That being said, simply whipping off an article and putting it up on your site is not going to do it. There are a few crucial steps to making the most of your efforts. It may take a bit longer to do it right but the rewards will be much higher as well. Here are the basic steps to writing an effective article that gets well picked up and can provide you with some solid traffic and links.

Pick A Topic

Picking a topic for your article can often be harder than it sounds. When you’re selecting a topic you can’t simply write about the first thing that pops into your head. There are two questions you need to ask yourself when you’re selecting your topic:

1. Will the editors care? If the editors of related websites aren’t going to care about your topic then it’s not going to get published. If it’s not going to get published then you can probably find better uses for your time – like golf or shopping for blue widgets online.
2. Will bloggers care? The second questions is whether other online publishers will be interested in the content. If an editor publishes your content and other link to it, that makes the like to you on the publisher site all the stronger.

Something I’ve found handy is reading through your FAQ’s. If clients and site visitors regularly ask you the same questions, these are likely good topics for your article (though an article on your shipping policies probably won’t get picked up too widely). Another great place to start when thinking of a topic to write about is your own brain. Are there questions you’ve asked that took a ton of time or research to answer? If so – answer the question for others and cover the research and you’re likely to get well picked-up.

Write The Article

While picking a topic can be hard, constructing the article can be all the more difficult. An article needs to have a specific point and must provide the reader with a means to understanding why you’re making that point.

Let’s take this article for example; once I knew I wanted to write an article on how to use article writing as a link building method I knew what the tone would be: instructional. After that it was a matter of deciding what I wanted to cover in the article (picking a topic, writing the article, testing the article and article syndication). After I’m done writing this article I’ll have it proof-read by a couple people who aren’t involved with our site and then I’ll syndicate it in hopes of developing some solid, highly-relevant links and secure some equally relevant traffic.

If I were writing an article on a different topic (choosing a life insurance provider for example) I may divide my article into sections such as: calculating what you need, analyzing the various options, selecting providers, choosing between an insurance company and an insurance broker). Either way you’ll want to decide ahead of time what you need to cover. You also need to decide on an article length ahead of time. As a general rule, an article between 1000 and 1200 words is good. Shorter likely won’t cover everything and longer tends to lose some people. To this end, I’ll move on to part three (testing the article) to keep things conceise.

Testing

Admittedly I don’t have a ton to say on this topic. Get people to proof-read your article. Ideally you’ll find people from inside and outside your industry to proof the article to make sure it makes sense to experts as well as laymen.

Also, watch the pickup rates on your different articles by searching for it after submission. Pay attention to the types that get picked up and where and focus future articles for the best outcome (whether that’s links or traffic or both – you’ll have to decide based on the statistics generated by each articles)

Article Syndication

And now for the entire purpose of the article – the syndication. There are two main avenues you can look down (and should) when looking to syndicate your articles. You can find an article syndication service for submissions (very good for a large number of article directories) and you can seek topic-specific sites that will accept your articles.

As I am affiliated with an article syndication company I won’t list your options there for fear of a conflict of interest and thus diminish the article. Instead I’ll focus on finding specific sites to submit your article to and will assume you will select your own large distribution options.

To find sites to submit your articles to you may need to think outside the box. You’ll need to run a number of searches for related phrases that will yield the best results. For example, if I worked for a web design company I might search for places that accept articles that are related to web design, hosting, SEO, small businesses and anything else I could think of. For example, I would begin my search on Google with “web design article submit” and extend it from there.

A helpful tool for this is SEO Quake. If you list your results in sets of 100 you can order them by PageRank or backlinks and go for the higher valued sites first.

Once you’ve got a solid list you can complete your submissions to it. Don’t forget to document your submissions as well as any account information for future reference as you’ll likely want to submit another article down the road. Also, you’ll want to add a few sites each submission so you’ve got a constantly evolving list with more and more backlinking domains.

Conclusion

Of course, you’ll likely discover more for yourself as you write and syndicate your own articles. Just don’t give up the first time and learn from every submission. It may take a bit to figure out what works best but article syndication is one of the single more effective link building tactics available.
 

When you log-in within your Google account to write an article on a subject you’re familiar with, you’ll use the kind of live-layout editor typical for Google (and much easier to use than Wikipedia’s editor). For every article you can also choose your licensing, your collaboration, and your advertising model. For instance, you can connect an article to your AdSense account – this triggers a verification process. You can pick a license; either a Creative Commons Attribution license, or a Creative Commons attribution non-commercial license, or the old-style “all rights reserved.” And for collaboration, you can pick open (everyone who’s signed in can edit), moderated (everyone can suggest edits but you or another author will be able to approve these before they would go live – this is the default setting), and closed (meaning only owners – i.e. admins – and authors can edit).

