Updates to my favorite travel search engine

About Kayak.com

I just wanted to give some notoriety (and link juice, not that it means anything coming from my little blog) to my favorite travel search engine, Kayak.com, because they have recently updated their website, adding some very good improvements.

This is a site which I check regularly to see if it would make any sense to start planning that vacation to... wherever. The site has been updated with new "Matrix" and "Chart" views for search results, and the SERPs have received some graphical tightening. It looks great, and all the old functionality that drew me to the site in the first place is still there.

The attraction of Kayak.com is that you can use this one website to search for low fares across all the major travel websites (Orbitz, Expedia, Cheaptickets, etc.). Just query a destination and date, and it will search all of those engines for you at once. Very convenient.

So, if you're planning your next trip, I would say go to Kayak.com.

WebAnalyticsDemystified Report Says "Spend Your Money!"

New Report from WebAnalyticsDemystified [SearchEngineWatch]
WebAnalyticsDemystified: The Problem with Free Analytics

Over at SEWatch, they posted yesterday about this report, put out by WebAnalyticsDemystified, which talked about the "problems" associated with free analytics. More properly, the report ought to be titled so that its subject matter is made more clear: the report actually exposes some of the problems with how free analytics programs are used. It doesn't delve into any conspiracy theories about Google using all the data collected by Google Analytics, or anything like that. It just says that companies not willing to spend the money on analytics software are less likely to see high ROI on the money they spend paying an employee to track their website with free software.

*ahem*... Well, duh!

One thing I noticed in the findings of the report that seemed screwy was their finding about ad-hoc usage. According to the report,

"35% of free analytics users reort only an ad-hoc use of the tool, as opposed to less than 20% who used a paid for solution."

Hmmm... Did that say 20%? Obviously, if you don't pay anything for a piece of software, you're going to be less likely to use it in a productive, systematic way. I'm not surprised by the 35% number. But 20% of paying users report "ad-hoc" usage? That's atrocious. And, since the number is so large, I don't think it helps them prove their point. Rather, it just shows that most people out their don't have a very good idea of how they should use their analytics software, including those who pay for it. I would never have thought that 20% of people paying for web analytics would report just ad hoc usage. Shows what I know...

Google Wireless Phone

Google Wireless Phone

Dan Horton just posted about the coming Google Wireless Phone on DaveN's blog. Good post. And, I must add, Dan seems to be a much better writer than DaveN himself. I mean, Dave... c'mon. It makes you look bad when you use such bad grammar. Your sentences often don't even make sense.

Anyway, so Google might put out a phone that will finally liberate us from the wireless tyrants (ATT, Verizon, Sprint). I mean, nobody gets a good deal from these companies, and they all tailor their software specifically so that you'll have to buy more features on your monthly plan in order to do the things that would make your cell phone really useful. Like... send SMSs to your email box.

Anyway, Go Google! Great post on DaveN's blog.
JT



-

White Paper by Scott Cleland on the Proposed Google/Doubleclick Merger

Googleopoly.net

Yeah... I don't really know what to say about the whole anti-trust aspect of the Google/Doubleclick merger. This, even though I did minor in Economics in school, and Anti-trust Econ was my favorite class.

Scott Cleland has taken the time to give us a whitepaper on the proposed merger, basically detailing why he thinks that the FTC is going to beat Google down. I have not finished reading the entire report, but the gist of his outlook for the future is that Google is the next Microsoft: Cleland thinks that Google will displace Microsoft as the leading concern of the Anti-trust community.

While he may be right in saying that Google will get beaten down on this one, I don't know if we're going to see the displacement of Microsoft as the most evil monopolizer of the tech world. Basically, I think that everyone jumped on top of Microsoft because their actions were very obviously anti-competitive, and everyone could understand how. Microsoft had become the number 1 OS in the world, and it was actively trying to use that position to strongarm Dell and other computer manufacturers into placing other MS software on computers that came with Windows pre-installed, thereby reducing the chance that users would use software developed by smaller start-ups once they got their computers. It's obvious. Microsoft was the devil for doing this, especially since the software they were pushing was far from being the best out there.

