Today we are launching a commenting feature that allows you to embed videos, photos, or web sites in comments just by including a URL. Your comment will include a video player, a thumbnail of a photo, or a brief overview of the web site being linked to. If you prefer your comment without the preview, you can remove the preview with one click.
Google’s +1 Button is similar to the Facebook’s Like button which allows users to vote up content within Google’s search engine results pages (SERP).
Google’s +1 Button allows you to share recommendations to others and receive recommendations from others.
Google +1 is one of signals Google uses to identify the most useful recommendations to you, including people you are already connected to you through other Google products such as GMail, GTalk, Google Buzz and Google Reader.
Google’s +1 button will initially only appear on Google.com’s English search results.
Google may give different weighing scale to +1′s from different users. Example, A +1 from Danny Sullivan on Gordon Choi’s Blog may carry much more weight than a +1 from an anonymous person.
Google can build the BIG social graphs from your personal social graph (i.e. all the +1 recommendations your friends have contributed) and the +1 graph for a piece of content (i.e. all the +1′s recommended to a single web page).
Coremetrics® is one of the most powerful and easy to configure Enterprise Level Web Analytics Solutions in today's marketplace. One of the key features that set's this web analytics tool apart from its closest competitor Omniture®, is the ease of use in creating and Tracking Marketing Campaigns. Similar to the use of UTM tags in Google Analytics. Coremetrics® uses MMC Parameters. These URL Query Strings quickly and easily triage your incoming click based traffic in the predetermined campaign, which is all specified by the way the URL Query string is structured and formatted. Incoming traffic data is reported under the Marketing Programs Report. There is a maximum of 4 variables or campaign meta-data that can be captured. Coremetrics® is pre-configured to capture Vendor, Category, Placement and Item. But you can use these parameters how-ever you wish, just know that your data is will be found under that corresponding Marketing Program attribute. Generating Tracking Code is very simple and easy. This can either be done by hand coding the mmc parameters into each link leading back to your site or supplying the URL Query strings to your Display media Vendor such as Atlas, Dart, Query Strings should be appended to all Paid Search or PPC ads for Yahoo! Search Marketing or Google AdWords or for all Affiliate Marketing like Link Share or Commission Junction. FORMATTING URL QUERY STRING TRACKING CODE There are two ways of formatting Coremetrics Marketing Programs Tracking Code. The 4 parameter format (old) or the 1 parameter format (new). - Use a question mark at the very end of your URL destination, whether that is the top level domain or the targeted landing page. Use "?" to designate that the URL Query string is starting. - Always separate Parameters by using an ampersand "&" - If you have to use other Query String Parameters in conjunction with Coremetrics Marketing Programs Tracking Codes, such as a promo code or page specific code, make sure that the Coremetrics Tracking Codes are placed last. 4 PARAMETER FORMAT cm_ven=Vendor cm_cat=Category cm_pla=Placement cm_ite=Item Paid Search http://www.domain.com?cm_ven=SEM&cm_cat=Google&cm_pla=AdGroup&cm_ite=Keyword http://www.domain.com/landing-page.html?cm_ven=SEM&cm_cat=Yahoo&cm_pla=AdGroup&cm_ite=Keyword Banner Ad http://www.domain.com?cm_ven=Display&cm_cat=ValueClick&cm_pla=Messaging&cm_ite=728x90-Leaderboard-Creative-One Affiliate Link http://www.domain.com?cm_ven=Affiliate&cm_cat=LinkShare&cm_pla=Affiliate-Website&cm_ite=Product-Offer 1 PARAMETER FORMAT (variables are separate by a dash underscore dash "-_-") cm_mmc=Vendor-_-Category-_-Placement-_-Item Paid Search http://www.domain.com?cm_mmc=SEM-_-Google-_-AdGroup-_-Keyword http://www.domain.com/landing-page.html?cm_mmc=SEM-_-Yahoo-_-AdGroup-_-Keyword Banner Ad http://www.domain.com?cm_mmc=Display-_-ValueClick-_-Messaging-_-728x90-Leaderboard-Creative-One Affiliate Link http://www.domain.com?cm_mmc=Affiliate-_-LinkShare-_-Affiliate-Website-_-Product-Offer ATTENTION TO DETAIL There are several illegal characters that are not to be when creating URL Query String Parameters. Remember to never use a "space" to separate words or data points within a parameter, use a dash "-" instead, do not use an underscore "_". If a special character has to be coded with the Coremetrics Query String Tracking Code please use the appropriate html designated URL Query String Parameter Code. For a Percent "%" Use "%25" For a Space " " Use "%20" For a Open Bracket "{" Use "%7b" For a Closed Bracket "}" Use "%7d" For a Pipe "|" Use "%7c" For a Backslash "\" Use "%5c" For a Carrot "^" Use "%5e" For a Open Bracket "[" Use "%5b" For a Closed Bracket "]" Use "%5d" For a Accent "`" Use "%60" For a Less Than "<" Use "%3c" For a Greater Than ">" Use "%3e" For a Number Sign "#" Use "%23" For a Semi-colon ";" Use "%3b" For a Forward slash "/" Use "%2f" For a Question Mark "?" Use "%3f" For a Colon ":" Use "%3a" For a At "@" Use "%40" For a Equals "=" Use "%3d" For a Ampersand "&" Use "%26" For a Plus "+" Use "%2b" For a Single Quote "'" Use "%22"
Google lists the following as “questions that one could use to assess the ‘quality’ of a page or an article”:
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?
