Organic SEO Blog > Organic Search Engine Optimization Blog

SEO Addiction

Introducing my new habit - SEO.

I have been working some long days (14-18 hours) here at Peak Positions for the past couple of months and often find myself wanting to work even more. Many times I work on page code and search content in my off hours. I am starting to wonder if I will get hooked and drawn into this SEO thing for real like the rest of the SEO addicts around here: Tom, Chad, Bill, even Carol all seem WAY into this search thing and I am getting more juiced on SEO daily. Is my ultimate destiny to become terminally hard-wired on SEO like Jack?

I know it seems crazy because its only been 9-10 weeks but lately I keep asking myself a very important question

Am I Addicted To SEO?

Internet Addiction Running High As Search Engines Deliver The World's Content 24/7.

Why We're Powerless To Resist Grazing On Endless Web Data.

While there is a certain grand mystery to some aspects of human behavior, others can be easily explained. Just find yourself a garden-variety house cat, along with a $10 laser pointer.

Many cat owners know that the lasers are the easiest way to keep the pet amused. The cats will ceaselessly, maniacally chase it as it's beamed about the room, literally climbing the walls to capture what they surely regard as some form of ultimate prey.

Obviously, cats are hard-wired to hunt down small, bright objects, like birds. But since nothing in nature is as bright as a laser, they are powerless to resist its charms.

Cats and lasers are useful in explaining some of the more addictive aspects of Web use, including a recent occurrence on the site for Andrew Sullivan, a popular political blogger. Mr. Sullivan's blog doesn't follow the standard practice of making room for readers to add their own comments after each blog item. Curious if he should change his policy, he put the question to a vote.

Readers responded 60-40 against allowing comments. Even more striking than the fact that these readers were denying themselves a voice was the reason some of them gave for declining the offer: Like cats chasing a laser, they wouldn't be able to stop themselves.

"In truth we would rarely opt not to read them," said one reader. "Blog comments have the power to hammerlock one's attention. ... We'd be impotent to resist looking over the rantings and counter-rantings. ... Not only would comments be an incredible drain on one's time (especially if we check your blog several times a day from work), but it also exposes readers to the nasty underbelly of blogging."

What is it about a Web site that might make it literally irresistible? Clues are offered by research conducted by Irving Biederman, a neuroscientist at the University of Southern California, who is interested in the evolutionary and biological basis of the human need for information.

Dr. Biederman first showed a collection of photographs to volunteer test subjects, and found they said they preferred certain kinds of pictures (monkeys in a tree or a group of houses along a river) over others (an empty parking lot or a pile of old paint cans).

The preferred pictures had certain common features, including a good vantage on a landscape and an element of mystery. In one way or another, said Dr. Biederman, they all presented new information that somehow needed to be interpreted.

When he hooked up volunteers to a brain-scanning machine, the preferred pictures were shown to generate much more brain activity than the unpreferred shots. While researchers don't yet know what exactly these brain scans signify, a likely possibility involves increased production of the brain's pleasure-enhancing neurotransmitters called opioids.

In other words, coming across what Dr. Biederman calls new and richly interpretable information triggers a chemical reaction that makes us feel good, which in turn causes us to seek out even more of it. The reverse is true as well: We want to avoid not getting those hits because, for one, we are so averse to boredom.

It is something we seem hard-wired to do, says Dr. Biederman. When you find new information, you get an opioid hit, and we are junkies for those. You might call us 'infovores.' "

For most of human history, there was little chance of overdosing on information, because any one day in the Olduvai Gorge was a lot like any other. Today, though, thanks primarily to the amazing search engines, we can find in the course of a few hours online more information than our ancient ancestors could in their whole lives.

Just like the laser and the cat, technology is playing a trick on us. We are programmed for scarcity and can't dial back when something is abundant.

The same happens with food: Because at one time we never knew when the next saber-toothed tiger might come along for food, it made sense to pack on the calories whenever we chanced upon them. That's not much help in today's world of snack aisles and super sizes.

Using computers traditionally has been associated with Mr. Spock-style cerebration, the ultimate kind of left-brain activity. But Dr. Biederman is just one of many researchers now linking it with some of the oldest parts of the human brain.

