Traffick - The Business of Search Engines & Web Portals
Blog Categories (aka Tags) Archive of Traffick Articles Our Internet Marketing Consulting Services Contact the Traffickers Traffick RSS Feed

Saturday, November 20, 2004

FireFox Developers Riding the Wave

The publicity avalanche surrounding FireFox continues unabated. News.com profiles developers at the forefront of the FireFox developer movement and explains how some crafty developers are taking advantage of Mozilla's open-source architecture to generate closed-source commercial products.

"Business is pretty crazy right now," said Pete Collins, who last year founded the Mozdev Group in anticipation of demand for private Mozilla development work. "With the popularity of Firefox and the economy rebounding, we've been swamped. We don't even advertise--clients find us and provide us with work."

How cool is that? I'm thinking this is just the tip of the iceberg, folks. I can tell you that I am definitely willing to pay some bucks in order to have a powerful browsing experience. Microsoft's years of neglect have only compounded that feeling of frustration and obsolescence that IE users experience these days.

I've even found a few new extensions since my last post about FireFox. I've also played around with FireFox's more advanced options, and I can now replicate the functionality of my former favorite browser, NetCaptor. So, bye bye, NetCaptor. All of this is made possible by a rock-solid open-source web browser that simply blows IE away. It's so good, and even better than I thought it would be.

Oh, and I got my FireFox t-shirt last week. Yes, I think that fully qualifies me as a geek. :)

There's even a FireFox blog. With all this glowing publicity about the upstart browser, I think we're about to see another "Halloween memo" from Microsoft pretty soon. Will 2005 be the year of Google and Firefox vs. Microsoft. Get your tickets now!

Posted by Cory | | | Permalink

Subscribe: RSS/XML | +My Yahoo | +Newsgator | +Bloglines | +Rojo

 

Thursday, November 18, 2004

I Love Grilled Cheese

In the next few days, hundreds of publishers will try to get people to stampede to their site by working the phrase "grilled cheese" into a sentence like "I like to eat grilled cheese out of a trucker cap." The eBayers are over the top with this one. It's the campiest trend on the Internet since Mahir, jennicam, all your base are belong to us, and nigritude ultramaroon (common misspelling).

Posted by Andrew | | | Permalink

Subscribe: RSS/XML | +My Yahoo | +Newsgator | +Bloglines | +Rojo

 

Google Scholar vs. Real Scholarship

Today's release of Google Scholar, an academic search tool developed by a Google engineer in his "20% time," is an interesting and noble but less-than-groundbreaking contribution to research.

Professors (and librarians) will worry that time-strapped students will carry the trend towards sloppy Internet-based research even further. Pulling an all-nighter and strapped for time? Enter something into a search box. Students, take note: the stuff you pull up on Google Scholar will be a fairly random, incomplete selection of materials, including many abstracts. The best way to write your paper is still to identify the key readings you need to consult to put together a coherent argument, and plop your butt down in the library and actually read through them.

Typing a few queries myself, I discovered just how radically incomplete the results are. In my favorite field, political philosophy, memorable journal articles such as "Communitarianism: A Guide for the Perplexed," "Communitarianism: The Good, the Bad, and the Muddly," and the mindbending "The Foucauldian impasse: no sex, no self, no revolution," are not actually available -- only various citations or mentions of them. Most of the available citations lead only to abstracts at various subscriber-only services. In a few cases, actual journal articles are offered (usually in PDF form), but it's hit-and-miss. One doesn't blame Google Scholar for this, but the very presence of the tempting search box might lull some users into believing that this is a powerful search tool. Many more powerful tools are currently available in the public domain, particularly to students enrolled at accredited institutions.

The nice thing about better educational institutions -- and this is part of the ranking methodology used by third parties -- is that when you access their library systems, you can get just about anything you need, no matter how rarefied or rare. Sometimes, you can get a whole pile of that material and actually work on it in a relatively quiet space -- handy when the only space to call "your own" is half a dorm room.

