“Social Networking 3.0″ was on the agenda this afternoon at the AlwaysOn Stanford Summit. This one was a “must watch” for me, as will be Dan Farber’s later today on “The Democratization of Media.” You can follow along with the conference’s live Webcast here.
Moderator Charlene Li, senior analyst for Forrester Research, was joined by Travis Katz, senior vice president and general manager of MySpace International; Dustin Moskovitz, co-founder of Facebook; Rich Rosenblatt, CEO of Demand Media and former MySpace executive; Gina Bianchini, CEO of Ning; and Karl Jacob, CEO of Wallop. Dan blogged the panel on Between the Lines, and as he writes most of the discussion focused the future of social networks. I was most interested in the comments concerning social networks and identity, attention, and intellectual property.
On the identity front, Charlene Li stated the truism that maintaining identities across different social networks is “a pain,” and wondered when the social networks we see today will become more open. Facebook’s Dustin Moskovitz recognized that portable identities are necessary, but didn’t go into particulars of how Facebook is or will be addressing this. Rich Rosenblatt said they talk internally at Demand Media about “the portable profile,” and says Demand Media is working on letting users log in with a single profile then select from a mix of options as to where they want to be. (My impression was he was not talking about navigating out of the Demand Media environment.) MySpace’s Travis Katz is interested by the notion of OpenID and a single, portable identity, but thinks it’s “complicated” to make it happen. And Gina Bianchini challenged the notion that social networking users want a single, inflexible identity to follow them around: “Your wakeboarding social network is fundamentally different from your independent journalist one. People in the real world have different sides of themselves that they show to different groups, different people, different communities.” She makes a good point, and I think the digital identity community is on top of that nuance. (Though Tantek Çelik Twittered me to ask about their plans, if any, for using microformats as an open portability standard, sadly I didn’t get the nod from the microphone handler.)
On the attention front, in response to the question “Where’s the money going to come from?” the panelists answered with nearly a single voice: targeted advertising. But transactions based on user desires and intentions are on the radar as well:
Travis Katz: the advertising model on social networks is going to be here a long time. Other models will probably emerge too. MySpace is looking at ecommerce models. You always feel better buying from a trusted source. When you talk about transactions between individuals, there’s a commerce opportunity there too.
Karl Jacob: Wallop is all transaction, no advertising. We believe there’s a world down the road where you buy the things you need to dress up your profile and the applications you want to use. Akin to the ringtone market.
Gina Bianchini: If I had to choose between the ringtone market and targeted advertising, I’d choose targeted advertising. There’s a huge opportunity to bring what is happening with AdWords into social networks. If you take a monetization model that’s working today and generating significant amounts of money, and apply it to a market that is only going to get bigger and more sophisticated as far as targeted advertising, it gets very interesting.
Finally, on the subject of intellectual property, when asked what was missing from the social networking ecosystem and what he would invest in if given the opportunity, Rich Rosenblatt commented on the need for what I would call a “third estate” of media: outside the copyright and use limitations of the products of the big studios, labels, and publishing houses, and yet a step above one person’s photos, films, etc. made primarily for personal use. A class of media produced and designed for Web distribution. Gina Bianchini challenged the notion that “amateur” media can’t comprise this third estate:
Rich Rosenblatt: We’d like to see more content actually made for the Internet. There are two layers of content. Studio generated (lots of trouble and fighting there), and user generated but not usable (one guy’s photos of himself). We’d like to see content that more than a few people want to see.
Gina Bianchini: I would argue that that’s happening today. On YouTube some of that gets lost in the crowd, but put it in a community of really interested people, and it’s very powerful.
Rich Rosenblatt, to Gina: But if you could buy wakeboarding content for your wakeboarding social network, wouldn’t that be great?
Gina Bianchini: From my perspective, one of the benefits of social networks is you and your friends can watch your own stuff. Another benefit is the good stuff rises to the top. I would rather have the material be truly user generated.
Karl Wallop: the good content and the good applications will all come from the current and up and coming generations of users.
Source:http://blogs.zdnet.com
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Social networking sites enjoy massive visitor surge
Online measurement firm comScore has released a report detailing the dramatic rise of social networking sites.
Sites such as Facebook and MySpace are increasingly taking internet advertising share from Yahoo and other market leaders, and the new study shows that these established giants may truly have something to fear.
MySpace received 114 million unique visitors in June 2007, an increase of 72 per cent compared to the 66 million who visited during June last year.