However, I doubt that the public understands the anti-competitive aspects of Google's activities, and so my guess is that they won't care as much. Yes, some out there realize that Google is getting really big - they are presently the world's largest media company, valued at over $130 billion at the time of the YouTube merger. However, I doubt that most people really understand just how Google makes all of its cash. With Microsoft, it was easy - though they did pay millions to develop Windows, each unit costs them pennies to produce (the cost of a CD... and case... and that good-for-nothing manual... and a box), and they continually get hundreds of dollars per unit. With Google, nobody really sees them selling anything at all, except for the advertisers that buy ads. And, I think it's going to hard to convince the average person that someone can really make 100 billion dollars, just from the little ads on the side of a SERP, which really don't even... exist.

Basically, I'm not saying that Google isn't behaving in an anti-competitive manner, but I am saying that Cleland is wrong: Google will not displace Microsoft as the biggest concern of the anti-trust community. Why? Because I think Google will reach monopoly status before anyone realizes it, and will stay there without the public understanding. Without an outcry from a group that is at least somewhat representative of the general public, there will be no praise for bringing down Google. Without the public praise, there's no incentive, which means there will be more incentive to go do something else... like bring down Microsoft. Or, go fly fishing. That's what those DC-politician-types like to do, anyway, isn't it?

Because the anti-trust world is a political world - at least in some sense - the lack of public outcry over Google means that the anti-trust world will not be able to devote the time that will be necessary to bring down Google in the future. Though they might bring down this merger, Google will be fine. Doubleclick may be fine. Both will continue on, and Google in particular will continue to weave its lengthy fingers around us even further, waiting for the day when we may realize the control they have over us, but also realize that we actually gave them that control long ago, quickly and without consideration, and that dismantling it now would mean dismantling the whole world we have come to know.

Sounds like an old movie. That could never really happen!

FYI - This is what Google had to say about their proposed merger with Doubleclick back in April:
GoogleBlog: The next step in Google Advertising

Adwords reporting is ever more useful

Inside AdWords: Discover your share of voice with Impression Share reporting

One of the problems I had while doing initial research prior to starting my company's Adwords campaign was finding out how many searches keywords actually get each day/week/month. If the keywords don't receive significant traffic, which is usually the case for keywords that are regionally focused, it is often hard to find traffic statistics.

Here's an example of my dilemma. The number of people searching for [used cars] is going to be immense across the whole country. Bob Smith's Used Cars in Des Moines, IA, is not going to really benefit from bidding for that keyword phrase. He would benefit from bidding on a phrase that was obviously aimed at finding used cars in the Des Moines region. However, traffic on [Des Moines used car dealers] is going to be substantially less than [used cars], which is good, in this case. Bob wants to draw from the subset of people looking for the latter keyword, and he doesn't want to mess with anyone searching for the former.

However, what if the town is substantially smaller - like, say, a suburb of a metro area? What if you wanted data on keywords related to convenience stores in Riverdale, Maryland? I doubt you can find much data using whatever tools are available to the general public. Wordtracker and Overture will probably tell you there's too little data to make a calculation.

But now, I can use the Google's Impression Share data to see how often my ad is displayed compared to the total number of available impressions in the market. This gives me an exact idea of how much traffic my keywords get each day, which is exactly what I wanted on the front end. Yes, I did have to actually put the money down first in order to get this data, but it's still a valuable metric to have, and it helps me know what I had wanted to find out originally.

SEOmoz | The AdWords Ad Optimization Process - Little Changes Have a Big Effect

SEOmoz | The AdWords Ad Optimization Process - Little Changes Have a Big Effect

A great post from Rand at SEOmoz about some basic paid search campaign strategies.

Google Planning Mobile Media Search Engine?

Google Planning Mobile Media Search Engine?

Just a link to what I'm reading at the moment. C'mon, Google! We want you in the mobile phone market.

I also was recently thinking that it's interesting that we Google fans usually seem to be Mac fans as well, mostly because of the characterization of MS as the devil incarnate. However, Apple's operations have not been "open source" by any means, though they do continue to strive to produce superior products.

The principle behind most geeks' love for Google seems to be related to organic growth. Finally, here's a company, in Google, that is not perfect, but seems to be honestly stretching its arms to reach the goals that will really advance its industry for the better. There is a connection here with open source software - especially since most of Google opens up most of their products to independent developers by releasing APIs and publishing development tips on blogs.

So do we cheer for Apple based on principle or quality? If we say it is principle, then it would seem that MS should be our shining example of what collaboration could achieve. While it also seems that most collaboration with MS is not by choice as much as by necessity, the PC, MS's domain, is built from the innovation of a variety of companies, big and small, and advances piece by piece, as different corners of the computer world discover new things. The PC's development is a textbook example of organic innovation and growth.