A group of Stanford University researchers, for example, recently found gender differences in the brains of computer gamers. Males showed more neural firings, suggesting that they were physically experiencing the game in a manner different from women.

Watching a cat play with a laser, you realize the cat never learns there is no real "prey" there. You can show the cat the pointer, clicking it off and on, and it will remain transfixed.

Indeed, while cats find a causal link between the pointer and the shimmering light, they come to a wrong conclusion. They believe the pointer is the container that holds the prey, and that the critter is released once the cat's owner gets the pen down from the shelf and starts to wave it around.

People presumably are smarter than cats, and as we become more familiar with the Web and its torrent of information, maybe we'll do a better job learning what is useful and what isn't.

By: Lee Gomes
Wall Street Journal; March 12, 2008

Yahoo Endorses Social Networks

Yahoo Inc. is joining an effort backed by Google Inc. and News Corp.'s MySpace to spur the creation of applications for social networks, a small but growing area of interest among software developers.

Yahoo said Tuesday it will endorse a technical specification called OpenSocial that was initiated by Google and supported by MySpace and other social- networking sites, a sign the initiative is gaining momentum after a slow start last fall. Yahoo, Google and MySpace also said they are planning an independent, nonprofit foundation to provide technology and intellectual-property guidelines for the evolving standard, while ensuring no one company has too much influence over its future.

Yahoo's move could pressure holdouts like Facebook Inc., which has stuck to its own software standards for developers, to join OpenSocial. Facebook, whose investors include Microsoft Corp., has indicated a willingness to license its platform to other sites. A Facebook representative said the company is evaluating OpenSocial. Microsoft, which has made a bid for Yahoo, hasn't joined OpenSocial, either. It declined to comment on if it would do so or to comment on Yahoo's move.

MySpace and Google's social network, Orkut, have both recently launched developer platforms compatible with OpenSocial. But Facebook, whose platform was announced in May 2007, has a head start and already offers some 20,000 applications to its users. MySpace owner News Corp. also owns Dow Jones & Co., publisher of The Wall Street Journal.

Internet companies are initiating the new guidelines to encourage software developers to build a range of entertainment and productivity services to keep users hooked on their sites. Developers, keen to reach the massive audiences, have done so eagerly, building tools like photo-sharing software or games that users can add to their profiles and share with their friends.

OpenSocial was designed to make it easier for developers to create these services across a range of Web sites. Developers can build their applications once and have them run across any site compatible with OpenSocial, with minimal modifications. But in the months after its launch, many developers were disappointed with the technology, which they said had holes and was not widely supported.

On a conference call with reporters, Joe Kraus, director of product management at Google, said developers will potentially be able to reach more than 200 million users through an OpenSocial-based application by next week. He added that the nonprofit will help to drive the effort by formalizing a range of guidelines critical to its success. For instance, the foundation will enable developers and sites to use the OpenSocial specification without fear of patent- infringement suits from contributors.

Wade Chambers, vice president of platforms for Yahoo, said on the call that Yahoo was not yet going to provide details about which Yahoo sites for which developers could build OpenSocial-compatible applications, but he said Yahoo wanted to sign on because it felt the standard was "rapidly maturing."

By Jessica E. Vascellaro
The Wall Street Journal; March 26, 2008

Open Source "Social App Server" Might Crack Garden Walls?

From right here in Philly's backyard, Ringside Networks came out of stealth mode yesterday to launch the first open source "social application server."

And what is that exactly?

It's the software guts of a social network that you can use behind your own firewall, old school style, to build social networking "stuff" into your own site.

Companies that want to build social applications (for runners sharing times at Runlicious) or socially aware marketing programs (like Jeep owners sharing pictures and videos) will be able to use social servers to develop the whole thing on their own websites. Their brand on their site instead of their brand on Facebook next to the "get help for your gambling problem" advertisement.

Developing a social network will be harder to do this way than it would be using a white label network like Ning, but it will be completely customizable, will integrate neatly into the rest of the site, and all the data will be right there for the application owner to mine.

That's the simple version anyway; use social servers to roll your own social apps and sites. But I also wonder how it might upset the balance of power inside the behemoth walled gardens of Facebook and Myspace.

