After reading the Google PDF on search image optimization, I too was also amazed at the level of seo activity taking place today. Once again, the “KISS” (keep it simple stupid) principle applies to the situation but there's also a fine art in trying to keep things simple and also interesting and organized. As the Google pdf stated it's important to add the appropriate information to the metadata (not generic information and also make sure you don't use too much.)
One thing I find particularly interesting is that many of us are likely headed into the world of multimedia and that we will likely be posting videos, photo and audio onto our sites. The use of adding these elements, I believe will be very beneficial and can possibly add more viewers to
your site if done correctly. One site I found helpful was http://www.antezeta.com/blog/video-seo-top-tips. The blog talked about “8 Ways to Optimize Video for Search Engine Visibility” and stated that “While Google might be the choice for comprehensive web search, Google’s video search is limited to Google Video and YouTube – probably not what most Internet users have in mind. For a true video search engine, a better place to start is Yahoo Video Search, which does try to catalog the entire world’s video information.” Many folks are posting videos on YouTube but there area number of other video hosting sites that many folks believe better quality (Vimeo is one example) and from the information, I read on the Antezeta site, your video may even be searched/viewed if it's not posted on the correct site.
Another item in the article I thought was interesting was their suggestion to “Offer a textual transcript of audio and video content. This is a usability and accessibility requirement as well as a search engine optimization tip.” Transcribing an entire video/audio/or detailing everything about photos can be a pretty imposing task but II believe if you posted the correct metadata and also use social networking you will eventually find additional traffic to your site. I believe many people are interested to see a place or activity before going there and if have the right information and a quality product, people will visit your website.
Another site I found interesting was http://lightroom.theturninggate.net/tag/search-engine-optimization/. One comment on this site stated , “Being a web photo gallery engine, it’s the images above all else that are important. Search engines first look at an image’s filename, much as we, as people, first look at a person’s face when meeting them. In most cases, the camera’s default filenames will be insufficient for our purposes; DO NOT post images to your gallery named _MG_0001.jpg. You may as well shoot yourself in the foot.” The site also says “In applying SEO to photographic websites, it is important to first understand that search engines rummage through text, not images. Google’s image search does not search images, but searches the text associated with images. Therefore, in the world of search engines, your images are only as good as the words you attach to them, and the words you surround them with.”
As we continue down the path learning more about web design, I can see how organization is extremely important and having simple file names helps locate things. I am also bewildered at how much information a good website needs to keep up with the competition and current trends.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
SEO- link link link
There’s a whole world to coding specifically designed for promoting yourself. I had no idea! After reading the PDF I realized how much control the designer has in their web page’s “searchability.” Our options as designers are to add short, descriptive description tags that anticipate what user’s might type in the search bar and make sure clickables are text. What’s most important for the future... I think… is creating “alt” text for images. Not only will image descriptions show up in search engine lists, but with the ubiquitous use of Iphones, blackberries etc people are going to be encountering Web page where they can’t see the images. The alt text gives these iphone-users an idea about what the image would be if they could see it.
One of the easiest ways to promote your site, post HTML- production, is through your use and optimization of links. Lately I’ve noticed that many sites have their own blogs. At first I thought this was a little weird but I appreciated it because it gave a personality to the could-be static page. But lo and behold, the blog is simply self-promotion. The more the links to your site, the more credibility the site has to a search engine. I find in-links (links on your page to other pages on your web site) not only very easy to incorporate into your site, but very important. SO I looked into them on various help blogs. I found a blog devoted to SEO tips, which had many posts on link potential.
One post commented on the changing search engine world, which apparently pushes pages to the top of the organic search list depending on the amount of links.
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/the-secret-to-ranking-at-the-search-engines-thats-really-no-secret-at-all. “The search engines got smarter, mapping the link patterns of the web and giving higher ranks to those sites & pages with more inbound links… All of this algorithmic evolution means that sites wishing to rank at the top of the engines must have high quality, naturally given, topically relevant links.” So that use of a blog is clever. It allows Web site managers to post about new additions, updates and content of their site in their Blogging, linking to the pages and boosting their visibility.
Another blog gave tips on promotion post HTML phase. Basically his tip is to be like a door-to door salesman, aggressively sell your site to other site-owners or bloggers. http://selfpromotion.com/ says to visit other relevant sites that you want to link to. Once you link to them, say in your blog, let them know! “Tell him that you have linked to his site, and that regardless of what he decides, you will continue to do so, because you think his site is useful. The cute thing here is that by explicitly saying this, he'll give your request extra consideration. Isn't it great how being virtuous can be so evil?” So...link, link, link and make your blog USER& SEARCH-ENGINE FRIENDLY with descriptions and tags!
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
SEO: Your Presesence on the Web
As I was reading through the pdf posted on Blackboard, I felt that this exercise not only complemented but also completed, all that we have been learning for the past weeks in class. SEO implementation, has today become one of the most basic requirements for websites. The reason is quite simple: there is no point in having a great website which is invisible. And a website which does not show up with a high ranking on a SERP(Search Engine Results Page), may as well be non-existent in the present scenario.
In the pdf, there were several references to tweaking title tags, headings and content. In relation to that, I came across an interesting article (http://searchenginewatch.com/3635670)on SearchEngineWatch.com which cautioned against 'over-tweaking'. The author, Eric Enge, made an observation that while SEO was important, it was just as important to focus on 'link building, PR, and social media reference building'. He mentioned in the article that it was easy for amateur webmasters to get obsessed with Search Engine Optimization and lose out on other marketing opportunities that are available.
In the pdf, there were several references to tweaking title tags, headings and content. In relation to that, I came across an interesting article (http://searchenginewatch.com/3635670)on SearchEngineWatch.com which cautioned against 'over-tweaking'. The author, Eric Enge, made an observation that while SEO was important, it was just as important to focus on 'link building, PR, and social media reference building'. He mentioned in the article that it was easy for amateur webmasters to get obsessed with Search Engine Optimization and lose out on other marketing opportunities that are available.
SEO
Who knew Search Engine Optimization was so complicated? Up until now, I have been on the finding the side of search engines results not on designing side. Knowing what designers go through to get you to their website is pretty impressive. Now I suppose I am going to have to be more in tune to the tricks. The Google article, while long and infused with perhaps too much information, was helpful and eye-opening. The section on meta tags was useful because I didn’t know what those were when I would look at the page source of different websites.
When googling (or searching for results on other search engines that aren’t google, yahooing? binging?) I found it astonishing that a company’s main page wasn’t the first link when that was the exact thing you typed in because they didn’t take the right steps to make sure their site was number 1. For example, when I just searched “SEO” the first site the popped up was the Search Engine Optimization Wikipedia page. http://www.seo.com was the third link.
I was also interested in the problem with Flash because I have friends who love using Flash in their websites and they probably don’t realize that they are negatively impacting their search engine results. I forwarded my friends the article so that they could improve their website search engine results.
I am planning on making myself a website this winter break with the fun new skills I have learned in class and knowing this kind of information is really important because now I will be able to do everything I can to make my site more apparent and as a result more important on the web.
When googling (or searching for results on other search engines that aren’t google, yahooing? binging?) I found it astonishing that a company’s main page wasn’t the first link when that was the exact thing you typed in because they didn’t take the right steps to make sure their site was number 1. For example, when I just searched “SEO” the first site the popped up was the Search Engine Optimization Wikipedia page. http://www.seo.com was the third link.
I was also interested in the problem with Flash because I have friends who love using Flash in their websites and they probably don’t realize that they are negatively impacting their search engine results. I forwarded my friends the article so that they could improve their website search engine results.
I am planning on making myself a website this winter break with the fun new skills I have learned in class and knowing this kind of information is really important because now I will be able to do everything I can to make my site more apparent and as a result more important on the web.
Monday, November 16, 2009
SEO
When I first learned of this assignment, I was extremely interested to read the PDF on SEO provided for us (Google's Search Engine Optimization Starter Guide), and to further exhaust the topic through subsequent blogs about SEO, and other articles.
This past summer, I began establishing myself as a freelance wedding and portrait photographer, and created both a website and a blog (with a new blog being released this week). That was my first introduction to the importance of SEO. But until I read the material required for this assignment, I had no idea just how much went into it, and how much more I could be doing to promote both of my sites.
How have I gone about SEO so far? Well, for starters, I have definitely dealt with "description" meta tags. (In all honesty, my fiancé and business partner is the brains in that department, so I left most SEO stuff up to him.) Ways in which I have felt comfortable promoting my sites have been through social networking sites. Myriads of such sites exist for wedding photographers. (Imagine a Facebook strictly for photographers.) I also utilize Facebook itself, through a fan page for my work.
I also utilize Google Analytics for my main website, and check it every day. It has been very helpful to see how people are coming across my site (how much traffic is the result of direct searches, how much is the result of referral sites, etc.). I can then determine which meta tags I should keep/change to get the most traffic.
However, like I said, I have learned so much new stuff about SEO because of Google's SEO Starter Guide. For example, concepts of HTML/XML sitemaps and "breadcrumb navigation" are all new to me. This is not to say I fully understand everything about these topics now that I've been introduced to them. But I definitely intend to reread this guide to further promote my site and my business.
In searching the term "Search Engine Optimization" I came across two different interesting sites. One, titled "95 SEO Tips and Tricks for Powerful Search Engine Optimization" outlines which SEO tricks should be a high priority. This is very helpful for me. Some examples of these tricks include writing unique content, and writing it often (something I try to do at least a couple of times per week to increase my SEO). I would definitely encourage those of you reading this to check out this helpful site, as it breaks down very nicely what you should make a first priority. As a matter of fact, I am bookmarking this site to refer to as I continue trying to increase my SEO.
