Search Engine Rank Optimization

The Future of things to come. WEB 3.0 ?

Posted 4 years ago

The phone rings you answer but its not really a phone they don’t really exist anymore.
It’s a wearable device maybe an eye piece or a screen in your shirt cuff. It’ s not your friend calling you, its your house. You decided last week that you where going to eat
chicken and asparagus for dinner tonight.

It’s you refrigerator letting you know that you are low on butter and are out of chicken for your mean tonight. It then prompts you to make an order from the grocery store. You say yes. Then you are prompted for delivery or pick up and she then choose delivery.

Sound far fetched? Maybe it is but so did Live TV that you could pause rewind or even record. In fact Today in England you can be sitting at the bus stop waiting for the bus,
You are going to be late to getting home so you bring up the television list on your phone and choose the program that you where going to miss and set it to record.

Looking to the future we will be dealing with more than a web browser on the PC or
a palm top. We will be dealing with content. Mass amounts of content to be sent to
Thousands of devices and formats. Tomorrows web is going to be feed based.

It’s all about delivery and management of content. In SEO we said that content was king and really I don’t think that we even knew how right we where.

Companies today know that monetizing content is going to be the true way to make money. Already today Companies like Disney are finding better and faster ways to get content to the customer. They are working at closing the gap that the end user goes through to getting the content they desire. Look at the ESPN phones. What’s so different about a ESPN phone? The service that they provide as far as regular phone service is no different. It’s the content the Sports feed.

Wireless phone companies are dealing with a problem they are calling churn.
The market for a new first time cell phone is almost over its now about getting customers from their competitors. Its getting where they can’t be too much cheaper so they incise you with new equipment or services WEB – GPS EMAIL and now personalized feeds of content. There it is again content.

That’s what it’s about. Question is who will be on top when it comes to content delivery?
How we deliver the content?
What will it cost?
It’s a brave new world. Beam me up.

[Link]

siFR “bless you” (=

Posted 4 years ago

sIFR (or Scalable Inman Flash Replacement) is a technology that allows you to replace text elements on screen with Flash equivalents. sIFR is the result of many hundreds of hours of designing, scripting, testing, and debugging by Mike Davidson

Put simply, sIFR allows website headings, pull-quotes and other elements to be styled in whatever font the designer chooses - be that Foundry Monoline, Gill Sans, Impact, Frutiger or any other font - without the user having it installed on their machine.

sIFR requires JavaScript to be enabled and the Flash plugin installed in the reading browser. If either condition is not met, the reader’s browser will automatically display traditional CSS based styling - the user won’t know the difference.

Take a look at the examples page to see some examples of sIFR in action.

Before embarking on an analysis of sIFR, let’s make sure everyone is up to speed on what it is and how it works. sIFR stands for scalable Inman Flash Replacement and is a technique for delivering truly customised typography on the web. It does this by replacing any text in a designated element with Flash rendered text as the page is loading. It is important to understand that it is not the element that is being replaced by Flash, but the text within it, leaving the element to be styled or positioned as normal.

Some facts about sIFR: not up for debate

* sIFR does not require any changes to the (X)HTML code, all the work is done by Javascript, Flash and CSS.
* If the user does not have Flash installed or Javascript enabled then the (X)HTML text is displayed and styled by CSS.
* sIFR is scalable, and when rendered will adjust to the users font size settings.
* sIFR is compatible with all screen readers. No problems or issues have ever been reported.
* sIFR text is selectable with the mouse, although visual confirmation of the selection may be absent when selected with body text.
* sIFR does not affect search engine placement or ranking, nor does it hide textual content from search engines or users.

The conclusion should be that sIFR is an accessible, mature technology, and that its use must be given serious consideration by designers and developers.

When to use sIFR

Like all web technologies, it is important to understand the best way to use sIFR and to realise the situations in which it is most appropriately used. It’s about choosing the right tool for the job; and there is one job in particular where sIFR leaps from the toolbox and begs us to give it a go.

The scenario: A large sports news website decides to style all their headlines in a unique corporate typeface. News stories (with their headlines) are published by different people, in different places, all over the world, via some sort of content management software. They can’t employ someone to sit in front of Photoshop and create a headline image every time an editor wants to add a news story!

