SEM Wired

Since Twitter went online, beside the early adopters enthusiasts, I always heard many people debating on its actual usefulness.
Still, it is one of the fastest growing platforms, despite its weaknesses, its extreme vulnerability to spam, or its 150 characters limit…

This very last point has been thoroughly debated: 150 characters are not enough to deliver any message and force people to limit the scope of the message they can send.

A few weeks ago, Johnathan Schwartz, former Sun Microsystem CEO, resigned via his his twitter account.

Within 150 characters he managed to say that we resigned from his position, and also gave an explanation for his resignation with a haiku:

Financial crisis

Stalled to many customers

Ceo no more

This should be the right way people should use twitter, and haikus, because or their ability of defining a whole world within a few lines, just fit perfectly this media. Johnathan just seems to have understood this pretty well.

When resigning from a position we often send plenty of emails out, to co-workers, colleagues or acquaintances: Johnathan just exploited the speed and efficiency of Twitter, with no need to waste that much time on writing emails, also getting positive results for his personal brand, communicating directly with the right audience and successfully delivering the message.

Next time we twit, let’s just make sure it is for something meaningful..!

Like everyone else who’s in this industry, I daily read loads of stuff, bog posts and articles, about how good SEO is, how important is to be ranked for the right keywords, how successfull a product can be if is commercially developed on the internet through SEO and online marketing services.

I read loads of this stuff and I’m honestly starting to get sick of it. Years ago things were simpler: marketing departements had no even idea about what SEO was and how crucial the internet would have become in a few years.

Now everybody jumps on the bandwagon… just take a look to your list of Twitter followers: how many people or companies you can find which supposedly know all secrets about SEO and internet marketing? Well, take a few of them and read those blogs and articles. As pointed out by Derek Powazek in this article:

The problem with SEO is that the good advice is obvious, the rest doesn’t work, and it’s poisoning the web.

Then it goes deeper analysing his own perspective about the industry and even if it goes to harsh sometimes, I can only agree with him. The fact is that all the hype about SEO it’s just artificially created by the market. Good webdesign and content shouldn’t need any “seo expert”.

However the need of search engine optimization professional tells us that the quality of web development these days (and the quality of the content) are getting worse and worse, requiring someone to artificially (and magically) make them appear on search engine simply correcting all those stupid mistakes developers do. It’s a pretty simplified explanation, but I guess it delivers the big picture about what the industry has become nowadays.

Take a look to the reaction to the articles as well: from the offended “seo professional” to the old school coder, to whom “magic seo practice” sound obvious. It’s quite interesting and gives also an idea about the different character the industry of made of…

Here’s the full article. And think about adding the Derek blog to your feeds, it’s worth it.

Companies prefer to spend/waste their money on banners, Adwords and affiliates campaign rather than producing some silly tv clip. It was pretty predictable.

Especially if we realize the current economic downturn. I guess it means that advertiser prefer to spend money where they can get some more valuable feedback information, with a more precise and extensive targeting and value for money.

Sounds right to me…but are we really sure that sticking banners and Google Adwords actually works?

Let’s get some hints from the same Guardian article’s comments:

Record £1.75bn online spend… and you still can’t make a profit with your website.

Indeed. Everybody knows or has been working on a company or project which injected a awaful amount on money on internet advertising without getting any profit back, not even in the long term.

This one it’s even better:

I don’t think they actually wasted all that money but expectations on conversions and sales, yeah, those might be quite high if spending get’s up to those digits. And guess what, while only getting away from the last economic downturn, so they guy here could be pretty right.

Anyway, the following comment might settling this down:

I disagree with many of these posts. Web advertising is much more accountable than TV, radio and print advertising – which is why it works. It doesn’t matter if some of you ignore them. Enough web users see them, and, more importantly, click on them.

That’s pretty much my opinion on the problem. And also the way things actually work out in a real enviroment, if you happen to work in marketing or advertisement.

The perception people has got of online ads it’s quite biased though: those who do not click on ads think they do not work:

…but according to these figures (1.75bn quids is not a few pennies) there’s actually some people who click on those ads and purchase products.

In the end, better a few more ads on a page (and adblock activated) rather than more tv crap (who does watch tv anymore… ).

The original article here.

Search the original Google algorithm and show side-by-side comparisons to Caffeine.

Last week Google announced a next-generation architecture for Google’s web search, called Caffeine.

They also kidnly asked users to contribute in the effort of benchmarking the new technology providing some feedback on their searches through this URL:

http://www2.sandbox.google.com/

Anyway, a few days ago a new service has been released which compares in real time results from both Google and Google Caffeine: GoogleCompare.

I’m not going to explain any more about the service since it’s pretty straightforward: the whole thing has a funny retro-style, kind of coffe adverts from the ’50s. It’s quite funny. Then you just type your keyword and click on brew and you get a quick comparison eventually showing how SERPs have changed due to the new algorithm.

So how did your ranking changed due to the update? I’ve have not experienced any major change in my rankings. However search speed has increased a lot… I guess that was the main effort behind the development of Caffeine.

I’ll keep an eye on Caffeine for the next few days if anything changes…

A few days aho I wrote a post about the rising importance of real-time search and Google and Bing crawling content from Twitter.

Now Microsoft has just released an interesting search tool called BingTweets: it’s a real time Twitter search engine with a pretty crowded front panel showing all cross references between standard and dynamic real-time search.

It’s definetely something Google should think about. It’s also interesting how the mixed the standard search results with the Twitter search results, giving a complete feedback over search on different sources.

What people has predicted since Twitter start hitting the news has become true: Twitter is not turning into a search engine but its content is considered valuable by search engines.

Despite all the Twitter-mania-hype (absolutely unnecessary but media needs something to blabber about right?) I guess Twitter is slowly finding out its real nature: a real-time updated source of “what’s going on” in the world, reflecting the current vibe of the net, an extremely dynamic and constantly updated source of useless content. That’s it. There’s nothing really valuable in most twitts: the thing is the reflect what’s going on in the world.

That’s why a real-time search is growing day by day. It’s the vibrating pulse of the net, and being able to rummage through all this garbage gives the advantage to know the present and the very next future of the net.