SHOOTOUT: Google SearchWiki vs. Wikia

Google introduced SearchWiki, a search results customization feature, to the public this week. Naturally, there are comparisons being made with Wikia Search, one of the original roll-your-own search machines.

So we ask: Which is best?

Google’s broad implementation of editing options is of course going to grab more eyes, and thus more interest, than Wikia Search. But let’s do a quick shootout among technical competitors, shall we? A little mano-a-mano for fans and opponents alike to consider, eh?

Google vs Wikia: The Visuals

Google SearchWiki - Google has a substantial leg up here. SearchWiki has had a largely seamless introduction, and the edit options are almost too easy to learn.

Wikia Search - It isn’t necessarily unattractive, but it’s considerably more complex. Which makes it a bit slower to operate.

How They Work

Google SearchWiki - Simply put, you have promotion and removal buttons to begin with, as well as a comment option to the right of the URL and ‘Similar Pages’ label.

If you choose to raise a link’s profile, it will be carried to the top of the results page. Removal will drop a link to the bottom of the page. Changes can be reversed, too, so nothing is definite.

Unfortunately, there is no quick option to rearrange a page as you like. Promos jump to the top. That’s the only path to take. Which you can familiarize yourself with, but it can still be tedious, particularly if you’re mapping your ideal Top 10-20 set of results for certain keywords.

Wikia Search - Apart from working with considerably less speed, there’s hardly anything to gripe about insofar as the engine’s toolset.

Hover your cursor over a search result and you’re shown a menu by which to edit, annotate, spotlight, comment, or delete whatever you see. You can star results from with a 1-5 rating, and you can even add a result if it’s missing from view.

User Friendliness

Google SearchWiki - Some might say SearchWiki is way ahead of Wikia in this department, but that’s not necessarily the case. We refer you to our “tedious” remark about having to customize a page’s results within the strict push-to-top and drop-to-bottom framework. It’s acceptable or annoying, depending on your level of patience and love for Mother Google.

Wikia - Give it a minute or two of your time, and you’ll find this one surprises with just how intuitive and powerful it can be - without becoming too detail-heavy. The abundance of tags at the top of the roster is welcome, and the Facebook-esque pop-up menu along the bottom of the window is nice to have. On-the-fly language specification is also something to appreciate.

And The Winner Is…

…it depends! It’s thoroughly difficult to be objective about these things, so we’ll leave it up to you to determine which engine is best. Google will command the discussions simply for its size and influence, so there’s no use thinking Wikia Search has a shot in a wide open one-on-one.

Yet Wikia is without doubt the more capable of the two when it comes to search results customization and annotation. There are just more stuff that a real power user would need. And let’s face it, the only search engine users that will bother combing results for their personal best-of list(s) are the power users among us. The ones that aren’t happy with how algorithms alone make keywords sing.

If you want to lend an engine a helping hand without care about brand loyalty and page count volume, Wikia Search is the place to go.

source: mashable.com

Dear Facebook: Don’t Forget the Marketers

Alisa Leonard-Hansen is a Senior Social Media Analyst within the strategy group at iCrossing. She can also be found blogging at both the iCrossing Great Finds blog and her own blog, The Web is Social.com.

With speculation around how you should monetize mostly a topic of conversation within the tech community, it always surprises me that a marketing perspective isn’t thrown into the mix. After all, it’s marketing dollars that you (and just about every other online entity) are relying on. So, taking a digital marketing perspective, I thought I’d throw a few thoughts into the discussion.

Note: this is not intended to be a “how to use Facebook to develop a social marketing strategy” discussion, but rather the intent is to explore how you could build a business model around your rich user data given what marketers desire in terms of effective marketing and what they’ll pay for (effective marketing= happy marketers who spend more $ on what works).

Your focus is flawed

So, you have one thing right: marketers pay to reach consumers, and the more targeting a platform can offer, the more marketers are willing to spend because of the promise of greater ROI. There is one flaw in your approach, however: you have been entirely focused on monetizing Facebook.com itself.

Now, while it may seem counter-intuitive, you ought to focus on monetizing your rich user data, and not necessarily the site itself. Wait–isn’t that the same thing? What is she saying? Just hear me out: You are not a content platform. You’re a communications utility, and while you’re a platform for UGC, you don’t provide a rich content experience. Users aren’t on your network to experience any kind of particular content–they are there to connect with friends and to essentially store personal data (whether they consciously know this or not).

Although some could argue that explicit and implicit user outputs (all that stuff you see in your newsfeed) IS the new “content,” we still have yet to see that this kind of UGC can be successfully monetized through advertising (translation, ROI for ad spend around UGC tends to be low).