In this situation, sIFR is a tool that is unrivalled in simplicity, accessibility, and extensibility. Some news sites implement a solution involving the building of images on the fly via PHP or other server side jiggery-pokery. This works well as a time saver, but has many disadvantages when compared to sIFR:

* Images will not scale to the users default font size.
* Although images should be cached on the server, there is still a performance issue in generating the images.
* Each image must be downloaded separately creating server and bandwidth concerns.

With sIFR, all that is required is one Flash (.swf) file and one Javascript (.js) file to be downloaded allowing all headlines on the site to be rendered in the corporate typeface.

[Link]

Enterprise Bliki = Enterprise Blog + Enterprise Wiki

Posted 4 years ago

cyn.in (pronounced: ’sign-in’) is an enterprise bliki service that allows teams, companies or communities to manage, organize, store, version, search through, collaborate & discuss upon, share and publish any kind of information or data. It can manage all your rich content, audio, video, images, documents, presentations, spreadsheets, drawings, archives and any type of files.

cyn.in conceptually simplifies the way people deal with their information. To its users, any data is simply a ‘note’. A note could contain rich textual content, pictures, media, categorization tags, or files of any type. Notes can be created, managed and edited completely using the web based word processor. Every user in the system can create notes that can be stored for oneself, shared with other users for collaboration, or can be published on the web or the intranet for others to consume and discuss upon. cyn.in comes with its own ‘web space’ and a secure ‘intranet space’ allowing you to share, publish and broadcast information effortlessly.

[Link]

Google Custom Search Engine : Create your own Google Powered Search Engine

Posted 4 years ago

Google today released a new service for webmasters and bloggers where you can create your own search engine powered by Google, called Google Co-opGoogle Custom Search Engine : Create your own Google Powered Search Engine.

But personally I feel the only thing that makes this different from adsense custom search is that adsense custom search does not allow more than four websites to search, but on the other side in adsense we can choose atleast the colors. Have a look at a custom search engine I have made.

Features :

Build and customize your own search engine

* Specify the sites you want to include in searches.
* Place a search box and search results on your website.
* Customize the look and feel to match your website.
* Invite your community to contribute to the search engine.
* Make money from relevant ads in your search results.

[Link]

Flapjax : Functional Reactive Javascript

Posted 4 years ago

Flapjax is a new programming language designed around the demands of modern, client-based Web applications. Its principal features include Templating syntax, Event-driven, reactive evaluation, Access-control for shared data, Convenient data sharing and Interfaces to external Web services.

Flapjax is easy to learn: its syntax is precisely that of JavaScript. Furthermore, because Flapjax is built entirely atop JavaScript, it runs on traditional Web browsers without the need for plug-ins or other downloads. In fact, you can (in exchange for a little more code) use Flapjax purely as a library in JavaScript rather than use the compiler from Flapjax to JavaScript, so you can integrate it into your existing programs.

[Link]

Search Engine Friendly Copywriting - What Does ‘Write Naturally’ Mean for SEO?

Posted 4 years ago

SEO Answer: About a month and a half ago the New York Times published an article by Steve Lohr titled This Boring Headline Is Written for Google. The article flits with the idea of writing newspaper articles with Google in mind. That story got a decent amount of buzz because newspapers usually do not put much consideration into search engine marketing.
Old School Search Engine Optimization:
A few years ago you could do SEO like this:

* start your page title with your keyword or keyword phrase
* include that keyword phrase on most every heading or subheading on that page
* link to the page sitewide with that same keyword in the anchor text
* build a ton of links from external locations, with most (or all) of them containing that keyword phrase

Does Old School Still Work?
For MSN (and, to some extent, Yahoo!) you could still use a somewhat similar keyword stuffing philosophy and see outstanding results, but the problem with the stick my core phrase everywhere SEO method™ is that Google does not want to show the most optimized content. They want to show the most relevant content.

As noted above in the New York Times article, most news articles (and likely most quality web documents) are not heavily focused on concentrating on optimizing for a keyword. Instead they use the natural language associated with that topic.

If too many of your signals are focused on just one word or phrase and you lack the supporting vocabulary in your document you may get filtered out of the search results for your primary keyword targets. It has happened to me several times, and it is a pretty common occurrence, especially for websites that have few authoritative trustworthy votes and try to make up for it by aggressive use of a phrase in the page content.

The problem is, that page was ranking for Michigan Smoker’s Life Insurance when it targeted a way different phrase. The page will never rank for the main phrase it was targeting, so unless they redirect searchers to a more relevant page it is going to be hard for them to convert any visitors that land on a page like that.

