I was reading an article in Search Engine Watch this morning concerning Yahoo Axis - the new search engine running across iPhone, iPad and desktop browser platforms.
I was reading the story in Opera at the time and tried to download it there but the system wouldn't let me. I read about a possible security breach in Chrome so didn't venture there either. Eventually I downloaded it as a Firefox extension and it worked fine.
It's quite a neat device, sitting bottom-left on the browser screen. The engine is being sold on users not having to leave existing web pages to search the web - it acts effectively as an overlay which expands vertically and extends horizontally. Another selling point is the visual image retrieved of pages the engine has found, rather than chunks of text.
Taking the latter point first it is clear to see why certain pages have been found but, equally clearly, as results compete on ever closer search terms, it's not easy to see why one would take priority over another without actually seeing the description text. I suppose for a quick and easy 'in and out' it's fine.
My second point, though, is that you can indeed overlay the Axis engine on any web page you've browsed to. I loaded Google and did multiple searches across a range of sites in both Google on the main page and Axis in the footer. I tried it out across a range of Burwell Web Communications client sites. Exposure in this way showed very different results with Axis simply not being able to find many sites at all that Google placed in its top five on a regular basis.
Axis is a handy tool but, a bit like the Axis Powers, it does not have the index reach nor greater technical capability of Google. If users are happy to be restricted to Yahoo! for searching quickly and easily, then fine, but how many would choose Yahoo! ahead of Google normally?
Monday, 28 May 2012
Tuesday, 15 May 2012
Searching for or using engines?
I was reading a piece from Search Engine Watch in my Google Reader this morning about respondents disliking the idea of Facebook launching its own web search engine. Some 336 million searches were performed on Facebook in February which was good enough to put it into ninth place behind Google, Bing, Yahoo! and others, despite its not being a true web search engine.
I know it's in the nature of web software providers - and especially social web software providers - to be able to include 'all' facilities for users so that points of difference gradually merge or even disappear. For me, that doesn't happen. I use Yahoo! search to look for e-mails I've carefully filed away in places I know I'll never be able to find again; I use Facebook search to hunt down messages I may never even have received but remain as voices in my head and I use devices such as Google Reader to pull in stories I may well be interested in reading, like this one today.
I see different brands doing what they do really well and, for me, search engines are no exception. However, I do think there is a very real danger of also seeing social platforms such as Facebook and Twitter , with their bespoke search facilities, versus a homogeneous 'search engine' which is, in many or most cases, going to be Google. Search engines provide very different facilities and I use a range of these robots according to the information I seek or the way in which I want the search results to be brought back for me.
The problem then, of course, is that I almost need a search engine or even a list (remember those) of the different types and addresses of the various search engine alternatives. My memory being what it is, I would always forget to keep such a listing up-to-date so I have put it online on my burweb site in the hope that others will share their suggestions and updates with me. I hope it will become a useful search resource for web users and part of the journey.
I know it's in the nature of web software providers - and especially social web software providers - to be able to include 'all' facilities for users so that points of difference gradually merge or even disappear. For me, that doesn't happen. I use Yahoo! search to look for e-mails I've carefully filed away in places I know I'll never be able to find again; I use Facebook search to hunt down messages I may never even have received but remain as voices in my head and I use devices such as Google Reader to pull in stories I may well be interested in reading, like this one today.
I see different brands doing what they do really well and, for me, search engines are no exception. However, I do think there is a very real danger of also seeing social platforms such as Facebook and Twitter , with their bespoke search facilities, versus a homogeneous 'search engine' which is, in many or most cases, going to be Google. Search engines provide very different facilities and I use a range of these robots according to the information I seek or the way in which I want the search results to be brought back for me.
The problem then, of course, is that I almost need a search engine or even a list (remember those) of the different types and addresses of the various search engine alternatives. My memory being what it is, I would always forget to keep such a listing up-to-date so I have put it online on my burweb site in the hope that others will share their suggestions and updates with me. I hope it will become a useful search resource for web users and part of the journey.
Tuesday, 10 April 2012
This isn't business, this is personal
How many times have we watched a film or play where the hero 'gets tough' and whatever mission they were previously on, on behalf of a downtrodden inncocent, it now becomes a personal vendetta. You know from that point onwards that all will be resolved in a happy ending.
What a pity that bankers don't do this more often. Bankers? Heroes? Surely not, I here you respond: 'surely interest from them comes in monetary form only.'
We are bombarded with ads on all channels about 'business banking.' They particularly target start-ups and the emphasis is usually on individual growth or, better, family welfare as a result. The inference is that bankers are interested in you and not just your money.
