Social Networking
Suster: What the past can tell us about the future of social networking; http://eicker.at/SocialNetworking
Tagged: NYT RSS Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts
Gerrit Eicker
Content Farms
Will content farms, like Demand Media, Answers.com, dilute the quality of information on the Web? http://eicker.at/ContentFarms
Gerrit Eicker
Colours of the Web
The most powerful colours in the [Web] world: Colors of the top 100 Web brands; http://j.mp/aHmXeB #Blue vs. #Red
Gerrit Eicker
NYT: No Print in Future
Sulzberger: We will stop printing the New York Times sometime in the future, date TBD; http://j.mp/bpHI9B
Gerrit Eicker
News.me
The NYT partners with Betaworks for an iPad-based personalized news service: News.me; http://j.mp/bqhWWB
Gerrit Eicker
Newspapers: Webanalysis as Gatekeeper
Newspapers are switching from reader surveys to web analytics: more scientific decisions finally; http://j.mp/cXklA1
Gerrit Eicker
NYT vs. Google
The NYT asks for regulations of the Google algorithm: http://j.mp/bCwI4g and Marissa Mayer responds; http://j.mp/cXl54c
-
Gerrit Eicker
NYT: “Google handles nearly two-thirds of Internet search queries worldwide. Analysts reckon that most Web sites rely on the search engine for half of their traffic. When Google engineers tweak its supersecret algorithm – as they do hundreds of times a year – they can break the business of a Web site that is pushed down the rankings. … The potential impact of Google’s algorithm on the Internet economy is such that it is worth exploring ways to ensure that the editorial policy guiding Google’s tweaks is solely intended to improve the quality of the results and not to help Google’s other businesses. – Some early suggestions for how to accomplish this include having Google explain with some specified level of detail the editorial policy that guides its tweaks. Another would be to give some government commission the power to look at those tweaks. … With these caveats in mind, if Google is to continue to be the main map to the information highway, it concerns us all that it leads us fairly to where we want to go.”
Mayer: “Search engines use algorithms and equations to produce order and organisation online where manual effort cannot. These algorithms embody rules that decide which information is ‘best’, and how to measure it. Clearly defining which of any product or service is best is subjective. Yet in our view, the notion of ‘search neutrality’ threatens innovation, competition and, fundamentally, your ability as a user to improve how you find information. – When Google was launched in 1998, its fundamental innovation was the PageRank algorithm. It was a new and helpful tool in helping users decide which was the best information available – and one of many hundreds that have since been deployed by search engines to improve the ranking and relevance of their results. – Yet searching the web has never been more complex. Type ‘World Cup’ into Google today and you will see millions of returns, ranging from recent news articles to images of players. Often the answer is not a web page: sports scores, news, pictures and tweets about matches are included. Such results stem from an upgrade in Google’s technology launched in 2007, which made it possible to include media such as maps, books, or videos on a results page. … Here the practical challenges would be formidable. What is fair in terms of ordering? An alphabetical listing? Equally, new results will need to be incorporated – new web pages, but also new media types such as tweets or audio streams. Without competition and experimentation between companies, how could the rules keep up? There is no doubt that this will stifle the advance of the science around search engines. … But the strongest arguments against rules for ‘neutral search’ is that they would make the ranking of results on each search engine similar, creating a strong disincentive for each company to find new, innovative ways to seek out the best answers on an increasingly complex web. … We know that Google plays an important role in accessing information. We also welcome scrutiny and want to ensure everyone understands how we work. Yet we believe the best answer for a particular search changes constantly. It changes because the web changes, because users’ expectations and tastes evolve and because the media never stay still. Yet proponents of search neutrality are effectively saying that they know what is ‘best’ for you. We think consumers should be able to decide for themselves – with an array of internet search engines to choose from, each providing their very best.”