Read a bunch of SEO forums and you eventually come across threads with titles like Non optimized pages higher in SERPS than optimized ones???
How to Optimize for Google:
So if old hat optimization is considered overoptimization and/or is potentially detrimental to your rankings what do you do?

You could

* say screw Google they will eventually rank me if I get this keyword on the page 1 more time
* say screw Google I am pulling in plenty of money from Yahoo! and MSN
* not worry about SEO at all
* evolve SEO to a more productive state

Onward and upward I say. How to mix it up to become Google friendly:

* Start the page title with a modifier or couple non keywords instead of placing your primary keyword phrase as the first word of the page title. Example… instead of search engine marketing company start your title with professional search engine marketing…
* Stemming is your friend. Use plural, singular, and ing versions of your keywords. I have seen pages that used a bunch of the plural version filtered out of Google for the plural version but still ranking for the singular version. If you mix it up you can catch both.
* Mix up the anchor text, subheaders and page content. Use semantically related phrases, and, in some cases, write subheaders that are useful for humans even if some of them do not have any keyword phrases in them.
* Make sure each page is somewhat unique and focused in nature.

Semantically related phrases:
If you think of words as having relationships to one another and you visualize optimizing for a keyword as optimizing for a basket of relevant related keywords it will help you draw in relevant related search traffic while also making your page more relevant for its core keywords.

For example, the acronym SEO would have the following as some semantically related phrases

Now you wouldn’t necessarily need to get all of those in your page copy, but if a person was writing naturally about the topic of SEO it would be common for many of those kinds of words to appear on the page.
Where do I Find Semantically Related Phrases?
GoRank offers a free semantic research tool. You can also find semantically related phrases by using a Google ~ search, the Google Keyword Tool, clustering engines, or concept pairing tools like Google Sets.

I link to all those tools on my keyword suggestion tool, and here is a background post on latent semantic indexing.
An Over Abundance of Modifiers:
In addition to using words that are semantically related it makes sense to use words that are common modifiers. For example common buying / shopping searches might include words like

* Free shipping
* Coupons
* Coupon
* Deals
* Deal
* Cheap
* Expensive
* Budget
* Bargain
* Bargains
* Affordable
* Low Cost
* Free
* Find
* Get
* Buy
* Purchase
* Locate
* Compare
* Shop
* Shopping
* Search

I created a keyword modifiers spreadsheet with free keyword modifier ideas for a few different search, transaction, and classification types. I might try to expand it a bit if people find it useful.
If it All Sounds Like a Bit Much…
If it seems complex or complicated then don’t focus too heavily on the modifiers or semantic related phrases or even your core keyword that much.

First write your article about your topic without even thinking about the search engines. Then go back and tweak it to include relevant modifiers and semantically related phrases. Make sure that you use multiple versions of your primary keyword phrase if it has multiple versions.

To make the page easy to read and to make it easy to add related phrases and alternate versions of your keywords break up the page using many subheaders. Also add leading questions that lead people from one section to the next. For example, I could say did you find this search engine marketing article helpful in your website promotion quest? Do you think it will help you do a become a better search engine optimizer and more holistic internet marketer?

[Link]

Using Yahoo! Answers for Niche Discovery

Posted 4 years ago

Imagine you were going to create a website about Legos. You could ask what is the best Lego set? at Yahoo! Answers to find content and topics to write about. Fast and free.

[Link]

Link Building and LocalRank

Posted 4 years ago

Nothing new here, just mentioning the LocalRank patent from long ago. Claus Schmidt published a great article about LocalRank a couple years o.

The more interconnectivity there are amongst the top results the more algorithmic weight you could place on interconnectivity. Many search queries are not as competitive as they seem at first glance, because in some industries there are few industry hubs, so many of the high PageRank sites have little interconnectivity. If 10 to 20 of the top 200 results link at your site and only 2-3 link at most of the other top results it should not take much (if any) additional general authority to outrank competing sites.

Also keep in mind that pages which rank #50 for your main query may rank #2 or #3 for related queries, so links from top ranked and mid ranked related resources can be great in providing indirect value (ie ranking boosts) AND direct value (ie traffic). Some algorithms like these might make SEO harder if you use outdated techniques, but if you use current techniques it makes SEO easier because you do not have to deal with trying to get as many links if you are focused on getting the right links.

LocalRank sorta ties in with the concepts presented in Hilltop (brief overview of Hilltop here).