Finally, I also found a blog with a post called "Search Engine Optimization Basics". This site was particularly encouraging because it points out that while SEO is time-consuming, it is not hard. It can be done.. The right way. Successfully. The article (like the PDF) also harps on the importance of "linking" tactics. This is something I think I do, but perhaps not enough of. One tactic that has seemed to work is actually following other photographer's blogs and commenting on their posts. This increases the likelihood that other commenters will click on my username, which will take them to my site.
All in all, this assignment has encouraged me that what I have done so far has been useful, but that there is always room for improvement, especially in terms of "keywords," "anchors," and the like. And as I said, I look forward to learning more about SEO through rereading these helpful resources.
The Little Things
So what I've learned about SEO is that it's the little things, the details that you pay attention to are what help drive people to your website. According to Google's SEO manual first and foremost you want to thing about your audience when designing your site, and if you can do that well, then you've already got a good thing going as far as making your site appealing and search-able. But there are still some additional little things to pay attention to. Designer Jay Goldman on his blog recommends simple, organized URLs, using sitemaps, and repeating search terms throughout the page, especially towards the top.
This website, top10SEOtips, pretty much recommends the same things. Use important keywords, have an awesome domain name, use META tags, etc.
Personally it's a little overwhelming to be reading about all these little things I need to worry about now in addition to trying to remember how to code something. But I guess if you're spending a ton of time designing an awesome website, you might as well spend the time to get people to come to it.
This website, top10SEOtips, pretty much recommends the same things. Use important keywords, have an awesome domain name, use META tags, etc.
Personally it's a little overwhelming to be reading about all these little things I need to worry about now in addition to trying to remember how to code something. But I guess if you're spending a ton of time designing an awesome website, you might as well spend the time to get people to come to it.
The importance of SEO
It is very crucial to make sure that your website can be easily accessible by everyone. From what I've been reading and learning about in other classes, if a website wants to generate business, they need to make their page available.
And, in order to do that, they have to make good use of keywords, for one. If their site is about basketball, but a specific kind of basketball (i.e. streetball, AND1) then, on their site, they need to make sure that they have words like basketball and streetball somewhere on their page in order for it to be accessible. Meta-tags are crucial as well. The more meta-tags the page has, the greater chances are that the search engines will recognize it, bringing more hit counts.
But, from one article I read http://thefuturebuzz.com/2009/11/13/social-media-seo/ about how people need to be well equipped in SEO before they use social networks to market their businesses. In our case, we have to consider what social networking sites we're going to use for our website. The article says "good content makes your website and the search engines more valuable". That's why the content on your page has to be strong enough to generate a powerful search. "Searches may not be sexy, but they bring traffic" as the article says.
In another blog post http://www.ronmedlin.com/traffic-generation/seo-google-marketing/the-best-search-engine-optimization-results-are-through-thoughtful-selection/, it gives advice on making the most of SEO's. And, it reiterates what the previous article mentioned. It emphasizes the use of good keywords. "By knowing how to select the best keywords, insert them into valuable content, and submit your material appropriately you can maximize your search engine optimization efforts."This is what needs to be in consideration. I've never paid too much attention to search engines. But, since they're going to be an important part of our project, I need to .
For my site, I'm re-inventing www.msfocus.org. For the SEO, I'm going to try and use keywords like "MS Focus Group". I want to use "Multiple Sclerosis" but that's too broad and there are hundreds of sites already that pertain to it. So, decisions, decisions. As far as social networks/media, I want to use Facebook and Twitter. But, understanding how I need to work with SEOs will determine how I'm going to market my page on the web.
And, in order to do that, they have to make good use of keywords, for one. If their site is about basketball, but a specific kind of basketball (i.e. streetball, AND1) then, on their site, they need to make sure that they have words like basketball and streetball somewhere on their page in order for it to be accessible. Meta-tags are crucial as well. The more meta-tags the page has, the greater chances are that the search engines will recognize it, bringing more hit counts.
But, from one article I read http://thefuturebuzz.com/2009/11/13/social-media-seo/ about how people need to be well equipped in SEO before they use social networks to market their businesses. In our case, we have to consider what social networking sites we're going to use for our website. The article says "good content makes your website and the search engines more valuable". That's why the content on your page has to be strong enough to generate a powerful search. "Searches may not be sexy, but they bring traffic" as the article says.
In another blog post http://www.ronmedlin.com/traffic-generation/seo-google-marketing/the-best-search-engine-optimization-results-are-through-thoughtful-selection/, it gives advice on making the most of SEO's. And, it reiterates what the previous article mentioned. It emphasizes the use of good keywords. "By knowing how to select the best keywords, insert them into valuable content, and submit your material appropriately you can maximize your search engine optimization efforts."This is what needs to be in consideration. I've never paid too much attention to search engines. But, since they're going to be an important part of our project, I need to .
For my site, I'm re-inventing www.msfocus.org. For the SEO, I'm going to try and use keywords like "MS Focus Group". I want to use "Multiple Sclerosis" but that's too broad and there are hundreds of sites already that pertain to it. So, decisions, decisions. As far as social networks/media, I want to use Facebook and Twitter. But, understanding how I need to work with SEOs will determine how I'm going to market my page on the web.
SEO: There's a lot to know, use and understand
Search Engine Optimization is something I'm only familiar with in passing. And when I say that, I mean from people I've met at Newhouse, especially those in the Content Management class. Wow I wish I had room for that class now in my schedule.
The first piece of information that stood out to me was how you use your words when building and promoting websites. Whether its page titles, heading tags, images or URLs one should choose their words wisely. Gregory Markel a SEO expert, demonstrated to a crowd at a recent conference just how effective being mindful or your videos can be.
Clear, concise, to the point and some creativity go a long way to helping make your site accessible for search engines. By simplifying these things in website construction its easier for someone a search engine to analyze your page content and therefore easier for people to find.
Self-promotion was another concept that opened my eyes. Updating your website content and explaining why you're doing so not only keeps your content up to date, but is also another way for SEO to pick up your content. Also, promoting yourself offline can be just as important as what you do online. I thought the concept of putting your website or a business card made a lot of sense. People are more directed towards the internet these days and if they see a website in this format, they're more apt to check it out a few times.
Promoting your website through social networking seems like common sense to me. Every time I'm on a blog or even Facebook someone if promoting themselves. It's a concept that people have latched onto and learned to capitalize on. This article even explains how Facebook acts as a promoter through "newsfeed. " It also points out how Facebook allows you to use their services to enhance your content and the people your reach, much the same way Google Analytics and Website Optimizer do.
SEO: to do and not to do
I found a fairly good article on a not-so-super designed site (case in point, if you click on the link, you have to scroll down to find the article because it does not have its own URL). The article, "Things SEO People Should Never Do," gave five tips for things that will not help improve your ratings in search engines. The Google SEO starter guide we read has very specific things to avoid in building your site, while this article discusses more of the managerial do-nots.
Like focusing just on rankings. The article points out that a business cannot grow if you just look at one part of an analysis. Rankings are not everything. It also tells you not to blow off clients (of course), and not to give guarantees because it gives false hope if you're wrong.
I found another article at e-Commerce Times that gives tips to increase search engine optimization. I found some of the best tips to be these:
Obviously there is a lot to think about, not only when you are building a site, but also when you are promoting a site. Some of that promotion goes straight into the code, and other efforts go into the managing and analysis of your site. I think I need a team to help me with my site. My brain can't handle it alone!
Like focusing just on rankings. The article points out that a business cannot grow if you just look at one part of an analysis. Rankings are not everything. It also tells you not to blow off clients (of course), and not to give guarantees because it gives false hope if you're wrong.
I found another article at e-Commerce Times that gives tips to increase search engine optimization. I found some of the best tips to be these:
- Make sure links lead somewhere: out-links and back-linking pages factor into the Google page rank equation, so they are obviously important.
- Limit the number of pop-ups. The article says pop-ups are still associated with spammers, so when too many appear in a site, people are turned away, thus lowering your authority as a website.
- Minimize use of flash. We all know flash looks beautiful, but if it is all over your site, and your content is entirely built into flash programing, the content will not be picked up by bots. If these bots aren't reading that content, what is it reading?
Obviously there is a lot to think about, not only when you are building a site, but also when you are promoting a site. Some of that promotion goes straight into the code, and other efforts go into the managing and analysis of your site. I think I need a team to help me with my site. My brain can't handle it alone!
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Search engine optimization
I found the SEO article by Google very helpful. I'm fairly versed in SEO, but the article had a few pointers that I found interesting.
First of all, I now realize why websites include the title of the article in the URL. On sites that I have worked for, a lot of times the posts were numbered (i.e. /23540). I know now that those articles are much less searchable. I'm also notorious for being in too big of a hurry to add any alt text to images. Not only is it good for web browsing, but it's better optimization for search.
I also found it interesting that you can use the "nofollow" meta-tag so that robots don't include certain items in your ranking calculation. That could be very useful if you have an odd post that isn't necessary relevant to your site.
The advice to blog about new features, etc. was good advice as well. And I am going to start doing that with the sites that I work on now.
For promotion, you are foolish to not use social networks. On Kikolani.com, a post gave some advice on what promotions can be run on Facebook and Twitter. The Twitter advice is clever. The post advises to promote something on your site with Twitter, but to add a hash tag that is popular at the time (i.e. #haiku or #oscars). That way it will show up in the trending topics and could get more exposure. It has become almost standard now to create a Facebook fan page for your business as well, so you can update all of your fans at once.
For social bookmarking sites, I think it's important to get a lot of links posted. Sites like Digg, Reddit and delicio.us are great springboards to getting content read. An article on ezinearticles.com offers 4 benefits to using these sites. Obviously the main goal is to gain exposure, but the most interesting points were that social bookmarking provides branding and gives quality backlinks. If you post a lot of links on the social bookmarking sites, then you demonstrate your expertise. Also, to match up with the search engine optimization, you get quality backlinks, which help improve your rating.
