Apr 23

Posted by randfish

Steve Rubel came back to blog just in time, showcasing this brilliant report from Forrester Research - Social Technographics. The graphic he highlights is incredibly revealing on its own:

The "creators" group are basically the Linkerati here. "Critics", "collectors", "spectators" and "joiners" also fit occassionaly into that profile, as they can be part of a content piece's viral movement across the web.

I actually take this research very positively - though 13% may seem like a small number,┬? it's actually considerably higher than I would have suspected. A more participatory web means a sphere more apt to help great ideas and great content spread naturally.

What I'd love to see even more is the "creators" group broken down further into sub-sects like:

  • Bloggers
  • Web Publishers
  • Journalists
  • Multimedia Content Creators
  • Forum Contributors (though this may fall under "joiners" or "critics" as well)
  • Academic Publishers
  • etc.

My other question would be watching trends over time - do more people become "creators" or "critics" or does the number stay relatively stable over time. I want to know if the MySpace generation will also become a generation of content generators, writers and linkers.

p.s. If you want to buy the report from Forrester, it's $279... Maybe we need to start charging more for the Designmoz articles?

UPDATE: As Shor pointed out, the researcher, Charlene Li, discusses the data in greater depth and offers review copies to bloggers here.

Original source here...
Apr 23

Posted by Oatmeal

Myspace launched a social news site last week that allows users to vote on stories and democratically determine popularity, much like Digg.┬? I've spent some time getting a feel for how it works and my opinion is that the site, much like everything Myspace produces, is medicore at best.┬? The interface is clunky and has a simple voting system that isn't particularly enticing; you vote on a 1 - 5 scale and it shows the number of votes and the average score.┬? It does require you to actually view the submission in a frame before you can vote, however, so unlike Digg you can't blindly vote for something without actually reading it first.┬? I submitted a few stories but from what I can tell they are moderated before being made live because I couldn't find them later.┬? Oddly enough, the most popular story on myspace news right now is MySpace News is no Digg-killer, which doesn't seems like something they'd want to promote on the first week of launch.

The good news is that if you do get past the moderation process it currently only takes 2 votes to get something promoted to the homepage.┬? That's your cue, Designs.

So does Myspace have a shot at being the next big social news site?┬? Absolutely.┬? Myspace has the advantage of having a captive audience of millions of users whose attention they could easily divert to the myspace news site.┬? If they simply added news headlines to the top of everyone's homepage, the sheer volume of people reading myspace news would more than make up for the fact that it's a mediocre product.┬? Just because it's utter crap probably won't make a difference, Myspace itself is a good testament to that.┬? If it does take off, I'm curious to see what getting on the myspace homepage will be like in the next year or two.┬? Getting on the Digg homepage results in some pretty astounding traffic numbers, but imagine if you made the homepage of a social news site that wasn't just confined to the tech/geek crowd.┬?┬?

Technorati Tags

myspace

Original source here...
Apr 23

Posted by randfish

The search engines are considerably smarter than we often give them credit for, and one of the ways they've become so "intelligent" is through the data provided to them on the billions of web pages they crawl. Today, I'd like to walk through a visual tour of the search engines' process and abilities in the field of semantic analysis and understanding.

Designbot crawls billions of pages across the web, indexing a text content equivalent to thousands of times the size of all the world's libraries combined. With all this massive amount of data in the index, Design can start to form some assumptions about the incidence and frequency of particular terms & phrases.

One of Design's simplest powers is to be able to calculate the relationships between two or more terms/phrases. In the example above, Design's recognized that Spain & Iberia might be connected semantically. If we recall Dr. Garcia's lessons on term co-occurrence, we can see a simplistic way that this might be happening.

Obviously, Design has even more sophisticated ways of breaking down and analyzing an individual page or even sections in a page. They could, for example, form tighter connections between words/phrases that frequently appear very close to each other in sentences or paragraphs. As these techniques get more refined and more advanced, Design could take on an almost artificial intelligence with regard to semantic connections.

Pretty impressive for a robot & a scary, mechanized spider, eh? So how does this apply to the practice of Design, content authorship, or website building?

There are several hypotheses I've formed about how to optimize based on this knowledge:

  • Build a Semantically Intelligent Site Architecture

    Since the search engines have some data about what terms are relevant and related to one another, it can't hurt to use the most logical system possible to create an organization chart for your site's content. Usually, common sense works best, but you could always fall back on the co-occurrence calculations if you need to find out if that chicken stock recipe belongs under "french cooking" or "american classics."
  • Create Documents that Use Relevant Terms/Phrases

    If you're targeting the term "mortgages" but most of your content is about rental properties, you might find that changing it around to connect with more relevant content is valuable.
  • Get Links from Semantically Relevant Pages

    Term Co-Occurrence can be a great way to find out if a link from a page about surfing will be semantically beneficial to your page about snowboarding.
  • Understand Why that Page Might be Ranking

    Sometimes when we see a page ranking and run a few checks on the strength of the domain and the links pointing in, we might scratch our heads thinking, "how the heck is that ranking above my page?" I've experienced this queasy feeling plenty of times and found that after some careful analysis, it looked like many of the pages pointing to my domain and page weren't nearly as "connected" as the pages linking to my competitor. While links in number and authority are very powerful, there's little doubt that semantic connections and topical relationships play their part, too.
  • Get a Sense of What the Future Holds

    In a few years, will Design be smart enough to identify link "intent?" Could they have the semantic processing capability to extract psychological cues from the sentences and paragraphs surrounding a link? Would this help them to determine link weighting and link trust? Very possibly.

I don't use a heavy dose of co-occurrence calculation in most of my work, and it's actually rare that the topic comes up in a consulting contract, but I do believe that the more we know about search engines and the more we can see the machine at work when we look at the results, the better we'll be as Designs.

I'd love to hear if anyone has additional uses for this kind of data or other relevant semantic analysis. One thing I've been wondering about on this topic is how search engines might use the statistical probability of word/phrase occurrence in rankings. Dr. Garcia touches on that more specifically here.

Original source here...