OpenSocial took the first shot at the garden walls with a goal of empowering users to keep their social data portable (well, portable inside Google anyway). However, while OpenSocial promises developers social apps without servers, Ringside is saying that at least some developers are going to want their own stuff under their control. I think social app servers are going to take shots at the wall too, but with the social networking advertisers and application ecosystem as the core constituency.

By supporting Facebook's API (with other API's to follow), Ringside makes it a lot simpler to take a social application written for Facebook and move it to its own site, or visa versa as shown in this picture. This kind of write once deliver anywhere approach to social applications raises all kinds of interesting possibilities.

Like,... Don't want to have to enter your favorite beers into Beer! in both Facebook and Myspace? If Beer! builds their application on a social server that can tie your Facebook user name to your Myspace user name, you won't have to. Facebook and Myspace just become two points of presence for the application, and they'll be on equal terms with Beer!'s own web site. Wherever you log in, you see your beers and (most of) your beer friends.

Facebook opened up this possibility when they designed their platform to have the developer's servers do the heavy lifting. Doing it this way meant they didn't have to provide all of the servers and gear to run the applications, but it also means that it's easier to stick a social server outside the wall and treat it and other branded networks like distribution shelf space. Once an application can seamlessly span the networks, it can do more than map a user's identity across sites, it may also piece together a social graph that is bigger than any one site's. Sort of an application-specific super graph.

In one possible end state, users own all of "their" social graph and data in OpenSocial, and application providers own all of "their" social graph and data in their own social application servers. Meanwhile, the big branded social networks are still in the game with very large "lily pad graphs," but they no longer see the whole picture for any one user or any single application.

As this evolves we may see developers building first for Facebook and Myspace to get quick viral adoption in a huge audience. However, as soon as they can they may start to drive traffic over to their own sites where they can provide a better or different interface with a more carefully managed brand experience. Imagine if NBC let you show your first YouTube video from a planned series at 7pm on Thursday, for free.

Or, developers may use the write once deliver everywhere strategy to deliver their app as widely as possible. Where Facebook and Myspace were once king, in this scenario they may end up as two of many application points of presence with awareness of only a piece of the associated social graph. The successful application developer with a network-spanning super graph might then be free to monetize it however and wherever they can.

Well, at least until the API wars start in earnest. There is a good reason for the server to be open source, it will spread the load of keeping up with all those inevitable API changes.

By: Jim Stogdill
O’Reilly Radar; March 25, 2008

Justices turn down Microsoft appeal


Google CEO Eric Schmidt
former President of
Novell Frustrated with
Court Decision


WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Monday handed Microsoft Corp. a defeat by refusing to rule on the software giant's request to halt an antitrust suit against it.

The suit was brought in 2004 by Waltham, Mass.-based Novell Inc., which said in court papers that Microsoft "deliberately targeted and destroyed" its WordPerfect and QuattroPro programs in order to protect its Windows operating system monopoly.

Novell alleged that Microsoft targeted the programs because they could run on alternative operating systems and therefore could enable alternatives to Windows to gain market share.

Microsoft argued in court filings that Novell did not compete in the operating systems market, and therefore cannot claim to have been harmed by alleged anticompetitive conduct by Microsoft in that market.

A federal district court and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond, Va., sided with Novell and allowed the suit to proceed. Microsoft's lawyers said that decision expands the application of antitrust laws "far beyond their intended scope."

Plaintiffs in antitrust suits can seek damages that are triple the actual harm.

A federal court ruled in 2001 that Microsoft had illegally protected its Windows operating system monopoly. As part of a settlement with the federal government and 17 states the following year, Microsoft agreed to court oversight of its business practices. A federal judge in January extended that oversight to November 2009.

The federal government's antitrust lawsuit focused on Microsoft's anticompetitive actions against Netscape and Sun Microsystems Inc. Novell argues that its software is similar to Netscape's Navigator browser and Sun's Java: neither competed directly with Windows, but Microsoft saw them as benefiting potential competitors.

Novell sold WordPerfect and QuattroPro to Corel Corp. in 1996.

Despite the suit, the two companies later became business partners. In 2006 Microsoft agreed to pay Novell $240 million to license its Linux enterprise software and to spend $94 million over five years to market both Novell's software and Windows to its corporate customers. Microsoft also agreed to pay Novell $108 million under a patent agreement.