SEO is essential to increase exposure and traffic to your website. The tips given will be very beneficial as I continue to develop my website. The process will continue to evolve and it is wise to keep up with the changes.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
searchability
Before reading these articles, I didn’t realize that seo or social networking were an industry all of their own. I thought that coders just threw a few keywords into their alt tags and that was that. They are important fields, too. It doesn’t matter how beautiful your website design is or how pertinent the content, if it doesn’t show up in people’s searches it will all be for not.
I found one site that was particularly helpful in telling you when and where to enhance seo in your site: http://www.webconfs.com/15-minute-seo.php
There are some really useful tips. One that I wouldn’t have thought of before is to add common misspellings or nicknames of words. To increase seo you can also add synonyms, update the site regularly, make sure your site isn’t only images (avoid text images) and include .edu and .gov links if pertinent. On the other hand, it is good to learn that if you have a link to a site that you don’t trust on your page, you can enter “nofollow” to keep that link from harming your site’s searchability.
Other advice I found useful is to use good descriptions in anchor texts. In the past I’ve often written “click here,” not realizing that using more description would increase seo. As a side note, I was equally impressed to learn here that many search engines are often smart enough to know if they are being tricked into thinking that a site is more relevant than it is (for instance, by the use of “doorway pages”).
The conversations about how to apply keywords to images and/or videos for seo are becoming more and more important as greater numbers of sites are focusing on visuals to convey messages. This site offered particularly valuable advice on how to maximize seo with regards to video: http://www.antezeta.com/blog/video-seo-top-tips. The .pdf also reminds you to enter “alt” attribute tags for images in the site (which also helps users with screen readers).
From the research I’ve done so far, it seems that seo is higher on the priority list than social media marketing, though both are important. Social media can be useful in promoting a site, but if search engines aren’t leading people there in the first place, social media becomes irrelevant.
According to this site: http://thefuturebuzz.com/2009/11/13/social-media-seo/, you should become fluent in seo before social media, but a lot of marketers don’t because it takes a lot of work to stay up on all of the current search trends and the newest, most effective methods. According to the .pdf provided to us, blogs, emails and forums (in addition to social media services) all work to increase traffic to a site.
One last note consider when optimizing a site for search success is not to focus solely on the numbers. At least for the majority of sites, it isn’t just about how many people see your site but how many of the right people see it. A lot of the scams to trick search engines into finding your site aren’t very helpful in the long run. If users are misdirected to site site and then click out right away because it isn’t what they’re looking for, you aren’t benefited nearly as much as when users find the site through a relevant search and want to be there.
There is a lot more to think about in terms of seo than I originally realized, but it is nice that there are a lot of good web resources available. When I create my own site, I will definitely make sure that I have a clear direction/purpose and am simple and descriptive in my language. I plan to learn useful seo methods, pay attention to social marketing outlets, and utilize services such as Google Analytics to further improve my site’s search- and user-abilities.
I found one site that was particularly helpful in telling you when and where to enhance seo in your site: http://www.webconfs.com/15-minute-seo.php
There are some really useful tips. One that I wouldn’t have thought of before is to add common misspellings or nicknames of words. To increase seo you can also add synonyms, update the site regularly, make sure your site isn’t only images (avoid text images) and include .edu and .gov links if pertinent. On the other hand, it is good to learn that if you have a link to a site that you don’t trust on your page, you can enter “nofollow” to keep that link from harming your site’s searchability.
Other advice I found useful is to use good descriptions in anchor texts. In the past I’ve often written “click here,” not realizing that using more description would increase seo. As a side note, I was equally impressed to learn here that many search engines are often smart enough to know if they are being tricked into thinking that a site is more relevant than it is (for instance, by the use of “doorway pages”).
The conversations about how to apply keywords to images and/or videos for seo are becoming more and more important as greater numbers of sites are focusing on visuals to convey messages. This site offered particularly valuable advice on how to maximize seo with regards to video: http://www.antezeta.com/blog/video-seo-top-tips. The .pdf also reminds you to enter “alt” attribute tags for images in the site (which also helps users with screen readers).
From the research I’ve done so far, it seems that seo is higher on the priority list than social media marketing, though both are important. Social media can be useful in promoting a site, but if search engines aren’t leading people there in the first place, social media becomes irrelevant.
According to this site: http://thefuturebuzz.com/2009/11/13/social-media-seo/, you should become fluent in seo before social media, but a lot of marketers don’t because it takes a lot of work to stay up on all of the current search trends and the newest, most effective methods. According to the .pdf provided to us, blogs, emails and forums (in addition to social media services) all work to increase traffic to a site.
One last note consider when optimizing a site for search success is not to focus solely on the numbers. At least for the majority of sites, it isn’t just about how many people see your site but how many of the right people see it. A lot of the scams to trick search engines into finding your site aren’t very helpful in the long run. If users are misdirected to site site and then click out right away because it isn’t what they’re looking for, you aren’t benefited nearly as much as when users find the site through a relevant search and want to be there.
There is a lot more to think about in terms of seo than I originally realized, but it is nice that there are a lot of good web resources available. When I create my own site, I will definitely make sure that I have a clear direction/purpose and am simple and descriptive in my language. I plan to learn useful seo methods, pay attention to social marketing outlets, and utilize services such as Google Analytics to further improve my site’s search- and user-abilities.
SEO
This article really opened my eyes and informed me about how and why search engines function the way they do. The PDF article gave a great breakdown on how to successfully optimize your website in a search engine. Clearly it is an art form. You have to find clear, simple, yet effective words that will bump your site up the search engine line.
In a blog I found while searching about SEO's, I learned through a blog post by a member of the SEO.com website blog that said, "Believe it or not, Google employs a team dedicated to searching for webspam. They invest lots of time and resources into finding and shutting down effective paid linking opportunities. This is the number one reason why you should never participate in paid links. Once Google finds you, you are done!" This is something that was discussed in the wikipedia page when I first searched for the definition of SEO. It seems that more and more, people are trying to get their way in the ranking by doing anything. They call this black hat and white hat techniques.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine_optimization
http://www.seo.com/blog/
As far as for promoting my website, I would definitely take advantage of social networking since one of the top worldwide websites is Facebook and YouTube. This I learned in my advertising class where we discussed the current boom of social networking tied in to websites and promoting campaigns with banners. In this time and age, websites depend on advertising themselves in these networking sites because this is where people go to first, especially with all the features and accessible links that are now integrated to the web page. Metadata, also called social bookmarking is a way of simplifying the access to my website and will probably increase the traffic per click. I would include these two methods to make my website more accessible to those interested. Also I would take in consideration the recommendations made my the PDF article to improve my search engine optimization.
In a blog I found while searching about SEO's, I learned through a blog post by a member of the SEO.com website blog that said, "Believe it or not, Google employs a team dedicated to searching for webspam. They invest lots of time and resources into finding and shutting down effective paid linking opportunities. This is the number one reason why you should never participate in paid links. Once Google finds you, you are done!" This is something that was discussed in the wikipedia page when I first searched for the definition of SEO. It seems that more and more, people are trying to get their way in the ranking by doing anything. They call this black hat and white hat techniques.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine_optimization
http://www.seo.com/blog/
As far as for promoting my website, I would definitely take advantage of social networking since one of the top worldwide websites is Facebook and YouTube. This I learned in my advertising class where we discussed the current boom of social networking tied in to websites and promoting campaigns with banners. In this time and age, websites depend on advertising themselves in these networking sites because this is where people go to first, especially with all the features and accessible links that are now integrated to the web page. Metadata, also called social bookmarking is a way of simplifying the access to my website and will probably increase the traffic per click. I would include these two methods to make my website more accessible to those interested. Also I would take in consideration the recommendations made my the PDF article to improve my search engine optimization.
Using Websites to Promote Websites
In the Google PDF discovered the importance of optimization and that there is, to put it simply, a fine art to SEO. Tags and meta tags help to inform the viewer about what is on the page and this is one way that search engines categorize sites. In order to help my non-profit do move up higher in the rankings I would make sure not to create too many tags but just those that are descriptive and accurate. Adword was another way I could adversite my site although this would cost money. https://adwords.google.com/select/
I looked into SEO and saw some basic ways to make my site sound (the link below). However, while searching about SEO I found a lot of sites that offer to move up a site's location for fees. This is something that as a website creator I would not invest in. I would simply improve my tags and make sure the code is as best as possible. http://www.textlinkbrokers.com/blog/more/232_0_1_0_M/
One of the ways I would promote my site after creation is through the "Fan" method on Facebook. People who decide to become a fan of your website can add it to their profile and others can see it. They can also suggest that their friends become a fan of my site and facebook also suggests my site to those who have information similar to that on their profile. I read that soon that if a person is a fan of my site facebook will publish new information from my site into that person's news feed. This can be a valuable tool to keeping people in the loop as well as learning about our new informatoin. I found this information in the article below. This type of information making it into hundreds, even thousands of newsfeeds can help boost my site.
http://adage.com/digitalnext/article?article_id=140135
I looked into SEO and saw some basic ways to make my site sound (the link below). However, while searching about SEO I found a lot of sites that offer to move up a site's location for fees. This is something that as a website creator I would not invest in. I would simply improve my tags and make sure the code is as best as possible. http://www.textlinkbrokers.com/blog/more/232_0_1_0_M/
One of the ways I would promote my site after creation is through the "Fan" method on Facebook. People who decide to become a fan of your website can add it to their profile and others can see it. They can also suggest that their friends become a fan of my site and facebook also suggests my site to those who have information similar to that on their profile. I read that soon that if a person is a fan of my site facebook will publish new information from my site into that person's news feed. This can be a valuable tool to keeping people in the loop as well as learning about our new informatoin. I found this information in the article below. This type of information making it into hundreds, even thousands of newsfeeds can help boost my site.
http://adage.com/digitalnext/article?article_id=140135
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
The CNN redesign
The CNN redesign is an interesting one. It certainly adds some color and art elements to the page while giving a feeling of organization and simplicity. I think it's a good decision to reduce the number of headlines in the "Latest News" section at the top, while adding more headlines to the boxes labeled by topic lower on the page. I think it makes it easier to find stories in the topics that interest you. Putting a video clip at the top center of the page also makes a lot of sense. CNN is a television news organization; video reports are their bread and butter, they should be prominent on the page.
