Ghost Writer

Why Web 2.0

I own an Internet marketing agency, and as a result, have an understanding of Web 2.0 and its practical use in Web Site promotion, and Search Engine Optimization, however, I personally do not understand the value of the phenomenon of Web 2.0 itself.

I know that some of the big boys including Google, Yahoo and News Corp. have invested a whole lot of money in Web 2.0, even collaborated on standards, so there must be use for it, but I, for one have absolutely no idea what that might be.

First lets define, as best we can, what Web 20 is. Supposedly it’s the continuing development of the Web as a collaborative effort, the implementation of applications that permit users to generate their own content rather than leaving it to a select few who are schooled in the art and science of Web development. It is the creation of content by the viewer

Okay, that’s nice, but back in Web 1.0 we had forums, which did exactly that, and which today, are still the most effective way, I think of collaborating and disseminating information. Blogs and feeds are nice, but they can’t compare to the forum structure.

……….

Social bookmarking. I remember how I felt about the concept was first introduced and how I felt about storing my bookmarks publicly. I thought it was absurd. The places I visit on the Web, or prod my interests are private. I have no desire to tell the world where I’ve been and what I have been into, and no interest or, need to critique every website I visit.

Now, I understand how the concept of bookmarking and tagging (which are just keywords), can benefit the search engines. I can see how this is ready-made spider food for the big boys, but as a system of cataloging and searching unto itself, give me Google over Tag Clouds any day.

……….

I have a teenage daughter she lives on MySpace. Personally I see no value in it. I understand how teenagers can be attracted to MySpace. To teenagers socializing is everything. But to the adults of the world, what the hell?

I remember all those people who stayed with AOL for so many years because they liked their little groups and chatting back and forth with the friends they’d met in their little walled community. I always thought it was trite. I still do and I think that social networking groups are nothing more than this millennium’s version of that AOL kiddie land.

……….

RSS feeds, I’ve really never understood why anybody would want information forced on them. Now let me qualify that, I remember a few years back, one of the cable news stations offered a desktop news service. I subscribed for time. But in a short while I realized I was losing control of my life. Pushed news became a distraction and an impediment in the management of my work schedule.

Now, I can see how feeds set up on a particular page like My Yahoo can have value if you want to set it up as your home page, the place where you go when you have the time and inclination to get the news, whether traditional or grassroots created. I think that’s awesome. Beyond that, I think, “ So what.”

……….

Blogging I do not know why Google prefers blogs over static content. One would think that if search engines would like to catalog the Web they would need static pages, to be most effective.

I do not understand why Google supposedly wants changing content. I believe changing content should be cataloged in a place where changing content is known to reside. A blog directory, a directory of current commentary by individual writers is definitely beneficial, but I see no reason for it to be intermingled with static objective information.

If I want to learn about home remedies for poison ivy, I would prefer a static Web page listing all the traditional treatments for scratching that itch. I am not really interested in reading about Maggie Jone’s rash. If Maggie discovers a new treatment, she can write the author, or post it to the appropriate forum.

I’m not saying that blogging is not important. I blog. It’s for those people who care about Maggie Jones’s rash and whatever information can be gleaned from the comments about Maggie Jones’s rash, but once again I think that it can be accomplished more easily with the information residing in its proper place . That’s just my feeling

It could be that I’m getting old, it could be that I’ve been on the web for so long and had particular expectations of how the “Information Superhighway” would evolve, and Candy Land was not among my list of possible outcomes.

……….

Of all the Web 2.0 elements, the one that makes the most sense is video. Video is an effective teaching tool, and a very effective way of disseminating information, but the way that the video hosting sites are set up, with friends and comments and ratings and channels seems bit childish and superfluous.

I’ve always enjoyed and benefited from Web Sites that contained and featured multiple articles about a given subject. Exchange articles for videos and you have an even more effective method of communication. But the other stuff, the Web 2.0 stuff, I just don’t see the point.

I may be wrong, but I think I can see the Emperor’s ding-a-ling.

___________________________________________________________________________

Jeff Wild, founder and president Artitude Inc. and Strategic Web Success has been helping businesses achieve success on the Web since 1994. He’s a master of traditional traffic generating techniques as well as innovative Web 2.0 strategies.

Video and Search Engine Optimization

One of the most effective methods for marketing on the Internet and generating Web Site traffic, is through the production and distribution of Internet video. Done properly, Web video can create dramatic and nearly immediate results, however if not done well, it will have at best have no effect and can possibly even negatively impact your Internet marketing strategies.

I do not suggesting that you hire a professional production crew. An amateur video can go just as far and be just as effective, but it’s essential to understand a few things:

It is imperative that you keep your video short and to the point. The length of your video should be limited to between one and five minutes. People who are looking for information on the Internet, particularly in the video arena, are looking for quick concise information. Many of the most successful videos on the web are actually under 60 seconds.

Make certain that your video has value. If a surfer finds and takes the time to view your video, he is looking for expedited knowledge. You must provide the information promised. Failure to do so will produce negative comments negative ratings and destroy the possibility of a positive viral effect.

To be well received, a video should be professionally crafted and by that I mean, it should have a beginning, a middle and an end. The beginning should be a brief (ten second or so) introduction, explaining the nature of the video, the middle should be solid meat , all wrapped up nice and neatly with a ten second close. These are not hard and fast rules, obviously, but they should give you an idea about basic structure.