The deal also required Novell to pay millions in royalties to Microsoft.

The Supreme Court's decision allows Novell's lawsuit to continue. Microsoft said it would defend itself in lower court. "We believe the facts will show that Novell's claims, which are 12 to 14 years old, are without merit," David Bowermaster, a Microsoft spokesman, said in an e-mail.

The case is Microsoft Corp. v. Novell Inc., 07-924. Chief Justice John Roberts, who owns Microsoft stock, recused himself from the decision.

Microsoft shares rose 34 cents to close at $28.30 Monday, while Novell shares fell 6 cents to $6.01.

By Christopher S. Rugaber; Jessica Mintz contributed to this story
Associated Press; Mar 17, 2008

Comcast, Time Warner Cable in Wireless Talks


The two biggest U.S. cable providers, Comcast Corp. and Time Warner Cable Inc., are discussing a plan to provide funding for a new wireless company that would be operated by Sprint Nextel Corp. and Clearwire Corp., people familiar with the talks say.

The partnership would create a nationwide wireless network using WiMax technology, which is designed to provide high-speed Web access from laptops, cellphones and other mobile devices, as well as high-quality mobile video. Sprint and Clearwire have been working for months to cooperate on a WiMax rollout and are now trying to raise at least $3 billion for a joint venture.

Under the plan the parties are reviewing, Comcast -- the largest cable operator with 24 million subscribers -- would put as much as $1 billion into the venture, with No. 2 operator Time Warner Cable adding $500 million. The sixth- biggest cable operator, Bright House Networks, is also involved in the talks and would contribute between $100 million and $200 million, people familiar with the matter said. Comcast Chief Executive Brian Roberts has played a prominent role in the talks.

Sprint, of Overland Park, Kan., and Clearwire, a Kirkland, Wash., start-up founded by wireless pioneer Craig McCaw, are trying to line up other funding too. Intel Corp. has signaled a willingness to put in about $1 billion or more, depending on the terms, people familiar with the discussion say. And Google Inc. could provide hundreds of millions of dollars, the people say. The exact amount each would contribute could change, and people involved in the discussions said it is still possible the entire deal could fall through. Google and Intel both declined to comment.

Entering the wireless business is becoming a bigger priority for cable companies as they compete fiercely for customers with telecom giants AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. Those phone companies have encroached on cable's turf by entering the pay-TV business and are positioning themselves to offer a " quadruple play" of services that includes landline phone, high-speed Web access, cellphone, and video. "That's obviously a concern, if Verizon can put together a converged service offering that starts to peel people away from cable operators, " said Mark Rowland, head of the wireless practice at IBB Consulting.

Cable companies' push into wireless would mark the next chapter in that escalating rivalry. It isn't clear precisely what wireless services the cable operators intend to offer via the WiMax venture. Executives at some of the operators feel the U.S. wireless market is already crowded, with 80% of U.S. consumers already owning a cellphone.

The companies are likely to try to distinguish themselves with advanced mobile data and video services that take advantage of the stockpiles of content they are already adept at licensing. People familiar with the discussions said some cable companies are looking at options to develop their own mobile devices in partnerships with manufacturers.

Sprint CEO Dan Hesse is pressing all parties to wrap up discussions in time for the wireless industry's trade show next week in Las Vegas, so Sprint can have something to present to investors. In addition to the $3 billion Sprint and Clearwire are trying to raise now to start rolling out WiMax, they will likely need more to complete a nationwide network. Sprint previously had told Wall Street the venture would cost $5 billion by 2010.

Mr. Hesse wants Sprint to begin building the WiMax network quickly so it can get a head-start over competitors AT&T and Verizon Wireless on advanced wireless broadband services. WiMax promises faster speeds than current technologies and a wider range of video and other services.

In exchange for funding the WiMax joint venture, the cable companies would get equity in the business and would be able to purchase wholesale access to the network to offer their own high-speed wireless data and voice services to customers, the people familiar with the discussions said.

The cable industry has been flirting with the idea of getting into wireless for years, but hasn't had a clear strategy. Investors have also discouraged cable companies from embarking on any big spending projects. A consortium of cable operators including Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Bright House Networks and Cox Communications Inc. bought more than $2 billion in radio spectrum in a 2006 government auction but never put it to use.

