Web2

How to manipulate Wikipedia Entries

Searchengineland has an interesting article today about different methods one could hypothetically use to manipulate a wikipedia entry.

Manipulate may actually be too strong a word, as you can't really manipulate a wiki for an extended period of time (as another member of the community will undo your edits). Instead, you can make subtle changes to a wiki entry to influence the readers impression of its content.

For example, as suggested by searchengineland.com:

1. Add content to the top of the entry, pushing content you don't want people to read below the fold.

2. Change the organization method (i.e. lettering/numbering) to influence what people focus on. If volume numbers are quoted without sources, erase them with an explanation that they have no reference.

3. Manufacture paragraphs which hide negative content. People rarely read full paragraphs - make sure the first and last sentence of each is positive.

4. Super-extend a post: Internet users are lazy - the length of a wikipedia entry is directly proportional to the likeliness it will be read completely.

5. Include pictures to draw attention away from statistics. Use different sized pictures to push negative content in a low visibility area.

Just on a side note, does anyone else find it ironic that searchengineland.com does not have search engine friendly URLs?

Myspace is for uneducated people

... or so says a recent study quoted by the BBC.

Berkley PhD student Danah Boyd decided to spend 6 months researching this concept for her thesis. She discovered:

"Social networks are strongly connected to geography, race, and religion; these are also huge factors in lifestyle divisions and thus 'class'...MySpace has most of the kids who are socially ostracised at school because they are geeks, freaks, or queers"

Am I the only one who thinks it is pretty logical that a college networking site (which was restricted to only college students for a number of years) is more popular with college grads?

Not another article on the Facebook Platform

As covered in every major tech/business news source over the last week, Facebook recently opened up their user base to external companies via their Facebook platform program.

Enter iLike, a music recommendation engine and one of the first Facebook Platform applications. As of May 31st, 7:56 PM, iLike has 981,222 users on Facebook. The Facebook Platform has been live since May 24th. Therefore, Facebook users became iLike members at the rate of ~122,650 / Day.

The implications of this are significant to say the least, and I'll try not to delve into the obvious ones here.

What I find interesting about this case is it is further proof of the immense power a small number of companies have over North American Internet Users. It almost seems as though as the Internet grows larger and larger, power is consolidating into the hands of a small number of players: Google has search, Facebook has social networking, eBay auctions, craiglist classifieds, etc...

While this shouldn't be surprising, there is no doubt a certain irony in the fact that the Internet was supposed to "democratize" information and business. Instead, it seems a small number of super-organizations have emerged which present greater threats to personal privacy and information security than anything which existed before the 'net.

Toronto is the Facebook King… sort of

I have a good friend named Arieh. He recently made a very cool post over at OneDegree.ca about Facebook’s market penetration in Toronto. In his article, Arieh references a recent blog post Rannie made on the topic:

What is Web 2.0

(See below for a great 4 minute video explaining what Web 2.0 actually is)

The term "Web 2.0" gets thrown around a lot these days, even though few non-geeks seem to understand what the term actually means. Although Wikipedia has a pretty good explanation, most business people are too lazy to actually read it.

That's why I find this 4 minute video so exciting:

[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/6gmP4nk0EOE" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

Video discovered at vidipedia.org, yet another Web 2.0 example. New Media Musings has a pretty good listing of other Web 2.0 video hosting sites.

The problem of analytics in a Web 2.0 world

( How do you track the success of a website which heavily uses AJAX, Flash, etc… )

Flash! AJAX! RSS! Java!

While using the aforementioned technologies may impress your superiors (and get you a tiny bit of credibility at your local BarCamp), they can also seriously detriment the validity of your online analytics.

Web 2.0 Cartoon

Technologies like Flash, AJAX, RSS and Java all contribute to the reduction of page views by allowing visitors to access a large quantity of information from a single web page . This causes many problems for marketers: most common javascript-based analytic services requires unique web pages in order to properly track conversions / time on site / goal paths / etc…

There are a number of solutions to this problem. Here are a few ideas on the topic -

If using a flash enabled site, work with your flash designers to ensure proper Flash event tracking information is transfered to your analytic software.

You could also develop your "own" analytic software by programming your Flash / Java / AJAX / etc to generate a log file of significant events, which you then important into a spreadsheet to run analysis on. Depending on what the interaction model looks like, this could be a very complex solution though, as tracking "people" versus "events" can take some extra work.

For news-pushing via really simple syndication (RSS), you could use a service like feedburner.com which specializes in the tracking of RSS subscriber activity.

Again, these are just some of my thoughts on the topic. I’m excited to hear your comments / suggestions on other methods which can be used to track the performance of Flash, Java, RSS, and other plug-in driven website designs.

The unintended consequences of Web 2.0 and social media

What can be done to reduce self-censorship in socially moderated media?

Forbes recently had an interesting article about the failures of eBay’s feedback system. Many socially-moderated systems like eBay’s have a significant flaw: users are afraid of stating their true opinions of other users in feedback comments, as they expect the other user will respond with retaliatory negative feedback. The end result is the majority of users end up having near perfect ratings, even if they do have a very tainted auction history, as the “social norm” becomes maintaining the status quo.