When I started my burweb consultancy just over two years ago, I chose a very well-known High Street bank to support it. I deliberately kept it separate from my personal finances as I felt it would help to keep the business and personal sides of my life at least clear financially though (and perhaps because of) other aspects of my life were merging more closely than they had ever been when I was an employee.
My 'business manager' set everything up and all seemed fine until I very quickly had glitches on both credit card and personal account 'running costs.' At that point I was directed to a call centre who's staff really didn't want to be helpful if it meant going off script. They didn't know me and there was no sense whatsoever of a personal service. I contacted my business manager but he never got back to me to ask how he could help. I closed the account but he never got back to me to ask why I had done so. In fact, after that one and only first meeting, he never contacted me and, of course, still hasn't.
Perhaps it wasn't just that he didn't care but actively disliked me and so avoided me? Or am I getting personal here? The advertising was not translated to any special business service - in fact there was no service at all. The ad stopped with admin.
I moved my business account back to the bank which handles my personal banking. We have always enjoyed fantastic personal service there with a 'personal banker' who listens and shares but also acts quickly and efficiently when we ask her to do so. I wondered if I'd made a mistake by splitting personal and business in the first place - had she been looking after both I never would have done so.
My new 'business banker' transmits messages to me with no personal messaging nor even a corporate interest in my business; he has still never asked what I actually do and I'm pretty sure I am just a number that the personal banker has told him not to upset. He has recently arranged a place on a one day business course - I assume because the bank earns money from it - but delivered the paperwork to the local branch which is just 100 years yards away from our house. How difficult would it have been to just drop it in and come in for a quick chat and maybe a coffee? Our personal banker would have made time to do this and we value her and her banking brand very highly because of it.
Shouldn't the different personal and finance banking systems be hidden when it comes to personal communications between bank and customer? Why do they continue to be so bad at this? Global advertising campaigns try their best to persuade us that the two really are knitted together but the reality is that business bankers don't seem willing or able to follow this through and drop stitches every day of the week.
What a pity that bankers don't do this more often. Bankers? Heroes? Surely not, I here you respond: 'surely interest from them comes in monetary form only.'
We are bombarded with ads on all channels about 'business banking.' They particularly target start-ups and the emphasis is usually on individual growth or, better, family welfare as a result. The inference is that bankers are interested in you and not just your money.
When I started my burweb consultancy just over two years ago, I chose a very well-known High Street bank to support it. I deliberately kept it separate from my personal finances as I felt it would help to keep the business and personal sides of my life at least clear financially though (and perhaps because of) other aspects of my life were merging more closely than they had ever been when I was an employee.
My 'business manager' set everything up and all seemed fine until I very quickly had glitches on both credit card and personal account 'running costs.' At that point I was directed to a call centre who's staff really didn't want to be helpful if it meant going off script. They didn't know me and there was no sense whatsoever of a personal service. I contacted my business manager but he never got back to me to ask how he could help. I closed the account but he never got back to me to ask why I had done so. In fact, after that one and only first meeting, he never contacted me and, of course, still hasn't.
Perhaps it wasn't just that he didn't care but actively disliked me and so avoided me? Or am I getting personal here? The advertising was not translated to any special business service - in fact there was no service at all. The ad stopped with admin.
I moved my business account back to the bank which handles my personal banking. We have always enjoyed fantastic personal service there with a 'personal banker' who listens and shares but also acts quickly and efficiently when we ask her to do so. I wondered if I'd made a mistake by splitting personal and business in the first place - had she been looking after both I never would have done so.
My new 'business banker' transmits messages to me with no personal messaging nor even a corporate interest in my business; he has still never asked what I actually do and I'm pretty sure I am just a number that the personal banker has told him not to upset. He has recently arranged a place on a one day business course - I assume because the bank earns money from it - but delivered the paperwork to the local branch which is just 100 years yards away from our house. How difficult would it have been to just drop it in and come in for a quick chat and maybe a coffee? Our personal banker would have made time to do this and we value her and her banking brand very highly because of it.
Shouldn't the different personal and finance banking systems be hidden when it comes to personal communications between bank and customer? Why do they continue to be so bad at this? Global advertising campaigns try their best to persuade us that the two really are knitted together but the reality is that business bankers don't seem willing or able to follow this through and drop stitches every day of the week.
Thursday, 5 April 2012
Sitting around, hoping customers will go away
That's a most unlikely scenario, isn't it?
I've just read an 'advice' piece reminding readers of the benefits of continually using social media channels, telephone and e-mail. With so many communications touch points available to marketers these days it should be easy shouldn't it? Unfortunately too often we, the 'easily-persuadable' consumers are simply bombarded with sales messages online in the same way as we used to be by post. Yes there is better targeting and messages can be personalised more carefully but still there is so much broadcast hot air.
