Resultados 1 a 5 de 5
  1. #1
    WHT-BR Top Member
    Data de Ingresso
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    15,049

    [EN] The New Internet Gods Have No Mercy

    What's so disconcerting now is that the new sources of readership, the apps and sites people check every day and which lead people to new posts and stories, make up a majority of total readership, and they're utterly unpredictable. People still visit sites directly, but less. Sites still link to one another, but with diminishing results. A site that doesn't care about Facebook will nonetheless come to depend on Facebook, and if Facebook changes how Newsfeed works, or how its app works, a large fraction of total traffic could appear or disappear very quickly.

    The internet is vast and wild and unknowable and full of potential, unless you are a website. If you are a website, you depend on traffic. And if you depend on traffic, you know that it comes from just a few different places. Facebook is a big one, and for many sites the biggest. Pinterest is enormous, staggeringly so, for sites that overlap with Pinterest's audience. LinkedIn sends a lot of people if you write about business or self-help; Twitter sends a very modest and modestly valuable stream of people to stories about the news. In other words, in 2014, normal people read the internet mostly on their phones, usually through apps. The only honest way to assess your website is to imagine it with fat blue bars above and below your words.

    From the captive publisher's perspective, Google was the Facebook of five to ten years ago. Some publishers learned how to game it and reaped great rewards. Others simply kept on doing what they were doing and were rewarded anyway: Google, in its attempt to "organize the world's information," deemed their information worth organizing. This is what happened to MetaFilter, one of the great online communities of the 2000s. Over the years, the site's "Ask MetaFilter" section accumulated a lot of questions and answers that happened to be similar to questions Google users were asking. This became a major contributor to Metafilter's traffic, and remained so for years. Until recently:

    While MetaFilter approaches 15 years of being alive and kicking, the overall website saw steady growth for the first 13 of those years. A year and a half ago, we woke up one day to see a 40% decrease in revenue and traffic to Ask MetaFilter, likely the result of ongoing Google index updates. We scoured the web and took advice of reducing ads in the hopes traffic would improve but it never really did, staying steady for several months and then periodically decreasing by smaller amounts over time.

    Google updates its index all the time, ostensibly in an effort to kill off spammy how-to sites and content farms. MetaFilter isn't perfect but it's neither of those things, and now it has to lay off some of its staff. MetaFilter enjoyed Google's traffic but didn't ask for it, and now that traffic is gone.

    Metafilter came from two or three internets ago, when a website's core audience—people showing up there every day or every week, directly—was its main source of visitors. Google might bless a site with new visitors or take them away. Either way, it was still possible for a site's fundamentals to be strong, independent of extremely large outside referrers. What's so disconcerting now is that the new sources of readership, the apps and sites people check every day and which lead people to new posts and stories, make up a majority of total readership, and they're utterly unpredictable (they're also bigger, always bigger, every new internet is bigger). People still visit sites directly, but less. Sites still link to one another, but with diminishing results. A site that doesn't care about Facebook will nonetheless come to depend on Facebook, and if Facebook changes how Newsfeed works, or how its app works, a large fraction of total traffic could appear or disappear very quickly.

    Of course a website's fortunes can change overnight. That these fortunes are tied to the whims of a very small group of very large companies, whose interests are only somewhat aligned with those of publishers, however, is sort of new. The publishing opportunity may be bigger today than it's ever been but the publisher's role is less glamorous: When did the best sites on the internet, giant and small alike, become anonymous subcontractors to tech companies that operate on entirely different scales? This is new psychological territory, working for publishers within publishers within publishers. The ones at the top barely know you exist! Anyway, internet people, remember this day in five years: It could happen to you, whether you asked for it or not.
    http://www.theawl.com/2014/05/the-ne...-have-no-mercy

  2. #2
    WHT-BR Top Member
    Data de Ingresso
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    15,049

    Mobile and Social are the New Drivers for Content Discovery


  3. #3
    WHT-BR Top Member
    Data de Ingresso
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    15,049

    Silicon Valley companies want to be a gateway between users and businesses.