Now, marketers have deployed lots of successful marketing initiatives within Facebook, but a majority of these involve leveraging your free Business Pages to drive conversation and engagement (read: free marketing). You’ve had it in your heads that if you let marketers set up free Business Pages, and draw in communities of brand enthusiasts who “Fan” these Pages, you can then upsell these brands into media buys. But the problem is that while great for engagement initiatives and fostering conversation around a brand (great for marketers!), Facebook is still not an optimal place for ad-spend, no matter how much attention is aggregated there. ROI from your ad spends tend to be relatively low for marketers. Again, it goes back to user intent and behavior.

So what should you do?

Essentially, Facebook is this giant data storage silo. It contains consumer data nearly as valuable as the credit card companies have (the kind of data marketers would pay nearly through the nose to have). It’s user data, not the dot com itself that you should consider your golden ticket.

Now, before anyone starts jumping up and down about the notion of “monetizing user data”– I’m not advocating that private user data be mass-harvested and sold ad hoc to marketers. Rather, what I am suggesting is that with the dawn of Facebook Connect, there may be a viable, ethical way to leverage this user data.

With Facebook Connect, you can essentially create a content network (and note the launch partners, major media companies) that could also support an ad-network. So now, with a Facebook Connect-enabled content/ad network, you have the holy grail of targeted advertising: contextually relevant content experience AND the kind of granular targetability based on user graph data that made the initial promise of social networks so huge for marketers. Basically, participating FBC sites could not only sell targeted ad inventory based on their content, but based on Facebook’s (opt-in) user data as well. This would not only give marketers what they want in terms of targeting, but you would get a cut of the ad revenue for being the arbiters of that valuable graph data.

Of course, even without a potential FBC ad-network, Facebook Connect helps brands and publishers provide a socially enhanced experience for their customers with a lower barrier to adoption than current one-off branded social networks. Not to mention, FBC enables the potential to drive a lot of new traffic to their site as a result of opt-in user actions (including purchases) being broadcast through the Facebook network.

There is also the opportunity for e-tailers to capitalize on social graph data as part of their merchandising model. The benefit of graph data to the e-tailer includes the implicit endorsement of products by your users whose purchases are broadcast to their Facebook friends (again, only if the user opts-in to have their actions published), driving significant traffic, tapping into the power of consumer advocacy, and providing a more socially enhanced and user-friendly experience. Given the significant value this kind of data offers, you could leverage some kind of rev-share program for supplying this graph data to e-tailers (but again, users would have to opt-in!).

Create a value exchange!

Now, this brings me to one last point that my dear friend and brilliant colleague Ben Bose has suggested be baked into all of this– a value exchange for the end user. If it’s consumers’ graph data that is benefiting both supplier/marketer and Facebook, then it should also work for the benefit of the consumer. Perhaps users may be assigned “influence” scores based on their network, and the degree of influence they have over that network. These influence scores could earn them rewards– not unlike our credit card rewards. Of course, some services already have types of user rewards, including ThisNext and imeem, but this is something that could be propagated to a much larger degree with initiatives like Facebook Connect.

Yes, there are many counterpoints to these ideas, including the argument that open Web enthusiasts (myself included) would pose around the idea of Facebook (or MySpace) being proprietors of graph data versus users themselves. But rather than examining the differences between FBC and true data portability, this was a look at possibilities for Facebook Connect as a means to increase Facebook revenue.

source: mashable.com

Twitter Rocks the Early Vote; Who Can Catch Them? (OWAs)

This article is part of the Open Web Awards, an open, international contest for the best websites and services.

Since kicking off the voting round of the Open Web Awards yesterday, we’ve seen nearly 10,000 votes cast across 26 different categories. In the Mainstream Social Networks category, Twitter has the early lead, but has some tough competition from last year’s winners, Facebook and Netlog. With voting open until November 30th, perhaps one of these contenders can make a run for the award:

Dotblu – A social network geared primarily towards teens, where users compete in various games to earn virtual currency.

Facebook – Became the most popular social network globally this year. Recently launched a major re-design.

Fastpitch – Social network for business professionals with a focus on gaining “karma” through contributing to the site.

Friendfeed – Aggregator of activities from dozens of different social networks including Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, and Del.icio.us.

Koornk – Twitter-like service offered to international audiences in 5 different languages.

Multiply – Social network that likes to focus on “real world” relationships. Traffic more than doubled this year.

MyHeritage – Lets families work together to build an interactve family tree.

MySpace – World’s second largest social network, recently launched MySpace Music with free streaming tracks from the major labels.