On the High Street, everyone has a story to tell about the stroppy sales assistant who would rather continue to chat to her friend than serve a customer or - Heaven forbid - answer a question. We saw this 'online' as telephone call centres emerged and of course online customer service has often acted as the even more disinterested younger sister.
The problem is that we, as consumers, just want to buy something and value it when we receive it - just as we thought we would when looking at in a shop or a brochure or an online store. That hasn't ever changed, even if the methods of search and supply have. Why should we suffer the disconnects between online and offline when something goes wrong - it shouldn't matter to us - in fact it shouldn't even enter our consciousness?
We recently bought a garden chair from a very well-known retail brand and one where quality is its major point of differentiation. We saw it in an Oxford Street branch and went home and ordered it online a few days later. We could have paid for next-day delivery but waited for a week instead. The delivery drivers were friendly, helpful and everything we would have expected from this brand. The product was not. Basically it cannot be constructed due to a faulty part so neither we nor any other customer could have sat in it this Easter weekend.
We telephoned their customer service centre yesterday and were told that because we had purchased through their 'internet system' there was nothing they could do as it wasn't connected to their despatch department; we would have to wait for a call back sometime in the next 24 hours because they were very busy (sitting around waiting for calls about chairs they were determined not to help with perhaps?). The call never came and, again, wasting more time and money we, the ignorant consumer dared to challenge the process. Funnily enough the supervisor we eventually got through to was able to arrange a despatch date there and then and is now discussing financial compensation because of our disappointment with such a 'quality' proposition.
Systems not talking to each other is unforgivable in the 2012 technical age but what is worse is informing customers of this when they are already unhappy with a product or service. We talk and read a lot about search and optimization but, clearly, even with quality brands it's actually getting to the optimized human being that will make all the difference. Sadly the painful search to get there will ensure that many customers won't bother to make that journey again - whether or not they were happy or unhappy at the point of departure.
I've just read an 'advice' piece reminding readers of the benefits of continually using social media channels, telephone and e-mail. With so many communications touch points available to marketers these days it should be easy shouldn't it? Unfortunately too often we, the 'easily-persuadable' consumers are simply bombarded with sales messages online in the same way as we used to be by post. Yes there is better targeting and messages can be personalised more carefully but still there is so much broadcast hot air.
On the High Street, everyone has a story to tell about the stroppy sales assistant who would rather continue to chat to her friend than serve a customer or - Heaven forbid - answer a question. We saw this 'online' as telephone call centres emerged and of course online customer service has often acted as the even more disinterested younger sister.
The problem is that we, as consumers, just want to buy something and value it when we receive it - just as we thought we would when looking at in a shop or a brochure or an online store. That hasn't ever changed, even if the methods of search and supply have. Why should we suffer the disconnects between online and offline when something goes wrong - it shouldn't matter to us - in fact it shouldn't even enter our consciousness?
We recently bought a garden chair from a very well-known retail brand and one where quality is its major point of differentiation. We saw it in an Oxford Street branch and went home and ordered it online a few days later. We could have paid for next-day delivery but waited for a week instead. The delivery drivers were friendly, helpful and everything we would have expected from this brand. The product was not. Basically it cannot be constructed due to a faulty part so neither we nor any other customer could have sat in it this Easter weekend.
We telephoned their customer service centre yesterday and were told that because we had purchased through their 'internet system' there was nothing they could do as it wasn't connected to their despatch department; we would have to wait for a call back sometime in the next 24 hours because they were very busy (sitting around waiting for calls about chairs they were determined not to help with perhaps?). The call never came and, again, wasting more time and money we, the ignorant consumer dared to challenge the process. Funnily enough the supervisor we eventually got through to was able to arrange a despatch date there and then and is now discussing financial compensation because of our disappointment with such a 'quality' proposition.
Systems not talking to each other is unforgivable in the 2012 technical age but what is worse is informing customers of this when they are already unhappy with a product or service. We talk and read a lot about search and optimization but, clearly, even with quality brands it's actually getting to the optimized human being that will make all the difference. Sadly the painful search to get there will ensure that many customers won't bother to make that journey again - whether or not they were happy or unhappy at the point of departure.
Friday, 16 March 2012
Are we human, or are we advancer
I was reading a piece in Netimperative this morning, which featured research from Incapsula. In their study they found that just 49% of web traffic could be attributed to human beings. The explicit inference is that this is a bad thing.
Apparently 31% of all web traffic could be identified as being potentially harmful to sites, including spyware and malware. 20% came from search engines' bots directly.
Of course you could take the view that humans can be good or bad or both at the same time. They can work hard to entice users to their sites directly in competition with everybody else: their win is someone else's loss. Optimisation breeds a sub-optimal state perhaps? The sites in question could be for the common good but they might not be.
