Breathe Deep The Gathering Gloom: GOOG Down 3.5% In Early Trading

-------------

Are we seeing further signs in the Internet world of a storm on the horizon? Early reports indicate that Google stock is down 3.55%, or about 20 points, at $564 per share.

According to Google's own SERP, the Nasdaq info that came up in a search for "goog" is delayed by 15 minutes. Whether or not 15 minutes is incredibly significant, when I started to write this post, reports where saying Google was down 2.6%. It's 9:04AM now, and apparently, 5 minutes has been enough for the company to lose an entire percentage point.

Microsoft is also reporting a pre-market loss of 1.9%, or $0.59 per share, which brings them to about $31 per share.

And just to make it a tri-fecta, Apple is also reporting significant losses, down $17.5 - no... $17.6 per share. This is yet another stock that fell further as I was checking on it. That's a whopping 11.3%.

Actually, the consensus seems to be that Microsoft, Google, and the bulk of Silicon Valley's business giants are all being affected by Apple's disappointing Q2 forecast, just released. Apple reportedly thinks that revenue will grow only 29% in Q2, down from Q1's 35% in revenue growth.

It's amazing that positive reports are bringing the world down this fast, just because they're not positive enough. I'm no stock analyst, or prophet of doom, but from the looks of these falling stocks, we could be watching lights fade from every room.

Another bursting bubble?

Sprint to cut 4,000 jobs | Tech News on ZDNet

Tip: Yahoo May Cut 1,500-2,000 Jobs Within 2 Weeks

Here, we have 2 huge companies that may soon be laying off as many as 6,000 workers between them. Is this the beginning of a trend? Even as companies like Slide report venture capital funding of $50 million and Facebook is somehow valued at $15 billion (even without a clear way to make money). So, we have $500 million widgets and $15 billion social networks, and 6,000 people out of their jobs. I'm no analyst, but I can see a storm a'brewin'.

People at SuperPages / Idearc Read This Blog!

I just thought this was cool, so I decided to post about it...

After my morning rant about Superpages, I was surprised (shouldn't have been) to find evidence in my server logs that I was briefly showing up in searches involving the keyword "superpages".

However, I was also surprised to see that the people clicking through to this blog did so from the Idearc offices in Dallas, Texas.

[The screenshot of my analytics software, showing the ISP and location of this user, has been removed. I decided that was a little much.]

So, maybe that means that they'll change the entire layout and architecture of their website because of my previous post. Right.

Superpages Keeps Making Me Think!

Superpages Acquires 'LocalSearch.com' Domain - SE Land

Interestingly, Superpages has purchased another locally-focused domain name. Superpages is interested in branching out, but I would like to see them do more for the discipline of vertical search.

In its present interface, Superpages, like YellowBook, does not do much for you that a plain old paper edition of the Yellow Pages can't. Whether you use Advanced Search or the plain old search bar at the top of the page, you are not taken directly to the businesses you want. I put in [HVAC repair] in my city, and was pointed to a list of categories that would "refine my search". There are 109 businesses listed for "Heating & Air Conditioning Service & Repair", but only 99 listed for "Air Conditioning Service & Repair". Aren't those the same thing? Are businesses cross-listed, or did the website somehow separate the two categories?

There are far too many questions here. Don't make me think!

Anyway, since it's 100 degrees outside, I'm not to keen on the category that begins with "Heating", so I click the second choice. Behold I have a list of contractors. But where do I click? The business names are red, italicized font, with no click-ability. That seems like it would be the place you would want people to click. However, the "Click Here" is hiding over to the right.

Then, after further inspection, I realize the "names" are actually titles chosen by each company. They're not actually business names, but rather catch phrases that are supposed to make me notice each one individually. What tipped me off? I noticed that "Home Cooling Estimates" looked like a pretty weird business name.

And then, lo and behold, some "business names" actually are click-able.

Evidently, usability is not the name of the game here.

Put Yourself on the Map, Google Analytics

Website Optimizer Gets an Update

Amid all the updates and fanfare for the steadily improving Google Analytics service, there is one glaring omission, and that is the Google Map. We have the ability to see a "Map Overlay" of our visitors, showing us primarily where the people came from, but the map lacks the functionality of Google's own maps, which would actually be useful in this application.

Maybe this is part of Google's agreement not to divulge personal information of website visitors, such as I.P. addresses. An exact location, I suppose, may also fall within that agreement. Who knows?

Finally!!! Search in the place you'd most expect it

Official Google Reader Blog: "We found it!"

It looks like the millions of pleas for a searchable Google Reader have finally reached the ears of the Google gods. At long last, we now have the ability to search within Google Reader.

When they label the post "We found it!", it makes me wonder what they are trying to communicate. Did they just now remember how to do the one thing that they are good at? Did they create the functionality, then lose it, and then find it again?