Netlog – One of Europe’s biggest social networking sites. Recently launched support for OpenSocial applications.

Platinumlounge – Social network with a focus on entertainment news and nightlife.

Sharenow – Social network that includes unlimited file sharing with friends.

Smeet – Web-based virtual world where each user gets their own avatar and can communicate with others via text or voice.

Squidoo – Experts create pages about their favorite topics and earn revenue.

Twitter – Microblogging tool that lets users post 140 character updates about their activities. Grew rapidly in 2008.

VOTE OFTEN: One Vote Per Category Per Day

Now it’s time to vote for your favorite Mainstream Social Network in the first of two voting rounds. You can vote for one company per day until midnight on November 30th.

Feel free to embed this widget on your own blog or website by clicking the “Grab This” button! For a timeline, rules and information on our 100 blog partners, please visit the Open Web Awards site.

Top Tip For Nominees

You got through? Congratulations! Did you know you can create a custom version of our voting widget above to post to your company blog or website? Just visit the Open Web Awards Widget Creator and check the box to preset a category or company. This means your fans only need to enter an email address to vote - simple!

Start Canvassing for YOUR Candidate!

Want others to vote for your favorite site? Of course you do! Why not leave a comment here and on any of our international partner blogs encouraging other readers to add their support? The more you promote your candidate across these blogs, the more likely it is for your site to proceed to the finals!

OWA Sponsors Love The Web

The Open Web Awards is made possible by our sponsors. By supporting the Open Web Awards, these companies reward and encourage innovative web technologies. We can’t thank them enough for sharing our passion: building great web companies.

Platinum Partner

“PartnerUp brings small business and social networking together to create a community where entrepreneurs find the people, resources and information to grow their businesses.”

Gold Sponsors

“iStockphoto is the world’s leading image market and a revenue-sharing social network. Browse 3.5 million images and videos starting at $1 or become a contributor.”

“With Quintura’s advanced visual-based search and analytics solution, content publishers can increase site usage while creating new ad revenues”

Prize Sponsor

“Infinite and Instant, Zazzle is the only on-demand retail platform for consumers and major brands, offering billions of retail quality, one-of-a-kind products, most of which are produced within 24 hours.”

Source: mashable.com

Lively, and Three Other Google Flops

Google was once invincible and unable to make a mistake. Well, although its share price is not what it used to be, one can argue they’re still invincible in most areas they’ve dabbled in, but the mistakes and flops are now piling up.

Google Lively, a virtual world in which users can create their own environment and avatar and communicate with each other, is about to be shut down. True, this was one of Google’s 20% projects, meaning that it was created by one of Google’s engineers in their “spare” time, but still, time and money were invested in it and it flopped badly, with hardly anyone ever using it. Competing with Second Life is obviously not something that can be done casually.

The most clear example of a Google failure, however, is Google Answers. A high profile project and a direct competitor to Yahoo Answers - which, by the way, is still operational - Google Answers was shut down back in 2006. Its model of experts answering questions (instead of just having an open model with everyone answering, like on Yahoo Answers) didn’t hold up too well, and although the service is still a valuable resource, it wasn’t meant to be.

Jaiku has not officially flopped yet. But, the fact remains that after acquiring the service back in 2007 Google has done absolutely nothing with it, while Twitter - Jaiku’s direct competitor - has grown immensely. Hell, even other competitors in the space, such as Pownce, have experienced better growth than Jaiku, which can be seen from the Compete traffic comparison below.

No innovation, no new features; in fact, after the service was acquired by Google, its official blog has had only two updates: one to say that the service is back up, and another to warn about maintenance downtime. Perhaps Google has something huge in stock for Jaiku, but from what can be seen on the surface, it’s going nowhere.

Directly related to the Jaiku-Twitter story is Dodgeball, another short messaging service that Google had acquired in 2005. Unlike other Google flops, this one wasn’t entirely wrapped in nice, apologetic words. Dennis Crowley, the founder of Dodgeball, was frustrated with his experience working with Google, and he claimed that Google simply didn’t think Dodgeball was worth investing any resources in. It’s no secret that every startup’s wet dream is getting acquired by Google, and the Dodgeball incident has so far been the only stain on Google’s near perfect resume.

Is there a lesson that can be learned from these mistakes? Perhaps it’s still too early to tell, but if you add Orkut - Google’s social network which is arguably doing well, but also hasn’t done anything revolutionary lately - to the mix, it becomes fairly obvious that Google is not good at building communities. One more reason to bet on Facebook one day being bigger than Google, if you’re the betting type.

Source: mashable.com