A related problem occurs on a macro scale at many socially-organized news/discussion sites (what marketers call Web 2.0 applications). If a user submits a news story which some members disagree with, that news story is voted down. After the article submitter sees this occur,
they are less likely to continue submitting news stories which are against the grain, as “what’s the use, it will just get voted down again”.

A “social norm” is therefore unintentionally established on the website which gets re-enforced over time. The enforcement of this social norm soon results in the polarization of the community, ultimately leading once “neutral” sites to become clearly left vs right politically, capitalistic vs socialistic economically, or most commonly pro-Apple vs everyone else (I’m a part-time Apple user btw).

Whether or not this polarization is actually a bad thing is another discussion onto itself. The greater question is, if you own and operate a socially-organized site, are you willing to accept the possible alienation of some of your users?

Common sense would dictate that you should try to avoid alienating your customers at all times. So what can be done to prevent social norms from developing on your social media / web 2.0 / interactive website?

The hidden truth of advertising

Advertising has a reputation for being a "fluffy" business. This humerous video, entitled "The Truth In Ad Sales", sums up the issue:
[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/fclYmVaORbM" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

 

One of the reasons I am attracted to new and interactive media is it
presents opportunities to remove some of this “fluff” by bringing more
accountability to advertising campaigns.

Self proclaimed experts and the Internet

(Don’t be afraid to use classic methods of persuasion in your new media projects)

Scientist“As
a scientist and a researcher I’ve seen a lot of scams and unfulfilled
promises. In this case, I’ve performed the experiments and analyzed the
research myself. And let me tell you - this product really amazes me”

The race of the marketers: the time value of content

Socially-driven websites present new opportunities for marketers to piggyback on other people’s content

In addition to inflating the valuations of many internet firms, the Web 2.0 craze has had a really neat ancillary affect on the way information is broken to the public.

Unlike 2-3 years ago, when most websites employed human moderators to choose what content was to be posted, today websites such as digg, reddit, and youtube allow their users to post and vote on what content is most relevant -
regardless if the user is the originator of, or an authority on, the content.

In other words, “socially organized” websites have significantly increased the ease of stealing the limelight from primary sources.

Example: a search for “Kramer rant” on youtube brings up many copies of the famous video, the first posted by Zilla2010. Zilla2010’s copy of the Kramer video has been viewed 1,426,711 times (at the time of this posting) - even though the content was original released by TMZ.com.

Zilla2010 seems like an honest person though, as they haven’t smacked on an advertisement for their own website after the video, nor have they tried to remove TMZ’s logo from the video. Some other youtubers
aren’t as nice though, and they’ve still received ~131,000 views. While the users of most geek-centric sites (i.e. digg) can distinguish between a blog referencing a news article and a primary source, I would venture to say the majority of people on the Internet either can not, or choose not to care. As a result of this, an Internet marketing
opportunity for any individual now exists to re-break content - regardless of budget or resources. The value of the opportunity declines significantly with each passing minute, as another person from the “breaking rush” releases their attempt to capitalize on the content’s significance.

So, what does this all mean to interactive media strategy?

Conclusion #1 - As the creator of content, a greater effort must now be made to be the first to post your content to the popular Web 2.0 sites, and emphasis must be given to the titling and tagging of your content to avoid others from doing a better job of marketing your own content.

People on the Internet aren’t that different that people off the Internet, and simple Marketing 101 / Psychology 101 techniques still work. As SEOBlackhat.com writes in their somewhat tongue-in-cheek article on how to make the
front page of Digg, “Make a list or tutorial headline (Top 10…), make up an outrageous statistic or claim, etc…” – in other words, the exact same techniques which have been used in direct mail and infomercial marketing for the last 30 years.

Conclusion #2 – If the content is not yours, you can still benefit from the initial wave of people searching for it by getting in early on the “breaking rush”. As shown by the second Kramer video, roughly 100,000 page views or ~ $200 of online advertising (assuming $2 / CPM) was achieved for free. I am not condoning stealing content, but rather pointing out the realities of the time value of content.

Conclusion #3 – By adding value to the original content quickly enough, you can “ride the wave” with the original. The star wars kid video is a good example of others adding value quick enough to ride the wave.

I envision in the near future (if it isn’t happening already) ad agencies employing full time staff to do just this. When a picture of the snow covered Denver airport is released on digg*,
the agency would make a (non-affiliated) blog post seconds later. In the blog post, information on snow fall records, little known facts about snow, and a blurb on the world’s warmest snow boots (which just happen to be sold by the agency’s client) would be added.

If the blog post gets written and submitted to digg fast enough, it may even beat the content creator’s own submission, as it contains more relevant information that just the direct link to the flickr page. Within twenty four hours, it may make it to the first page, getting hundreds of thousands of relevant impressions for their client, all on the coat tails of someone else’s photo.

Welcome to the race of the marketers.

UPDATE AS OF 6:36 PM
I just checked digg and discovered that someone “re-breaked” the images of Denver International Airport I referenced earlier. The new pictures add value by inserting an image of what the airport normally looks like
(from Google Maps), allowing for a “before and after” comparison. What a wonderful coincidence that someone would re-break the exact digg reference from my post!

Syndicate content