This is in contrast to Apple's Macs and Powerbooks, which have been produced in an almost completely closed system since Apple's inception. Apple writes the software, develops the hardware, produces accessories, and now even owns stores where the computers are sold. Nobody "works" on their IMac or IPod, but most PC owners who are tech-proficient wouldn't consider it necessary to send their computer off to the shop in order to upgrade a piece of hardware.

So, the principle alley seems to lead us away from Apple, and therefore we must go the quality route, which would make some sense, if we can justify spending the extra dollars for what we get out of an Apple. That is the basic question - is the Apple computer worth the bigger price tag?

Facebook to overtake Myspace in UK

Heather Hopkins - Hitwise UK: Facebook overtakes MySpace in Share of UK Internet Searches

The above link is to an interesting article profiling briefly the recent surge in Facebook's popularity in the UK. The actual metric being used the the increase of searches in the UK related to Facebook, which Hopkins says is a predictive indicator of the future direction that users will take. Last year, UK users were searching for Bebo more than other social networks, and Bebo is now the number one networking site in the UK. The same phenomenon is expected to occur in relation to Facebook.

In my opinion, all the recent success that Facebook has enjoyed has been the result of opening their platform to independent development. This is a huge step that suddenly made Facebook more than just a college-aged-party-friend-site. Now, there is serious potential to make money, mine real data about internet use, and expand the usability of just about everything, thanks to the development of the Facebook platform. In addition to the practical benefits of opening up the platform, the move helped put Facebook into the spotlight. People now have a new reason to talk about Facebook, whereas MySpace and Bebo are still the same as they were three months ago. So, the improved usability is the true achievement, but the notoriety has also benefited Facebook immensely in the short run.

BBC NEWS | The Editors

BBC NEWS | The Editors

Wow... look who's (finally) taking a stab at "real-time" blogging, as they put it. I don't really know what they were hoping for their blog to become in the first place. If they were thinking of a blog as a place to post well-written, reviewed news stories, then that's what the newspapers are for. If they were thinking of it as a place to do an op-ed piece on themselves every day, then that's kind of egotistical. But... um... that's what bloggers do, mostly. So now, we get a myspace sort of page that lets us be the fly on the wall in the BBC offices. hmmm...

comScore Publishes the First Comprehensive Review of Asia-Pacific Internet Usage

comScore Publishes the First Comprehensive Review of Asia-Pacific Internet Usage

This is yet another interesting article on the web, reviewing the published report on internet usage in Asia-Pacific. It caught my eye because of the relevance to my earlier post about market share between the big 4 SEs.

According to the press release,

Yahoo! Sites are the most popular in the region, ranking in the top three positions in seven of the ten countries studied.

However, I thought the following line was the most interesting:

New Zealanders constitute the smallest online population in the region (1,949 million people) but are online 16.4 days per month, versus the regional average of 13.8 days.

1,949 million people? That's one crowded little island!

Compete Blog » June Search Market Share: Big Surprise from MSN

Compete Blog » June Search Market Share: Big Surprise from MSN

This is an interesting article about the market shares of MSN, Yahoo!, Ask, and Google. The big story is, of course, that MSN has surprised everyone by making serious gains in their share of overall users. However, Google is still making slaves of everyone else, by itself commanding over 60% of the market share, when placed against the other 3.

C'mon, Ask.com!

A few words about GoogleBlog

Google Blog >> Welcome, Postini Team

Once again, I looked at my server logs and noticed that my traffic is way down from a month ago for this site. I know that the main reason for this is the fact that my posting activity has been really low over that period. However, I also noticed a trend that has become so regular that I want to highlight it as a tip for you SEO bloggers that might be reading this -- linking to the Office Google blogs.

Notice the below screenshot, which is a picture of a typical post on the Official Google Blog:



I recently linked to this article with this post, and Google subsequently placed a link at the end of their post, linking to my post. It's an automatic script, which is effectively a back-scratching utility, sending Google's readers to other blogs and articles that provide comments on Google's post.

This is no marvel of technology of anything, so that's no the reason I'm posting about it. I am posting about it because I still see regular traffic coming in from the Google posts to which I linked - weeks after my links were created. This is simply showing that Google's blog has enough traffic from SEO-types, that their link-backs will send your blog traffic even months after your links were first created.