Distance education has much to recommend it. But as nothing truly replaces face-to-face contact in the business world, it doesn't hurt to spend actual time on a campus soaking up wisdom and tracking down journals and books. As this stage, it still makes a lot of sense to be in the physical presence of professors, fellow students, libraries and library people, if only to familiarize oneself with the notion that there really are people doing serious research.

No doubt the introduction of tools like Google Scholar will push the various academic subscription services and libraries to standardize their protocols for making obscure information available to students (particularly grad students) and researchers. But for the foreseeable future, you're going to get a lot farther, faster, by talking to a professor or librarian who can help you figure out where to look for the actual material you need.

What is interesting is the embryonic categorization that's being built into Google Scholar. The top result for the Gad Horowitz "Foucauldian impasse" article is an entry called [citations] -- confusingly, the system only sees two citations of this piece although there are likely dozens or hundreds in the academic literature. In green letters you also see what amounts to a "meta categorization" statement: "Michel Foucault, critical assessments, 1995." Better than nothing, but again, librarians are likely wincing watching Google reinvent the wheel. We'll be watching this space.

Posted by Andrew | | | Permalink

Subscribe: RSS/XML | +My Yahoo | +Newsgator | +Bloglines | +Rojo

 

Tuesday, November 16, 2004

Will Google Ban Affiliate Bidding?

Some useful discussion on John Battelle's blog about the ongoing issues surrounding trademarked terms and (in a slightly separate but related vein) affiliates bidding on brand-name keywords.

One affiliate worries that Google will "ban" all affiliates from bidding on keywords.

I worry that these kinds of rumors may spread and create a distorted debate, and of course I have no idea what Google will actually do. But it's worth looking more closely at exactly what's being discussed.

In the first place, there are many different kinds of affiliates and they behave in different ways. Some are responsible and clever, some aren't. Some have their own sites. Others don't. But I don't believe it will be easy to come up with hard-and-fast rules to eliminate a whole category of bid types or words from the bidding universe, because these issues are rarely clear-cut.

On the whole, I believe that affiliate-parent relationships are best dealt with privately. But that's not to say that Google itself won't also have to step in to quell certain ongoing practices. And when they do, certain aggressive full-time affiliate folks who find themselves shut out of the action will have only themselves to blame for their lemming-like risk-free participation in the AdWords auction. Funny, but choking AdWords with crappy ads sounds a lot like spamming a search index full of crummy spam pages. It costs nearly nothing, but pays off if your affiliate link generates sales. Hmmm. There has to be a better way to live.

So, from the standpoint of the poor user, it looks like too many advertisers are in there choking the system with dictionaries full of keywords that lead users only to a big-company site like eBay. And they're doing so using the keyword replace function for maximum coverage with minimum work. In other words, they're using generic ad copy and hoping to use the automated tool to make it seem somewhat personalized. Some time ago I predicted that the impact of matching a user's search query exactly (until now, generally this improved user response) would be diminished if every ad on the page had the same title. Soon, the spoils would go to the advertiser who took time to write a genuinely interesting or personalized title.

Lo and behold, this day has arrived! I just did a search for "stairmaster." Here, in order, are the titles that were used by the eight ad listings on the SERP page:

Stairmaster

Stairmaster

Stairmaster

Stairmaster

Stairmaster

Stairmaster

Stairmaster

Stairmaster


How do you think the user is going to feel about that?

What I'm talking about may not be immediately apparent if you do a search in the United States (though it's not hard to find here either). Checking out the results on a Google search for "Audi A3" for the Canadian user, I saw only three ads, but all were affiliate ads pointing to eBay. That's silly, I thought.

I tried the same query for "Audi A4," but for the U.S. viewer. I got a mix of ad listings. Nothing to worry about there. Then I tried "Audi A4" for the Canadian viewer. Ouch. Eight -- all eight -- of the sponsored links were affiliate links to eBay. The reason these don't show up on the U.S. listings on the first page is that there are fewer advertisers in Canada, and the folks who play the "choke AdWords with keywords" game are usually lowballing at 5-10 cents since their arbitrage strategy only allows them to bid about this much.