The company is careful to note that it’s not disclosing actual ranking signals used in its algorithms, but these questions will help you “step into Google’s mindset.” These questions are things that Google says it asks itself as it writes algorithms.
Singhal also reminds webmasters, “One other specific piece of guidance we’ve offered is that low-quality content on some parts of a website can impact the whole site’s rankings, and thus removing low quality pages, merging or improving the content of individual shallow pages into more useful pages, or moving low quality pages to a different domain could eventually help the rankings of your higher-quality content.”
It looks like Google has started rolling out a new beta version of Google Analytics, which up until not long ago was beta itself. The new version is much more up to date in terms of gearing the data displays to be in line with competitive solutions like Coremetrics and Omniture. There is a customizable "Dashboards" view that lets you drag and drop positions and create new widgets based on your own needs. It is still a bit buggy though, when I tried to create a new dashboard view it just reset back to the default. Changing the existing boxes seemed to work however. Overall it looks nice, and has some enhanced filtering by segments.
Is there a way to secure more business from you current traffic?
Build User Engagement
Remember the Web has multi-media potential to offer. Have you ever thought about enhancing your content with a video tutorial or something to get visitors engaged with you?
Google is rolling out it's version of the Facebook "Like" button for it's search results. Soon you will be seeing how many people recommend a link and who of your Google contacts like the same content. Check out the video below to get an introductory overview of Google +1.
From the Google Social Web Blog:
But the +1 button isn’t just for search results. We’re working on a +1 button that you can put on your pages too, making it easy for people to recommend your content on Google search without leaving your site. If you want to be notified when the +1 button is available for your website, you can sign up for email updates at our +1 webmaster site.
Optimally you should always do this on the server side with a 403 Redirect. As a resort, and for certain other usages you can use an HTML redirect. Below are a few examples:
Is there a way to secure more business from you current traffic?
Build User Engagement
Remember the Web has multi-media potential to offer. Have you ever thought about enhancing your content with a video tutorial or something to get visitors engaged with you?
Now that IE9 is out, the battle of the browsers has begun for the next generation. We have IE9-32bit, IE9-64bit, Chrome 10, Firefox 4RC, Safari 5, and Opera 11.01 to choose from. From the tests run by ZDnet, IE has definitely improved (except for the 64-bit version), but overall Chrome still seems to be the speed dog. I think what it is going to come down to is the compatibility with new web technologies that will affect the long term standing of these browsers, such as HTML 5 compatiability. I think Adrian pulled out the key factor in maintaining the performance trophy in that Google has the more aggressive update cycle and will be better able to keep up with the advanced web development being utilized today and tomorrow.
One of the biggest issues I see with IE9 is that it requires you to run Windows 7. I love Windows 7, but not everyone has the ability to upgrade their OS just to get a better version of IE.
OK, so what conclusions can we draw? Well, let’s begin with the obvious and say that Internet Explorer 8 64-bit is an absolute dog when it comes to JavaScript performance. This is to be expected given that IE 9 64-bit is using an older, slower JavaScript engine, while IE 9 32-bit was using the newer, more efficient Chakra JIT.
OK, with the loser out of the way, what’s the winning browser? Well, out of the four benchmarks, Chrome 10 won two, IE9 32-bit won one and Firefox 4 RC won one, so in the strictest sense, Chrome 10 is the winner. But in the SunSpider test there is so little separating the four fastest browsers (a shade over 40 milliseconds) that you could almost say it is a tie. Then there’s the V8 test, which Chrome 10 aces, but then that’s to be expected given that Google, by its own admission, use that benchmark to tune the V8 JavaScript engine.
So, what’s the conclusion? Simple, IE9 64-bit is shockingly bad, and all the other browsers are, on the whole, pretty evenly matched. I’m pleasantly surprised that IE9 32-bit actually aces the SunSpider test, but I expect that over the coming weeks Google will manage to catch up and take the lead once again (Microsoft’s painfully slow update cycle for IE (especially compared with Google’s aggressive update cycle) works against it in the long run. Microsoft has worked hard on IE, taking it from being the slowest in the pack to one of the fastest. That itself is worthy of recognition.
Note: The 64-bit version of IE is only available to those with a 64-bit OS, and even then you’ve got to go searching for it. My advice, don’t bother.
Bottom line, I really don’t think that JavaScript performance is an issue any more, and certainly in real-world testing it’s hard to see a difference between the browsers (some HTML 5 sites not withstanding, given that many are optimized for a particular browser). In fact, unless one of the players managed to boost JavaScript performance by an order of magnitude, shaving a few milliseconds off here and there hardly matters any more.