Facebook performed even better, attracting 52 million unique visitors, which was a 270 per cent increase on the 14 million who logged in during June 2006.
Other sites performing well included Hi5, Friendster, Orkut, Bebo and Tagged. The latter logged a whopping 774 per cent increase in visitors, while Bebo's numbers grew by 172 per cent.
"During the past year, social networking has really taken off globally," said comScore's Bob Ivins.
"Literally hundreds of millions of people around the world are visiting social networking sites each month and many are doing so on a daily basis. It would appear that social networking is not a fad but rather an activity that is being woven into the very fabric of the global internet."
Source:www.directtrafficmedia.co.uk
Sites such as Facebook and MySpace are increasingly taking internet advertising share from Yahoo and other market leaders, and the new study shows that these established giants may truly have something to fear.
MySpace received 114 million unique visitors in June 2007, an increase of 72 per cent compared to the 66 million who visited during June last year.
Facebook performed even better, attracting 52 million unique visitors, which was a 270 per cent increase on the 14 million who logged in during June 2006.
Other sites performing well included Hi5, Friendster, Orkut, Bebo and Tagged. The latter logged a whopping 774 per cent increase in visitors, while Bebo's numbers grew by 172 per cent.
"During the past year, social networking has really taken off globally," said comScore's Bob Ivins.
"Literally hundreds of millions of people around the world are visiting social networking sites each month and many are doing so on a daily basis. It would appear that social networking is not a fad but rather an activity that is being woven into the very fabric of the global internet."
Source:www.directtrafficmedia.co.uk
Google launches web history in 26 new languages, including Arabic
Google today announced that it has made Web History available in Arabic.
Users in the Arabic region will now be able to find websites they have visited in the past quickly and easily (browsing the entire text of these pages), as well as edit or delete items they want removed from their web history.
To take advantage of this new feature, users must have a Google account and then opt into the service.
Today's launch is part of a wider Google initiative to give people more relevant results and greater control. By opting in to Web History, users will enable Google to provide them more personalized, targeted results. For example if someone's web history shows that they are more interested in science than cars, when they search for 'GM', Google will rank genetically modified food higher than General Motors in its results.
Web History is as personalized as a user wants it to be. If someone's history, for example, contains queries they would rather keep private, Google enables them to edit, pause or delete these items. Users can opt out of Web History at any time.
Sep Kamvar, Engineering Lead of Personalization, said: 'Have you ever lost something on the web that you've enjoyed before - a funny video, a recipe for chocolate cake, a great newspaper article? Well from today that's a thing of the past. With Web History you'll be able to find it quickly, and from any computer. This new feature, which replaces Search History, lets you look back in time and revisit old sites - searching through all the pages you've seen in the past. It's part of our wider personalized search initiative to give people who opt in better results and more control'.
To use Web History, users must opt in to the service by signing up for a Google Account and must enable the PageRank feature™ of the Google Toolbar™. Toolbar, which is integrated into the browser, helps Google match the pages people visit with their Google Account.
Users already signed up to Search History will notice that Google has changed the name to Web History to reflect this new functionality.
Source:www.ameinfo.com
Users in the Arabic region will now be able to find websites they have visited in the past quickly and easily (browsing the entire text of these pages), as well as edit or delete items they want removed from their web history.
To take advantage of this new feature, users must have a Google account and then opt into the service.
Today's launch is part of a wider Google initiative to give people more relevant results and greater control. By opting in to Web History, users will enable Google to provide them more personalized, targeted results. For example if someone's web history shows that they are more interested in science than cars, when they search for 'GM', Google will rank genetically modified food higher than General Motors in its results.
Web History is as personalized as a user wants it to be. If someone's history, for example, contains queries they would rather keep private, Google enables them to edit, pause or delete these items. Users can opt out of Web History at any time.
Sep Kamvar, Engineering Lead of Personalization, said: 'Have you ever lost something on the web that you've enjoyed before - a funny video, a recipe for chocolate cake, a great newspaper article? Well from today that's a thing of the past. With Web History you'll be able to find it quickly, and from any computer. This new feature, which replaces Search History, lets you look back in time and revisit old sites - searching through all the pages you've seen in the past. It's part of our wider personalized search initiative to give people who opt in better results and more control'.
To use Web History, users must opt in to the service by signing up for a Google Account and must enable the PageRank feature™ of the Google Toolbar™. Toolbar, which is integrated into the browser, helps Google match the pages people visit with their Google Account.
