Google+ page vs Facebook page – the battle has just begun…

The first smoke has died down. But the war has just begun. Page vs Page. Facebook vs Google. Two Superpowers against each others.

In the first place these social networks giants was created for people to connect with people. Or “friends and family” as Facebook use to call it. With their “profiles” as a basis for the communication within the network.

Then the time came for the companies to engage with their target audience. With their “pages” as a basis for their communication. And I guess the battle has just begun.

As far as I can see and understand both of these giants have just ended up into a massive clash! Where the value proposition for their users (as companies, brands, and others) is very much the same.

Of course they both have advantages and disadvantages. The SiliconIndia says for an example:

The greatest benefit of branding products in Google plus will be the link up with search engine. The search engine will track the brands on Google plus pages easily and will bring them to the top list in the search engine. Just typing “+Google” will take the user directly to the company’s profile page.
Facebook has again got something that will affect their market. The like button of Facebook is similar to the +1 button on Google plus. The hangout button is simpler to use when compared to video chat in Facebook with Skype. Now Google plus also going corporate will be a tough completion to Facebook pages.

Well – as I said – the battle has just begun… and I’ll will follow this war with great interest.

Now – I’ve just created my own “Google+ page” and I’m looking forward to see yours, and follow your point of view in this matter. Mashable show you how to get started.

How Tumblr is changing the PR industry

Well the original title from the Read Write Web is “How Tumblr is changing journalism”. But it doesn’t really matters. I think content curation activites, and related tools for that, already has, or for sure will change, the way we share stories with each other, as information junkies, as journalists. as PR communicators, as people.

A few month ago I wrote a post about “Why Marketers Should Care About Content Curation”. As a matter of fact I didn’t write it. I just curated another post by Derek Edmond from Search Engine Land with a similar headline “Why B2B Search Marketers Should Care About Content Curation”. And he wrote it from a SEO perspective:

“B2B search engine marketers realize new content creation is a critical tactic in an effective SEO strategy. But it is also realized, as illustrated in the Marketingsherpa chart below, the level of effort required to successfully develop new content may be significant, in comparison to other tactics. Therefore, with limited resources and immediate lead generation goals, it is not surprising when we find that new content generation falls behind other SEO initiatives on the priority list. Enter content curation. While not a substitute for new development, content curation can help B2B organizations provide important information to their market.”

Since Google launched the Panda I don’t know If this matters anymore? Because as you might know, Google Panda is the “filter designed by Google to spot low-quality content”, as Catch Pope from the Australien “Curated Content Agency” put it.

If you’re not sure what “low-quality content” is, maybe Amit Singhal, Google’s head of search, explanation on the official Google blog, make sense? He says:

“Below are some questions that one could use to assess the “quality” of a page or an article. These are the kinds of questions we ask ourselves as we write algorithms that attempt to assess site quality. Think of it as our take at encoding what we think our users want.

• Would you trust the information presented in this article?
• Is this article written by an expert or enthusiast who knows the topic well, or is it more shallow in nature?
• Does the site have duplicate, overlapping, or redundant articles on the same or similar topics with slightly different keyword variations?
• Would you be comfortable giving your credit card information to this site?
• Does this article have spelling, stylistic, or factual errors?
• Are the topics driven by genuine interests of readers of the site, or does the site generate content by attempting to guess what might rank well in search engines?
• Does the article provide original content or information, original reporting, original research, or original analysis?
• Does the page provide substantial value when compared to other pages in search results?
• How much quality control is done on content?
• Does the article describe both sides of a story?
• Is the site a recognized authority on its topic?
• Is the content mass-produced by or outsourced to a large number of creators, or spread across a large network of sites, so that individual pages or sites don’t get as much attention or care?
• Was the article edited well, or does it appear sloppy or hastily produced?
• For a health related query, would you trust information from this site?
• Would you recognize this site as an authoritative source when mentioned by name?
• Does this article provide a complete or comprehensive description of the topic?
• Does this article contain insightful analysis or interesting information that is beyond obvious?
• Is this the sort of page you’d want to bookmark, share with a friend, or recommend?
• Does this article have an excessive amount of ads that distract from or interfere with the main content?
• Would you expect to see this article in a printed magazine, encyclopedia or book?
• Are the articles short, unsubstantial, or otherwise lacking in helpful specifics?
• Are the pages produced with great care and attention to detail vs. less attention to detail?
• Would users complain when they see pages from this site?”

