Archive for the ‘Marketing’ Category

Techcrunch is, together with Mashable (social media), Kotaku (games) and Gamasutra (games again!), my main source of information for  the Web 2.0 world. I decided not to abandon it after AOL bought it, because I believe it’s still on the cutting edge on its sector. But, I don’t like people who judge others from a superior point of view. And that’s why I think that, what happened yesterday to Robin Wauters and his harsh criticism over bad PR, was really intuitive for Techcrunch (short TC). (more…)


My 2 cents on Quora

Posted: February 11, 2011 in Marketing
Tags: , , ,

quora logoI’m proud for a single fact: I started using Quora before the last days’ buzz about it. I even had a related post about Fluther and Twitter some time ago, and I still believe that social Q&A websites are one of the most sophisticated applications in the Web 2.0 universe. But I haven’t shared my experience with Quora so far, and that’s what I’ll do today. (more…)

That’s something that went below many people’s radars: Google had suspicions about Bing stealing its search results from early on (around early May 2010). But these suspicions are now probably confirmed. Or maybe not?

Bing vs GoogleI was first introduced to the battle while reading a post by Search Engine Land, which described Google’s suspicions over Bing using its results as a way to improve its own. Google decided to run an experiment about that, a “sting operation”. Google engineers assigned a specific page to a search term that noone would ever try to search for (i.e.juegosdeben1ogrande). Now, there you have the first controversial point: Google did not mention the ratio suspicious occations/number of experiments. Its blog’s post left this rather unclear. However, Search Engine Land and Microsoft provided us with a ratio of 7-9/100. Is this number representative? Well, it’s hard to tell, but still, having even a 7% similarity led Google to accuse Microsoft openly.

The fight between the two giants started. Microsoft issued a brief statement on February 1:

We do not copy Google’s results.

However, a small hint was obvious from Microsoft’s original response to the issue: Microsoft makes use of “multiple signals and approaches” in its quest of “doing a better job determining the intent of the search”. This points out directly to Microsoft’s MSN Toolbar and Windows Live Toolbar: one of this tool’s main quests is to identify the way users search for information and the time they spent on each result. And of course, what was the main search tool available back in 2007 (as suggested by Businessinsider’s article on the incident)? Google. And yes, this piece of info was available from June 2009.

Google’s main reaction was that competition through innovation is good, since it helps improving search results. However, the last words from its statement, about the copied results, are clear:

We’d like for this practice to stop” (does this mean that they’ll take drastic measures to make it stop? Noone can still tell).

As is Microsoft’s answer, which accused Google of “click fraud” through its senior VP of Online Services Division, Yusuf Mehdi. And continued by stating that people have started wondering if Bing’s quality is the same, or, sometimes, better than Google’s, something that led Bing’s prime competitor to make accusations over something widely known.

The battle will probably continue, either with statements or in courts. It also generates new questions: Why didn’t Yahoo reacted as well (it is known that Bing monitors Yahoo as well)? Does Bing monitor users’ clickstream or their use of Google? The second question has generated long articles, which try to determine if data from users’ search queries on Google belong solely to Google or not.

However, one thing is clear: Microsoft entered the search engine territory, a place which belonged unquestionably to Google – which of course reacted. For the time being, Google is the undeniable king. But things change really fast in the online world, and the future of this rivalry is still unclear.

P.S.: That’s one of the examples that Google used in its “sting operation”.

This troll will not help you go viral - it can hardly talkdot dot dotIt’s one of these stories that prove that even something good can come from something considered really bad. And sometimes even trolls can help your product go viral, in this crazy story by Mashable (and of course I’m not talking about a real troll, like the one on the left – these creatures are almost incapable of meaningful speech).

It all started when a young kid, Axman13, posted a furious (and wrong, in terms of grammar and syntax) review for the game Super PSTW Action RPG on Newgrounds’ website. Although his review would have been disregarded, actor D-Mac-Double posted a video (actually an audio track) of him voicing Axman’s comments, in his own unique way.

The original video:

The video wasn’t close to what we call viral (it’s still below 16k views on YouTube). But then Mick Lauer, a designer, made an animation for the video, an interesting experiment on kinetic typography. That was it – the video has now almost 430k views on YouTube and probably even more on Newsgrounds. And that’s beacuase pepole acting as trolls can reley offer you some stranth, if you contrail their messages in the right way.

The new video:

Steve Ballmer and Windows advertisingMany people blame them for lack of innovative spirit. Maybe they’re true.

Monopoly in the software market that leads to less improvement over time. Again, probably true.

But if you watch these videos, you’ll see that, sometimes, Microsoft ignores some well – defined advertising rules and still beats the competition. And that’s innovation and improvement, at the same time.

Watch Steve Ballmer, trying to sell – now considered prehistoric – Windows 1.0.

And that’s Ballmer again (in an even better moment), selling (ancient) Windows XP.

Let’s talk about rules and innovation now…