Users already signed up to Search History will notice that Google has changed the name to Web History to reflect this new functionality.
Source:www.ameinfo.com
Google: Is gPhone Dialing Up Once Again?
Here we go again--when it comes to all the speculation swirling around whether Google will jump into the cell phone market, not with new software, but with a handset of its own.
To wit, we've already reported the myriad possibilities and puzzle pieces pointing to a possible cell-phone market entry by the search giant. More than a hundred engineers dedicated to the mobile market; the hiring of Danger Inc. co-founder and T-Mobile Sidekick developer Andy Rubin; the acquisition of wireless and net upstart Grand Central; the lead role the company took in laying down the ground rules of the upcoming FCC wireless spectrum auction; its cozy partnership with Apple and its iPhone, with Google CEO Eric Schmidt sitting on Apple's board.
Which brings us to today and the front page story by our partners at the Wall Street Journal waxing philosophic about just how truly possible a "gPhone" is. But the Journal mentions several compelling new developments: that Google has developed prototype handsets; that the company has opened discussions, preliminary though they are, with Verizon and T-Mobile (did I mention the Rubin hiring?); and the spending of "hundreds of millions of dollars" on focused mobile spending.
There's a lot going on here. Seems like everyone recognizes the importance of wireless as the key catalyst in tech. Nokia released earnings today and the company announces that it sold 100 million handsets over the last quarter alone. That's a staggering figure, and with BlackBerry's continued success even in the face of the buzz iPhone still generates, the wireless market might be so hot that Google won't be able to afford to ignore it. Remember, that was the same argument used to convince everyone that Apple was entering the mobile market.
"If the wireless access growth really grows aggressively, which we really haven't seen much growth there to date, there is an opportunity for Google to monetize that," says Cowen's Jim Friedland.
When it comes to wireless, Google has made no bones about ponying up the funds to own spectrum and build out a network. The company's VP in charge of its wireless initiatives, Chris Sacca, tells me: "What do we have to do to insure Americans have choice of where they go on the internet, and make sure the internet is accessible to the broadest number of people possible." He says "we'll do what it takes," with the company already announcing it would spend nearly $5 billion to own a wireless spectrum. That's all network-oriented.
A handset is a different animal, though insiders at Google I'm talking to won't completely rule it out. However, they do say it's a long shot. Sniffing around; playing around; toying with different technologies. That's what Google does with its multi-billion dollar R&D budget. Something might come of it; or not. But before you jump to a gPhone as a forgone conclusion, keep in mind that Google is a software company. Like Microsoft And we haven't seen Microsoft release a branded PC of its own. And Xbox, Microsoft's big foray into hardware, has lost about $4 billion.
Google hasn't learned much from Microsoft, but that's a lesson the search giant should keep handy.
Source:www.cnbc.com
To wit, we've already reported the myriad possibilities and puzzle pieces pointing to a possible cell-phone market entry by the search giant. More than a hundred engineers dedicated to the mobile market; the hiring of Danger Inc. co-founder and T-Mobile Sidekick developer Andy Rubin; the acquisition of wireless and net upstart Grand Central; the lead role the company took in laying down the ground rules of the upcoming FCC wireless spectrum auction; its cozy partnership with Apple and its iPhone, with Google CEO Eric Schmidt sitting on Apple's board.
Which brings us to today and the front page story by our partners at the Wall Street Journal waxing philosophic about just how truly possible a "gPhone" is. But the Journal mentions several compelling new developments: that Google has developed prototype handsets; that the company has opened discussions, preliminary though they are, with Verizon and T-Mobile (did I mention the Rubin hiring?); and the spending of "hundreds of millions of dollars" on focused mobile spending.
There's a lot going on here. Seems like everyone recognizes the importance of wireless as the key catalyst in tech. Nokia released earnings today and the company announces that it sold 100 million handsets over the last quarter alone. That's a staggering figure, and with BlackBerry's continued success even in the face of the buzz iPhone still generates, the wireless market might be so hot that Google won't be able to afford to ignore it. Remember, that was the same argument used to convince everyone that Apple was entering the mobile market.
"If the wireless access growth really grows aggressively, which we really haven't seen much growth there to date, there is an opportunity for Google to monetize that," says Cowen's Jim Friedland.
