Data never sleeps

GOOGLE’S ALGO CHANGE AND THE EXACT MATCH DOMAIN PENALTY

Does your Web site use an Exact Match Domain name? Beware. Google’s latest algorithm alteration is out to track and penalize the technique. Expect “EMD penalty” to be a much-used buzzword for a while. Why another algo change, you ask? Google wants to curb the use of what it considers unnatural or unfairly easy routes to good rankings. Concerning the newest update, on September 28th, Matt Cutts posted the following messages on his Twitter account:

“Minor weather report: small upcoming Google algo change will reduce low-quality "exact-match" domains in search results.”

“New exact-match domain (EMD) algo affects 0.6% of English-US queries to a noticeable degree. Unrelated to Panda/Penguin.” 

Brace yourself for the same kind of opprobrium that greeted Google’s Penguin and Panda updates. While you’re grunting your way through this inclement online “weather,” remember that it’s no Sandy, 2012’s all too real Frankenstorm, and that not every exact match domain will be affected. All indications point to Google using multiple factors when determining whether to dole out an EMD penalty.

Wading through available data, it appears to me that Web sites are especially at risk to lose rankings if they’ve not been updated in a while, or if they have not been active in link building. Likewise, sites boasting a great many blog updates, but poor-quality backlinks, are susceptible to rank losses on account of EMD.

In my research I’ve found that Web sites using EMD, not undergoing a regular process of betterment, and lacking quality backlinks receive the EMD penalty. If an EMD site’s rankings were attributable solely to its domain name, then it lost rankings with Google’s EMD update.

I cannot say this enough: don’t venture outside of white hat SEO. If you’re experiencing rankings problems because of the EMD penalty, get rid of your low-quality backlinks. And if your content is stale, or if the quality of your written content is subpar -- get started with an overhaul. Remember to keep your content fresh, nicely written, and to keep tabs on the quality of your backlinks.

To Link or Not to Link, That Is the Link Building Question

When Google finally realised their PageRank ‘guidelines’ were simply functioning like a scarecrow that has become a perch for the black hat crows then something had to be done. The powers that be decided they were prepared to sacrifice search rankings to prove they no longer wished to tolerate those who refuse to follow their guidelines; so, to deter the crows they unleashed a penguin!

As a consequence there has been much disquiet in the kingdom of Elsinore…. sorry, Google recently and Webmasters are still not convinced the coast is clear regarding text links and link building. Before we go any further, I guess the first thing to say is that the penguin update was never about improving search results; it was a clean-up operation, the problem is when you use a high powered pressure washer everyone and everything gets soaked!

The question people are asking is, ‘does Google actually have the right to tell a website how to market itself?’ This is difficult to answer and has provoked much debate. On the one hand any community needs a set of ‘laws’, I don’t think anyone would disagree with that fundamentally; although people do get very twitchy, when it appears to be ‘one rule for one and another for all the rest’.

Matt Cutts has stated for a long time now that Google felt gaining PageRank by buying links was not the correct spirit to adopt as most search engines view backlinks as a way of establishing a website’s reputation. Therefore if you artificially skew this process it undermines the search ability of a search engine to bring up appropriate and useful results. Right, we all get that and if hyperlinking was all that happened it would be a level playing field but, and here’s the big one:

“penalizing paid links is trying to go against the natural commercialisation of the web and the fact that Google makes its fortune from advertising based on people wanting to search the “organic” listings.  While they do that they are also being force fed sponsored ads, which does appear to be slightly hypocritical.”

Obviously living in what purports to be a free society and with capitalism still alive and kicking, albeit in a slightly weaker state it has to be said, then links will continue and what should happen is  Google must consider just how useful any kind of link is and ultimately what specific  impact they have on overall rankings. Let’s face it if a link is useful and advantageous then surely that adds something to a website, doesn’t it? This would represent an improvement on the real world, I mean, since when did Coca Cola and McDonalds equal the kind of diet an athlete might adopt for a top flight Olympic performance, but I digress.

If the web had been set up in such a way that it was a non-commercial, non-profit making area then no one would buy or sell such links. One would imagine people wouldn’t just keep up blogs, updates, etc. just for the good of their health and nothing would be bought or sold. Come one guys, it’s commercial!

The irony of it all, of course, and the thing which really sticks in people’s collective craw is that Google profits from paid links but they are called AdSense. So Mr Cutts, who exactly is going to want to shell out for links if they have to be ‘nofollow’ ones? It’s not going to happen.

