Following Scoble's link blog, I ended up in this excellent post by Tris Hussey, "Is Pay-Per-Post better than having your own blog?" After discussing the pros and cons of having your own product blog v/s paying others to write a review (PPP, B4H, ReviewMe), Tris concludes:

Why not have your own blog and pay for reviews? Sure you might get flack for the PPP and ReviewMe stuff, but you can talk about why you chose to go that route on your blog.

Ahh, Tris! You hit the nail on the head! But, not hard enough. You missed a small, yet important aspect of the process. Something that Brian over at Copyblogger has drilled into his readers, time and again:

Make it Viral.

First, reviews are better because, someone else is talking about your product. Paid reviews might come at a price, but that's still better: Low cost, high ROI.

Second, a product company with smart marketing departments have its OWN blog, PAID reviews, and independent VIRAL reviews, generated as a result of the other two.

Third, when it comes to 'endorsements,' we have a mental block that seems to tell us:

Only celebrities endorse, normal people share reviews.

So we share our reviews. And if someone is willing to pay for it, it becomes an added bonus. That's how a normal blogger might look at the financial aspect.

We share a weird sense of morality, when it comes to blogs and such content. As long as there are no explicit financial motives involved, we happily assume that the content is 'true' and 'unbiased'.

Oh, really?

Technorati Tags: Paid Content, PPP, B4H, ReviewMe, Tris Hussey, Controversy

powered by performancing firefox

I have written a couple of posts about Web 2.0, early on in my blog.

I've had various conversations revolving around this concept across the years. A comment I wrote on the 9rules community was the best explanation I could generate for such an abstract concept.

To many people out there, Web 2.0 is just a buzz-word. For quite a few, it is about AJAX and flashy effects on website. And very few really understand what it means.

The other day, one of my friends directed me to a YouTube video titled "Web 2.0 ... The Machine is Us/ing Us." And suddenly, a few more pieces of the jigsaw fell into place.

The title was intriguing enough. :) Go watch it yourself...

Web 2.0 ... The Machine is Us/ing Us.

I urge you people to check out the video. It is one of the simplest, best and most explanatory videos I have ever seen.

And what's more, it's Web 2.0!

RSS feeds have dramatically changed the way we consume content online. Over the course of time, I have come to subscribe to 90+ feeds of which I manage to read about 20 of them completely.

If there's one debate that keeps raging across the blogosphere, off and on, it has to be about RSS feeds. Even now, I hear occasional raves and rants about how partial text feeds are irritating and nonsensical, and all that.

What if (this may be a very silly what-if) the choice were left to the user?

What if I as a reader could decide whether I wanted a Partial-Text, Full-Text or Headlines only feed for a given site?

For instance, I'd prefer to have a Headline-only feed for heavy output websites like Slashdot and ZDNet while I'd prefer a full-text feed for sporadically updating sites, like friend blogs.

Alternatively, this can be achieved from the client-side itself, i.e. within the RSS reader. To me, it makes sense to open the feed in three stages:

Headlines >> Partial Text (Excerpt*) >> Full Text

In either of the cases, the publisher must provide a full-text feed.

Of the few readers that I have tried and tested, Google Reader comes close, offering Expanded and Reading views. Combined with keyboard shortcuts, these make for an amazing experience.

At the end of the day, reading RSS feeds is nothing but consuming content, and right now, there are only so many ways to do it.

I have a sneaky suspicion, things will be different soon.

(*caveat: I would define an excerpt as a paragraph or two, having a total of about 5-7 lines at least)

powered by performancing firefox

A while back, a deal between Pay Per Post (PPP) and Performancing (Perf), caused quite an uproar over at the Performancing Community Forums.

Perf Members denounced it left, right and centre blaming Perf for all sorts of things. Some even went to the extent of threatening to close down their accounts, which I found weird. Nobody ever said that to Writely. Or YouTube. Or del.icio.us, for that matter.

I think Nick, Chris and all the guys at Perf are a fantastic lot. I would doff my hat off to them, if I was wearing one.

And then, the deal was called off. Performancing went through a roller-coaster of a ride, and things seem to have stabilized.

Hmm, lemme see:

Ads on Blogs - GOOD
Pay per Post - BAD

Premium Content - GOOD
Pay Per Post - BAD

Community Reviews - GOOD
Pay Per Post - BAD

Summing it up, as long as you are not associated with explicit financial motives, whatever you do is ALWAYS good. That's a thin red line there, methinks.

