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!
Thursday, November 18, 2004
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).
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.
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
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:
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?"