Recent Google moves to put such keywords "on hold" or "in trial" before they accrue too many impressions are likely directed at such advertisers. A couple of things. First, Google has denied (on forums when asked) that recent moves such as this are meant to separate naughty advertisers from nice ones. Second, they also claim that the new system is actually giving a looser leash to some diligent advertisers who find themselves flirting with the 0.5% CTR cutoff. Maybe. No one really knows how this is supposed to work or what it's really supposed to do. What we do see is some campaigns working slightly better, while others are being whacked with a lot of "on hold" and "in trial" keywords based on a predictive model that Google is currently tinkering with.

Google has some tough politics to juggle at this juncture. The "affiliate folks" who are being asked to stop choking AdWords with dictionaries full of words are also the same "folks" that help Google generate so much revenue. These participants in the mayhem of low-ball bidding and search engine optimization and keyword arbitrage and such are often the very same people who are AdSense publishers, sharing revenue with Google on contextual ads. It's those publishers who have been responsible from taking Google AdWords from "fairly profitable" to insanely profitable" since the inception of the AdSense program. Google has to enact policies many such webmasters won't like, while reassuring them that they love them all dearly. It's a juggling act I don't envy.

If I had to make a prediction, I'd guess that Google will soon learn that they can't coddle this crowd at the same time as handcuffing them. At some point they'll need to be more decisive, and that will alienate a lot of the "AdSense crowd" and negatively impact Google revenues in the short term. But that probably won't be happening over the short term, as a drop in AdSense revenue would hurt Google's stock, and in spite of what the founders say, the stock price matters to most Google employees.

Thus far, the "new way of dealing with keyword relevancy" move hasn't completely quelled the fun and games in affiliate-land, as the Canadian user who typed "Audi A4" found out today. But this could become less of an issue soon as Google's new keyword relevance method gets refined. A query for "Frigidaire ovens" returns a reasonable mix of advertisers, including a top ad result from one of Google Canada's most aggressive advertisers, Sears.ca. But still, there are two of the eBay affiliate lowballers on that page. Were Canadian retailers to wake up and smell the baking banana bread, of course, those arbitrageurs would be crowded right off the page. For now, too many Canadian companies have chosen to ignore keyword bidding, so you can still get great exposure at the 10-cent level.

Google will no doubt continue to study ways of forcing advertisers to be more responsible with their keyword-dumping orgies. Quite simply, seeing eight generic affiliate ads for eBay for a single query is a horrible user experience. Don't even ask Jakob Nielsen what he thinks. Actually, let's. Jakob, maybe it's about time for an update on your April, 2003 column "Will Plain-Text Ads Continue to Rule?"

Posted by Andrew | | | Permalink

Subscribe: RSS/XML | +My Yahoo | +Newsgator | +Bloglines | +Rojo

 

View Recent Posts

 

Speaking Engagement

I am speaking at SMX West

Need Solid Advice?        

Google AdWords book


Andrew's book, Winning Results With Google AdWords, (McGraw-Hill, 2nd ed.), is still helping tens of thousands of advertisers cut through the noise and set a solid course for campaign ROI.

And for a glowing review of the pioneering 1st ed. of the book, check out this review, by none other than Google's Matt Cutts.