I got a bit of a chuckle when I listened to CNN's video introduction of their new design. It talks about the "breathtaking photography" that you'll find on the page. Where? The small square picture at the top of the left column? Not much space to showcase anything "breathtaking."
I think the attempts to allow people to individualize the site are convenient, if not anything groundbreaking. One thing the Guardian article points out is that the site "won't focus too much on new social media features." While that might seem a it odd, it makes sense. Connect with people via social media offsite -- at the social media sites. I don't believe people go to news/information sites to sign up for more networks. Go to them and use the networks they already have.
I got a bit of a chuckle when I listened to CNN's video introduction of their new design. It talks about the "breathtaking photography" that you'll find on the page. Where? The small square picture at the top of the left column? Not much space to showcase anything "breathtaking."
I think the attempts to allow people to individualize the site are convenient, if not anything groundbreaking. One thing the Guardian article points out is that the site "won't focus too much on new social media features." While that might seem a it odd, it makes sense. Connect with people via social media offsite -- at the social media sites. I don't believe people go to news/information sites to sign up for more networks. Go to them and use the networks they already have.
Monday, October 26, 2009
CNN- Design Goals
The design overhaul of the CNN website is obviously an attempt by the news makers to jump in on the bandwagon and embrace the waves of change in media. The new website looks sleek, carries emphasis on infotainment and is more dynamic and interactive than its older version. It also suggests the difference in which traditional newscasters are providing news. New strategies, like active commentary from the Huffington Post are attracting audiences and the CNN website is trying to make use of this.
The design at the outset looks contemporary and organized. First time users would have no trouble finding their way around the site. Navigation scores top points. But I feel the thickness of the top navbar could have been reduced since it serves no purpose. The 3 column grid is put to good use with the subdivision of news. As mentioned in the Guardian article, the website now reflects the focus CNN wishes to place on the TV angle. While the data above is well-organized, it appears boxed out in the sub-sections of health, entertainment etc.
The design at the outset looks contemporary and organized. First time users would have no trouble finding their way around the site. Navigation scores top points. But I feel the thickness of the top navbar could have been reduced since it serves no purpose. The 3 column grid is put to good use with the subdivision of news. As mentioned in the Guardian article, the website now reflects the focus CNN wishes to place on the TV angle. While the data above is well-organized, it appears boxed out in the sub-sections of health, entertainment etc.
CNN and what to focus on?
I applaud CNN for redesigning and putting more focus on their videos/ photography and hope to see a continue commitment toward journalism. I'm very sad to see them focusing more on "infotainment" as The Guardian article suggests. At a time when we need more journalism and information to help us solve our mounting problems (sagging economy, unemployment, healthcare, world/national issues and the fact that were in two wars) people still seem to need "celebrity" news and gossip to fill their days.
The design is clean and easily accessible and I believe more major news sites will shift the design to showcase visuals as they continue to try and peel viewers away from televison and magazine/newspapers. It will be interesting to watch and see how many hits the video sections get compared to the photo galleries on major news stories. MSNBC, NY Times, Washington Post usually get larger hits from still photo gallery than the do with most of their videos but I think that may change as more better internet connections continue and better video options appear. Hopefully, they can find a way to monetize the visual side and get rid of the irritating adds placed before the videos.
The design is clean and easily accessible and I believe more major news sites will shift the design to showcase visuals as they continue to try and peel viewers away from televison and magazine/newspapers. It will be interesting to watch and see how many hits the video sections get compared to the photo galleries on major news stories. MSNBC, NY Times, Washington Post usually get larger hits from still photo gallery than the do with most of their videos but I think that may change as more better internet connections continue and better video options appear. Hopefully, they can find a way to monetize the visual side and get rid of the irritating adds placed before the videos.
CNN: Paving the Way
When I first saw the new CNN.com interface, I thought a couple different things all at once: "Crap, now I have to get used to a whole new layout and navigation system;" "But doesn't it look pretty!" Truth is, navigating the site is as insightful as ever, while undergoing a total upgrade in appearance, as the Guardian.co.uk article touches on. I feel that the new modern design allows viewers to get to where they're going much easier. To explain further, the human eye gravitates toward photographs way before text, or headlines. Therefore, the new site highlights images in such a way as to draw the viewer in, instilling in them a sense of intrigue about the actual news stories.
On another note, I, like Jackie (for those of you who read her post), am a photo major. Therefore, this new layout for CNN holds very special meaning - that which we can only hope catches on with other online news sites. The underlying concept is this: photography as a newsworthy art form is dying. In a world in which media-consolidation is it, how are photographers supposed to make a living if all the world is made to care about is text and possibly video? I think CNN is paving the way for photographers to be held in higher regard and demand. Very, very exciting.
I don't know how I feel...
about CNN's new redesign. For some reason the CNN logo in the middle of the header section makes me feel a little unbalanced. And having the main news image and the featured video and a flashy advertisement all next to each other in a row confuses my brain a bit as I don't know where to look.
However, I do like how the different sections are broken up, I feel it's easier to find something interesting faster. I think the first half of the page, despite all the photo confusion, has a nice diverse look to it where I don't feel like I'm looking at the same thing repeated three times like I did on the old design.
According to the Guardian article CNN wants to put more focus on video and entertainment, which I guess it's achieving by putting some videos front and center. However, I've never really been a fan of the ireporter stuff because I feel cheated somehow knowing the news is coming from some random person and not a journalist. I don't know if I like the idea of those videos being showcased when there are more in-depth, more visually interesting multimedia pieces out there. But that's just me getting nit-picky.
Other than that I guess the site is OK. It was my homepage, but I'm thinking of changing it now to something else.
However, I do like how the different sections are broken up, I feel it's easier to find something interesting faster. I think the first half of the page, despite all the photo confusion, has a nice diverse look to it where I don't feel like I'm looking at the same thing repeated three times like I did on the old design.
According to the Guardian article CNN wants to put more focus on video and entertainment, which I guess it's achieving by putting some videos front and center. However, I've never really been a fan of the ireporter stuff because I feel cheated somehow knowing the news is coming from some random person and not a journalist. I don't know if I like the idea of those videos being showcased when there are more in-depth, more visually interesting multimedia pieces out there. But that's just me getting nit-picky.
Other than that I guess the site is OK. It was my homepage, but I'm thinking of changing it now to something else.
CNN Upgrade
Honestly, there's nothing wrong with a change every once in a while. Even Beyonce swithces up her weave every now and then. But, I digress. CNN's new home page looks very well balanced. More balanced than the previous design. The different topics are set up with grids, making it easier to follow the news more. The red header and the darker red navbar are slick and they work well together. It just seems to me that there is more substance to this new design. It looks better. It makes me want to get all of my news from CNN for now on.
In regards to the article we were supposed to read, the author hits it on the head with the description of the new page. I think the page does mix entertainment into the political news. There is more emphasis on each section now that each section has its own block. Also, the article mentions how the site will incorporate language feeds to create more of an international feel. It should bring in more international readership with that.
In the end, this new layout will be successful. People should enjoy it more. I think it looks good. It just has more of an enjoyable reading feel to it. I know i'll probably get my news from here from now on. It may even be my homepage. Nope! Can't dismiss ESPN.com.
In regards to the article we were supposed to read, the author hits it on the head with the description of the new page. I think the page does mix entertainment into the political news. There is more emphasis on each section now that each section has its own block. Also, the article mentions how the site will incorporate language feeds to create more of an international feel. It should bring in more international readership with that.
In the end, this new layout will be successful. People should enjoy it more. I think it looks good. It just has more of an enjoyable reading feel to it. I know i'll probably get my news from here from now on. It may even be my homepage. Nope! Can't dismiss ESPN.com.
New Site: The Right Direction
When I first logged on to the CNN homepage I initially did not like what I saw. The header (although a different color) and the navbar bleed together. Although the middle column has a bigger picture, it doesn't seem to make me feel the story is more important. I see two photos slammed next to each other competing for my attention and it creates some visual tension. The right column was complete naked because I did not have personalized log in settings.
However, as I moved from around the site I started to see some interesting web design moves. As the reading described CNN wanted to focus on "story-telling". Once I clicked on an article I got the high points in bullets on the left, the actual story, related topics and the most popular stories of the all. All of these featuers enhance my understanding of the story and I find that very postive. It's an easy to follow layout.
In addition, I have seen a dramatic increase in the graphics. For example, when I click on U.S. News I see four photos on my screen without even scrolling up or down. I think this will help CNN attract more people to its content. The article cites Nick Wrenn from CNN saying there is a "new focus on video that brings the site to life". CNN does have more feature videos and pictures then before which again, will enhance coverage.
However, as I moved from around the site I started to see some interesting web design moves. As the reading described CNN wanted to focus on "story-telling". Once I clicked on an article I got the high points in bullets on the left, the actual story, related topics and the most popular stories of the all. All of these featuers enhance my understanding of the story and I find that very postive. It's an easy to follow layout.