Make certain your videos if not humorous, are at least entertaining. Competition is stiff. If you wish your videos to stand out, they must produce some satisfaction in the eyes of viewer. Some of the most effective videos, even on topics as dry as Internet marketing, are conceived in humor, not necessarily childish slapstick, but enough mirth to make a viewer smile inside while learning.

If you produce your video properly, you will be widely accepted and word of it will spread throughout your corner of the web and beyond, bearing the fruit of increased page views and a boost to your bottom line, which after all is why you’re doing it. Failure to craft your video properly will cause it to die on the vine.

____________________________________________________________________________

Jeff Wild, founder and president Artitude Inc. and Strategic Web Success has been helping businesses achieve success on the Web since 1994. He’s a master of traditional traffic generating techniques as well as innovative Web 2.0 strategies.

I Hate Web 2.0

I hate Web 2.0. I don’t want a collaborative Web. I don’t want to share my bookmarks or my opinions and I don’t want yours. I have no interest in learning what some kid thinks of a Web Site. I don’t wish to be judged negatively , or even positively in a social bookmarking Site.

For that matter, I have always disagreed with the use of links as a determination of quality and thus position in the search engines. I do not link to my favorite Sites. I read them. I utilize them. I bookmark them in my browser. I have no need to critique them, or share them.

Let the search engines do their own work. Let the search engines figure out a better way to spider and catalog Sites. The idea that superior Sites have a greater number of back links is nonsense. I’ve got better things to do when researching a topic or a product, whether for business or personal use, than to write an opinion, or create a link on one of my own Sites. If it’s something I want to buy, I just go ahead an buy it. If its a project, I’m researching for business, the last thing I want is for my competition to find it too.

I feel like the Web is upside down. Linking? Linking! What does it matter really? Black hatters devote their time to creating a fake trail of links to feed the engines and any genuine links are created by people who have nothing better to do with their time than to tell the world their every thought. If not for search engine placement why else would a competent adult feel the need to create back links? It’s ridiculous.

I think the idea of social bookmarking is absurd. Social networks are trite. Blogs, are fun but far less navigable and far less reliable than static informational Sites. Directory linking is another absurdity (when was the last time you used a directory to find anything? Or for that matter when was the last time you sought information through a social bookmarking Site?

Articles are important, if they have any quality , but PLR and outsourced articles from people who barely speak the language is ridiculous. The duplicate content penalty has effectively destroyed the value of creating an authority Site filled with articles created by other contributors.

Web video is an awesome technology, but I do not care about your opinion of the video I just watched. I know whether is made me smile or vomit.

I don’t want to join your community. I don’t want to be part of your group. I don’t want to be your “friend”. All I want is to be able to work hard, smart and well, so I can feed my family. I don’t know you, and the truth is I really don’t want to. And if Web 2.0 is about creating one giant interactive community, I don’t want any part of it either.

On the other hand, creating traffic is what I do for a living and whether I think Web 2.0 is natural BS, or artificial manure, it is reality. I wish it weren’t, but it is and if there’s one thing this old guy had learned, is that if you want to play the game, you’ve got to learn, master, accept, and play by the rules. So what do you think?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Jeff Wild is President of Artitude Inc, http://artitude.com. and CEO of StrategicWebSuccess.com, http://strategicwebsuccess.com . He and his staff have been assisting businesses to achieve success on the Web since 1994. They can take a Site with minimal traffic and turn it into a major highway. Visit the Site, then contact our SEO team.

There’s No Such Thing As Web 2.0

There is no such thing as Web 2.0., any more than there is a new years day, or any arbitrary defining of an intangible. What is meant by the term Web 2.0, is simply an assertion that the Web, as it exists today, is different in many ways from that which we used in the early days of its evolution.

There is so little agreement on the definition of Web 2.0 as to render the very words meaningless. What is generally agreed upon however, is that Web has become more interactive. Collaboration is the word that best defines the current state of the Web.

As the Web matures, static pages are being replaced by dynamic content and content that is geared to ward and created by the individual user. The technology used to produce the content is becoming far more powerful and far more personalized.

Blogs are a perfect example of the new technology. Blogs are interactive through comments and collaboration and if they are dynamic by their very nature. Blog content is ever changing and very personalized.

Video hosting sites are another example. Here content is created by the viewer and from comments, re-created and expanded upon by other viewers. Again this is a far more personalized, self-perpetuating, dynamic and powerful experience then had been available in the days of static content created by a select few and viewed passively by an audience.

Websites can be managed as a collaborative effort by many not just the original site author. Sites can grow on their own.

Simplicity is another characteristic of this period that we refer to as Web 2.0. Easy navigation is paramount and user experience is the primary consideration.

Directories are becoming a thing of the past as users define sites with personalized tags instead of traditional key words, and link lists are being replaced by social bookmarking sites.

While there is no real second generation of this thing we call the World Wide Web, it is obvious that it has evolved into a far more personal and dynamic experience than most would have imagined in the early days of the Web.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Jeff Wild, founder and president Artitude Inc. and Strategic Web Success has been helping businesses achieve success on the Web since 1994. He’s a master of traditional traffic generating techniques as well as innovative Web 2.0 strategies.