#143 - Google's Top Websites and What You Need to Know About Web 3.0

Think you have a pretty fair idea of which websites are the most popular today? Google recently shared its list of the top 1,000 sites developed from measurements within the Ad Planner feature based on category, unique visitors, reach and page views.

Strangely, the list does not include any data from Google or YouTube, yet the clear (and predictable) winner is Facebook with 540 million users, over 570 billion pageviews, and approximately 35% of all measured web traffic. This makes Facebook the world’s number one website. Yahoo.com is in second place, followed by live.com, wikipedia.org and msn.com.

Google released the list to point its advertisers in the direction of sites they should advertise on. It’s interesting to note that two of the major sites in the top 10 don’t even offer advertising – wikipedia.org and mozilla.com.

With all the hype of real-time search right now, it seems peculiar that Twitter doesn't rank higher in the list. It currently sits in the 18th position with only 5.4 billion page views. (Poor Twitter). Click here to see the ranked list. Google plans to update the list monthly for its advertisers. The chance of any of these top performers dropping out anytime soon is slim.

The buzz about Web 3.0
Apparently, we are at the beginning of what our technology industries refer to as Web 3.0, or the next generation of Web 2.0. Neither of these can be defined in concise terms since they do not consist of definite products or services or even a broad spectrum with structured guidelines. Regardless, I'm going to give it a try.

"Our globe's mammoth data archive could become even
more open to analysis across various platforms, making
online services - and the professionals who
understand them - even more resourceful and valuable."

A little history
When it first launched, the World Wide Web was merely an interface to access data stored on computer terminals or servers. Web 2.0 (a term that has been hotly debated) came out of the economic "dot.com" bubble bursting. It was touted then as the re-birth of the Internet. However, it only served to add upon established underlying principles of the World Wide Web (eg: HTML as a base language for all users).

Web 2.0’s contribution to the World Wide Web has been a vast array of services which facilitate collaboration and sharing. Most notably, with the advent of social networking sites, blogs, audio/video posts, podcasts, wikis, IMs, etc. More importantly, it also saw the rise of a handful of powerful search engines with the ability to delve into the innermost recesses of any web page and extract relevant data.

But, there was one catch.

Even the most powerful search tools still need the thought processes of puny human being to guide them to those pages and load them with generous doses of keywords so they may come up with the intended results. On the other hand, Web 3.0 is expected to transfer these thought process directly to the search engine software’s Mode of Operation - or brain. So, Web 3.0's goal is to create a World Wide Web where all data is easily understandable by all machines - just as we humans presently understand it.

Is this the dawn of Intelligent Computing?

The techies call it "semantic computing," and many speak about how Web 3.0 will open up an astronomical amount of web data to intelligent analysis. This would also enable machines operating on and from different databases and platforms to successfully exchange information with one another. Greater automation is another long-sought benefit.

Web 3.0 is likely in your future

Web 3.0 is essentially the next step in the evolution of the World Wide Web from a mere depository of information on interconnected networks, to a faster, more intuitive and more productive way of experiencing the Internet. Now, we can look forward to a greater assortment of web services, possibly characterized by a degree of artificial intelligence. Our
globe's mammoth data archive could become even more open to analysis across various platforms, making online services - and the professionals who understand them - even more resourceful and valuable.

What does all this mean to the common web user? To marketers? Journalists? Public relations practitioners? It may mean less use of our own intellect for researching data and making decisions. Doe the thought excite or frighten?

In my case, a little bit of both. What about you?

#141 - Finally, Twitter's "Big Plan" is revealed

Surely you've heard the big news...just prior to Twitter's annual conference (Chirp) kick-off this week, the social media mini-blogging king commenced sales of what it has dubbed, Sponsored Tweets (or ads as I call them), in a business model nearly six years in the making.

I first caught the news at Digg.com and went in search of details on what this means to advertisers and Twitter users. I found the graphic above (provided by Twitter) at Mashable.

Twitter co-founder, Biz Stone has been interviewed ad nauseum this week, both on and off-line. In an interview with PCMag.com's Chloe Albanesius, he said, "We strongly believe that Promoted Tweets should be useful to you. Promoted Tweets will be clearly labeled as 'promoted' when an advertiser is paying, but in every other respect they will first exist as regular Tweets and will be organically sent to the timelines of those who follow a brand."

Are you really following brands on Twitter or did you (like many) think you were there to connect with people - your friends - and network within your industry? I'm actually curious.

As a service, Sponsored Tweets has been labeled "simple," and that it is. Its brilliantly timed launch came with all the major partners locked in - Best Buy, Bravo, Red Bull, Sony Pictures, Starbucks, and Virgin America. These companies' ads already appear as tweets atop search results that relate to their products. I'm betting this will work out very well for early advertisers. Those who rush to embrace it will benefit from the added traffic as everyone checks out the new format.

While many details are still forthcoming (like how much these ads will cost smaller companies), Twitter users can now find sponsored tweets in the standard stream, where presumably, a Starbucks ad should appear if you search for coffee, and a Sony Pictures tweet should show up if you search for the latest film release.

But here's the rub...according to Twitter's co-founders, if users don't respond to the newly Promoted Tweets (by re-tweeting, favoriting, or replying to them), the sponsored tweets will be pulled from search results. "What? My ad was what?" (I can just imagine the client calls to their social media reps.) This presents an interesting and quite unique dilemma. If a sponsored tweet fails to generate results, does the advertiser pay? Who is ultimately responsible for the failure and who determines how much time a campaign is given to succeed? You know I'll be following this story closely as it unfolds.

Only one promoted tweet is planned for display per each search results page, reportedly to protect us from overuse of this new advertising channel. That means twitter can charge a premium on a finite supply of ad space. (Very smart!)

What do you think? Are you ready for advertising on Twitter? Are you at all put off by the appearance of sponsored tweets in the tweet stream? Most of the social media pundits I've read seem to agree that it's time Twitter found some way to capitalize on its popularity, and Sponsored Tweets is merely the lesser of all the "evils" or options available.

Of course, like anything in the brave new world of social media, time will tell. Let's take a quick poll to start things rolling. Are you OK with sponsored tweets, or, would you much rather Twitter choose anther path to profit? please share in the comments section below.

For more information, check this out:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2362555,00.asp