Editing a page, and visualizing article revisions

Right now, a lot of the existing Knols – Google defines a knol as a “unit of knowledge”, and perhaps this will be how people name articles hosted on Knol too – deal with subjects of a more serious or scientific nature, like health. (Google’s help page says you can write “(Almost) anything you like,” adding that you pick the subject “and write it the way you see fit” as they don’t edit knols nor do they “try to enforce any particular viewpoint”… subject to the terms of service and their content policy, which disallows e.g. images containing nudity, and “spam,” a rather broad term in this case. You may also not write anything commercial if you’re in “Cuba, Iran, Burma (Myanmar), North Korea, Syria, or Sudan,” Google says.)

Other articles, like the frontpage-featured “How to Backpack”, are of a lighter nature, but still very long and detailed. (I’ve started a collaborative stub covering FriendFeed.) On that note, even the URL is quite long, and includes the owner’s name… a peculiar choice for collaborative pages, and a potential barrier if you consider going for the open collaboration model, as people may associate other people’s edits with yours.

Naturally, the current articles are just the site’s seeding – it remains to be seen in what direction it grows. The quality of wikis and other projects hoping for user participation often depend on a good community spirit, which in turn often reflects a company’s karma… and usually, that’s the sum of that company’s past actions.

Reading an article, there is a nice table of contents featured on top. The header section in general takes up quite a bit of space for Knol articles. Considering the focus of these articles is to get a point across, the font for the main content that follows is awkwardly small. On articles there are now a couple of review features for other users, even when you don’t have the permission to hit the Edit button on top: you may be able to comment; you can rate an article; you can flag it as inappropriate; and last not least, you can review it. When you start a review, the Knol editor as usual opens – slightly sluggish at this time, as are some other parts of the site (with its dynamic, on-page JavaScript reloads), though these may be launch effects – and you can add your opinions. Peer review is something known especially from the science community, which the Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin know well too (peer review even allegedly inspired Larry Page to create the back-links counting PageRank algorithm which led to their “Backrub” engine, and later, Google search).

If we do want to compare this project to Wikipedia, then perhaps we can think of Knol, at least at this time, as slightly more top-down than the bottoms-up, everyone-can-edit Wikipedia.org. While more and more Wikipedia too is adding restrictions and special rights, their original spirit could perhaps be summed up with “by and large people want to do good, and many small, even hasty edits, add up to a by and large great quality.” And then perhaps Google Knol’s stance is more like, “someone’s responsible for an article, changes will be owner-approved by default, and people’s actions will be rated.” Using a biography page and a real name is suggested as well, and Google offers a verification method (you can verify via your mobile phone, or a credit card… at least the latter method was broken when I tried).

Let’s see how these two models compare against each other; there’s a lot to be won by allowing everyone to quickly do edits, but a more tightly controlled model may have benefits as well. And perhaps all those people complaining about Wikipedia – or who had Wikipedia articles they started be deleted, as Wikipedia does not allow all kinds of entries – will now consider Knol a potential new home for research and sharing. And there’s another big difference to Wikipedia: at Knol you’ll potentially get paid, through the AdSense ads. Which would mean that the more popular your article, among other factors, the higher your revenues. And Google gets a share of these revenues, naturally (even when Google Knol is listed as an entity separate from AdSense with a 0% share in the process)… though I’m not so sure exactly how they aim to pay collaborators on articles. Money can be an incentive but may also cause friction. It’ll be interesting to watch where this project goes; and even if you may prefer the Wikipedia style of collaborative publishing, it seems a little competition can’t hurt.

Comments

This article does not reference Google Toolbar PageRank in any way

First of all you are going to need to do a little homework.

Eric Enge interview with Matt Cutts

The Eric Enge interview with Matt Cutts was truly exceptional and revealed a number of gotchas that for some reason continue to be circulated.

Key takeaways

Matt Cutts: … Now, robots.txt says you are not allowed to crawl a page, and Google therefore does not crawl pages that are forbidden in robots.txt. However, they can accrue PageRank, and they can be returned in our search results.

Matt Cutts: … So, with robots.txt for good reasons we’ve shown the reference even if we can’t crawl it, whereas if we crawl a page and find a Meta tag that says NoIndex, we won’t even return that page. For better or for worse that’s the decision that we’ve made. I believe Yahoo and Microsoft might handle NoIndex slightly differently which is little unfortunate, but everybody gets to choose how they want to handle different tags.