Keep in mind that if a site has enough authority it can rank well without needing much LocalRank, but getting links from related resources makes it easier for you to rank without needing to bulk up on building up tons and tons of PageRank.

I doubt Hilltop was implemented exactly as described in that paper (especially since I have many affiliated sites ranking next to each other in search results). Other biasing algorithms, like , likely allow Google to topically bias or personalize search results while perhaps still making it rather hard to manipulate them when compared with algoirthims such as Hilltop.

[Link]

How Green is Your Content?

Posted 4 years ago

With SEO and content development it is all a game of margins.

If you come up with killer ideas or buy a site with rocking link popularity you can leverage that, knowing that if you add content it will rank better because it is part of the powerful trusted site. Another way to do well is just to create niche sites that:

* target flawed search queries; or,
* target language ignored by the legitimate players in your market; or,
* target buyers late in the buying cycle

Either way you go (big or small) an important criteria with the content you create is how well it stands the test of time.
If the content is time sensitive is there still a viable profitable business case for the content after it has aged? Is it niched down enough that there is no competition and likely won’t be much competition for a long time?

Is it profitable enough to be worth updating frequently? How frequently? How are you measuring profit? Dollars that page earns? Link citations and/ or media exposure that page earns which make you and your site more authoritative? Does it have the depth necessary to gain self reinforcing links?

A cost many people fail to evaluate is the cost of keeping something current. When you write each page are you writing in a manner that will require updating? Is the content so link rich that fixing broken links will take hours a month to fix it?

Evergreen content (like an interview) is great because it keeps bringing in green without you needing to reinvest into updating the content. I don’t know a lot about normatives and narratives, but if you keep your content focused and/or narrative it is much easier to keep it current than if you create content and profitable than if it needs constant updating.

Also worth noting that opportunity cost and the value of your attention are costs that should not be ignored when expanding your publishing empire. Compare your earnings on secondary channels to how well your best channels do and focus your effort based upon how much you enjoy doing something and how profitable it is.

[Link]

Does Domain Extension matter?

Posted 4 years ago

Some countries have certain rules which make it harder or more expensive to get a local domain than a global one. For local search queries sites which match the local domain extension or are hosted on a machine in that country may get a boost in relevancy over global domains. (ie: .uk may rank well in UK, .de may rank well in Germany)

Google can use the increased price of local hosting and/or the rules associated with gaining a local domain extension to assume that locally hosted or locally registered domains may have a greater local relevancy.

Likely due to less spamming incentive, a smaller content base, and a lesser understanding of local language many of the filters that are applied to the global search results may not be applied to some local results.

By looking at link reputation scores Google lets pages on websites vote for other pages. On the commercial web the purity of many votes may be in question. Weblogs Inc., for example, has gambling ads on over 40 of their blogs - in spite of Google being a minority owner in that network.

In a recent WMW thread someone mentioned this URL (maricopa.gov) as a .gov domain that accepts advertising links, but generally it is much harder to buy .gov or .edu links than .com or .net links.

Beyond .edu and .gov there are also other rare domains which people probably do not talk about that much which also have similar importance. In the UK .ac.uk is the equivalent of a .edu, and perhaps some .mil extensions may be trusted a bit more than the average .com, .net, .info, or .biz type domain.

The factor of trust would be three fold:

* The standards required to get a .edu (or other rare domain extension) implies a certain level of credibility.
* When the web started educational institutions and governmental bodies were at the core of it. Thus, with greater history, they are more likely to have more link equity. Over time webmasters of scraper sites and legitimate web pages are going to be more inclined to link at the top ranking pages, which reinforces the link popularity.
* Generally much of the well cited college papers or governmental pages are of higher quality than the average web page due to internal requirements. On top of that they are harder to influence than most average web pages. For example, it is pretty damn hard to get a professor to link at your site or update his or her outdated links. No professor wants some random self promotional asshole (which is how they will view many people who contact them) telling them that their content is outdated or inaccurate.

When you read about Trustrank the seed set of sites were all backed by government, educational, or corporate bodies. If you don’t think Google relies on third parties in this way think about how they limit what sources they accept for their local search product or for their news search.

Surely many college students are selling .edu links by now, but those are still a bit harder for the AVERAGE webmaster to find than .com links for sale.

That which is rare, hard to obtain, hard to influence, or vetted by other trusted bodies may aid in relevancy scoring.
It has been a long time since a link is a link.