Now, there are a couple of obvious qualifiers here. Your blog post needs to be relevant to Google's in order to sustain this flow of readers from Google to you. You also need to post regularly. Nobody is going to read a blog that has 5 posts in the last year. Also, you need to post links directly to their post pages; don't just post links to the blog's homepage.

So, this is not really getting something for nothing. But it is a good way to get something for something. Often, bloggers' attempts to drum up traffic on blogs are unsuccessful, so this is a proven way to provide more traffic, provided your blog's subject matter is related to one of Google's blogs.

Some other Google blogs:

Google Summer of Code Blog
Google Webmaster Central Blog
Blogger Buzz
Google News Blog
Google Analytics Blog

[update 9/19/07] - Corrected the broken link "this post" just below the screenshot.

JustBlogIt :: Firefox Add-ons

JustBlogIt :: Firefox Add-ons: "JustBlogIt with a simple right-click."

I have to give major kudos to Dylan Parker, author of this Firefox add-on. Maybe I'm a dumb-@$$, and couldn't see something that was right in front of me, but I had the hardest time trying to find the old BlogThis! button to put in my Google Toolbar. It seems to have disappeared. No worries though, because having the basic BlogThis! functionality with the simple action of a right click is far superior, in my opinion, to having it in a button. My advice would be to go get yourself this plugin, then enjoy blogging it up with a simple right-click.

Enjoy!

Notes on Blogging

I apologize for the absence. The Independence Day week has taken me to several locations around the southeast, most notably Lake Junaluska, North Carolina - a place that is, in the words of one Anglican minister, "not far from the heart of American religion." Family reunions are fun, even when you're still just getting to know everyone (I'm married in).

Anyway, back to a subject that is more relavent to this blog. Blogging. Due to my week-long absence, and my recent business at my job, I have been left with very little time to devote to other things, including posting on this blog. Not surprisingly, the traffic on the site went down very near to zero during the past two weeks, and I have had no comments to moderate.

So I think the take-home point is very clear: frequent posting is essential to improving traffic on your blog. Of course, other things are also equally important, but everyone needs to be clear that there is no reliable way to gain readership without also providing fresh content. This is true because your readers will always be searching for something new to read, but also because of pings - your blog won't ping the server if new content is not posted. Pings signal feed readers, and feed readers tell people who's got the freshest, most relevant material. So, that's all just to say that there is no static solution. A couple of tips to help with frequent posting:

Keep your posts relatively short. I still have a personal blog that I started a couple of years ago. I would post long dicourses on philosophy, religion, literature, and life in general. However, it very quickly became such a burden to write these long posts that I very nearly quit posting. It became a thing where I would post two or three times every six months, just because it took so long. Don't do that! Keep your posts under 500 words, and you'll be best served.

The other point to realize in this is that nobody reads your blog in the first place. Let's be honest - besides your friends and a few random surfers out there, who's going to read your blog? A relatively small number of people, compared to the number of people on the internet. You've got a much better chance of increasing that number if your posts are short and to the point. And the truth is that nobody's going to keep reading your blog if your posts are very long. If they don't know you, and you're not a columnist, they won't care about the ins and outs of how you feel about something.

Oh... and if you're not a columnist, you're not going to become one on a blog. Unless you think people only read very short columns.

Pick a well-defined subject matter and stick with it. This blog is about sEO issues, Google, and other issues related to web design. That's definite enough for me to keep the content flowing. The other problem with the personal blog was that there was no subject matter, other than me. Therefore, it was extremely hard to figure out what was worthy of posting and what was not.

The last point is to LINK, LINK, LINK! Find a post on the Official Google Blog and link to it. See what happens. The fact is that each post on the Google blog lists at the end all of the pages that link to that post. It's an automatic "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" situation. And if you post about Google and SEO issues often, linkbacks from Google will bring you lots of traffic, because the Google blog itself is a very widely read source. If you post about other things, go ahead and find pages within your subject matter to link to within your posts. Comment on your world within your sphere of influence. This will eventually bring you traffic, as other webmasters and bloggers see your blog on their referral logs and visit your site to see what you're up to, and why you're sending readers their way. You must link to things that are actually relevant, but there is a lot of freedom here. No link is a bad link.

And linking to a blog is better than linking to some website. A blog has an individual author, most likely, who will investigate your site if you send him traffic.

OK, got to go do some work. If I ramble on any more, I may violate my first point!