The same companies created a separate joint venture with Sprint in 2005, dubbed Pivot, that offered cellphone service in about 30 markets by the time it stopped marketing late last year amid low demand. One key problem was that cable providers didn't have significant control over pricing and marketing. They are asking for that control in the new WiMax venture. Comcast and other cable operators have also mulled acquiring a major wireless carrier.

Cox, the third-biggest cable operator, appears to be pursuing a separate wireless push. It acquired 22 radio spectrum licenses for $305 million last week, which would allow Cox to offer wireless service in its markets, predominantly in the south and southwest.

If cable operators dive into wireless, that will put more pressure on satellite TV providers, their other major competitors, to do the same. Satellite providers on their own can't offer high-speed Web access or voice services. Dish Network Corp. took a step into the wireless business through the FCC auction, winning 168 licenses throughout the country for $712 million. DirecTV Group Inc. hasn't announced any plans in wireless.

"This is like a game of three dimensional chess because the cable operators aren't just thinking about how this helps them compete with Verizon and AT&T, but how this helps them block potential threats from DirecTV and Dish," says Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett.


By Amol Sharma and Vishesh Kumar
The Wall Street JournalMarch 26, 2008

AOL Ad Project, 'Platform A,' Plots Plan B

Over the past two years, Lynda Clarizio has helped build Advertising.com, AOL's ad network, into one of the hottest properties in online advertising. Her reward: She gets to try to clean up one of the Internet company's messiest divisions.

Time Warner's AOL unit is aiming to transform itself from an Internet service provider into a full-service digital-advertising business. To that end, it has spent about $1 billion to buy seven ad-technology firms with different areas of expertise, from behavioral targeting to video ads. The next step is to knit them together with Advertising.com -- an entity AOL has dubbed Platform A, but has yet to take to market.

AOL's future largely hinges on the success of that transformation, which involves aggressively slashing costs, forsaking billions of dollars in overall subscription revenue, and laying off thousands of employees. Time Warner Chief Executive Jeff Bewkes has said that mission is key to plotting a new course for a company whose stock price has stagnated in recent years.

But Platform A is off to a rocky start. In its first six months, it has been marked by failed sales targets, tensions among its different business groups, and, most recently, the dismissal of its president, Curt Viebranz. A number of marketers say they are ready to spend their ad dollars with Platform A, but can't because the disparate units still operate independently.

The idea behind Platform A is that AOL can be a one-stop shop for placing ads both on AOL's own Web sites and on the broader Web, through its ad networks like Advertising.com, which sell ads on thousands of Web sites. So far, though, the company is a long way from that reality. AOL is fourth among the major Web portals -- behind Google, Microsoft's MSN and Yahoo -- in ad revenue, and the pace of its ad-revenue growth has also dropped off. AOL's ad revenue grew 12% in 2007, compared with 37% in 2006 and 38% in 2005, according to research firm eMarketer.

Even Advertising.com, a rare bright spot in AOL's business recently, is facing new pressures. A major part of a two-year deal with its biggest advertiser, Apollo Group's University of Phoenix, ended in January. Advertising.com was University of Phoenix's exclusive online marketing partner, managing its ad buys both on its network of sites and on other ad networks. The deal generated $215 million for AOL in 2007, up $58 million from $157 million in 2006, and accounted for 17% of AOL's ad-revenue growth last year. (University of Phoenix will continue to buy ads on the Advertising.com network, but decided to take its ad buying in-house.)

AOL's biggest competitors are developing their own ad networks, which will make life tougher for Advertising.com. "If I get the inkling they are not innovating, I'm going to look elsewhere and talk to Yahoo or any of the other Web giants," says Tom Hespos, president of Underscore Marketing, a closely held digital agency in New York.

AOL executives have picked Ms. Clarizio, 47 years old, to rescue Platform A, which has the widest reach of any ad network in the country -- reaching 90% of the U.S. online audience, according to comScore -- but isn't able to effectively sell across that spectrum yet. A nine-year veteran of AOL, Ms. Clarizio led the deal team that acquired Advertising.com in 2004 for $435 million. That unit has accounted for nearly a quarter of AOL's revenue and is one of the fastest-growing parts of the company.