In addition, I have seen a dramatic increase in the graphics. For example, when I click on U.S. News I see four photos on my screen without even scrolling up or down. I think this will help CNN attract more people to its content. The article cites Nick Wrenn from CNN saying there is a "new focus on video that brings the site to life". CNN does have more feature videos and pictures then before which again, will enhance coverage.
Sleek and Informative
Cnn.com is the homepage I have set on my laptop. When I opened it up this weekend I was at first startled and then amused we had replicated the old web site design only a couple weeks ago. The red header was the first thing that jumped out at me. At first I thought it was too bold, but then as I glanced down the page I realized the redesign as a whole was pretty well done.
The website is much more effective now (although it wasn't exactly bad before) that they have streamlined all of the important information. The three columns showcase a lot of the same information that you had to scroll and click around for before. Now the most important information is where it needs to be, allowing the viewer to get to what they want with hardly a click of the mouse.
I like that their Highlights and Editors Choice section include a mix of different types of news and that these sections are easily accessible to the viewer. In the past I clicked around the different sections of CNN and enjoyed all of them. As a user of people.com and Entertainment Weekly, I was aware that CNN had a partnership with them. Highlighting this partnership in a better way works for CNN and People/EW and is a smart business move.
I used to be one of those people that felt news was news and everything else was separate. However, the way things have changed with both technology and culture, its clear that people want different kinds of information presented to them in multiple formats all at once. Incorporating different facets of new media is necessary for news agencies today and I think CNN has taken a great step in doing so.
CNN redesign is much cleaner
The new CNN design works a lot better for their goal of becoming more focused on their unique content, rather than the breaking news. Their use of images works much better than old site, that like the article said, was text driven. The Highlights section is much better than the highlights that we had to replicate for our assignment. I know when I browse the Internet, photos guide me a lot as well as the headlines, so this method of highlighting their content is effective.
I think their sections at the bottom are better organized than the old design as well. First of all, there are more links. CNN used to only have two links per section, but with its new division, they are able to put more content in the div boxes.
The only thing that I'm not crazy about is the navbar. I feel like it gets lost in the header. The header is bright red and the navbar is too similar. Over all, however, I really like the new design.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
CNN redesign: B+ grade
On first look, I see what I don't like, of course. The massive red bar hits the visitor in the face. The column layout with photo next to screen capture next to advertisement feels heavy. There is little breathing room between the three columns.
What is working, though, is the way my eye moves around the site. After being hit by the red bar on top of the page, my eye goes straight to the "Click to play" message in the video column. I'm sure CNN would be glad to hear that, since they are putting a new focus on video ("CNN.com relaunch to focus on video," Guardian).
I can get over the fact that the three columns are so close together because if I were coming to visit the site, I would know which column I want to look at. I love how the boxes are not connected anymore. They have some dimension to them, like they are raised from the light gray. Is that a drop shadow behind them? It's working, whatever it is.
It's definitely easier to find what you're looking for now. Top stories from different sections are in their own div boxes at the bottom of the homepage. I just wish the Hot Topics were near the top of the page, though. It's always interesting to see if the stories you are interested in are the ones the rest of America is looking at, and I don't like having to scroll all the way down to see those.
Overall, I give CNN a B+, because while everything else is working, the red bar at the top is just too dominating when you land on the page. And I would love to see some more breathing room between divisions.
What is working, though, is the way my eye moves around the site. After being hit by the red bar on top of the page, my eye goes straight to the "Click to play" message in the video column. I'm sure CNN would be glad to hear that, since they are putting a new focus on video ("CNN.com relaunch to focus on video," Guardian).
I can get over the fact that the three columns are so close together because if I were coming to visit the site, I would know which column I want to look at. I love how the boxes are not connected anymore. They have some dimension to them, like they are raised from the light gray. Is that a drop shadow behind them? It's working, whatever it is.
It's definitely easier to find what you're looking for now. Top stories from different sections are in their own div boxes at the bottom of the homepage. I just wish the Hot Topics were near the top of the page, though. It's always interesting to see if the stories you are interested in are the ones the rest of America is looking at, and I don't like having to scroll all the way down to see those.
Overall, I give CNN a B+, because while everything else is working, the red bar at the top is just too dominating when you land on the page. And I would love to see some more breathing room between divisions.
New CNN... Hope for my future!
I am actually really excited about the new Wev design. Being a photojournalism major i respect images...and I've had the constant fear driven into me that photography and established media are deteriorating. We're told that its harder to get a job in the news industry because photography is a dying art. Always optimistic, I like to tell myself that bigger and better things lay down the road for photographers and videographers. CNN's design is a perfect example of this shift. This generation needs immediate gratification. We have minimal patience and want the media to get right to the point. CNN understood this when they refocused their content on visuals, giving page viewers immediate information without having to devote the time to a two-page article.
Since "far less text driven, with videos and photography as the centrepieces of the home page," CNN will have to invest in skilled photographers rather than relying on stock images or poor quality multimedia pieces. It's a smart move on their part since society IS becoming visually driven and an outcropping of alternative photo-centered news sites are emerging that they are going to need to compete with (like http://www.mediastorm.com). The redesign definitely reflects younger emerging audiences, with videography, a look back to their a TV roots and an emphasis on entertainment. Basically, thank you CNN for making a News site that feels young, not intimidating and visually-driven. It makes me excited for the future. Also.. YES to the customization option on the home page! Just like visual stories, the customization speaks to instant gratification and our developed impatience.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
CNN.com gets a facelift?
I am a frequent visitor of CNN.com; it is where I get most of my news from and when I saw its relaunch I was mostly unimpressed. I say mostly because I do like the new header and everything from “editor’s choice” down, because it is broken up and categorized much better than the original site, but the main content section is annoying. I think this section is too busy and highlights the incorrect things. For example, there is no way that an advertisement (top of right column) should be the same size as the top story (top of left column). CNN better be getting big bucks for those ads because when you first log on to the site, it seems like it should be a story and then you realize it’s just an ad and you try to ignore it, but it’s right there all the time.
I noticed even before the site switched over that CNN has been trying to incorporate more video into their site. This observation of mine is now confirmed by the article. I am torn about this issue. For one, CNN did start on television, and is still very strong in that medium, so it makes sense that video should be a big part of their website. However, one of the reasons more and more people are turning to the web for their daily dose of news is because it is much quicker than television. Personally, I log on, read the headlines, click on the articles that intrigue me and then move on. Occasionally I will watch a video, but only if the story is dependent on this. Also, I hope CNN is collecting good money from the advertisers who get their 30 second commercial played before the video, because it really annoys me that I have to sit through a 30 second commercial to then watch 13 seconds of video (I am not against ads before video I just think the ad shouldn’t be longer than the main video).
I also think it is interesting that the article mentioned CNN’s move toward more entertainment news. Does CNN realize that those who have a real interest in keeping up with celebrity gossip are going to go to places like PerezHilton.com and not CNN.com? CNN is known for its hard breaking news, which is not a bad reputation. They should not be throwing that down the drain so they get a few more visitors on their site who want see Bradgelina’s newest child. Overall, I am interested to see how the site continues to change in the coming weeks as visitors respond to its new look.
I noticed even before the site switched over that CNN has been trying to incorporate more video into their site. This observation of mine is now confirmed by the article. I am torn about this issue. For one, CNN did start on television, and is still very strong in that medium, so it makes sense that video should be a big part of their website. However, one of the reasons more and more people are turning to the web for their daily dose of news is because it is much quicker than television. Personally, I log on, read the headlines, click on the articles that intrigue me and then move on. Occasionally I will watch a video, but only if the story is dependent on this. Also, I hope CNN is collecting good money from the advertisers who get their 30 second commercial played before the video, because it really annoys me that I have to sit through a 30 second commercial to then watch 13 seconds of video (I am not against ads before video I just think the ad shouldn’t be longer than the main video).
I also think it is interesting that the article mentioned CNN’s move toward more entertainment news. Does CNN realize that those who have a real interest in keeping up with celebrity gossip are going to go to places like PerezHilton.com and not CNN.com? CNN is known for its hard breaking news, which is not a bad reputation. They should not be throwing that down the drain so they get a few more visitors on their site who want see Bradgelina’s newest child. Overall, I am interested to see how the site continues to change in the coming weeks as visitors respond to its new look.
CNN's Facelift
I laughed when I saw out assignment because had just noticed CNN's website the day before Jeff sent the assignment. I was confused in the beginning when I first opened the website because it was a big change from what it looked like before. After a few minutes after absorbing and getting used to the new layout, I found that it appealed to me more than the old design. The red header and the interactive videos instantly drew me in. Today's audience wants instant and visual gratification, which is exactly what the new design offers. The old site consisted of basic, simple and, in my opinion, very bland and predicable layout design with limited and hard to find visual interaction. The new site moved the videos to what we would call the "showcase" section, making it the first thing you see. They kept the same color scheme which is very important in order to maintain a constant brand identity.
The article talks about how CNN.com shifted from text heavy content to more video, infotainment and international news due to the most recent trends in online news. Entertainment takes on the spotlight and features such as personalizing your page and incorporating language feeds in Arabic and Spanish. "So the new site will make a step towards the user to be more appealing: new personalisation functionality enables users to customise a column on the front with sports scores or stock prices, local headlines or weather, and CNN's community-based iReport site will be featured in a curated section on the homepage, as well as in the middle of unfolding stories." The redesign of the site shows how the consumer has shifted its interest from content to visual. The layout is more user friendly, reflecting our modern age and how people want to customize everything to their particular needs and wants.
I think that this change was necessary in order to bring CNN up to date with other competitors such as MSNBC who is also planning on redesigning in order to keep up with the times.