    On mobile devices, Facebook is far ahead — with 62% share, compared with Google’s 26%, Gigya said.

    Facebook has strong leads regionally, too. In South America, for example, Google had scant penetration, while Facebook had more than three quarters of the market.


    Internet companies promise the social-login buttons will allow businesses to obtain more data on their customers’ habits so they can deliver more personalized services. Businesses also hope the ease of signing in with a single click, rather than filling out web forms (especially on a mobile device) will draw lure more customers.

    The leader in the login wars is Facebook, which launched the Facebook Connect button — now called Facebook Login — in 2008.

    Facebook accounted for 53% of all social logins in the first quarter of 2014, according to Gigya, a company that helps businesses install social-login options. Google, which launched its “Google+ Sign-In” button last year, had 30%, and Yahoo had 13%, Gigya said.

    No other service accounted for more than 4% of social logins. Gigya’s data come from a survey of its clients, which includes thousands of websites and apps. Yahoo’s market share fell 2% since the previous quarter, Gigya said. Yahoo recently upped the competition by banning Google and Facebook sign-in buttons from its Web properties.

    Janrain, another company that implements social logins, surveyed more than 300,000 of its clients’ websites late last year and found that Facebook had 45% of the market, but Google+ was gaining ground — at 33% compared with 25% the previous year.

    On mobile devices, Facebook is far ahead — with 62% share, compared with Google’s 26%, Gigya said.

    Facebook has strong leads regionally, too. In South America, for example, Google had scant penetration, while Facebook had more than three quarters of the market.

    One catch with all of this data: Gigya’s numbers pit the companies against one another but don’t say anything about how popular social login buttons are on the whole. Overall, consumers and business may be losing interest in the tools. Research firm Gartner last year said just 5% of new consumer registrations on websites and apps were through social-login services. Forrester Research said only 17% of large and medium-sized businesses use them, and more than half have no plans to do so.

    One reason users hesitate is privacy — the fear that logging in to the real-estate website Zillow through a Facebook button, for example, might inadvertently reveal the house you looked at, and its price, to your social network. Facebook says this can’t happen without a consumer’s express permission. But many users are wary because of the social network’s mixed record on privacy.

    Some large brick and mortar retailers are concerned that letting Facebook or Google put code on their website might lead to the Web giants collecting their purchase data. Google says it doesn’t collect this information.
    http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/05/...s-it-worth-it/

  4. #4
    WHT-BR Top Member
    Data de Ingresso
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    15,049

    Facebook product director furious at Facebook’s effect on news

    Matthew Yglesias on May 22, 2014

    Mike Hudack — who, importantly, is Director of Product at Facebook — has a little rant about the state of the media and his view that we at Vox.com have failed to cure what ails it:

    And we come to Ezra Klein. The great Ezra Klein of Wapo and msnbc. The man who, while a partisan, does not try to keep his own set of facts. He founded Vox. Personally I hoped that we would find a new home for serious journalism in a format that felt Internet-native and natural to people who grew up interacting with screens instead of interacting with screens from couches with bags of popcorn and a beer to keep their hands busy.

    And instead they write stupid stories about how you should wash your jeans instead of freezing them. To be fair their top headline right now is "How a bill made it through the worst Congress ever." Which is better than "you can't clean your jeans by freezing them."

    The jeans story is their most read story today. Followed by "What microsoft doesn't get about tablets" and "Is '17 People' really the best West Wing episode?"

    It's hard to tell who's to blame. But someone should fix this shit.

    Here's where I disagree — it is not hard to tell who is to blame for the fact that the jeans story (which is a great, interesting, informative story) got more readers than Andrew Prokop's excellent feature on the DATA Act. Facebook is to blame.