Trained as a lawyer, Ms. Clarizio is known internally for an analytical mind and an ability to delegate. A graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law School, she came to AOL from Washington law firm Arnold & Porter, where she was a partner for seven years and also worked as an AOL outside counsel.

While AOL is known as a relatively slow-moving, bureaucratic company, Advertising.com has developed a different reputation. "AOL has reinvented itself so many times. It is hard to keep track," says Adam Schlachter, senior partner and group director at Mediaedge:cia, a media-planning firm that is a part of WPP Group's Group M. "(Advertising.com) has been able to grow steadily, consistently and innovate."

Ad.com grew from a cramped townhouse on the outskirts of Baltimore, where brothers Scott and John Ferber opened a digital advertising company called TeknoSurf in 1998. Their idea was to piece together a network of Web sites where they would buy ad space, then resell it to advertisers at a premium. It changed its name to Advertising.com in 2000.

Ms. Clarizio tried to embrace Ad.com's start-up spirit. The company remained at its Baltimore headquarters, instead of relocating to AOL's Dulles, Va., base, 60 miles away. She dressed up for Halloween and competed in relay races.

She also has tried to get the company's various sales teams and engineers working on common goals. During daily 9 a.m. meetings in Ad.com's "War Room," midlevel executives discuss the previous day's results and chart the next day's goals.

Ms. Clarizio wants to replicate that culture at Platform A, which suffers from duplication among its sales, tech and other groups. Different ad units, for instance, call on the same clients -- in essence competing for the business. One of Ms. Clarizio's first moves in her new post was to announce a "leadership team" for Platform A. The new structure puts in place one sales team, one technology team, one product and operations team, one marketing team and one publisher-services team to cut across all the company's different ad units.

Some digital-advertising executives question whether combining sales teams is the right strategy. They fear Ad.com's emphasis on data-driven results will come to dominate Platform A, frustrating bigger-brand marketers used to the tailored campaigns they have gotten from some of AOL's ad-sales teams.

But Ms. Clarizio is moving full speed ahead with the integration. AOL also announced last week that it has integrated two of the companies that provided separate search-engine-marketing services -- Advertising.com and Quigo, a contextual targeting ad firm AOL acquired last fall. "It's an example of what we need to do across the board. It's definitely an iterative process and takes a lot of work to do that," Ms. Clarizio says.

By Emily Steel
Wall Street Journal; March 26, 2008

Does the Web Deserve The Power It Gained To Influence Politics?


Considering how Barack Obama is one of YouTube's biggest stars -- the video of his Philadelphia speech on race is just the latest involving the senator that, by Web metrics, went platinum -- you'd think he would be one of the site's most unalloyed fans. The other day, though, he was vigorously ambivalent.

Those enlessly played clips showing Rev. Jeremiah Wright making controversial racial statements, Sen. Obama told an interviewer, aren't representative of the man. "I don't want to suggest that somehow, the loops you have been seeing typifies the services all the time," Sen. Obama said. "That is the danger of the YouTube era. It doesn't excuse what he said. But it gives it some perspective."

As with Nixon going to China, it might take an Obama, with solid youth-tech cred, to suggest any downside to the online world. Considering the rapidly growing number of Americans who rely on the Web to follow the election and judge its players -- even if mostly via mainstream-media sites -- it's a good time to look at all the Web does very well with politics, and at what it messes up.

Web videos, especially on YouTube, are a good place to start. They have been called the death of the TV sound bite, for the way voters can experience lengthy realities without the filters of a news show constrained by time limits and commercials. The 37 minutes of Sen. Obama's race speech quickly became one of the most widely downloaded.

Less clear is whether YouTube will be just as bad, or worse, at blurring the line between a fair point and a cheap shot than newspapers or TV ever were.

Elected officials, especially those in small communities, have complained since the invention of the camera that one sure way to get their picture into the paper is to fall asleep at some legislative event, even one that has lasted all night. But if a dozing politician thinks being in the day's newspaper or the night's newscast was a problem, wait until the clip gets viewed eternally online.