Anyway, it seems like this was one feature they should have placed within the Google Reader gadget from the start. Their post makes them sound oblivious to the fact that most people saw this as a glaring omission to this point.

How Search Engines Will Grow

SEOmoz | Where are Search Engines Most Likely To Innovate?

Above is a very quick and interesting look at how search engines might change and grow over the coming years, posted by Rand over at SEOmoz.

Personally, I see vertical search as the area with potential that has been developed the least, and therefore has the most potential for growth. I say this with sites like Magicyellow.com, Yellowbook.com, and ServiceMagic.com in mind, because these are the big players in the game of "who-ya-gonna-call" in the online world. These are the cats throwing the most money into offline advertising and branding, in efforts to push people onto their sites and use their listings.

Basically, these sites are also the reasons that I say the area is under-developed. Case in point: if you need a plumber, and you want to find one online, these days you go to Magicyellow or Yellowbook (or place your own home-service-related website here). You plug "plumbers" into the search box, along with a location, and press Enter, and you are given a results page that has a long list of plumber-related services.

Sidenote: if you're on Magicyellow, you're only given a list of the categories that most closely match your search. Do you want "plumbers" or "Plumbing Drain & Sewer Cleaning"? Will one give you better results because it sounds more specific? Are they really different categories, or just different names listed for the same group of businesses? In spite of the poor interface, I click on "plumbers"... and get a page full of ads! What's the difference between "Premier Advertisers", "Preferred Advertisers", "Sponsored Listings", and "Courtesy Listings"? Did the courtesy listings people pay to get their business listed, or are they provided as a "courtesy" of some sort?

Anyway, when you do get to the list of plumbers, there is no added value - the experience gives you the same benefit as looking up plumbers in the phone book (on paper!). There's a list of companies, and you still have no idea which is best for you. As I said, you might as well just open the phone book.

And don't get me started on sites like ServiceMagic. Here, you don't even get to look at the list - you have to submit your personal information into cyberspace, then wait while the website contacts plumbers "for you". Are you kidding? That's not the internet! That's not what the internet is supposed to be. I want to pick the service myself! I can be my own 411 - just give me the required information!

More on this later... I'm at work, and this is starting to take up more time than I thought it would.

Changing the Blogger Title Tag

Changing the Blogger Title Tag ~ Widget-based

This is a great post. I recently read another article that said one of the biggest mistakes we bloggers make is letting the blog software automatically create page titles for us. It said to at least change the software code so that it automatically places the post title before the blog's title on post pages. Looking at Google's template, I was a bit clueless until I found this post from the Widget-based blog. This post has some very useful code that will do just what I wanted. It only affects post pages, so the index page of your blog will stay the same.

SEOmoz Gets It Right, But Also Gets It Wrong

To begin, let me say that, while I have been posting, I have gotten busy and fallen behind on my reading. So my posts have not been much more than, "hey, look at this article." I haven't had much to say that's been my own.

However, today, I've got to say something about this article over at SEOmoz. I'll try to keep it short...

SEOmoz | The Economic Motive Behind Google's New Advertisement Algorithm

This article is of great interest to me, since I was once an Econ major in school. Rand gets the overall idea right by saying that demand has shifted solely because of Google's change in its ad formula. However, his graph is wrong.



He says that demand moves to the right, and he is correct.
However, this is what the graph ought to look like:



Supply does not change - it is the same no matter what demand is. In Rand's graph, supply has actually increased with the new demand, which would mean that there would be more advertising slots to sell than there were before. But in actuality, the supply of ad spots - or Impressions - did not change. There are still just 3 top spots - same as before - and 10 to 12 spots on each SERP.

Most people want to at least be on the first SERP, so that would mean that on each serch, there will also be only 3 top spots at the most, plus an additional 9 or 10 spots - a maximum total of 13. That will never change, unless Google overhauls its format.

So, supply is vertical. It never changes, which means that small changes in demand will significantly affect the price, as we will see here.

Matt Cutts -- "Minty Fresh Indexing"

Check out Matt Cutts's blog: Minty Fresh Indexing

Nice to know that those guys over at Google are keeping it real.

This does kind of sound a little bit like Matt is saying, "I work for the greatest company ever" or "My job is better than your job!"

He's probably right...

Anyway, way to go, Google. It's like Google is the feed reader for the whole internet.

Google Adwords statistics are going haywire!

Take a look here:




That's right, it says that I actually got more clicks than impressions! 5 clicks, in only 2 impressions, which makes up for the 0 for 3 on the first keyword!

Man, I must have been doing something right when I picked that keyword.

In case you're interested in actually using adwords, take a look at this latest post on the Adwords blog about the new Search Query Performance Report. It's a good addition, which should have been made long ago.

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

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.