And as you might see, some of these bullets seems to criticize the curated content; or at least some of the curated content seems to be “low-quality content”. And Google might punish your site for that, seen from a SEO perspective? But… I still think marketers (and others) should care about content curation, because that’s a great way to share interesting stories etc with your stakeholders, the people you care about. And not to forget – it’s not just about sharing, it’s about contribution and reflections as well.

Therefore I was not surprised when Richard MacManus recently wrote the article “How Tumblr is changing journalism” for Read Write Web.

As you might know Tumblr is a super easy and smooth blogging tool, but also a sharing tool, or a content curation tool. Becuase that’s pretty much how people are using it. Tumblr themselves says the tool “lets you effortlessly share anything”.

And I don’t know if the curation trend is one of the reasons why Tumblr, with it’s 12 billion page views per month, just hit knockout on WordPress, which is not a curation tool?

So I think it was just a question of time before the journalists, who are already experts on rewrites, would start using the tool (or others) “to power” their news websites, as Richard MacManus put it.

He mention the Tumblr-powered news service, ShortFormBlog, as an example.

“The concept behind ShortFormBlog is very simple: to publish really short posts throughout the day. The site publishes over 200 posts per week, an average of about 30 per day.”

Pretty successful as far as I know.

So now we’re waiting for the trend to really take off in marketers and PR staff’s newsroom.

As a matter of fact, IBM were using Tumblr when they already in November, 2008, launched the Smarter Planet project to help people grasp IBM’s Smarter Planet initiative. The site “uses frequently updated, “microblogging” entries to illustrate how the Smarter Planet vision is unfolding across IBM and across the world.”

Sign up for a Google+ business page now!

Hey PR communicators and others. Do you’ve got a Facebook fan page for your business? And think that’s a great way to get in touch and interact with your audience?

Then you should create a business page for Google+. But hold it! Maybe you should wait for a while, until Google show you the green light.

Some companies like Ford just run into the field for action. They created a personal profile as a company brand. Exactly what business did in the good old Facebook era when pages didn’t exist.

Google is of course aware of this, and telling us not to.

Google+ Product manager, Christian Oestlien, says on his profil:

“We have been watching Google+ take shape over the last week and we’ve seen some really great companies get involved. But frankly we know our product as it stands is not optimally suited to their needs. In fact, it was kind of an awkward moment for us when we asked Ford for his (or was it her?) gender!

How users communicate with each other is different from how they communicate with brands, and we want to create an optimal experience for both. We have a great team of engineers actively building an amazing Google+ experience for businesses, and we will have something to show the world later this year.”

But also add that:

“If you represent a “non-user entity” (e.g. business, organization, place, team, etc.) and would like to apply for consideration in our limited program (and be amongst the first to be alerted when the business product launches) you can sign up here:”

http://goo.gl/zq95C

One small paradox is that Christian Oestlien uses his personal profil for business matters like this… 🙂 It’s a mess, isn’t it?

Content creators highlighted in Google search. But the byline status quo is still a fact.

Journalists are making a pilgrimage on the social web to “brand” themselves. Well, I know that expression might not be fair. But I talking about their efforts to make themselves visible and accessible. A place where they can publish their stories, meet their audience, get ideas for stories and a platform for research and collaborative work. The traditional blog was one of the first moves in this direction, and still is one of the most popular. Now days most of the (up to dated) journalists have their profiles on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Quora, and others, of more or less the same reason as mentioned.