The assumption that human activity is always 'good' is debatable as the old, offline world has informed us for generations. The apparently 'bad' non-human activity online was also the result of human design and intention at some point anyway. Robots require human creativity in the same way as songs by The Killers do.
So maybe we are human after all, if not using the medium for advancement?
Apparently 31% of all web traffic could be identified as being potentially harmful to sites, including spyware and malware. 20% came from search engines' bots directly.
Of course you could take the view that humans can be good or bad or both at the same time. They can work hard to entice users to their sites directly in competition with everybody else: their win is someone else's loss. Optimisation breeds a sub-optimal state perhaps? The sites in question could be for the common good but they might not be.
The assumption that human activity is always 'good' is debatable as the old, offline world has informed us for generations. The apparently 'bad' non-human activity online was also the result of human design and intention at some point anyway. Robots require human creativity in the same way as songs by The Killers do.
So maybe we are human after all, if not using the medium for advancement?
Thursday, 8 March 2012
Pay to Play
Years ago, before the internet came out of its bunker and mobile 'phones ceased to be iron wedges, I used to play golf when I wasn't working on 'the computer.' It was a 'pay to play' golf course and I could usually just turn up and tee off without having to book in advance: this was called leisure time and there was a great sense of freedom in being disconnected from everything and everybody else, just nature and me.
The computer was fixed, usually dumb, and connected by wires to other computers which were similarly dumb. This development was called 'intelligent' and controlled by a higher power, an omnipotent brain called the server.
I don't play golf any more because I've convinced myself that I don't really have time. It's much easier now to talk to the clouds and enjoy a great sense of freedom and security in being connected constantly. Normality is playing games in this new environment. 25 billion downloads have been made from Apple's app store according to an article in Netimperative today. 17 of the paid-for apps are for games. Angry Birds is the most popular app.
Years ago, my many wayward drives made the birds angry. Today I don't need to drive anywhere to make this happen.
The computer was fixed, usually dumb, and connected by wires to other computers which were similarly dumb. This development was called 'intelligent' and controlled by a higher power, an omnipotent brain called the server.
I don't play golf any more because I've convinced myself that I don't really have time. It's much easier now to talk to the clouds and enjoy a great sense of freedom and security in being connected constantly. Normality is playing games in this new environment. 25 billion downloads have been made from Apple's app store according to an article in Netimperative today. 17 of the paid-for apps are for games. Angry Birds is the most popular app.
Years ago, my many wayward drives made the birds angry. Today I don't need to drive anywhere to make this happen.
Monday, 5 March 2012
Zynga playing a new game?
I was interested to read in Netimperative this morning that Zynga are looking to create a standalone online gaming site. Well, not entirely standing on their own, still standing next to Facebook, sort of...
The company is keen to develop its own brand presence without relying on Facebook, though still using Facebook's login and payment systems - at least at launch. Confused? As they used to say in 'Soap' "you won't be." It's clear that Zynga do not wish to rely on Facebook or be contained within its brand and architecture. It seems that the bright people at Zynga believe they can now grow their brand beyond the incubator (my client, the IPA, sent a delegation to Silicon Valley as part of their #CreativePioneers initiative at the end of last year and reported back on a hugely capable and ambitious company).
What's less clear though is why they would want to create yet another social networking platform on their own site - 'zFriends' - and away from Facebook in order for their gamers to interact. Wouldn't it be more sensible to have a separate platform but still reap the vast Facebook networking rewards. a.n.other social media brand may confuse or, worse, isolate. It sounds as if some people at Zynga may think so too and don't see the sun shining and shadows as mutually exclusive. If it's to be a strategic withdrawal from Facebook they'll have to be very careful they don't cut off their oxygen supply altogether; after all, this is not a game.
The company is keen to develop its own brand presence without relying on Facebook, though still using Facebook's login and payment systems - at least at launch. Confused? As they used to say in 'Soap' "you won't be." It's clear that Zynga do not wish to rely on Facebook or be contained within its brand and architecture. It seems that the bright people at Zynga believe they can now grow their brand beyond the incubator (my client, the IPA, sent a delegation to Silicon Valley as part of their #CreativePioneers initiative at the end of last year and reported back on a hugely capable and ambitious company).
What's less clear though is why they would want to create yet another social networking platform on their own site - 'zFriends' - and away from Facebook in order for their gamers to interact. Wouldn't it be more sensible to have a separate platform but still reap the vast Facebook networking rewards. a.n.other social media brand may confuse or, worse, isolate. It sounds as if some people at Zynga may think so too and don't see the sun shining and shadows as mutually exclusive. If it's to be a strategic withdrawal from Facebook they'll have to be very careful they don't cut off their oxygen supply altogether; after all, this is not a game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