Montana Republican Sen. Conrad Burns had plenty of other problems when he ran for re-election in 2006, but the campaign wasn't helped when he was caught shutting his eyes for a few seconds at a Senate hearing on a farm bill.

Videos like these may enjoy the popularity they do because they confirm ideas already held about the politicians involved, in which case blaming YouTube confuses cause and effect. But there is a danger that our politics might be shaped by insignificant events that assume an importance merely by having been caught on tape.

It's not just video that is being refashioned in the Internet age, but words, too, through blogs and other widely democratized forms of expression. Blogs are enormously useful, if only because of the way they allow communities with similar politics to follow the ups and down of a campaign as a group.

When Hillary Clinton or John McCain give major policy speeches, commentators feel compelled to have their thoughts online within a few hours -- even those who work for weekly newsmagazines. And, in keeping with the conventions of blog posts, which rarely go on for more than a screenload of type, they were often expressed in just a few hundred words.

Blogs then, make possible an amazing diversity of lucid ideas, but those ideas tend to be quickly considered and briefly expressed before everyone moves on to the next topic du jour.

Discussion such as this one about the Web and politics usually involve the newest and most glamorous parts of the Internet: the participatory, Web 2.0 neighborhoods, like blogs and YouTube.

One of the biggest electoral impacts of the Web involves one of its earliest applications: email. It's an easy and effective way for people to share ideas with friends about what might be going on with the candidates. By operating person-to-person and under the radar, email can have an enormous and injurious influence before anyone even notices.

The Obama camp learned this earlier this year when emails making false statements about the candidate's religion started showing up in millions of in-boxes. Old-fashioned whispering campaigns usually work only in relatively small, cohesive communities. With email, though, they can be national and nearly instantaneous.

Suggesting that there is both good and bad with the Web and politics isn't to say they exist in equal amounts. Say what one will about the shortcomings of blogs, I can't imagine going back in time to a world where a relatively small number of newspapers and magazines -- even though by and large they were very good ones -- had an effective monopoly on what did and didn't get printed about a campaign.

The Web isn't going away, and so its boosters should no longer feel defensive when its inanities are pointed out. The YouTube political debates where voters submitted video questions, from January, for example, were described as a singular chance for citizens to question candidates directly, which sounded good until one of the questioners presented himself as a snowman.

Because it's such a vastly powerful network, the Internet has the ability either to elevate or to debase the political discussion. Both will be occurring between now and November, though with a little luck, not in equal amounts.

By Lee Gomes
Wall Street Journal; March 26, 2008

Testing Souped-Up Search Functions


Two Web Services Use Visual Cues; YouTube in 3-D


Search, by nature, doesn't need to be overly exciting stuff. It usually involves typing a word in a box, pressing enter and reading results to find the best one -- and this style works well for plenty of people, as is evidenced by Google's success. But many would like to see search become smarter, more intuitive or even visually stimulating.

This week, I tested two applications that turn searching into feasts for the eyes. Instead of showing search results in lines of text, these results are visually based. One, called SpaceTime, displays search results in three-dimensional views that make images look as if they are flying onto the screen. The other, an actual search engine called Searchme, spreads image results out in fan-like patterns. Both SpaceTime and Searchme encourage people to search by choosing what looks visually familiar or accurate, rather than trying to discern what the text in a link might mean.

The idea of improved search isn't a new one. Many have tried, ranging from Ask.com's media-rich result pages to Mahalo.com's human-powered search engine. But Google's simplicity and experience have made it hard to beat, and competitors know the importance of relevant and reliable results. Rather than comparing these sites with the big G, I looked at them as add-ons that could be especially useful for certain searches.

Searchme, a search engine built from the ground up, is technically in private beta -- meaning that it is still a work in progress and users must be invited to use it. The company gave me access to the site and created a link so that readers of this column could also use it: www.searchme.com/wsj. This Web-based tool works on Windows and Mac operating systems and in any major browser, and it tries to improve search by asking users to choose a category for their search terms.

For instance, when I typed "US Open" in the Searchme box, categories appeared to the right, including Tennis, Squash, Gambling & Casinos and Golf. Since I was looking for the tennis-related grand slam, I chose the Tennis category and saved myself some typing. The more I used Searchme, the more I came to rely on these categories for faster, more-refined results.