Weird sense of morality we have, eh?

---
Note:
This post is not intended to revive old wounds, but it's just my $0.02 worth. Maybe I am wrong there, but I'd love to know your views on this one...
----

powered by performancing firefox

Until now, the process of consuming content was of a very primitive type - Search and consume. We searched for information using certain keywords and then converted it manually to knowledge. If we wanted to access the information at a later date, we simply printed it out. If we wanted to re-search it (pun unintended) we searched it again! There was no way of storing or retrieving this data for later usage.

Enter del.icio.us, one of the first social applications.

All of a sudden, you could bookmark pages you liked AND store them too! Searching for that page on Shark bites you saw two months ago simply transformed into searching through your list of bookmarks. Your bookmarks could now travel with you wherever you went!! The sharing feature meant that now your friend could easily send you that link to the direct downloads, bypassing all the popups and ads along the way. ;-)

The process of consuming information now became three-tiered: Search, Store and Retrieve.

Somewhere between then and now, we instinctively developed a habit of consuming content, gaining knowledge, and stashing it away for further usage. A lot of Web purists call this approach as the River of News approach.

Drink hard, drink deep...

We live in a dynamic world that survives on a River of News.

The River of News concept, as described by Dave Winer, goes something like this:

Instead of having to hunt for new stories by clicking on the titles of feeds, you just view the page of new stuff and scroll through it. It's like sitting on the bank of a river, watching the boats go by. If you miss one, no big deal.

... which is exactly how we parse our daily newspapers for news! If a story is interesting enough, it will be back again the next day. If it ain't, down it goes...

The River of News concept assumes a relaxed outlook towards the consumption of content by any user. It relies on the fact that if an older item is to be revived, then it will be revived, no matter how or why*.

The only hitch to this concept is the duration of focus in an avergae human. Somehow, the concept of a limited attention span has seeped on to the Web. Conversations (a.k.a posts, articles, etc.) have a specific life span depending upon a variety of factors, ranging from authority to popularity. The previous post touched upon four of these factors that I personally belive to be important.

Read the rest of this entry

Part II - I Seek You, and your meta-data, too...

What does making sense out of data mean?

In Search Engine terms, it would refer to contextualizing the huge chunk of uncontextual data that is the World Wide Web into information and eventually knowledge. To me, as a human, it simply means tagging certain keywords to any given chunk of data (e.g. a lecture, a passage, a book, a chapter, a conversation) in order to be able to recall it at any time - especially, when one of these keywords is mentioned.

For instance, the conversation in the previous post was about a traveller, (an out-of-towner) looking for directions to a tobbacconist. As I keep reminding myself, Web 2.0 is not a product, it is a process. The process has a lot of conversational threads that keep getting picked and dropped as newer and more interesting threads or new participants appear in their place.

So what would a contemporary Search engine have to consider in Web 2.0?

'Weight'ing for Information.

From being a static display of items-for-sale behind elegant window panes, the Internet slowly transformed into a bazaar of sorts, with hawkers all around the place plying their wares. The markets grew to accomodate the new and the old. With the advent of Web 2.0, contextualization of information became the norm and not an option.

It all began with a nifty bookmarking site called del.icio.us that allowed you to access your favorite sites across the web. Technorati extended the concept to Blogs and induced bloggers to 'tag' their posts with their choice of keywords/tags.

With the Web evolving like a democracy, the obvious question of authority in the Web-democracy arose. Which voice among the loud babble was to be trusted? As the web evolved, so did the concept of it's franchise. Only, in this virtual reality, links were deemed votes and tags were your campaign ads. Let's take a quick look at the foru weights that influence your vote.

1. Tags - Powerful Keywords

Each tag is a keyword that associates a particular context, a topic, with a given chunk of data.

Read the rest of this entry

• 
• 
• 
• 

Part 1: Search and the Web 1.0: Gorblimey!

Those of you who reached here through Google, Yahoo or MSN are probably laughing as you read this. But do go on, there's more. :-)

(Un)common Recurring Searches

Often our searches are simple keywords crafted with central themes in mind:

• A name (e.g. Shrikant Joshi or Performancing)
• A topic (e.g. Corporate Communications)
• A context (e.g. "Spanish Omelette" +recipe)

Some of us might even burden the spartan box (or in the old days, the Butler) with an entire question. The faithful zombie then crawls its way through the innards of the webs, looking for that occasional diamond stashed away in the back alleys. Usually, in the common cases such as the ones defined above, results are returned in the correct context of our request. Often, the SERPs also throw results that are related yet not within context.