Expressen Journalist Emanuel Karlsten's profesional Facebook page

The biggest of these players discovered their needs and wants and launched specific solutions for them. For an example we’ve got Journalists on Facebook, and Twitter for Newsrooms.

But what do they do in their own media? What happened to their byline’s? Status quo, right?

Expressen journalist Emanuel Karlsten's poor byline

Gary Love wrote  in NewMediaJournalism.com on July 10, 2004:

“Bylines began to appear in newspapers in the 1920’s and 30’s to facilitate objectivity and accountability, but also allowed particular writers to achieve a certain level of celebrity. They are a central component in modern newspapers and have been a part of online news articles from the beginning.”

Gary says that bylines have four distinct functions in newspapers and online:

• Entry point for the reader.
• Credit for the author
• Context for the story
• Accountability for the publication

Regarding the “accountability” Gary says:

By placing the reporter’s name at the top on an article, it suggests a specific person wrote and takes credit for the content printed below it. That person bears the blame or approval for the article and can be contacted to issue clarifications or corrections. The inclusion of email addresses within the byline is a strong signal of a reporter taking accountability, giving readers direct access to the writer.

And he express this as a duty.

After looked in to 60 different news sites, his conclusion is that the vast majority simply replicate the format used in their print edition. Almost all had the name and publication, with many also including the position at the paper. Some tacked on the original date of the publication and a handfull enhanced the byline with an email. There was only example that included any further information (phone, copyright, web page, or original publication page).

This was seven years ago!! And the byline is still in status quo! Isn’t that totally incomprehensible?

If you check the word “byline” at Wikipedia, you got the same poor description.

The byline on a newspaper or magazine article gives the name, and often the position, of the writer of the article. Bylines are traditionally placed between the headline and the text of the article, although some magazines (notably Reader’s Digest) place bylines at the bottom of the page, to leave more room for graphical elements around the headline. A byline can also include a brief article summary, introducing the writer by name.

Jennifer Gaie Hellum, wrote the blog post – “Social media spring cleaning: 50 tasks (or 7 short lists) for maintaining your personal brand” – in “Brand me a journalist” earlier this year.

“When I talk to journalism students about managing their personal brands, they often are overwhelmed by the maintenance of their online profiles and portfolios. Students as well as working journalists are constantly producing new content and/or acquiring new skills that should be reflected in their online identities.  Whether you do it weekly, monthly or seasonly, it’s important to have a routine for updating profiles, building networks, adding content and clarifying your brand.

So now that it’s officially spring, set aside time this week to do some personal branding spring cleaning. Start with one account and see how much has changed since you last updated your content. If you’re feeling ambitious and want to tackle one list each day, your digital footprint will be up to date in a week.”

I would like to take that advice one step further and ask you journalist to do “some personal branding cleaning” in your online media. Start with your byline’s. It might be one of the best spots to meet your audience, get ideas for stories and a platform for research and collaborative work”.

At last – don’t forget to tag your stories with the author and link to preferable profile into the code.

Sagar Kamdar, Product Manager Search recently wrote the post: “Highlighting content creators in search results”
where he says:
“Many of you create great content on the web, and we work hard to make that content discoverable on Google. Today, we will start highlighting the people creating this content in Google.com search results.”

And it works pretty much like this:

“To identify the author of an article, Google checks for a connection between the content page (such as an article), an author page, and a Google Profile. A content page can be any piece of content with an author: a news article, blog post, short story… An author page is a page about a specific author, on the same domain as the content page.
A Google Profile is Google’s version of an author page. It’s how you present yourself to the web and to Google. Use your profile to manage the information—such as your bio, contact details, and links to other sites by or about you—that people see. When you link your Google Profile to your author pages (or to sites you write for), you’re telling Google that all of these pages represent you. If your content appears in search results, your photo (including a link to your Google Profile) can appear next to it. Content you’ve identified as yours will also be listed on the +1 tab of your Google Profile. To easily link to your Google Profile, add the Profile button to your site. “

Annonser mindre intressanta i nya Google Instant Search?