So there needs to be an alternative solution and right now the insistence on not using link advertising that also passes Page Rank is causing much discontent and you know what people do when they are discontented!

One has to ask the question why have Google tried to eliminate paid links when they use back links as part of their ranking algorithm? Is it just because they don’t receive the dosh? Can you fight human nature and natural commerce? Is it time for them to change how they rank sites overall?

Yes, we are treading new ground and it’s probably time for Google and other search engines to actually consult with their users, be slightly more transparent and appear supportive. Just because an organisation reaches a dominant position it doesn’t mean they are always right and if fail to listen to dissenters then that’s not the greatest scenario.

Should we simply capitulate and adopt the lowest denominator, greed? Or should we develop another approach? Looking at the rumbling undercurrents regarding the various financial crises playing out all over the world one might hope Google, of all people, could come up with something creative to solve this dilemma which has so far been responsible for too much collateral damage. Does anyone have any good ideas I wonder?

‘To link, or not to link: that is the question:

Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer

The pandas and penguins of outrageous Google,

Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,

And by opposing end them?’

With apologies to Shakespeare and Hamlet

By: Silver Teede

Too Funny: Google wants .LOL Domain

Google has applied to control a slew of domain names that are not only related to its core business but have “interesting and creative potential.”

The company announced on its blog on Thursday that it has submitted applications to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) for the following domains: .google, .youtube, .doc and .lol.

ICANN, which assigns top-level domains to sites worldwide, will announce in June which domains will be added to the existing list that includes “.com” or “.gov.”

“In 2016, it’s estimated that almost half of the world’s population will be online, yet nearly 50 percent of the websites we visit are found in the .com top-level domain (TLD), which was among the first TLDs created in 1984,” Google wrote on its Official Blog.

“Despite the great opportunities the web has enabled for people around the world, there is still a lingering question about the diversity of the domain space (given that the number of generic TLDs has only increased by 14 in the last 28 years).”

Google aims to grow the number of TLDs in four categories, such as trademarks (such as .google), those related to its core business (.docs), ones that improve the user experience and increase the identification of certain genres (.youtube) and fun options (.lol).

The search engine giant also noted that it plans to keep security and abuse prevention top of mind in creating a positive experience for web users.

“We’re just beginning to explore this potential source of innovation on the web, and we are curious to see how these proposed new TLDs will fare in the existing TLD environment,” the company says.

“By opening up more choices for Internet domain names, we hope people will find options for more diverse — and perhaps shorter — signposts in cyberspace.”

What do you think of Google’s choice for new top-level domain names? Which ones would you like to see pop up on the web? Let us know in the comments.

By: Samantha Murphy

Google, Facebook and Mobile Flush Groupon Down the Toilet

Online daily deal provider Groupon, once the darling of Wall Street, has had its share of woes in recent months. Its stock is down over 50% from November's IPO price, thanks in part to a pending SEC investigation of the company’s Q4 2011 earnings restatement (actual net revenue was significantly lower when refunds to consumers for unused deals were factored in). In addition, merchants are beginning to pull back from Groupon, surveying their options in an increasingly crowded geo-local marketing landscape that includes the likes of Yelp, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Living Social and Foursquare, to name a few.

In his yearly letter to shareholders released Monday, Groupon CEO Andrew Mason tried to rally the troops by announcing his vision to re-shape the company into a one-stop marketing solution for local merchants, or as he put it, “the operating system for local commerce.”

Unfortunately for Groupon, Mason’s vision does not mesh with reality. The truth is, the daily deals site has already seen its best days, and will soon be marginalized by its competitors, especially Google and Facebook, who are rolling out geo-local couponing programs that will suck the air out of Groupon’s market share.

MOBILE HASTENS THY DEMISE

As smartphone adoption continues to grow nationwide, nearly three-quarters of smartphone owners are accessing their mobile devices to get location-based information in real time. A new study conducted by the Pew Internet & American Life Project found that about 74% of smartphone users utilize location-based services to find information. In addition, one in five (18%) are checking in to local businesses with geo-social services like Foursquare.¹

Facebook and Google have responded in kind to this trend toward mobile-based local marketing.

On May 3rd, Facebook rolled out its new local marketing platform, Facebook Offers, to all local U.S. companies. With Offers, businesses can distribute coupons or other promotions to fans directly through their news feeds. Facebook isn’t charging anything for the service, and when a Facebook user claims an Offer, his or her friends will see it in their news feed, further amplifying its reach.