The article talks about how CNN.com shifted from text heavy content to more video, infotainment and international news due to the most recent trends in online news. Entertainment takes on the spotlight and features such as personalizing your page and incorporating language feeds in Arabic and Spanish. "So the new site will make a step towards the user to be more appealing: new personalisation functionality enables users to customise a column on the front with sports scores or stock prices, local headlines or weather, and CNN's community-based iReport site will be featured in a curated section on the homepage, as well as in the middle of unfolding stories." The redesign of the site shows how the consumer has shifted its interest from content to visual. The layout is more user friendly, reflecting our modern age and how people want to customize everything to their particular needs and wants.
I think that this change was necessary in order to bring CNN up to date with other competitors such as MSNBC who is also planning on redesigning in order to keep up with the times.
CNN.com Relaunch
CNN.com's new website design is accessible, but not pretty. Entering the new site, the viewer is stunned by a large, bold header featuring four shades of red. Immediately under that, bold black boxes feature current video stories. If you make it past all of this, however, the site features a number of photographs and videos which successfully catch the viewer's attention and the amount of text on the page is easily readable. The website also highlights a wide range of topics. Their goal was to continue to feature breaking news, but also focus more on in-depth stories, entertainment, video commentary and tv material, which I think they've successfully done.
I like the fact that the site is laid out in a grid format though I don't think it was executed as well as it could have been. The layout on the top half of the homepage feels bulky and unbalanced. Similarly, the 3x3 grid on the bottom of the page listing of all of the sections borders on overwhelming, though I can see how it would be useful for navigation purposes. Once you navigate further into the site, the aesthetics improve (ie- return to the original style).
As a side note, I am a big fan of being able to customize the site and feature the information that I care about. I think a lot of people will utilize this option. It was also interesting to read in the article that a lot of redesign was based on user data CNN collected; I would be interested to learn more about how this data was collected and interpreted.
Overall, some good ideas (such as incorporating more visuals), but not great style.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
How can Google cut costs?
Google is not going anywhere.
The story in the New Yorker criticized Google for being a company that is not necessarily well-managed. And it said that Google's only revenue comes from their search engine. I don't see a problem with that. Obviously, management is important, but their revenue has nowhere to go but up.
The article also pointed out that Google will never make money with YouTube because of high storage cost. Well, part of that high cost is the energy bill. Here's what Google has to say about that: Google planning on moving some of its data centers to international waters?
The company wants to use the cold ocean water to cool its servers. It will be a high cost to build, but it is a green effort to save energy costs. I only see that helping.
I just can't fathom a mammoth company like Google going away. They will continue to innovate with ideas like Gmail — which only made e-mail better — and the Android phone, which is set to pass the iPhone as the second most popular phone on the market within a few years.
Get used to it. Google is here to stay.
Life without Google?
I can't remember my first time using Google. Not sure why I would've remembered it either. I was probably in middle school, putzing around on the internet and was shown a new search engine by someone. Little did I know how essential this simple, bare-bones search engine would become to me and hundreds of millions of other people.
Google runs my life. Gmail is one of my main forms of communication. Gcal assures I'm where I need to be when I'm supposed to be there. I spend atleast two hours every day using Google in some way or another.
There have been one or two occasions this year where I have not been able to access my Gmail account and was presented with a "Google Error" message. This was a frightening experience to say the least. What would I do without Google? How would I organize my life? Google has become a necessity for me. In turn, I have become an advocate for everything Google. I don't understand why everyone and their sister doesn't have Gmail?!?! I get angry sometimes when I see people using their SU Mail accounts or some Microsoft Outlook bologna. Get with the program buddy.
Auletta's article presented me with a good deal of new and interesting info about Google. I found it interesting to see how far Google's reach expands in terms of its "approximately hundred and fifty products"(52). I feel as though the author presented two views of Google. On one side there is the roots of the company which got started in a garge with the attitude that "if people have better information they will live their lives better"(56). This mission helped shape a company which wanted to keep doing more and more for the user at a cheaper cost . The expansion of Google's services along with the company's exponential growth has brought Google into many different markets where it is competing and often out-competing well-established companies who cannot afford to provide such premium services at minimal costs. Such growth and expansion has lead some to believe that Google is spreading itself too thin and "peanut-buttering everything"(52) and others to accuse the company of becoming greedy and profit driven - the dark side.
I have faith that Google will prevail. The peanut butter may be spread widely, but it is thick with money. I have a feeling Google will one day not too far away take Exxon Mobile's place the most filthy rich coporation in the world. I hope Google lives on past me because I don't want to live a day with out it.
Google runs my life. Gmail is one of my main forms of communication. Gcal assures I'm where I need to be when I'm supposed to be there. I spend atleast two hours every day using Google in some way or another.
There have been one or two occasions this year where I have not been able to access my Gmail account and was presented with a "Google Error" message. This was a frightening experience to say the least. What would I do without Google? How would I organize my life? Google has become a necessity for me. In turn, I have become an advocate for everything Google. I don't understand why everyone and their sister doesn't have Gmail?!?! I get angry sometimes when I see people using their SU Mail accounts or some Microsoft Outlook bologna. Get with the program buddy.
Auletta's article presented me with a good deal of new and interesting info about Google. I found it interesting to see how far Google's reach expands in terms of its "approximately hundred and fifty products"(52). I feel as though the author presented two views of Google. On one side there is the roots of the company which got started in a garge with the attitude that "if people have better information they will live their lives better"(56). This mission helped shape a company which wanted to keep doing more and more for the user at a cheaper cost . The expansion of Google's services along with the company's exponential growth has brought Google into many different markets where it is competing and often out-competing well-established companies who cannot afford to provide such premium services at minimal costs. Such growth and expansion has lead some to believe that Google is spreading itself too thin and "peanut-buttering everything"(52) and others to accuse the company of becoming greedy and profit driven - the dark side.
I have faith that Google will prevail. The peanut butter may be spread widely, but it is thick with money. I have a feeling Google will one day not too far away take Exxon Mobile's place the most filthy rich coporation in the world. I hope Google lives on past me because I don't want to live a day with out it.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Google will stay afloat!
The word 'Google' was coined as a play on the word googol which referred to the number one followed by one hundred zeros. The naming was probably not without foresight since if the present astronomical growth of Google continues, it might some day surpass that number with the number of searches performed and perhaps even its revenue. The term, was actually chosen with the idea of organizing the infinite amount of information available on the web.
I thought the article in New Yorker was being overly critical of Google. It is true that companies which are once deemed invincible have ended up biting the dust. But I think this need not and will not be the case with Google. Because Google has not only exhibited innovation in technology but it has also displayed brilliant business logistics. Google is not afraid to try anything new and that is its biggest strength. In a phase where conventional strategies of marketing are being challenged by media and technology the only way to survive is to innovate. And Google is up on their game with this.
I believe a comparison of Google with Apple and Microsoft cannot be justified since both the other companies stuck to one particular line of successful ventures and their applications are simply not as diverse or critically acclaimed as Google's services.
The last time I heard about Google in Applied Research class, they were going to build server farms underwater in international waters. So will they ever go down? Only in that sense probably!
I thought the article in New Yorker was being overly critical of Google. It is true that companies which are once deemed invincible have ended up biting the dust. But I think this need not and will not be the case with Google. Because Google has not only exhibited innovation in technology but it has also displayed brilliant business logistics. Google is not afraid to try anything new and that is its biggest strength. In a phase where conventional strategies of marketing are being challenged by media and technology the only way to survive is to innovate. And Google is up on their game with this.
I believe a comparison of Google with Apple and Microsoft cannot be justified since both the other companies stuck to one particular line of successful ventures and their applications are simply not as diverse or critically acclaimed as Google's services.
The last time I heard about Google in Applied Research class, they were going to build server farms underwater in international waters. So will they ever go down? Only in that sense probably!
Search profits let Google take risks in other areas, but how many will make money?
To most people, Google is a search engine. It's simple. Write what you want to find in the little box and, lo and behold, up pops what you were looking for. It's easy, it works, it's simpler to use than Yahoo's old search was (clicking on a series of categories and sub-categories) -- and it has an odd, catchy name to boot. A recipe for success -- and with the explosion of Web use, especially as broadband connections became the norm rather than the exception, success on a massive scale.
What struck me, though, is exactly how many services Google offers beyond search. We're all discussing this on Blogger -- a free Google service. YouTube, of course, is now part of the Google empire. I love Picasa - a simple and pretty powerful photo-organization-and-editing tool. When I got a Mac a few years back, it was one of the few things I missed from my PC (yes, I like it better than iPhoto); and when I got my laptop PC, it was the first thing I downloaded. Of course, it's a Google product, and it's free.
I knew Google offered lots of services besides search, but I didn't realize exactly how many -- about 150, according to the article. I found this interesting: The only service making a profit for Google right now is search. That's it. Yes, it's a huge, huge profit -- information searches are a cornerstone of the Internet -- and it's easily able to subsidize all those other ventures.
The interesting thing is exactly how many of these ventures will turn around and make money for Google. The huge ad profits from searches have let them absorb losses on their non-search ventures and allowed them to look at long-term potential rather than short-term profit. Why give away a program as good as Picasa? I'm guessing they thought getting the program onto lots of computers would open up other potential revenue streams, such as Picasa Web Albums, an online photo sharing site. Of course, there is a lot of competition in that area right now, most notably Flickr. Will Picasa ever make Google any money? I don't know. Will YouTube or Android make any money for Google? Again, I don't know, but because of that huge revenue stream from searching, Google has been able to afford to take risks.
What struck me, though, is exactly how many services Google offers beyond search. We're all discussing this on Blogger -- a free Google service. YouTube, of course, is now part of the Google empire. I love Picasa - a simple and pretty powerful photo-organization-and-editing tool. When I got a Mac a few years back, it was one of the few things I missed from my PC (yes, I like it better than iPhoto); and when I got my laptop PC, it was the first thing I downloaded. Of course, it's a Google product, and it's free.