Jag vill inte vara djävulens advokat, men Google Instant Search kan komma att minska såväl klassiska impressions som CTR (click through ratio) för Adwords vilket kan ställa till det rejält för både Google och dess annonsörer.

Bara för några timmar sen lanserade Google “Instant Search”. Tjänsten föreslår ett relevant sökresultat så fort du har skrivit första bokstaven i den sökterm Google förväntar sig att du ska göra.  De därpå följande nedskrivna bokstäver ger direkt upphov till nya vad Google förmodar vara relevanta resultat av din sökning. Varje ny nedpräntad bokstav ger alltså upphov till nya sökresultat i realtid. Med Google Instant Search kan användarna hitta exakt det de söker efter, betydligt snabbare och effektivare än tidigare. Det enda Google gör är alltså att gissa (med utgångspunkt från avancerade matematiska uträkningar) vad du söker efter, och presentera relevant sökresultat.

Och Adwords hänger med. När sökresultaten visas, visas också relevanta annonser. Men det blir inga “impressions” av traditionellt slag såvida inte användaren trycker på sökknappen eller “enter”-tangenten, eller slutar skriva något under 3 sekunder. Däremot fler nya “impressions” av annonser när sökresultaten flimrar förbi.

Men är det inte så att ju enklare och effektivare Google gör det för användaren att finna vad han/hon söker i det organiska floran av information, desto mindre kommer användarens ögon söka sig till de sponsrade länkarna (annonserna)?

Business Insider skriver i ett inlägg: “Here’s everything you need to know about Google Instant” med glömmer annonsprogrammet.

Mina erfarenheter hittills är att användaren av Instant Search nu snabbt laborerar  fram och tillbaka med bokstäver och söktermer i sökfönstret tills relevant sökresultat erhålls, varefter användaren klickar på en länk i det organiska sökresultatet. Ögonen söker sig till de sponsrade länkarna först när det organiska sökresultatet inte levererar vad användaren söker efter.

Google själv talar inte om några farhågor i detta fall. Såklart inte. Inte för att det är likt Google, men någonstans i baktankarna ligger säkert strategier för att öka såväl Ad impression som CTR. Låt oss se 🙂

Google skriver på sin blogg:

Although Google Instant doesn’t change the way ads are served, ads and search results will now be shown based on the “predicted search.” For example, if someone types “flow” into Google.com, our algorithms predict that the user is searching for “flowers” (the predicted search) and therefore display both search results and ads for “flowers”. However, if that user then adds the letter “c” to the query, our algorithms may predict that the user is searching for “flowchart” and show the corresponding natural and paid results for flowchart.

As a result, Google Instant changes the way we think about impressions. With Google Instant, an impression is counted if a user takes an action to choose a query (for example, presses the Enter key or clicks the Search button), clicks a link on the results page, or stops typing for three or more seconds.

Nya Google “Realtime Search” värdelös utan Facebook

Idag flyttade man över Google real time search från experimentbordet till den egna hemvisten google.com/realtime. Samtidigt passade man på att preppa tjänsten men några nyckelfunktioner som att söka i ett geografiskt begränsat område “nära dig”, alerts med e-post samt enkelt följa tråden av en räcka uppdateringar som sammantaget kan tänkas utgöra en konversation.

Allt det här låter ju toppen. Men… tjänsten haltar rejält utan Facebook.

I skrivande stund upplever jag tjänsten bara som en sämre version av Twitter Search, eller åtminstone inte bättre.  Och sett ur ett globalt perspektiv, sämre än Bing.com/social som ju exklusivt får indexera uppdateringar från Facebook Profiles, till skillnad från Google som endast indexerar uppdateringar från Facebook Pages och enligt SerachEngineLand följande sociala realtidskällor:

• Twitter tweets
• Google News links
• Google Blog Search links
• Newly created web pages
• Freshly updated web pages
• FriendFeed updates
• Jaiku updates
• Identi.ca updates
• TwitArmy updates
• Google Buzz posts
• MySpace updates
• Facebook fan page updates

Varav de flesta av dem sällan eller aldrig dyker upp i sökresultatet då de så sällan används i relation till ex Twitter.