Searchme's visual search works by displaying snapshots of Web sites, each of which has the search term highlighted on its page. These pages fan out from the center to look like Cover Flow in Apple Inc.'s iTunes, visually sorting images like album covers in a jukebox so they can be flipped through until the best Web page is found.

By moving a cursor along a horizontal scroll bar below these pages, I skimmed through 10 to 15 Web sites in a matter of seconds, quickly weeding out unwanted sites. But these pages don't allow interaction like scrolling down or playing of embedded videos. A button below these images reveals a list-view where text and links relating to the images are listed, but I kept this option hidden more often than not.

Though Searchme's categories are helpful and I liked using visual searching, I did notice many more results, overall, while performing searches through Google and Yahoo. A Google search for the Regency Hotel in New York City returned accurate links to the hotel's Web site -- and a map. Searchme's first result was a defunct Web page for the Regency, and the younger search engine doesn't yet have maps, news or stock quotes like Google.

Settings can be adjusted for Searchme, including one option to filter out adult content and another to open up new windows whenever a Web page is selected, so as not to lose the current page.

SpaceTime (www.spacetime.com) differs from Searchme in that it doesn't try to be its own search engine. Instead, it is a browser that works with established search engines and Web sites. It isn't Web-based, like Searchme, and must be downloaded to a Windows PC (it doesn't yet work on Macs). The intense 3-D graphics of this program work best on a computer with at least one gigabyte of system memory and 256 megabytes of dedicated video memory.

At first glance, SpaceTime appears to be a normal browser. It has the usual URL line where specific Web sites can be entered and a search box at the top right that can be set to search Google, Google Images, Yahoo, Yahoo Images, eBay, Flickr, YouTube, RSS feeds or Amazon.

But using this search box starts the fun of the product. Search results appear as images lined up on the screen, floating through space and descending into the distance in a 3-D visualization akin to that of Windows Vista's Flip 3D. SpaceTime's dark background gives it a dramatic edge, and each object is reflected in an artistic, glass-like surface. Results can be tweaked, turned, magnified and moved within this 3-D space.

When I performed normal Google or Yahoo searches, the returned results appeared as images of each Web site on which the searched term appeared. When I searched for images on Google, Yahoo or Flickr, the results came back in image-only fashion -- not images embedded in Web sites -- that looked stunning lined up in 3-D. Searches of eBay are especially useful on SpaceTime because each item up for bid zooms onto the screen as its own object along with its current price, number of bids and remaining auction time. YouTube searches return videos lined up in SpaceTime's 3-D environment.

With all of these images flying in and out of the screen, things can get a little overwhelming. One pile of search results is called a stack, and each stack is automatically saved in a dock at the bottom of the screen, labeled with a thumbnail image of where you last left off. Searches can be saved and snapshots of screens can be captured and saved in the dock.

To return results as fast as possible, SearchTime says it will pull up just 10 at a time for image, product and video searches, or five pages at once for content-heavy sites. But in my tests, using two different Vista computers with 2GB of RAM each, I usually never saw more than five results at a time. The next five or 10 images can be retrieved by choosing a "Next Set" button at the bottom of the screen.

On-screen Web sites and objects are interactive, meaning that I could scroll down within a Web page or play a YouTube video within the SpaceTime screen. A clever magnifying glass pops up on the screen to pinpoint the original search term on each page.

SpaceTime allowed me to rapidly flip through tens or even hundreds of images and Web sites in a very short time, but it wasn't perfect. Some search results took a while to load, only displaying the first object while the other lined-up objects appeared as empty frames because they were still loading. YouTube seemed sluggish and wasn't as easy to navigate as some other searches, and Flickr was especially slow to load in a few of my tests.

SpaceTime is working on a Web-based version that won't rely so heavily on each user's PC specs, and Searchme is still in its testing phase, working to return more relevant results. But for now, these two sites turn search into a different, much more visually stimulating experience. After using these programs for a little while, I started to search differently -- moving through results faster and clicking on fewer links that returned unwanted results. Though I'll still rely on Google for basic searches, visual search can save time and turn searching into a fun process.

By: Katherine Boehret
Wall Street Journal; March 26, 2008

In Real Estate, Think Global, Not Local