When it comes to wireless, Google has made no bones about ponying up the funds to own spectrum and build out a network. The company's VP in charge of its wireless initiatives, Chris Sacca, tells me: "What do we have to do to insure Americans have choice of where they go on the internet, and make sure the internet is accessible to the broadest number of people possible." He says "we'll do what it takes," with the company already announcing it would spend nearly $5 billion to own a wireless spectrum. That's all network-oriented.
A handset is a different animal, though insiders at Google I'm talking to won't completely rule it out. However, they do say it's a long shot. Sniffing around; playing around; toying with different technologies. That's what Google does with its multi-billion dollar R&D budget. Something might come of it; or not. But before you jump to a gPhone as a forgone conclusion, keep in mind that Google is a software company. Like Microsoft And we haven't seen Microsoft release a branded PC of its own. And Xbox, Microsoft's big foray into hardware, has lost about $4 billion.
Google hasn't learned much from Microsoft, but that's a lesson the search giant should keep handy.
Source:www.cnbc.com
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Google says its Analytics tool partially restored
Cause of data blackout remains unexplained
Google Inc. has started to update reporting in all Google Analytics accounts affected by the data blackout the company said began Saturday.
In a blog post yesterday, Jeff Gillis, a member of the Google Analytics team, said the company had started to update reporting in all Google Analytics accounts that had been affected by a "temporary reporting delay.".
"As of 5 p.m. PST this evening, some users will start to see part or all of the data from the period between Saturday and now appear in reports," Gillis said in the blog. "We expect updates for all accounts to continue through Monday night into tomorrow and will update this blog when reporting is fully restored."
But there was no indication about what caused the reporting delay. Google could not be reached for comment. However, one user on the Google's Analytics discussion forum said he had been without data since Thursday, not Saturday.
Last week, Google Analytics suffered what the company called a "brief processing delay." Another such delay hit the service during the July 14-15 weekend, affecting "a small percentage of users," Google said at the time.
The previous weekend, a server outage prevented "many" users from creating and logging into new accounts, according to Google. A significant data outage left many users fuming in late May as well.
Some users are blaming these performance problems on a major upgrade to the service performed in early May.
This morning, another discussion forum user described his problems with the service.
"When a Web page contains Google Analytics script, my Internet Explorer returns an error message at the bottom right message bar," the user said. "Also Analytics does not track my PC ... Hope someone can point me in the direction to fix this PC running XP. Even this page is showing at the bottom right message bar 'Done,' but with errors on page."
Source:www.computerworld.com
Google Inc. has started to update reporting in all Google Analytics accounts affected by the data blackout the company said began Saturday.
In a blog post yesterday, Jeff Gillis, a member of the Google Analytics team, said the company had started to update reporting in all Google Analytics accounts that had been affected by a "temporary reporting delay.".
"As of 5 p.m. PST this evening, some users will start to see part or all of the data from the period between Saturday and now appear in reports," Gillis said in the blog. "We expect updates for all accounts to continue through Monday night into tomorrow and will update this blog when reporting is fully restored."
But there was no indication about what caused the reporting delay. Google could not be reached for comment. However, one user on the Google's Analytics discussion forum said he had been without data since Thursday, not Saturday.
Last week, Google Analytics suffered what the company called a "brief processing delay." Another such delay hit the service during the July 14-15 weekend, affecting "a small percentage of users," Google said at the time.
The previous weekend, a server outage prevented "many" users from creating and logging into new accounts, according to Google. A significant data outage left many users fuming in late May as well.
Some users are blaming these performance problems on a major upgrade to the service performed in early May.
This morning, another discussion forum user described his problems with the service.
"When a Web page contains Google Analytics script, my Internet Explorer returns an error message at the bottom right message bar," the user said. "Also Analytics does not track my PC ... Hope someone can point me in the direction to fix this PC running XP. Even this page is showing at the bottom right message bar 'Done,' but with errors on page."
Source:www.computerworld.com
Facebook continues its rise, but not in Asia
A regional breakdown of social networking sites shows how hard the major players will have to work to catch 'copycat' sites in China
Facebook has continued its inexorable rise as the social networking site of the moment, but questions remain about its ability to tap the Asian market, where other sites are significantly more popular.
Facebook's audience grew by more than 270 per cent to 52.2 million users in the 12 months to June – far outpacing the increase at Bebo (a rise of 172 per cent to 18.2 million) and MySpace, which grew by 72 per cent to 114.1 million.