Robert Scoble's post on Optimization had this line that caught my attention:

It all starts with the blog. Now, why can’t I put my blog on the map? When you go to Live.com and search on “Scoble” why can’t I customize my results there with more information for you?

Well, I don't agree wholly.

Search for my name on Google. There are at least three different people called Shrikant Joshi who turn up in the top 3. We keep exchanging the first three ranks. And all of us are pretty active bloggers it would seem. The see-sawing of rankings in the Organic Search results is not a matter of concern for me. Nor do I want to customise these search results so that I would get more result-space.

I am not a key-word

What are search engines? Simply speaking, search engines are content-aggregators assigned the additional job of classification. As humans we need to have everything classified into a taxonomy so as to facilitate recollection. Our knowledge depends upon storage which in turn depends upon collection and classification of data. Classification helps recollection and hence improves perceptive retention of knowledge.

Or, in simple words:

The more you know, the wiser you are. Hence, classify and remember.

Similar to how we retain knowledge, Search Engines classify the data they crawl according to keywords. A huge index is built up and referenced and cross-referenced until all the possible avenues of keywords linking to pages and vice-versa are covered. But you probably know all that and more already.

Keywords, mmmm... Aah!

The next step would be making sense out of the data, which eventually leads to contextualization. Don't get it? Well, simply put:

"A search engine's job is to make sense out of all that data."

Let's take a simple case. Someone in your town happens to own a convenience store named Uncle Tom's Cabin. Let us imagine that an outsider in your city is searching for it. Here's how the conversation would go:

Outsider: "Where can I find a convenience store?"
You: "That would have to be Uncle Tom's cabin. Go straight down for about two blocks and then take a left. It's right across the street."
Outsider: "Would I be likely to get some cigarettes there?"
You: "Oh! If you simply wants cigarettes, there a tobacconist just round the corner!"

A normal conversation, eh? Well, let's take a look at it again. Only this time, we'll look at it the way a search engine would. Let's insert some key words into it for understanding the flow of the conversation:

1. "Where can I find a convenience store?"
[New Search Query, keyword: "convenience store"]
2. "That would have to be Uncle Tom's cabin. Go straight down for about two blocks and then take a left. It's right across the street."
[Response keywords:"Uncle Tom's cabin", "directions"]
3. "Would I be likely to get some cigarettes there?"
[Refine Search Query, keyword: "cigarettes"]
4. "Oh! If you simply wants cigarettes, there a tobacconist just round the corner!"
[Response keywords: "Tobacconist","Round the corner"]

With me so far? Here's the stumper:

If each of these sentences corresponded to an entire blog-post in the Blogosphere, how would you track this conversation? How would you rank each post with respect to the keywords. Would those keywords be enough to cover all aspects of the conversation? Would you call those keywords as appropriate descriptors of the conversation? Where would these posts appear in SERPs for the combined keywords {"Your Name" +directions}

To be continued...

Disclaimer:
I am no Search Engine Expert. These opinions are simply my $0.02 worth. Or may be less. :)

Technorati Tags: search engine, optimization, keywords, web2.0, content, context

powered by performancing firefox

Surprised? Well, read on...

Early this morning, someone submitted a story on Netscape.com. And Digg fans all over the world erupted in laughter and glee. Ever since the story was submitted, this is what appears, when Netscape is loaded into your browser:

Read the rest of this entry

I am pretty sure the guys at Google must be sneakily reading my blog. Remember this? Google has rolled out a special version of Google Maps for your mobile phone (via Google Blog). Well, well, well...

Read the rest of this entry

How many times have you had people sending you invitational eMails saying, "Try this cool site I found!" or "This is an amazing site!" or "You'll absolutely love this one!" or lines to thato that effect?

Too many, I suspect.

Web 2.0 and the concept of User Generated Content has had the world in a tizzy for quite a while now. Innovative ideas and domain name registrations seem to go hand in hand. The people riding the waves of the Internet never had it so good. New services are introduced every day and competition is building up before you can say, "Watch out!"