Less than a week later (May 9^th), Google announced its latest update for Google Maps for Android that supports Google’s Groupon-like daily deal platform, Google Offers. With the new update, local merchants can attract customers to their storefront with free giveaways or coupons that Android users can see pop-up in real time on Google Maps.

THY COMPETITION ENSURES IT

This is not good news for Groupon, considering Facebook has nearly 500 million fairly engaged mobile users. Groupon, on the other hand, cannot boast a huge social media or search platform. As such, the daily deal site is dependent on people going out of their way to engage with its mobile app when looking for offers. The problem is, if people don’t find any relevant offers on Groupon’s mobile app, they might give up and jump on Facebook or Google, where they’re much more likely to stay engaged. It’s more advantageous for platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Google to insert on-site offers because people are already there.²

As Facebook and Google adapt to the dramatic consumer shift to mobile, Groupon’s days are numbered. Each will utilize economies-of-scale coupled with their massive reach to outflank Groupon, while smaller players like Yelp and Foursquare continue to nibble away at Groupon's market share one merchant at a time.

I fear that before it’s all over, Andrew Mason and crew will be wishing they had taken Google up on the $6 billion buyout offer while they had the chance.

For small businesses trying to shape a marketing strategy, the intense competition in the geo-local business space is a good thing, especially with the relevant players tripping over themselves to offer your brand a better deal.

Whatever you do, make sure to experiment with various platforms, and avoid committing to any large ad spend or long-term contract until you’re absolutely sure you’ve found the golden goose. Above all, remember that in today’s era of frenetic marketing-tech innovation, the only certainty is change.

By: Chris Horton / Socialmediatoday

Google and Social can be together!

Social websites, especially Facebook and Twitter, are now serious competitors for Google’s audience and subsequent advertising revenue.

So Google has tried (but failed) to ‘do’ social eg, with Lively, Google Buzz, Orkut, Dodgeball, Google Wave and Google Me.

Google+ is its latest effort and this time it might succeed. We’ll see.

With +1 buttons, Google is trying to integrate social with search. If you visit a page or see a search result you like, Google wants you to click a +1 button (similar to Facebook’s ‘like’).

And Google explicitly states:

“+1s from friends and contacts can be a useful signal to Google when determining the relevance of your page to a user’s query.”

That means that if a searcher’s friend +1s a page it will move up the results when you search.

Exactly how and when +1s, Facebook likes and tweets will affect others’ results is not yet clear and will evolve. Whatever the answer ...

Social is now part of search and therefore part of SEO.

Social 

All forms of engagement including comments, likes, tweets, +1s and mentions, either:

• Might be found by search engines and directly used in their algorithms; or

• Share your content with a person or website (it may be automated) that then might mention or link to your website in a way that is used directly in search engine algorithms.

Also, such engagement might also lead to repeat and new direct visits and response.

That social might work and work for SEO is clear. The question then becomes: is it significant? And the answer is: yes.

A simple piece of evidence to support that answer is that Facebook is now the most visited site in the US and therefore more popular in the US than Google.

It’s not hard to see why Google would like a piece of that social action.

Google Discusses 10 Recent Algorithm Changes

Google is trying to become more open about their search algorithm changes. Beyond the much-discussed "fresh" update, Google discussed recent changes in SERP titles and descriptions, date-specified searches, image search signals, and more.

While Matt Cutts called this "An experiment in radical transparency", the information remains fairly veiled and covers only a small portion of the algorithm changes that have been made.

Nine Recent Changes to Google's Algorithm

Several of the changes discussed were applicable either globally or specifically for the English-speaking market, while three changes are specifically for foreign markets (the last three on this list). The announced changes are:

1. Snippets pulling more from page content.The snippet displayed on the SERP, sometimes en lieu of the meta description for a page, will now pull more often from page content as opposed to menu or header text.
2. Displayed page titles pulling less from duplicate boilerplate anchors. The text of navigation links that's identical from page to page will no longer gain additional weight due to the high volume at which the text is repeated.
3. Application rich snippets are extended. Apps will now display cost and user review details in the SERP when marked up correctly. (We previously discussed the details of rich app snippets.)
4. An image search signal has been retired. While Google wasn't completely clear on what exact signal was retired, something "related to images that had references from multiple documents on the web" is being removed as a ranking factor.
5. The detection of official pages has been improved. Official pages are now located and promoted more effectively.
6. Results for date range–specific queries will be better organized for that range.Whenever users specify the dates for results, Google will organize the order of results to best meet the specified time period.
7. Cross-language information retrieval has been improved. In foreign languages, English web pages will now have an additional translated title on the SERP that will link to a translated version of the page.
8. Length issues in autocomplete predictions for Russian have been resolved. Excessively long queries are now being handled appropriately (in much the same way they were already being handled for English).
9. Issues with IME autocomplete predictions have been resolved. Autocomplete was inappropriately counting the intermediate keystrokes for IME (non-Latin characters) queries, leading to gibberish predictions for searches in certain languages (i.e., Hebrew, Arabic, and Russian). This has now been resolved.