But a breakdown of the sites' users by region shows that just 7.1 per cent of Facebook's audience, or 3.7 million people, is in the Asia Pacific, whereas Friendster has 21.9 million members in the region, according to comScore.
More than two thirds of Facebook's audience is in the US and Canada, with 17 per cent in Europe. MySpace has 62 per cent of its users in North America and 25 per cent in Europe.
By comparison Friendster, a site which, like Facebook, is based on finding old friends and building a network of people, now has 24.7 million unique users, 89 per cent of which are in the Asia Pacific.
A spokesman for comScore said Friendster's strong performance in the region was largely due to its popularity in Malaysia, where the site has set up tie-ins with local pop singers.
"Paying attention to the subtleties of each country is absolutely critical for these sites," Bob Ivins, vice president of international markets at comScore, said. "It's a problem any multi-national company faces. Just because you've got a strong brand in one country doesn't mean you'll succeed in others."
Rebecca Jennings, an analyst at Forrester, said that there were significant difference in the way countries adapted to social networking, and the success of sites often depended on how well they catered to local needs.
"Obviously in China and Japan, part of the problem is language and question for Facebook is: do you launch a local language site?" she said.
"Germany has not taken particularly well to social networking, because people there are less willing to sign up for those types of services. In Brazil, however, where the culture is much more about how many friends you have, they're huge, and Orkut, a site which tailors to those needs, is doing very well there."
An additional problem for companies considering the Chinese market was the propensity for authorities to control the use of the internet, which has led many to focus their energies elsewhere, she said.
MySpace has launched a 'beta site' in China – owned and operated by a Chinese company – and the company has also introduced a site in Japan, as has YouTube.
Facebook is yet to launch an Asian-language site.
Earlier this month, Tudou.com, a site similar to YouTube on which 40 million Chinese users watch an estimated 1.2 billion videos a month, announced it had secured $19 million (£9.4) in venture capital funding and would start selling ads.
Other sites to have entered the video-sharing space in China include www.mofile.com, www.5show.com, and www.56.com.
Last year, one of the largest college-based networking sites in China, www.xiaonei.com, was acquired by Oak Pacific, a Chinese company backed by US venture capital firms. According to Venturebeat.com, the site will merge with Oak Pacific's own networking site, 5Q, to form "a giant Facebook copycat."
Source:http://technology.timesonline.co.uk
Facebook has continued its inexorable rise as the social networking site of the moment, but questions remain about its ability to tap the Asian market, where other sites are significantly more popular.
Facebook's audience grew by more than 270 per cent to 52.2 million users in the 12 months to June – far outpacing the increase at Bebo (a rise of 172 per cent to 18.2 million) and MySpace, which grew by 72 per cent to 114.1 million.
But a breakdown of the sites' users by region shows that just 7.1 per cent of Facebook's audience, or 3.7 million people, is in the Asia Pacific, whereas Friendster has 21.9 million members in the region, according to comScore.
More than two thirds of Facebook's audience is in the US and Canada, with 17 per cent in Europe. MySpace has 62 per cent of its users in North America and 25 per cent in Europe.
By comparison Friendster, a site which, like Facebook, is based on finding old friends and building a network of people, now has 24.7 million unique users, 89 per cent of which are in the Asia Pacific.
A spokesman for comScore said Friendster's strong performance in the region was largely due to its popularity in Malaysia, where the site has set up tie-ins with local pop singers.
"Paying attention to the subtleties of each country is absolutely critical for these sites," Bob Ivins, vice president of international markets at comScore, said. "It's a problem any multi-national company faces. Just because you've got a strong brand in one country doesn't mean you'll succeed in others."
Rebecca Jennings, an analyst at Forrester, said that there were significant difference in the way countries adapted to social networking, and the success of sites often depended on how well they catered to local needs.
"Obviously in China and Japan, part of the problem is language and question for Facebook is: do you launch a local language site?" she said.
"Germany has not taken particularly well to social networking, because people there are less willing to sign up for those types of services. In Brazil, however, where the culture is much more about how many friends you have, they're huge, and Orkut, a site which tailors to those needs, is doing very well there."
An additional problem for companies considering the Chinese market was the propensity for authorities to control the use of the internet, which has led many to focus their energies elsewhere, she said.
MySpace has launched a 'beta site' in China – owned and operated by a Chinese company – and the company has also introduced a site in Japan, as has YouTube.
Facebook is yet to launch an Asian-language site.