Posts from 2002 to 2010


07/2002
08/2002
09/2002
10/2002
11/2002
12/2002
01/2003
02/2003
03/2003
04/2003
05/2003
06/2003
07/2003
08/2003
09/2003
10/2003
11/2003
12/2003
01/2004
02/2004
03/2004
04/2004
05/2004
06/2004
07/2004
08/2004
09/2004
10/2004
11/2004
12/2004
01/2005
02/2005
03/2005
04/2005
05/2005
06/2005
07/2005
08/2005
09/2005
10/2005
11/2005
12/2005
01/2006
02/2006
03/2006
04/2006
05/2006
06/2006
07/2006
08/2006
09/2006
10/2006
11/2006
12/2006
01/2007
02/2007
03/2007
04/2007
05/2007
06/2007
07/2007
08/2007
09/2007
10/2007
11/2007
12/2007
01/2008
02/2008
03/2008
04/2008
05/2008
06/2008
07/2008
08/2008
09/2008
10/2008
11/2008
12/2008
01/2009
02/2009
03/2009
04/2009
05/2009
06/2009
07/2009
08/2009
09/2009
10/2009
11/2009
12/2009
01/2010
02/2010
03/2010
04/2010
Traffick Blog Archive ::
June 30, 2002
July 21, 2002
July 28, 2002
August 04, 2002
August 25, 2002
September 01, 2002
September 08, 2002
September 15, 2002
September 22, 2002
September 29, 2002
October 06, 2002
October 13, 2002
October 20, 2002
October 27, 2002
November 03, 2002
November 10, 2002
November 17, 2002
November 24, 2002
December 01, 2002
December 15, 2002
December 22, 2002
December 29, 2002
January 05, 2003
January 12, 2003
January 19, 2003
January 26, 2003
February 02, 2003
February 09, 2003
February 16, 2003
February 23, 2003
March 02, 2003
March 09, 2003
March 16, 2003
March 23, 2003
March 30, 2003
April 06, 2003
April 13, 2003
April 20, 2003
April 27, 2003
May 04, 2003
May 11, 2003
May 18, 2003
May 25, 2003
June 01, 2003
June 08, 2003
June 15, 2003
June 22, 2003
June 29, 2003
July 06, 2003
July 13, 2003
July 20, 2003
July 27, 2003
August 03, 2003
August 10, 2003
August 17, 2003
August 24, 2003
August 31, 2003
September 07, 2003
September 14, 2003
September 21, 2003
September 28, 2003
October 05, 2003
October 12, 2003
October 19, 2003
October 26, 2003
November 02, 2003
November 09, 2003
November 16, 2003
November 23, 2003
November 30, 2003
December 07, 2003
December 14, 2003
December 21, 2003
December 28, 2003
January 04, 2004
January 11, 2004
January 18, 2004
January 25, 2004
February 01, 2004
February 08, 2004
February 15, 2004
February 22, 2004
February 29, 2004
March 07, 2004
March 14, 2004
March 21, 2004
March 28, 2004
April 04, 2004
April 11, 2004
April 18, 2004
April 25, 2004
May 02, 2004
May 09, 2004
May 16, 2004
May 23, 2004
May 30, 2004
June 06, 2004
June 13, 2004
June 20, 2004
June 27, 2004
July 11, 2004
July 18, 2004
July 25, 2004
August 01, 2004
August 08, 2004
August 15, 2004
August 22, 2004
August 29, 2004
September 05, 2004
September 12, 2004
September 19, 2004
September 26, 2004
October 03, 2004
October 10, 2004
October 17, 2004
October 24, 2004
October 31, 2004
November 07, 2004
November 14, 2004
November 21, 2004
November 28, 2004
December 05, 2004
December 12, 2004
December 19, 2004
January 02, 2005
January 09, 2005
January 16, 2005
January 23, 2005
January 30, 2005
February 06, 2005
February 13, 2005
February 20, 2005
February 27, 2005
March 06, 2005
March 13, 2005
March 20, 2005
March 27, 2005
April 03, 2005
April 10, 2005
April 17, 2005
April 24, 2005
May 01, 2005
May 08, 2005
May 15, 2005
May 22, 2005
May 29, 2005
June 05, 2005
June 12, 2005
June 19, 2005
June 26, 2005
July 03, 2005
July 10, 2005
July 17, 2005
July 24, 2005
July 31, 2005
August 07, 2005
August 14, 2005
August 21, 2005
August 28, 2005
September 04, 2005
September 11, 2005
September 18, 2005
September 25, 2005
October 02, 2005
October 09, 2005
October 16, 2005
October 23, 2005
October 30, 2005
November 06, 2005
November 13, 2005
November 20, 2005
November 27, 2005

 


Traffick - The Business of Search Engines & Web Portals

 


Home | Categories | Archive | About Us | Internet Marketing Consulting | Contact Us
© 1999 - 2013 Traffick.com. All Rights Reserved