Nej, så länge Facebook dominerar den sociala webben, så blir ingen realtidssöktjänst särskilt intressant utan innehåll från denna nätverksgigant. För hur man än vrider och vänder på det så är det innehållet som utgör det primära värdet inte funktionerna.

En sökning på “Reinfeldt” i de tre ovan nämnda söktjänsterna:

Bill Gates: Webben bästa källan till utbildning om fem år

Under nyligen genomförda Techonomy 2010 förutspår Bill Gates att webben kommer vara fem gånger så betydelsefull källa till utbildning än vad universiteten är om fem år. Därmed ytterligare ett exempel på hur webben med alla dess tjänster och användare fullkomligt håller på vända upp och ner på allt som tidigare varit faktum.

En rejäl tankeställare för skolväsendet, som får skynda sig att försöka anpassa sig till de nya förutsättningarna. De nya “fantastiska” förutsättningarna” bör tilläggas. För trenden är odelat positiv i mina ögon. Och inte helt olikt de utmaningar som traditionella medier, i synnerhet dagstidningar, står inför i strävan att vara ledande forum för förmedling av mestadels nyhetsrelaterad information. Förhoppningsvis lyckas båda ovan nämnda spelare hitta sitt existensberättigande i den nya kontexten.

Techonomy är en sammanslagning av orden Technology och Economy beskrivs på techonomy.com vara:

“…organized activities related to the invention, development, production, distribution and consumption of technology-enhanced goods and services that a society uses to address the problem of scarcity and to enhance the quality of life.”

Och verkar för:

“…a rational, optimistic, forward-looking, technically savvy work ethic that celebrates technological achievement, human ingenuity, and sustainable living.”

Bill Gates tillhör en av de mest framträdande och respekterande sk “tech0nomisterna” bland andra nu levande celebriteter som Larry Page,  Sergey Brin och Steve Jobs, alla medlemmar i den sk “big list of tech0nomists“.

Läs också på Engadget varifrån jag fick tipset.

Sluta fokusera på PageRank

Sluta fokusera på PageRank. Som enskild faktor är den irrelevant för dina möjligheter att synas. Och definitivt som måttstock för framgångsrik PR. Egentligen inget nytt, men PR-kommunikatörer klamrar sig till synes fortfarande fast vid Larry Pages algoritm, i tron om att den ska frälsa dem.

När websök blev den vanligaste inkörsporten till alla aktiviteter på webben,  blev en stark och tydlig närvaro i websök en mycket viktig PR-aktivitet. Och eftersom Google har den ledande söktjänsten för webben så har deras algoritm för hur du där rankas blivit högsta prioritet. Men det var då det. Webben ändras. Folk med den. Och vice versa.

Det råder inga som helst tvivel om att det fortfarande är väldigt viktigt, sett ur ett PR-perspektiv, att komma högt upp i resultatet av relevanta sökningar på Google. Men det är inte uteslutande din PageRank som avgör det. PageRank är bara en av hundratals faktorer som har betydelse för hur du syns i Google. Och där Larry Pages skapelse – Page Rank – lever en förtynande tillvaro.

Mike Volpe på HubSpot Blog skrev ett intressant inlägg i ämnet: “Why Google Page Rank is Now Irrelevant”. Jag tar mig här friheten att referera till de fem huvudsakliga skäl Volpe nämner till varför:

1. Metrics are useless unless you can track them, and you can’t track Page Rank. The best approximation of your Page Rank you can get is 6-9 months old, and even then you’re not sure it is correct.  If you cannot accurately and frequently get new data for a metric, it is pretty much useless.
2. Page Rank has nothing to do with SEO rankings or results. I know of websites that have a Page Rank of 0, and yet they still get organic rankings and search traffic for competitive search terms.
3. Page Rank is not relevant for real time search and social media results. Increasingly, social media conversations, real time news and status updates and other content are making their way into search results.  Even though the Page Rank for a tweet or status update is 0, they still show up in results.  Same thing for news releases and other content.
4. Page Rank is not a results metric. Typically it is best to measure things that get you real results for your business (customers and revenue) or things that directly lead to those metrics (leads).  But Page Rank has nothing to do with any results – see the previous two reasons.
5. Even Google says Page Rank is not important. Google removed Page Rank from its webmaster tools because it is not important.  Google Employee (Webmaster Tools Analyst) Susan Moskwa says “We’ve been telling people for a long time that they shouldn’t focus on PageRank so much; many site owners seem to think it’s the most important metric for them to track, which is simply not true. We removed it because we felt it was silly to tell people not to think about it, but then to show them the data, implying that they should look at it.” And many other places Google tells you to not worry about Page Rank.

På Google Webmaster Central strömmar det fortfarande in kommentarer i frågan. En ganska målande från Guillaume, Quebec:

I see so many people asking “Will this increase my PageRank?”. Could you tell them – once again – that ranking is not just about “PageRank” but also 200 different signals? And while being there, why don’t you tell us about those 200 different signals?

Google svarar i sin Google Webmaster Central-kanal på Youtube:

Bakom allt detta ser jag ett stressat Google som kämpar febrilt för att hitta ett exsistensberättigande på den sociala realtidswebben där just PageRank helt spelat ut sin roll. Och där Google hittills har haft väldigt svårt att positionera sig med vettiga tjänster.

@jocke (Joakim Jardenberg) tipsade mig också om ett inlägg på Internetstatistik.se där det framgår att Sveriges befolkning mellan 9-79 år använder social media (26%) i lika stor utsträckningen en genomsnittlig dag, som den använder traditionell webbmedia (26%).

Facebooks status-uppdateringar sökabara i Google Real time search

För bara drygt en månad chockade Mark Zuckerberg oss Facebook-användare med uttalandet att vår Facebook-profil inte längre kommer vara privat. Detta vållade tämligen stora diskussioner kring såväl nack- som fördelar med detta. Marshall Kirkpatrick skriver i Read Write Web att:

Your name, profile picture, gender, current city, networks, Friends List, and all the pages you subscribe to are now publicly available information on Facebook. This means everyone on the web can see it; it is searchable.

Nu menar Kim-Mai Cutler för NY Times att Facebooks statusuppdateringar fr o m idag är sökbara i Google Real Time Search, där vi sen tidigare har kunnat söka bland såväl Tweets som MySpace uppdateringar.

Sakta med säkert tar nu Google Real Time Search form, även om Kim-Mai Cutler menar att Google inte får tillgång till alla Facebooks statusuppdateringar, utan bara de som härrör Facebook Pages. Något som Bing får, då man som investerare i Facebook har starkare band till företaget.

Ett öppnare Facebook, med inskränkt integritet både gäckar och skrämmer.

Men Mark står fast vid sitt beslut om ett öppnare Facebook, och säger till TechCrunch som håller i intervjun med honom, att:

A lot of companies would be trapped by the conventions and their legacies of what they’ve built, doing a privacy change – doing a privacy change for 350 million users is not the kind of thing that a lot of companies would do. But we viewed that as a really important thing, to always keep a beginner’s mind and what would we do if we were starting the company now and we decided that these would be the social norms now and we just went for it.

(Tack @JackieKothbauer för tipset 🙂

Senaste siffrorna från Google slår världen med häpnad

Google är nog det företag jag är allra mest imponerad av. Det spelar ingen roll hur höga förväntningar jag har på detta företag, varje gång jag får ny fakta och ser nya siffror från detta orakel till bolag så tappar jag ånyo andan. Denna genomarbetade samling “facts and figures” från Pingdom, är inget undantag. Hur är det möjligt på så kort tid? Google – you really rocks.

Och du som undrar hur varifrån annonspengarna kommer så ser du av grafen nedan att det är ifrån Googles egna sajter, mestadels Adwords förmodar jag.