Earlier this month, Tudou.com, a site similar to YouTube on which 40 million Chinese users watch an estimated 1.2 billion videos a month, announced it had secured $19 million (£9.4) in venture capital funding and would start selling ads.
Other sites to have entered the video-sharing space in China include www.mofile.com, www.5show.com, and www.56.com.
Last year, one of the largest college-based networking sites in China, www.xiaonei.com, was acquired by Oak Pacific, a Chinese company backed by US venture capital firms. According to Venturebeat.com, the site will merge with Oak Pacific's own networking site, 5Q, to form "a giant Facebook copycat."
Source:http://technology.timesonline.co.uk
Google removes labeling of supplemental results
Google claims that being in the supplemental index will pose less of a problem in the future.
To simplify: Google operates with two main indexes of web search results: (1) the regular database and (2) supplemental results.
Supplemental results consists of what Google considers to be less important pages. These could be pages with no or very few inbound links, duplicates etc.
The Valley of Death
Many webmasters regularly wake up screaming in the night, having dreamed that their whole site has gone supplemental.
Supplemental has been considered the valley of death to search engine marketers, as Google normally only presents results from supplemental if it cannot find a reasonable number of relevant hits in the regular index.
Furthermore, pages in the supplemental index are revisited less often by Google.
Well, from now on webmasters may sleep a little sounder, not because supplemental will go away, but because Google is removing the label that identifies supplemental search results.
You can still search for supplemental
The company has also removed the most used way of finding supplemental results by searching Google, but as Danny Sullivan over at Search Engine Land points out, the following technique is still working:
Do a search for: site:yourdomainnamehere.com/&
This option will probably removed soon.
The difference between the main and supplemental index is narrowing
The supplemental index remains. In a blog post over at the Google Webmaster Central blog Matt Cutts & Co say:
Since 2006, we’ve completely overhauled the system that crawls and indexes supplemental results. The current system provides deeper and more continuous indexing.
Additionally, we are indexing URLs with more parameters and are continuing to place fewer restrictions on the sites we crawl. As a result, Supplemental Results are fresher and more comprehensive than ever.
We’re also working towards showing more Supplemental Results by ensuring that every query is able to search the supplemental index, and expect to roll this out over the course of the summer.
Supplemental results will apparently turn up more frequently in search results, and the results will be fresher.
Is this really a problem?
It helps to keep in mind that Google needs to be able to develop an algorithm that’s makes it possible to sort out the best and most relevant search results to a query. This is for instance what PageRank is all about.
Even if Google decided to merge the two databases, there would be an enormous number of pages that would never or seldom turn up on the first 10 pages of search results. This applies to most queries.
Pages with no inbound links or little content or from web sites with very little authority (spammy scraper sites, for instance), will normally only turn up when people do very specialized searches, hitting the “long tail” of search. This is the way it should be.
This Valley of Death only becomes a problem if Google starts to fill it with well-written, informative, and original articles and blog posts, while at the same time serving junk pages on the first page of results.
This has been known to happen, and by labeling the valley as “supplemental results” it has become easier for webmasters to arrest Google when such mistakes occur.
So, if you are cynical, you may say that Google is now trying to hide its mistakes.
We do not think this is the case. Even without the label, it is easy to document cases of high quality pages being buried and junk floating to the top. All you have to do is to analyze earch results for selected queries.
Google may introduce a search tool for supplemental pages
According to Danny Sullivan Matt Cutts of Google feels that a search syntax for identifying supplemental results cause site owners to needlessly fixate too much on such results, in the same way as they often obsess over PageRank:
“Still, he said that Google would probably come up with a way for people to perform a query within Google Webmaster Central or some other method to find out if a page or pages are in the supplemental index.”
Sullivan asks for a a tool within Google Webmaster Central that provides a list of your own supplemental pages, or a percentage of pages from a site that are deemed supplemental as a health check.
But why stop at supplemental? Why not introduce a search tool that helps webmasters identify different types of “unhealthy pages”. A Webmaster Central could therefore give a diagnosis of individual pages or sets of pages, listing relevant causes for why the pages rank poorly, like for instance:
* Lack of backlinks
* Lack of content
* Duplicate content
* Robots.txt and metatag problems
* Server downtime
* Bad coding
* etc.
We realize that there are limits to how far Google can go in this direction, as any input of this kind will be used by webmasters trying to reengineer the Google algorithm, but in general Google will benefit from webmasters cleaning up their acts. Helping them understand what’s wrong with their pages will contribute to this.