The One Big Change

The recent fresh search results change places greater weight on how recently content was posted and/or updated. While not all results will be impacted, any queries that are for recent events (e.g., a news story, a current event, details on upcoming events, etc.), recurring events (e.g., events that happen every few years, TV seasons that renew each year, data on sports that will become less relevant very quickly, etc.), or "high decay" terms (e.g., technology items that change regularly, details on politicians who hold different stances now than they did two years ago, etc.).

While more than a third of searches are impacted, "only" 6 to 10 percent of searches (based on language and Google domain) will see a significantly different SERP.

We discussed further details of the fresh search results change to Google's algorithm previously, delving into the winners and losers, the specific types of "fresh" content affected, and methods for using news, blogs, and events to make the most of the change.

What's significant is that Google is now providing additional details on both large and small algorithm alterations. Do you think this is a sign of things to come? Insufficient "hush money" for webmasters and SEOs who want to know details? Or a way to show the various government institutions that are investigating Google that the company is willing to play nice? Leave your thoughts in the comments below.

Source: Rob D. Young,

Google Finally Wins One Against Facebook (Infographic)

Google rinde homenaje al helado sundae

Hace 119 años el joven Chester Platt la pidió por primera vez en una heladería de la ciudad de Ithaca. Google se pone dulce. El buscador más grande e importante de Internet dejó atrás por un momento los homenajes a los grandes científicos y literatos y esta vez decidió recordar el 119 aniversario de la creación del helado sundae en EE UU.

Quizá acorde a la cada vez más cerca temporada veraniega en el hemisferio norte, Google cambió su clásico doodle para mostrar una imagen en donde un helado con doble bola provoca a millones de internautas.

El más clásico de los helados está compuesto, por lo general, por una bola de cremoso helado cubierta con jarabe de cerezas, fresa, o fudge de chocolate.

En 1992 la cadena de comida rápida McDonalds lo incluyó en su carta de postres y logró que el postre adquiriera resonancia mundial.

Ten principles that contribute to a Google user experience

1. Focus on people their lives, their work, their dreams.


The Google User Experience team works to discover people‘s actual needs, including needs they can‘t always articulate. Armed with that information, Google can create products that solve real-world problems and spark the creativity of all kinds of people. Improving people‘s lives, not just easing step-by-step tasks, is our goal.

Above all, a well-designed Google product is useful in daily life. It doesn‘t try to impress users with its whizbang technology or visual style – though it might have both. It doesn‘t strong-arm people to use features they don‘t want – but it does provide a natural growth path for those who are interested. It doesn‘t intrude on people‘s lives – but it does open doors for users who want to explore the world‘s information, work more quickly and creatively, and share ideas with their friends or the world.



2. Every millisecond counts.


Nothing is more valuable than people‘s time. Google pages load quickly, thanks to slim code and carefully selected image files. The most essential features and text are placed in the easiest-to-find locations. Unnecessary clicks, typing, steps, and other actions are eliminated. Google products ask for information only once and include smart defaults. Tasks are streamlined.

Speed is a boon to users. It is also a competitive advantage that Google doesn‘t sacrifice without good reason.


3. Simplicity is powerful.


Simplicity fuels many elements of good design, including ease of use, speed, visual appeal, and accessibility. But simplicity starts with the design of a product‘s fundamental functions. Google doesn‘t set out to create feature-rich products; our best designs include only the features that people need to accomplish their goals. Ideally, even products that require large feature sets and complex visual designs appear to be simple as well as powerful.

Google teams think twice before sacrificing simplicity in pursuit of a less important feature. Our hope is to evolve products in new directions instead of just adding more features.


4. Engage beginners and attract experts.


Designing for many people doesn‘t mean designing for the lowest common denominator. The best Google designs appear quite simple on the surface but include powerful features that are easily accessible to those users who want them. Our intent is to invite beginners with a great initial experience while also attracting power users whose excitement and expertise will draw others to the product.

