave Developer Preview at Google I/O 2009

SEO Step By Step Guide? 33. Different Ways of Getting Back Links February 9th, 2009

There are number of ways of getting back links for your website these days and number of link building strategies continue to increase with the increasing importance of back links.

Some of the link building methods include:
Directory submission
Article submission
Social book marking - Content oriented sites
Blogs
Forums
Social networking sites

Press releases

By submitting our websites to relevant link directories will both increase the traffic as well as you back links. This is a one-way link building strategy. There is no need to exchange any links here.

Another popular way of building links is article submission. Here you create interesting article regarding your website?s services or products and post them in article directories. All article directories allow free submissions. Some of the article directories require you to signup for a free account and need you to confirm your link while others will allow you to submit your articles without any signup. All the article directories allow you to add live links in the article resource box. When it comes to adding links in the body text, some of the sites allow live links in the article body while limiting the total number of links that you can use within the article body. There are number of article directories that do not allow you to use links in the article body. Each article directory will have their own submission guidelines and approval process. Though this involves lot more effort than directory submissions, it certainly pays back richly.

Besides these, there are other effective link building strategies and they can be categorized under social bookmarking. There are content oriented sites like Digg and Delicious where you can share your newsworthy stories. These sites too get good attention from the search engines for the freshness of their content.

Posting blog articles and commenting in blog sites that allow users to comment on the articles posted is one of the effective ways of building links. This brings in quality contextual links for your website. Similarly posting in forums and taking part in forum discussions will bring links for your website. Forums allow you to add signatures with links to your websites. Some forums will expect you to make a certain number of posts before you can use active links in your signature.

You can also make use of social networking sites or community sites that allow users to post content, videos etc. Using social networking sites to build links is one of the fastest ways of getting indexed links. Social networking sites or community sites get heavy visitor traffic and they also have fresh content posted regularly. This makes search engine spiders to visit these sites frequently.

As you can see, there are so many ways of building your website?s links. All these new strategies has made link exchange campaigns very unpopular because all the above methods bring us one-way links.

SEO Step By Step Guide? 100. Do domain extensions have any special role to play? May 16th, 2009

This is one of the crucial questions among the SEO professionals and the responses are more speculative than definitive. This is one of the areas that is not been subjected to enough research. For those who are wondering what we are referring here, all of us would have come across various types of domain names such as .com, .net, .edu, .org, .gov etc as the second part of website?s domain name. Many of us wonder whether these domain name extensions have any special significance to our website?s SEO or ranking.

We can come across a number of varied opinions among the SEO experts. Some of them say that it is just an SEO myth and they do not matter to the search engines. Whereas others say that certain domain extensions have special significance for our website?s ranking. For example extensions such as .edu, .org, .gov etc. are considered to be more authoritative and they seem to get better ranking. However there are others who argue that they are considered as authority sites not because they are of certain TLD extensions but they have more references online making them have stronger online presence and better back link counts.

Certain SEO experts feel that domain names that are specific to countries such as .co.uk, .com.au, .in, etc., may be of special significance to websites that are country specific. If your website sells products or services that are country specific then it is better to go for domain names that are specific to our country. Today we have a longer list of options than before. Though there may be varied views against the TLDs, we will not lose anything by choosing an appropriate domain name. In case search engine?s should make a difference or implement something along those lines we will stand to gain. You must also remember that you cannot purchase all domain types as an individual or as a business owner. For example individuals cannot purchase .gov extensions. Therefore, you must first choose your domain TLD before you start working on your website?s content and design.

However, most commercial sites seem to prefer .com for their domain TLD. Also, when people make random searches for a business, they first search with .com extension and only when they don?t find the site in .com extension they will try to look for other extensions. Since .com was one of the first TLDs that we have known, it is more easily remembered and preferred over other domain extensions though they may not have any special significance on our ranking. Some of the extensions have been noted for their spammy behavior for example .info domain names are notorious for the spam mails that they generate. Incidentally, the cost of .info domains is much cheaper to register so this might have prompted the spammers to go for .info domains.

Sent to the Sandbox March 11th, 2009

Is the Google Sandbox still around? What exactly is it, and what does it mean for new webmasters?

Google Sandbox was a term used by many to describe the period of time a site used to languish between launch and a solid appearance on Google, accompanied by PageRank and all the benefits thereof. Some sites under various penalties were also said to be ?sandboxed?, until they had re-proven themselves to be of worth. Me, I always equated it with sitting at the kids? table.

Getting OUT of the sandbox used to be the subject of much debate back in the day - especially as Google would neither confirm or deny that there was any such thing. Apparently an algorithm angle was being used to penalize certain sites, but no-one quite knew how it worked.

Presumably the ?sandbox effect? was set up originally to keep spammy sites from getting into Google?s top results (Hah, that seems to be working out well, now doesn?t it) but instead many webmasters complained that it was preventing their new sites for ranking for between 2-4 months.

There does seem to be a few tricks that can help if you are a new site, not practicing black hat tactics, and genuinely trying to get indexed.

1. Generate great content, and publish it daily if possible. A blog is great for this purpose, and you can link back and forth to your site. Add to your site as often as possible, as well.

2. Concentrate on worthy link building, and look for authority sites to link out to as well. This can help build your credibility and make Google take you seriously.

3. Don?t overdo the link building simply for volume - Google is suspicious of sites that seem to be piling on low quality links. A few really good ones are worth more than hundreds of iffy ones!

If you think you?ve been sent to the sandbox, the best thing to do is reexamine every link and every tactic to be sure you are complying with Google Webmaster guidelines. If you are, then waiting it out may be your only option - Sometimes they just have to decide you are big enough to move up to the grown-up?s table!

Posted in Google Universal