Read the rest of this entry

Dina Mehta and other Indian Bloggers  are reporting the apparent clampdown of the Indian Government on 12 'radical' websites. Notable among these being Blogger - the popular blog provider for India.

Yes, you read the last one right.

Blogger can no longer be accessed through certain Indian ISPs. The Indian Govt. has painstakingly put together a list of sites, running into twenty-two pages, that must be blocked by all Indian ISPs. Blogger's one of them

I am speechless. There are so many things, I want to say, but don't know where to start.

Shivam Vij, tried to contact the authorities seeking a clarification about the issue. He was was made to (virtually) run from pillar to post, and ended up with a curt, "What's your problem? Someone must have blocked some site. So?" Typical.

A few national dailies took it up and reported it. Hindustan Times and Indian Express each had a story to tell, but it was more of a report than a story. The
Times of India (link not up yet), too had it's own take on the entire affair. Notice the absolutely moderate, even submissive tone of the reports. It is as if they are trying to distance themselves from the entire fiasco.

Ok, I agree, some of the websites in the list might be classified as fanatic to the extreme. There might even be some Bloggers with extreme religious views. But a blanket ban? Why would anybody want to censor this blog? It's stupid.

A few years ago, Yahoo! Groups was blocked because they found a few subversive groups using the tool to convey messages to each other. The same blanket ban was enforced even then.

Even if we assume that the websites are guilty of propagating theories and sentiments detrimental to the national interest. Wouldn't it make much more sense if the owners of these websites were called in for questioning under the same clause? A blanket ban only serves to inconvenience everyone, while helping none.

The dilemma is simple: How far can you stretch the right to express your opinions?

Have the conversations gone a bit too far this time?

Technorati Tags: Blogs, Censorship, Religion

powered by performancing firefox

Strange, isn't it?

All of us hailed the coming of a shareable, collaborative web and 'lovingly' named it Web 2.0. But along with it came announcements and offerings, options and varieties; faster than anything else. So much, that the low murmur of the internet rose to a harsh, loud, incoherent noise. So much, that we are beginning to denounce it like no other.

Hypocrisy? Nope, I think "Familiarity breeds Contempt" is more like it...

Read the rest of this entry

This post by Doug (a Xoogler) talks about how different people with different visions read differently into one and the same thing. Well, actually he talks about the Google-Dilbert Logo that *almost* caused quite an internal scandal in the Googleplex.

Those of you who have seen it, know what I am talking about. Those who haven't,  follow this link and read this.

Technorati Tags: Xoogler, Google, Dilbert

powered by performancing firefox

People are lapping it up.

Google launched Spreadsheet on Tuesday and it was promptly covered. There's a rumour about Picasa coming as a Web-based version soon. Anything Google releases is a matter of hot contention. It is not a question to ponder whether the interest in the product will be sustained or will die off the very next day itself. As long as it exists in the minds of the people, it will always bring in the hits.

You may call me a Google-basher, if you wish, but it still baffles me why Google should churn out these services at such a high rate. There are so many better things to do! Like, for example, they could actually be fine tuning their Search algorithm or re-inventing it.

Read the rest of this entry

My last post on WebOSes and the corresponding comments on ZDNet and here, on Performancing resulted in interesting conversations.

Performancing users and authors had very interesting opinions. Dave, for instance, said:

...they could bring down the price of computing massively. All you would need on a desktop is effectively a thin client that handles inputs and outputs, and
connects to the internet.

... while georgemanty was worried about security:

Do I really want a third party to have access to everything on my computer's hard drive???

searchengineblog put it really well with:

The problem is that there is no problem to be solved. In 2006, fat clients (read: PCs) aren't expensive - bandwidth is.

The security concerns do make a valid point. But I guess, with the way things are moving, third-party storage (read: online storage with desktop synchro) is the thing to watch out for in the near future.

Technology has not only enabled cheaper and communication, but it has also been revamping the field of transportation. As travel becomes cheap, we will find ourselves at different places at different times. And then we will need one central location to store our data. Which is where third-party storage comes in.

One option would be a personal FTP server. Like your hard-disk away from your PC. Again, the only hindrance I see currently is the band-width (in terms of access). Thus it boils down, essentially, to two things:

1. A radically new, faster method of accessing the internet.

   Condition: It must support huge amounts of bandwidth so as to enable each one of the 6 billion people whoo will soon be online in the near future.

   Read the rest of this entry

   • 
   • 
   • 
   •