A well-designed Google product lets new users jump in, offers help when necessary, and ensures that users can make simple and intuitive use of the product‘s most valuable features. Progressive disclosure of advanced features encourages people to expand their usage of the product. Whenever appropriate, Google offers smart features that entice people with complex online lives – for instance, people who share data across several devices and computers, work online and off, and crave storage space.


5. Dare to innovate.


Design consistency builds a trusted foundation for Google products, makes users comfortable, and speeds their work. But it is the element of imagination that transforms designs from ho-hum to delightful.

Google encourages innovative, risk-taking designs whenever they serve the needs of users. Our teams encourage new ideas to come out and play. Instead of just matching the features of existing products, Google wants to change the game.


6. Design for the world.


The World Wide Web has opened all the resources of the Internet to people everywhere. For example, many users are exploring Google products while strolling with a mobile device, not sitting at a desk with a personal computer. Our goal is to design products that are contextually relevant and available through the medium and methods that make sense to users. Google supports slower connections and older browsers when possible, and Google allows people to choose how they view information (screen size, font size) and how they enter information (smart query parsing). The User Experience team researches the fundamental differences in user experiences throughout the world and works to design the right products for each audience, device, and culture. Simple translation, or “graceful degradation” of a feature set, isn‘t sufficient to meet people‘s needs.

Google is also committed to improving the accessibility of its products. Our desire for simple and inclusive products, and Google‘s mission to make the world‘s information universally accessible, demand products that support assistive technologies and provide a useful and enjoyable experience for everyone, including those with physical and cognitive limitations.


7. Plan for today‘s and tomorrow‘s business.


Those Google products that make money strive to do so in a way that is helpful to users. To reach that lofty goal, designers work with product teams to ensure that business considerations integrate seamlessly with the goals of users. Teams work to make sure ads are relevant, useful, and clearly identifiable as ads. Google also takes care to protect the interests of advertisers and others who depend on Google for their livelihood.

Google never tries to increase revenue from a product if it would mean reducing the number of Google users in the future. If a profitable design doesn‘t please users, it‘s time to go back to the drawing board. Not every product has to make money, and none should be bad for business.


8. Delight the eye without distracting the mind.


If people looked at a Google product and said ”Wow, that‘s beautiful!” the User Experience team would cheer. A positive first impression makes users comfortable, assures them that the product is reliable and professional, and encourages people to make the product their own.

A minimalist aesthetic makes sense for most Google products because a clean, clutter-free design loads quickly and doesn‘t distract users from their goals. Visually appealing images, color, and fonts are balanced against the needs for speed, scannable text, and easy navigation. Still, ”simple elegance” is not the best fit for every product. Audience and cultural context matter. A Google product‘s visual design should please its users and improve usability for them.


9. Be worthy of people‘s trust.


Good design can go a long way to earn the trust of the people who use Google products. Establishing Google‘s reliability starts with the basics – for example, making sure the interface is efficient and professional, actions are easily reversed, ads are clearly identified, terminology is consistent, and users are never unhappily surprised. In addition, Google products open themselves to the world by including links to competitors and encouraging user contributions such as community maps or iGoogle gadgets.

A greater challenge is to make sure that Google demonstrates respect for users‘ right to control their own data. Google is transparent about how it uses information and how that information is shared with others (if at all), so that users can make informed choices. Our products warn users about such dangers as insecure connections, actions that may make users vulnerable to spam, or the possibility that data shared outside Google may be stored elsewhere. The larger Google becomes, the more essential it is to live up to our “Don‘t be evil” motto.


10. Add a human touch.


Google includes a wide range of personalities, and our designs have personality, too. Text and design elements are friendly, quirky, and smart – and not boring, close-minded, or arrogant. Google text talks directly to people and offers the same practical, informal assistance that anyone would offer to a neighbor who asked a question. And Google doesn‘t let fun or personality interfere with other elements of a design, especially when people‘s livelihood, or their ability to find vital information, is at stake.

Google doesn‘t know everything, and no design is perfect. Our products ask for feedback, and Google acts on that feedback. When practicing these design principles, the Google User Experience team seeks the best possible balance in the time available for each product. Then the cycle of iteration, innovation, and improvement continues.

Google y Bing ‘pelean’ por un algoritmo

Muy interesante este pequeño artículo publicado por CNN sobre la rivalidad de los Search...

Google reveló a través de un periodista estadounidense que su competencia Bing de Microsoft ha copiado el algoritmo con el cual refina sus búsquedas, al menos en los últimos seis meses.
El buscador con mayor participación de mercado en Internet indicó que se percataron de esta copia, luego de que implantaran 100 palabras sin ningún significado en sus tablas de búsqueda y su competencia hizo lo mismo.