I knew Google offered lots of services besides search, but I didn't realize exactly how many -- about 150, according to the article. I found this interesting: The only service making a profit for Google right now is search. That's it. Yes, it's a huge, huge profit -- information searches are a cornerstone of the Internet -- and it's easily able to subsidize all those other ventures.
The interesting thing is exactly how many of these ventures will turn around and make money for Google. The huge ad profits from searches have let them absorb losses on their non-search ventures and allowed them to look at long-term potential rather than short-term profit. Why give away a program as good as Picasa? I'm guessing they thought getting the program onto lots of computers would open up other potential revenue streams, such as Picasa Web Albums, an online photo sharing site. Of course, there is a lot of competition in that area right now, most notably Flickr. Will Picasa ever make Google any money? I don't know. Will YouTube or Android make any money for Google? Again, I don't know, but because of that huge revenue stream from searching, Google has been able to afford to take risks.
google & you tube
While I agree with several people about disliking Google becoming a monopoly and the information that it collects, I believe that it has seeped into our culture and will be around for a longtime to come. Its search engine function has hooked a generation of users and has virtually taken over the information industry and has deeply affected older traditional media. I believe that the company has positioned itself well for the long haul. As the digital media revolution continues to change our reading and viewing habits, more and more people will turn to the Web to view movies, television and read stories, books etc., and that's precisely where Google has positioned themselves. There will be competition, but Google continues to find creative ways to put themselves at the front or near the front of the pack in most every area.
As The New Yorker article mentioned, YouTube lost money in 2008 and is projected to do the same in 2009 (in the area of 500 million dollars) but I believe that we are just at the start of a sea change in the way we view movies, news, television, and YouTube is in a prime position to take advantage of this.
As The New Yorker article mentioned, YouTube lost money in 2008 and is projected to do the same in 2009 (in the area of 500 million dollars) but I believe that we are just at the start of a sea change in the way we view movies, news, television, and YouTube is in a prime position to take advantage of this.
We don't search it: We GOOGLE IT
This is very true. When someone asked me where they could find some information about sneakers, I told them to GOOGLE it. Google is controlling my life. I use it for everything. I even have a Google phone, a MyTouch. You know? The phone that Whoopi Goldberg, Phil Jackson and Jesse James do a commercial for? Yea, that one. I was in my content management class yesterday and my professor told us that Google actually makes $11 million a day. Do you how many jr. bacon cheeseburgers that buys? But, the article mentions that YouTube didn't make any money in 2008. That's surprising to me because everyone seems to use it. If it wasn't for YouTube, I would've never seen Kanye bumb-rush Taylor Swift at the VMA's.
The most important thing from this article, at least to me, is seeing how dominant that Google is. The article said that Google comprises of 70% of web searches. But, I think Google will continue to grow. It will never stop getting better. It's just like "new" media. It can't be new if there's changes to it everyday. Google has Flip and Wave. Now, they're trying to release E-Books???? Google is going to control everything, but I have no problem with that. Over the years, Google struggled but they bounced back and found ways to make money and become powerful. I can't picture any other search engine becoming as powerful as Google has become.
Trying too hard
I think Google is pretty awesome. However, I think Google is trying to do too many things. Like Aulleta stated in the article, Google has gotten a little arrogant and thought that they could take over the world.
Kind of like Starbucks when they tried to take over the world by opening up a store on every corner in every city in the world. Then the next logical step for world domination by a coffee shop was obviously a music business. Then if they're releasing music then they might as well make some movies and publish some books. But then times got tough and they realized they tried to be too awesome by doing too many things instead of focusing on what made them popular in the first place, making people feel cool when buying coffee. So they had to close a bunch of stores and try to figure out how to make better coffee instead of figuring out if they should release a Sonic Youth hits compilation.
Google has pretty cool services, but if they really want to make people happy, maybe they should just focus on getting them the best and most useful information instead of figuring out how to make money from You Tube.
Kind of like Starbucks when they tried to take over the world by opening up a store on every corner in every city in the world. Then the next logical step for world domination by a coffee shop was obviously a music business. Then if they're releasing music then they might as well make some movies and publish some books. But then times got tough and they realized they tried to be too awesome by doing too many things instead of focusing on what made them popular in the first place, making people feel cool when buying coffee. So they had to close a bunch of stores and try to figure out how to make better coffee instead of figuring out if they should release a Sonic Youth hits compilation.
Google has pretty cool services, but if they really want to make people happy, maybe they should just focus on getting them the best and most useful information instead of figuring out how to make money from You Tube.
Google is Taking Over the World
Reading this article reminded me of this video that the Museum of Media History created in 2015 about the Internet. It is called EPIC 2005 and you should definitely watch it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkFGsNtTFRI). Not only does it give the history of the Internet, but it also gives us the future, which is basically Google taking over the world. This sounds dramatic, but after reading this article you should know that while taking over the world is not the proper way of saying it, Google could own a good majority of it. In my media classes, we learn about how there are only seven media corporations that control the entire world’s media from television and film to newspapers and magazines (Time Warner, NBC Universal, Disney, News Corp, Bertelsmann, Viacom, Sony). While everyone thought these companies would continue to merge and become more powerful, what has happened is that Google has entered the arena and is slowly encroaching on the competition. What is scarier about Google opposed to the other “traditional” media companies (as they referred to them in the article) is that Google started on the Internet and what a lot of people do not realize about the Internet is that there are very few laws that protect users because it is so new and huge. One of the reasons that Google is so successful is because of the information that can be obtained about each user. We do not think cookies on your computer are creepy but what is happening is that cookies tracks every website you go to and every search you make. Imagine if someone followed you around all day and made notes about every building you went into and every store you shopped at. Now you are being stalked but online it does not bother anyone.
Now I’ve strayed from the point of the article, but it is interesting to see how Google works and the response from other media corporations. While I enjoy the products Google provides as much as the next person (Google revolutionized the Internet and they should get credit for that), I think the government should keep a close eye on them. Even though the article mentioned their seemingly lack of proper structure, it seems that Google is set up to succeed. They are expectant of future technology trends and will change accordingly to insure their status on top. One day they may be bought out by the new and improved system that somehow makes Google look old and slow but even then, we will continue to “google” everything.
Now I’ve strayed from the point of the article, but it is interesting to see how Google works and the response from other media corporations. While I enjoy the products Google provides as much as the next person (Google revolutionized the Internet and they should get credit for that), I think the government should keep a close eye on them. Even though the article mentioned their seemingly lack of proper structure, it seems that Google is set up to succeed. They are expectant of future technology trends and will change accordingly to insure their status on top. One day they may be bought out by the new and improved system that somehow makes Google look old and slow but even then, we will continue to “google” everything.
400 weeks of Google
If one needs a good example of creative genius, after reading this example, I am confident that Google is it. Even though the article goes into describing the sour spots in the company, in the end all goes back to the exceptional administration and sheer luck the developers have, especially in this current economy. What blows my mind is how innovation leads to instant gratification. Google went from making 0 dollars to being a 20 billion dollar money machine. What this article say and must be clear to anyone brave enough to venture in this kind of risky business is the fact that everyone is out to get you. Basically its all or nothing. For Google it started with the search engine but with time they branched out to other fields that overlapped with already existing services and companies like 'digitalizing' books and applications for mobile phone companies. By this time even the government has been asked by media companies to monitor Google's moves. With all of the different services Google has to offer, there is no doubt that they have created a monopoly that is only starting.
What is even more interesting is to hear about the lack of organization in a company such as this one. "Last, year, a senior Google executive, who has since left the company, observed that until late that year Google never had a systematic process for developing an annual budget or allocating capital across businesses; insted, budgeting was merely a simple forecast for each of the products."(Auletta 52). I mean, when you have a 20 billion plus company....why even bother with accounting. Google is not just another web browser[although it does "account for almost seventy percent of the world's Internet searches"(Auletta 55)], it is a lifestyle, a verb, a movement that identifies a whole generation and I am pretty sure that it is not going anywhere anytime soon.
I leave you with the most valuable thing I got out of this reading is more of a question that Page and Brin, Google engineers ask themselves: "Why must we do things the way they've always been done?" (Auletta 48).
What is even more interesting is to hear about the lack of organization in a company such as this one. "Last, year, a senior Google executive, who has since left the company, observed that until late that year Google never had a systematic process for developing an annual budget or allocating capital across businesses; insted, budgeting was merely a simple forecast for each of the products."(Auletta 52). I mean, when you have a 20 billion plus company....why even bother with accounting. Google is not just another web browser[although it does "account for almost seventy percent of the world's Internet searches"(Auletta 55)], it is a lifestyle, a verb, a movement that identifies a whole generation and I am pretty sure that it is not going anywhere anytime soon.
I leave you with the most valuable thing I got out of this reading is more of a question that Page and Brin, Google engineers ask themselves: "Why must we do things the way they've always been done?" (Auletta 48).
Case.In.Point.
Reading Ken Auletta's "Searching For Trouble" proved quite an interesting experience for me. Why? Every five minutes, I checked my Gmail, and/or Google Reader accounts (not to mention, YouTube-ing just a few short minutes ago). If my experience doesn't serve as a major lesson in Google's impact in today's web culture, I'm not sure what does!
Besides having a Gmail account, and a Google Reader account (which, by the way, is AMAZING), I also regularly track my Google-Analytics for my photography website. I have a Google.com business profile so it shows up in search engines. And I also have accounts for YouTube and Blogger (owned by Google). I'd venture to say most of us in class are similar in this Googly regard.