Indeed, the Google Webmaster Central already provides information on
* HTTP errors
* Not found
* URLs not followed
* URLs restricted by robots.txt
* URLs timed out
* Unreachable URLs
* Links
This will mostly be a matter of systematizing the relevant information along the dimension of individual pages.
Source:www.pandia.com
To simplify: Google operates with two main indexes of web search results: (1) the regular database and (2) supplemental results.
Supplemental results consists of what Google considers to be less important pages. These could be pages with no or very few inbound links, duplicates etc.
The Valley of Death
Many webmasters regularly wake up screaming in the night, having dreamed that their whole site has gone supplemental.
Supplemental has been considered the valley of death to search engine marketers, as Google normally only presents results from supplemental if it cannot find a reasonable number of relevant hits in the regular index.
Furthermore, pages in the supplemental index are revisited less often by Google.
Well, from now on webmasters may sleep a little sounder, not because supplemental will go away, but because Google is removing the label that identifies supplemental search results.
You can still search for supplemental
The company has also removed the most used way of finding supplemental results by searching Google, but as Danny Sullivan over at Search Engine Land points out, the following technique is still working:
Do a search for: site:yourdomainnamehere.com/&
This option will probably removed soon.
The difference between the main and supplemental index is narrowing
The supplemental index remains. In a blog post over at the Google Webmaster Central blog Matt Cutts & Co say:
Since 2006, we’ve completely overhauled the system that crawls and indexes supplemental results. The current system provides deeper and more continuous indexing.
Additionally, we are indexing URLs with more parameters and are continuing to place fewer restrictions on the sites we crawl. As a result, Supplemental Results are fresher and more comprehensive than ever.
We’re also working towards showing more Supplemental Results by ensuring that every query is able to search the supplemental index, and expect to roll this out over the course of the summer.
Supplemental results will apparently turn up more frequently in search results, and the results will be fresher.
Is this really a problem?
It helps to keep in mind that Google needs to be able to develop an algorithm that’s makes it possible to sort out the best and most relevant search results to a query. This is for instance what PageRank is all about.
Even if Google decided to merge the two databases, there would be an enormous number of pages that would never or seldom turn up on the first 10 pages of search results. This applies to most queries.
Pages with no inbound links or little content or from web sites with very little authority (spammy scraper sites, for instance), will normally only turn up when people do very specialized searches, hitting the “long tail” of search. This is the way it should be.
This Valley of Death only becomes a problem if Google starts to fill it with well-written, informative, and original articles and blog posts, while at the same time serving junk pages on the first page of results.
This has been known to happen, and by labeling the valley as “supplemental results” it has become easier for webmasters to arrest Google when such mistakes occur.
So, if you are cynical, you may say that Google is now trying to hide its mistakes.
We do not think this is the case. Even without the label, it is easy to document cases of high quality pages being buried and junk floating to the top. All you have to do is to analyze earch results for selected queries.
Google may introduce a search tool for supplemental pages
According to Danny Sullivan Matt Cutts of Google feels that a search syntax for identifying supplemental results cause site owners to needlessly fixate too much on such results, in the same way as they often obsess over PageRank:
“Still, he said that Google would probably come up with a way for people to perform a query within Google Webmaster Central or some other method to find out if a page or pages are in the supplemental index.”
Sullivan asks for a a tool within Google Webmaster Central that provides a list of your own supplemental pages, or a percentage of pages from a site that are deemed supplemental as a health check.
But why stop at supplemental? Why not introduce a search tool that helps webmasters identify different types of “unhealthy pages”. A Webmaster Central could therefore give a diagnosis of individual pages or sets of pages, listing relevant causes for why the pages rank poorly, like for instance:
* Lack of backlinks
* Lack of content
* Duplicate content
* Robots.txt and metatag problems
* Server downtime
* Bad coding
* etc.
We realize that there are limits to how far Google can go in this direction, as any input of this kind will be used by webmasters trying to reengineer the Google algorithm, but in general Google will benefit from webmasters cleaning up their acts. Helping them understand what’s wrong with their pages will contribute to this.
Indeed, the Google Webmaster Central already provides information on
* HTTP errors
* Not found
* URLs not followed
* URLs restricted by robots.txt
* URLs timed out
* Unreachable URLs
* Links
This will mostly be a matter of systematizing the relevant information along the dimension of individual pages.
Source:www.pandia.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)