Al ingresar las letras como "hiybbprqag" o "mbzrxpgjys" en el buscador de Google, lanzaba el mismo resultado en Bing, aún cuando no tuvieran ningún significado real.

"He pasado mi carrera persiguiendo realizar un buen motor de búsqueda. No tengo ningún problema con un competidor desarrollando su propio algoritmo. Pero copiar no es innovar", dice Amit Singhal, ingeniero de Google, a través del blog SearchEngineLand.

Bing respondió este martes a través de su blog oficial que utilizan más de 1,000 formas para mostrar sus resultados y que durante los dos últimos años se han dedicado a tratar de dar a sus consumidores la mejor experiencia posible.

"Lo que vemos aquí es una historia novelesca con tintes de espía para generar contoversia. Fue una táctica bastante creativa por parte de nuestro competidor y lo tomamos incluso como un halago", dijo Harry Sum, vicepresidente corporativo de Bing.

Ana Paula Blanco, jefa de comunicaciones para el norte de América Latina de Google, comentó que no se planea ninguna acción legal por el momento y que el equipo de ingenieros de la tecnológica está comprometido en hacer cada día mejor su trabajo.

Google se mantiene en el primer lugar dentro del mercado de buscadores de Internet, con 66.2%, seguido por Yahoo, con 16.4% y Bing, que ocupa la tercera posición con 11.8%, de acuerdo con las más recientes cifras de comScore.

Google Changes Algorithm To Penalize Site Scrapers

Google updated its search algorithm this week to help reduce webspam in its search results.

These changes were made in response to increased criticism of Google and its search engine results. The criticism has been partly inspired by the emergence of newer forms of webspam alongside traditional webspam (pages that consist of lots of keywords and phrases without context or meaning that “cheat” their way up to higher search ranks).

The latest webspam outbreaks commonly come from content farms and sites that syndicate content. Earlier this month, Stack Overflow‘s Jeff Atwood pointed out that in the last year, some content syndicators have routinely began outranking Stack Overflow on Google. In other words, the syndicates are outranking the originals.

In Stack Overflow‘s case, the problem was bad enough that a community member built a Google Chrome extension designed to redirect to Stack Overflow from spammier syndicates.

Matt Cutts, principle engineer at Google and head of the webspam team, responded to some of the criticism in a blog post and said Google would be “evaluating multiple changes that should help drive spam levels even lower, including one change that primarily affects sites that copy others’ content and sites with low levels of original content.” On his personal blog, Cutts confirmed that those changes have indeed gone into effect.

Cutts writes that this was a “pretty targeted launch” and that the “net effect is that searchers are more likely to see the sites that wrote the original content rather than a site that scraped or copied the original site’s content.”

Social Media Revolution... enjoy!

Lo nuevo de Google: Search Stories Video Creator

Google no para. Hace poco nos sorprendió con Google Buzz y ahora nos presenta Search Stories Video Creator. Al margen usarlo la primera vez para montar un vídeo gracioso no se me ocurre una buena razón para utilizarlo. ¿Se te ocurre a ti?

Qué es Google?... una bestia hambrienta?

El crecimiento de Facebook

Sin duda al ver estos números comenzamos a pensar si realmente es Facebook el rival de Google o Google el rival de Facebook

'Gone Google' campaign going global

Google claims more than 2 million businesses and 20 million people have switched to Google Apps, a movement the company is touting through its expanding "Gone Google" marketing program.

Microsoft realiza oferta para comprar Yahoo

Toda la comunidad de la Web se mantiene a la espectativa de esta noticia, ya que si se da la operación, el tridente de empresas que ofertan servicios on-line quedaria solamente marcado por los pasos de google vs microsoft, algo sumamente predecible ya que a la final es la lucha continua entre software libre y software propietario, claro llevado al concepto de servicio on-line. Del lado nuestro y apegados a la visión de Web 2.0 podemos visualizar un buen norte para Google gracias a sus grandes esfuerzos y servicios super originales y eficientes. Sin embargo no podemos dejar fuera la fortaleza que posee Microsoft y sobre todo su gran potencial económico...

Por el lado de Yahoo ya venia decayendo en una gran crisis de identidad, falta de nuevos lanzamintos que llevan gente a su comunidad y el desgastes continuo de su marca como lo que originalmente fue "un motor de búsqueda".