[Link]

Google PageRank Leakage & Misconceptions on PageRank

Posted 4 years ago

“Bottom line, out-going links are always a BAD IDEA for SEO. It creates what we in the SEO community call SEO hemorrhage. It BLEEDS off GOOD PR. Not a good thing. We actually NEED MORE incoming links.”

Somewhere in Google’s webmaster guidelines is a warning about having more than 100 outbound links on a page. My advice is to take that point very seriously.

Using the same principle proves, at least to us here in this one office, that 101 outbound links on a page (don’t forget to count navigation links in the total) may lead to an immediate decrease in absolute PageRank even if it’s not demonstrated in the toolbar.

These ideas are typically short sighted and miss a broader view of the web.

Is it possible to start from scratch and build up a brand while being completely greedy with your link popularity? Sure it is, but generally it is going to be easier to create a useful site if you are willing to link out to some related resources.

Especially if you write about your industry you have to source some ideas or information. Why avoid social interaction? How can you only view links as a cost? If you link out enough sometimes they come back. Heck sometimes other content authors will even defend your brand for you without you even knowing about it.

What are search engines but link lists? And most of the links are free. And people come back and use them again.

I do have some clients that for a period of time did not link out to some sites that they should of. For about a year or so a client outranked their own manufacturer for the manufacturer brand name in Yahoo! and MSN. In that case I was greedy with the link popularity because I didn’t want to lower our exposure. After Yahoo! started ranking the appropriate site #1 for the brand name then I freely linked out to it.

For most any site there are probably at least a few sites that can be linked to.

As far as controlling internal link popularity goes, the reason for the 100 link suggestion was based on page usability. How many options can you give a person before you give them too many to be useful?

[Link]

MSN Search Spam Research

Posted 4 years ago

EO by the Sea has a great post about spam analysis done at MSN. While MSN’s credibility on finding web spam might be a bit questionable (since they rank it so well), but the research ran through a variety of factors associated with web spam. Most were related to temporal page variance and running things like inlinks and outlinks through power laws. If you hate to read research pages Bill also mentioned this 36 minute video.

Power laws are probably not something that many low level search spammers look at, but if you are going to do well at it, then it helps to see where you fit in the big picture and how it affects you. Although I have noticed some sites (particularly old, well-established ones) that have done pretty stupid things that should flag penalties that do not. The biggest thing that makes spamming easier than it should be is the number of badly coded sites with good content, but if you have the same number of links on every page, the same page size on every page, and the same link profiles as many spam sites you can expect that your site stands a good chance to get penalized.

[Link]

AdSense vs SpamSense: AdSense Tips and Linkworthy Content

Posted 4 years ago

Many affiliate and AdSense sites make their goals so obvious that it likely hurts the linkability of their websites. Sometimes you can still get a fairly solid clickthrough rate on your ads while still having a site that is much easier to link at than the typical SpamSense site.

The few biggest keys I would suggest to increasing your income per pageview without hurting your linkability would be:

* Build decent topical authority and a good link profile before worrying about getting as much money as you can out of visitors. Links are a currency, and without them your other options and earnings potential are at best limited.
* Less ads on the homepage than the rest of the site - for many sites (even many entirely legitimate ones) the bulk of the link popularity flows in through the home page. In some cases that link popularity is self reinforcing to where people search for your main topic, find your site, and then link at it. Making a quick proper impression in those cases is huge. That link popularity makes your other pages more authoritative.
* Adding a search box is easy incremental income without increasing your perceived ad weight.
* Blending adlinks into navigation or near images can help improve CTR.
* A skyscraper ad on the left column where navigation usually is can pull a great CTR without making the whole site look spammy, so long as the site looks like its main goal is to push the ads.
* A skyscraper on the right hand column probably won’t make much because that is a traditional ad location.
* If you control your page width it is easier to integrate high CTR ads than if you use fluid designs.
* If you put ads in the content area near the top of the page, if they go left and the content floats right around it that looks pretty spammy. If you float the content to the left side of the ads it can still get a decent CTR without looking anywhere near as spamtastic.

[Link]

The Most Important Search Document Ever!

Posted 4 years ago

My favorite paper about search is an article by Vannevar Bush called As We May Think. The Atlantic Monthly published it in July 1945, as WWII was winding down to a halt.