SEL: “The New York Times is the number one newspaper web site. Analysts reckon it ranks first in reach among US opinion leaders. When the New York Times editorial staff tweaks its supersecret algorithm behind what to cover and exactly how to cover a story – as it does hundreds of times a day – it can break a business that is pushed down in coverage or not covered at all. … And Now, Without The Satire… Search engines are very similar to newspapers. They have unpaid ‘organic’ listings, where usually (though not always), a computer algorithm decides which pages should rank tops. The exact method isn’t important. What’s important is that those unpaid listed are the search engines’ editorial content, content it has solely decided should appear based on its editorial judgment. … What the New York Times has suggested is that the government should oversee the editorial judgment of a search engine. Suffice to say, the editorial staff of the New York Times would scream bloody murder if anyone suggested government oversight of its own editorial process. First it would yell that it has no bias, so oversight is unnecessary. Next it would yell even more loudly that the First Amendment of the US Constitution protects it from such US government interference. … Guess what. The First Amendment protections of freedom of speech and freedom of the press apply to more than newspapers. In fact, they apply to search engines. The courts have said so, most clearly back in May 2003, in the SearchKing case. … But by and large, Google’s been a net positive actor, from where I measure things. It deserves better than a knee-jerk reactionary editorial from what’s supposed to be one of the leading newspapers of the world.“
Gerrit Eicker
April Fools Reality
NYT to TechCrunch: extremely old information that is inaccurate. Great, subtle April Fools joke; http://j.mp/ddZfze
Gerrit Eicker
NYT: Jarivs vs. Carr
Jarvis: the NYT charges its best customers; http://j.mp/7vcjq2 vs. Carr: versioning strategy; http://j.mp/6j63uR
Gerrit Eicker
NYT is Going to Charge
The New York Times announced that it intended to charge frequent readers for access to its Web site; http://j.mp/8XoMIH
-
Gerrit Eicker
NYT: “Starting in early 2011, visitors to NYTimes.com will get a certain number of articles free every month before being asked to pay a flat fee for unlimited access. Subscribers to the newspaper’s print edition will receive full access to the site. – But executives of The New York Times Company said they could not yet answer fundamental questions about the plan, like how much it would cost or what the limit would be on free reading. They stressed that the amount of free access could change with time, in response to economic conditions and reader demand.”
RWW: “Notably, the Times’ model intends to ‘provide the necessary flexibility to keep an appropriate ratio between free and paid content and stay connected to a search-driven Web,’ according to the release. Acknowledging the nature of the Web while trying to retain a profit, and hopefully keep paying your hard-working journalists, sounds like a good method to us. – The move is something we’ve all seen coming, as more and more newspapers have shut down in recent years. By mid-2009, more than 100 newspapers had been shuttered with a number stopping the presses and going online only in an attempt to remain in production.”
Carr/NYT: “It was clear when consumer revenues surpassed advertising revenues last year that The New York Times was going to come up with some kind of pay model. The costs of producing original branded content to a very high standard is no longer supported mainly by advertising, in part because there is an endless amount of advertising on the Web and the price has been commoditized. So the newspaper is deciding that while some advertisers may treat its work as a commodity, some consumers won’t feel the same way. Every plan that could be conceived of heads into a large headwind, built up over years, that consumers do not expect to pay for content no matter where it comes from. We will have to wait a year to find out how visitors behave when they hit the wall.”
TC: “Evidently, it’s hard not to see this announcement in light of Apple’s upcoming event, where the company is set to unveil its new tablet computer and a slew of content partnerships with major publishers, likely including the New York Times.”
Gerrit Eicker 08:53 on 6. December 2010 Permalink |
Suster: “November 2010 and Facebook has 500 million users. They have more page views than even Google. More than 10% of all time on the web is now Facebook. They have become a juggernaut in online advertising, pictures, video and online games. And now they want to revolutionize email. It is no doubt that the next decade belongs to Facebook. But the coincidence is that 10 years out will be 2020 and it’s when we look back from that date I’m certain that people will find a Facebook monopoly a bit laughable. … Is the game over? Have Facebook & Twitter won or is their another act? No prizes for guessing … there’s ALWAYS a second act in technology.”
1. The Social Graph Will Become Portable
2. We Will Form Around ‘True’ Social Networks
3. Privacy Issues Will Continue to Cause Problems
4. Social Networking Will Become Pervasive
5. Third-Party Tools Will Embed Social Features in Websites
6. Social Networking (like the web) Will Split Into Layers
7. Social Chaos Will Create New Business Opportunities
8. Data Will Reign Supreme
9. Facebook Will Not be the Only Dominant Player