    As of writing, the jeans story has been shared 1,062 times on Facebook while the DATA Act story has been shared just 242 times. That's why the jeans story has been read by more people. We featured the DATA Act story much more prominently on our home page, but these days the bulk of web traffic is driven by social media and the bulk of social traffic is driven by Facebook.

    The trend toward Facebook being the home page for the internet isn't all bad. Facebook drives a lot of traffic to a lot of stories. Some of those stories are very serious (like the over 6,300 people who shared my short guide to Capital in the 21st Century) and some of them are great-but-not-super-important like the jeans story. And some of the stories are garbage. There's an absurdly misleading map that's been shared over 78,000 times — far more popular than our debunking of the map will ever be.



    But for better or for worse, traffic on the internet right now is all about Facebook sharing behavior. And here's a key point. Facebook doesn't work like Twitter. On Twitter if you share something, your followers see it. On Facebook, what is seen is driven by an algorithm that Facebook controls — if they wanted to promote more hard news they could do it.

    Sharing, in turn, is in part about human nature. Lifestyle stories, celebrity stories, lists, quizzes (crossword puzzles), and meme images (funny pages), and servicey items have always been popular forms of media and it's no surprise those things are popular on Facebook too. But sharing is in part about Facebook's algorithms. When I share a story on my Facebook page, it doesn't automatically go out to everyone who's liked me. The number of people who get served any given article is determined by Facebook. The Facebook Gods smiled upon my sharing of "Buzzfeed's founder used to write Marxist theory and it explains Buzzfeed perfectly" and I hope the Gods will be as friendly to my share of Max Fisher's brilliant 4,000 word explanation of the endless political crisis in Thailand.

    But, frankly, my experience as a veteran professional in this field is that the Facebook Gods will not smile on Max's Thailand piece. It doesn't have the key triggers of emotion, personalization, and identity-formation that drive success on Facebook.


    If Facebook executives don't like a world in which those are the kind of stories people read, they should do something about it. Until then, we in the media are going to keep doing what we've always done — try to publish a balanced mix of content that appeals to a range of people and sensibilities and hits different kinds of notes.

    http://www.vox.com/2014/5/22/5742148...effect-on-news
    Última edição por 5ms; 23-05-2014 às 10:14.

  5. #5
    WHT-BR Top Member
    Data de Ingresso
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    15,049

    Google’s Search Changes Send RetailMeNot Shares Tumbling

    RetailMeNot shares plunged a record 19 percent today after a report said that recent changes in Google’s search algorithm made results leading to the Web couponer 33 percent less visible.

    The plunge in RetailMeNot’s shares underscores the control Google has over Internet traffic and the risks faced by companies that rely on the search engine for users. Google captured 68 percent of U.S. search queries in March, more than triple the market share for Microsoft Corp., according to ComScore Inc.

    Matt Cutts, the head of Google’s Webspam team, said in a Twitter post on May 20 that the Mountain View, California-based company was rolling out its new algorithm, called Panda 4.0. Searchmetrics said in its post that the “update seems to be a major one.”

    Jason Freidenfelds, a spokesman for Google, said the company doesn’t comment on specific sites. He said that the algorithm change will affect about 7.5 percent of queries in English that users might notice.

    Searchmetrics, a provider of digital-marketing software, wrote a list of the winners and losers, with RetailMeNot as one of the biggest losers. Searchmetrics urged readers of its winners and losers list to “interpret with caution,” and said it will provide an update after diving deeper into the data.

    The initial list of losers includes IAC/InteractiveCorp’s Ask.com and EBay Inc.

    Winners, or those sites with improved visibility, include job-search site Glassdoor Inc., Automattic Inc.’s WordPress blog service, and health site Everyday Health Inc.



    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0...-tumbling.html

Permissões de Postagem

  • Você não pode iniciar novos tópicos
  • Você não pode enviar respostas
  • Você não pode enviar anexos
  • Você não pode editar suas mensagens
  •