Vannevar suggested that an extensible personal memory extension be created to help people navigate their own experiences and the world’s knowledge base. Here are a few quotes:

Specialization becomes increasingly necessary for progress, and the effort to bridge between disciplines is correspondingly superficial.

The difficulty seems to be, not so much that we publish unduly in view of the extent and variety of present day interests, but rather that publication has been extended far beyond our present ability to make real use of the record. The summation of human experience is being expanded at a prodigious rate, and the means we use for threading through the consequent maze to the momentarily important item is the same as was used in the days of square-rigged ships.

A record, if it is to be useful to science, must be continuously extended, it must be stored, and above all it must be consulted.

Our ineptitude in getting at the record is largely caused by the artificiality of the systems of indexing. … Having found one item, moreover, one has to emerge from the system and re-enter on a new path.

The human mind does not work this way. It operates by association. … Man cannot hope fully to duplicate this mental process artificially, but he certainly ought to be able to learn from it. In minor ways he may even improve, for his records have relative permanency.

Presumably man’s spirit should be elevated if he can better review his own shady past and analyze more completely and objectively his present problems. He has built a civilization so complex that he needs to mechanize his records more fully if he is to push his experiment to its logical conclusion and not merely become bogged down part way there by overtaxing his limited memory.
Pretty sharp thinking for 1945! If you read this paper I think you would understand at least 99% of what Google is all about, and why their company value has so much more baked into it than next quarter’s predicted earnings.

[Link]

Web 3.0: Google as the Web

Posted 4 years ago

The basic web unit is no longer a site, or even a page. It’s a piece of data. And that piece of data can appear anywhere. Like in Google Base.

Or at least I chose to literally interpret his post that way.

If your sites don’t have any of the following:

* access to a specialized database that is hard to compile or gain access too
* a strong brand
* tools that save people hundreds or thousands of hours a day
* a human voice
* original ideas
* a history of creating and sharing value
* a reason to visit your site or channel daily

and make your living off the web, you may want to read this post to see the trend, and look to quickly develop one or more of the above.

The trick for Google as they consume verticals is for them to find the balance of what they can take while fostering relevant efficient business models (ie: turning legacy publishing business models into always on web friendly models). Until legacy models are reformed or displaced Google will promote some trashy stuff as a casualty on the way to their end goal. Each new market Google creates will have holes that act as a marketing mechanism to market the marketplace.

Some articles highlight that content ads should have more value since they are around for more time than search, but the quicker you can solve my problems the more value you create. That is the point and power of search.

The problem with the traditional ad model is that most content ads are still a distraction. Yahoo! remains clueless on this front - optimizing ads for earnings instead of relevancy - which will only work until stupid advertisers stop overpaying for ads and calling it brand spend.

Most quality content is not produced to let ads become an important part of the content. Writers do not trust the ad networks well enough, and there is a long standing belief that ads and content need to be separate. Heaven forbid the ads are allowed to become actionable content. Advertisers are scared at the idea of integrating ads into active channels.

Think of Google as a market maker with search being at the top of the market, and most of their secondary goals and markets being based around making their primary goal better. With Google’s cheap computer cycles and their ability to organize information they have the ability to make many markets far more efficient, then take a cut of the profits from the efficiency they created.

Google Base will make the real estate market more efficient, then as categories grow Google will charge for listings a la Craigslist. Google also plunged into the financial market.

As consumers become engaged content creators they will become more educated about the world not being sustainable and will demand more corporate accountability. Many business models will shift from one time sales to recurring subscriptions based largely on relationships. Items, relationships and outcomes will become easier to track.

As more of the offline world goes online they will be the default inventory management system for many consumers, retailers and wholesales.

Think of Google as the ultimate CRM system. Sure my business is web only, but I have regularly used Google’s search, email, chat (easy to use - free voice to anywhere), advertising, contextual, and tracking systems. That is pretty much everything but hosting, payment, packaging and order fulfillment. They also offer hosting via Blogspot and Google’s page creator, and payment via Google Base. For electronic content they will also do order fulfillment. Given enough time they will probably create extensible hosting and operating systems that allow you to create and store ideas and software.

They don’t take any money off the value add from many layers because they are not yet dominate enough in them and they want to take more value off search…and vertical search. Many of Google’s other layers are about keeping competing models honest to keep business costs low.

[Link]

This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 3rd, 2007 at 4:27 pm and is filed under Random Thoughts, Advice, Professionals. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.