Why mention all of these tidbits of information? It's evidence. Pure evidence of the monopoly Google has created over our lives. Maybe that sounds harsh? But I'm not so sure. Whether most people realize it or not, Google has definitely infiltrated a majority of our web-related lives. And as students, it's not surprising that we spend the majority of our days online. Therefore, I'd be interested to see just how much of my day is actually consumed with this Google "product."
To be honest, when I started reading the article, I had no qualms with Google. But as I continued, I became more and more aware of my ignorance of the "arrogance" of Google. I was a bit turned off by the business practices and attitudes Auletta mentioned. However! I've finished the article, and am still in love with the ease of Gmail, Gchat, Reader, etc., etc., etc. Overall, one has to question whether real people really, sincerely care about the Google monopoly. Because, in the end, it serves them.
So what's in store for Google in the future? I'm not sure. But I do think there are many, many more innovations to be made, and much more growth to occur before consumers start noticing in the slightest.
Google keeps its audience's well-being in mind: Jackie Poinier
"It is probably the most visible service concocted by mankind."
This is so true. Before reading this article I didn't realize what a monopoly Google held over the media industry, but I knew what a monopoly it held over people all over the world. One of the country's I visited while studying abroad last Fall was Japan. I did a home-stay in Kobe, where one of my most vivid memories was my home-stay mom asking me for a translation. She wanted a translation of "google." To increase her English vocabulary she kept a journal of words she heard that are outside textbook English. Obviously she had heard this word "google" mentioned enough by American visitors to stick in her head. This to me shows how widespread the company is. It's became a word in our dictionary. Although the founders never made a business plan and are receiving criticism for it, I think they will only continue to excel because they think first of their audience & second about their profits.
Like the quote says, Google is the most visible service on Earth. The aspect that I think will propel it into the future is being an outlet for all consumer needs. It already provides video access, maps, reading storage, document filing... its looking into data storage and mobile software... basically YES its a monopoly but what will save it is how widespread its uses are for consumers. Maybe its just me but to consumers its products are fragmented and separate. Looking at my mail and watching You Tube seems like completely different industries. If they can keep coming up with more mini-products within Google that help consumers address all their needs from one location they could be a monopoly on information accessing, but no other company is close to reaching all the bases that they cover.
In order to keep functioning Google needs to start making money off of their sites. I hope they find a way to utilize advertisers that won't change their initial goal of improving "people's lives through information... a future in which knowledge transended the limitations of the marketplace." I never thought of Google as a company designed with individuals in mind, but now that I know their root, it is easy to see why they've become so popular... and why they will remain so.
GOOOOOOGLE
Before reading the article "Searching for Trouble: Why Google is on its guard" by Ken Auletta, I had no opinion on Google other than it is convenient and functional. Like many people, I took it for granted, using it daily but never stopping to consider it. I didn't even know how Google worked; the math of it is genius. After reading the article, I am thinking about Google, though I'm still not sure what I think.
I dislike the monopoly created by Google. I dislike what a powerhouse it has become. It scares me how much information Google is able to collect from its users and what it could do with that information of it divorced its users and married its advertisers (as Auletta mentions, p54).
Yet I found myself respecting Google's values and founders. For instance, I love that Google has succeeded to the utmost degree and yet still pushes its limits and those of the industry in the quest of developing new products and services. I admire the passion of its founders. Auletta, describes Brin and Page as having "restless-we-are-never-satisfied energy;" they are pioneers.
The brief section of the article which speculates about the Obama administration's relationship with Google interested me; it summed up a bit of what I was feeling reading the article. I appreciate the services that Google provides (a lot) yet its size feels menacing. I will be curious to see how the various court decisions rule, including Google's bid to digitize the world's library.
I do not think Google is going anywhere. The business has extended arms in many directions and eventually it might have to start making decisions and narrowing its reach, but everyone Googles and that won't change.
I dislike the monopoly created by Google. I dislike what a powerhouse it has become. It scares me how much information Google is able to collect from its users and what it could do with that information of it divorced its users and married its advertisers (as Auletta mentions, p54).
Yet I found myself respecting Google's values and founders. For instance, I love that Google has succeeded to the utmost degree and yet still pushes its limits and those of the industry in the quest of developing new products and services. I admire the passion of its founders. Auletta, describes Brin and Page as having "restless-we-are-never-satisfied energy;" they are pioneers.
The brief section of the article which speculates about the Obama administration's relationship with Google interested me; it summed up a bit of what I was feeling reading the article. I appreciate the services that Google provides (a lot) yet its size feels menacing. I will be curious to see how the various court decisions rule, including Google's bid to digitize the world's library.
I do not think Google is going anywhere. The business has extended arms in many directions and eventually it might have to start making decisions and narrowing its reach, but everyone Googles and that won't change.
Even the Mighty Will Fall
I found the New Yorker article "Searching for Trouble" by Ken Auletta extremely interesting and the title extremely fitting. Google has undoubtedly revolutioned the world. The site makes finding information easier than ever before. As a user anyone can quickly look up people, places, businesses, directions, etc. This task perviously took a phone book, good spelling skills, a geography minor and a postive attitude. As a reporter I can check facts a lot
Over the next couple years I don't see Google being overtaken. However, nothing lasts forever in this world and especially with regards to business. It is inevitable that something new will come along. The web saw the explosion of MySpace abd YouTube, thinking these were virtually foolproof. However, site such as Hulu, Facebook and Twitter quickly emerged. Google currently has the search engine world monopolized, but I don't think this can last forever. What that will be, now isn't that the million dollar question?
As for a monopoly, this is the hardest part. There are other options but people simply are using Google more. People can you Ask.com, Yahoo.com, Bing.com and others search engine sites. Also, Google has to face the prospective of its competition teaming up. The article mentioned Amazon.com's Jeff Bezos combining forces with the likes of Microsoft. Its a competative world and I think that the monopoly of Google has been created by the users.
One question I was thinking about is what, if anything at all, makes Google so much better than these other search engines?
Over the next couple years I don't see Google being overtaken. However, nothing lasts forever in this world and especially with regards to business. It is inevitable that something new will come along. The web saw the explosion of MySpace abd YouTube, thinking these were virtually foolproof. However, site such as Hulu, Facebook and Twitter quickly emerged. Google currently has the search engine world monopolized, but I don't think this can last forever. What that will be, now isn't that the million dollar question?
As for a monopoly, this is the hardest part. There are other options but people simply are using Google more. People can you Ask.com, Yahoo.com, Bing.com and others search engine sites. Also, Google has to face the prospective of its competition teaming up. The article mentioned Amazon.com's Jeff Bezos combining forces with the likes of Microsoft. Its a competative world and I think that the monopoly of Google has been created by the users.
One question I was thinking about is what, if anything at all, makes Google so much better than these other search engines?
Even my mom knows how to google
I’m not sure you can say what kind of impact Google has made in today’s web culture. It’s more like, what haven’t they done to impact today’s web culture? They revolutionized the Internet as a search mechanism. Not only do they continue to dominate that aspect of web culture, but they also have extended their reach into other areas of the web, creating a sort of web media empire. The use of algorithms as a problem solving mechanism for any of the projects that they want to implement is an interesting aspect of their development and seemingly one that people either dislike (Mel Karmazian the COO of Viacom) or want to emulate.
From what the article says, they are among the first to consider and implement the idea of advertising online and through other technological outlets like smart phones. The success rate of this project, and others that they have implemented, is not nearly as high as others they have implemented. However, I think it remains a topic to follow. It’s clear that they have other media companies on edge with their technology and tactics, but I think this has more to do with their ability to forecast what people need, want and like. With that said, Google does run the risk of overextending itself (the Peanut Butter Manifesto analogy is spot on in my opinion).
The comparison to IBM and Microsoft also is something to consider. The more Google extends itself as a media empire, the more likely they are to experience backlash (as they are now with some legal cases that are being considered). If there are enough powerful companies protesting their monopolization of the online media market, then they could be in trouble. I hope that’s not the case. I would prefer that Google improve their own product and force other media businesses to consider the change in times. When all of these groups are on the same page in terms of vision and development, we as consumers will reap the benefits. Right now these other companies are too busy trying to prevent Google from further success, rather than come up with their own innovations. That just reeks of laziness to me.
"Let me Google that"
Until I read Ken Auletta's article "Searching for Trouble" (The New Yorker, Oct. 12, 2009), I was unaware of the problems eating at Google's business structure.
Everyone talks about Google in such high regard. I have even been known to call Google the master of all search engines. Because it is. There are others (Ask, Yahoo!, and the Microsoft's new engine, Bing, to name a few). But what other search engine has become a verb? People don't go around saying, "Let me Bing that!" No, we are culture of Googlers.
With that statement, I think it's clear Google does have something that could be considered monopoly. People know it, use it, talk about it and research it. And as Google keeps expanding its horizons like it did with e-mail, maps, news, video and more, the name will be synonymous with the ability to easily find answers.
Like all businesses, though, Google is vulnerable. Chaos management will eventually knock Google off its feet, so they need to get organized. It's not enough to be the smartest group of guys in the world if you can't manage those smarts.
Everyone talks about Google in such high regard. I have even been known to call Google the master of all search engines. Because it is. There are others (Ask, Yahoo!, and the Microsoft's new engine, Bing, to name a few). But what other search engine has become a verb? People don't go around saying, "Let me Bing that!" No, we are culture of Googlers.
With that statement, I think it's clear Google does have something that could be considered monopoly. People know it, use it, talk about it and research it. And as Google keeps expanding its horizons like it did with e-mail, maps, news, video and more, the name will be synonymous with the ability to easily find answers.
Like all businesses, though, Google is vulnerable. Chaos management will eventually knock Google off its feet, so they need to get organized. It's not enough to be the smartest group of guys in the world if you can't manage those smarts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)