Eric Enge: Can a NoIndex page accumulate PageRank?

Matt Cutts: A NoIndex page can accumulate PageRank, because the links are still followed outwards from a NoIndex page.

Eric Enge: So, it can accumulate and pass PageRank.

Matt Cutts: Right, and it will still accumulate PageRank, but it won’t be showing in our Index. So, I wouldn’t make a NoIndex page that itself is a dead end. You can make a NoIndex page that has links to lots of other pages.

For example you might want to have a master Sitemap page and for whatever reason NoIndex that, but then have links to all your sub Sitemaps.

I have just provided a couple of highlights, I am not attempting to replace a need for visiting the site I am citing. This is something I hate seeing, when people take other people’s content and repurpose it, thus making the original article worthless.
There are a few other gotchas in there, I suggest you read it 2 or 3 times to really understand what was said, and what wasn’t said.

Dangling Pages

One of the best descriptions of dangling links is on the Webworkshop site, though they are assuming that links are totally taken out of the equation based on what they quote from the PageRank paper.

"Dangling links are simply links that point to any page with no outgoing links. They affect the model because it is not clear where their weight should be distributed, and there are a large number of them. Often these dangling links are simply pages that we have not downloaded yet……….Because dangling links do not affect the ranking of any other page directly, we simply remove them from the system until all the PageRanks are calculated. After all the PageRanks are calculated they can be added back in without affecting things significantly." – extract from the original PageRank paper by Google’s founders, Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page.

Alternate interpretation

This is just an aside, as the amount of juice lost to dangling pages currently is hard to determine, and could be handled differently

They are assuming that if page A links to 6 other pages, 5 of them being dangling links, then the website will be treated as only having 2 pages until the end of the calculation.

Whilst I haven’t delved into the maths (and probably couldn’t through lack of information and lack of knowledge), it also seems to me that at the time the pages are taken out of the cyclic calculation, a percentage of the link value can still be taken with them.

Thus though the site for cyclic calculations will be just 2 pages, the link from A to B might only transfer 1/6 of the juice on each cycle.

At the time the original paper was written, Google only had a small proportion of the web indexed due to hardware and operating system restraints.
In modern times they have a lot more indexed, thus a more complex way of handling dangling pages could be possible.

More food for thought, a link to a page that is considered supplemental could be treated as a full link or as a link to a dangling page, or some other variant.

Even more food for thought, a site with multiple interlinked pages with no external links at all could be looked on as a "dangling site".

Ultimately what is important is that dangling pages are a juice leak, though it is difficult to determine exactly how much

Additional Research On Link Juice Flow

I have referenced these works before, and I am just going to keep on referring people to them.

• SEOFastStart by Dan Theis – a good introduction to SEO, and also introduces the ideas of controlling juice around a website – no email signup required
• Revenge of the Mininet by Michael Campbell – a timeless classic as long as PageRank continues to be important – the download page isn’t hidden if you really don’t want to sign up to Michael’s mailing list, but I have been on his list for years.
• Dynamic Linking by Leslie Rhode – A bonus that comes with Revenge of the Mininet

I mentioned these is a comment on SEOmoz recently in a discussion on PageRank, and for some reason my comment received just 2 up votes and one down vote.

I don’t gain in any material way from promoting these free ebooks, though I might gain some goodwill. The main reason I link to them is because they are a superb resource, and it saves me countless hours writing beginners material.

OK, On to some debunking

Blocking Pages With Robots.txt Creates Dangling Pages On The First Tier

In the quoted paragraph above, Matt clearly states that pages blocked with Robots.txt still accumulate juice from the links they receive.

Those pages don’t have any external 2nd tier links that are visible to a ‘bot, thus they are dangling pages.

How much juice they leak depends on how Google currently factor in dangling pages, but Matt himself suggests not to create dangling pages.

If you read any SEO Guide that suggests that the ultimate cure for duplicate content is to block it with robots.txt, I suggest you might want to question the author about dangling pages.

Meta NoIndex Follow Duplicate Content

This is a better solution than using Robots.txt, because it doesn’t create dangling pages. Links on a duplicate content page are still followed, however both internal and external links are followed and thus are leaks, often multiple leaks for the same piece of content when using CMS systems such as WordPress which create site-wide links in the sidebar when using poorly designed themes, plugins, and especially WordPress Widgets.

If you read an article suggesting using Meta Noindex Follow, ask the author how they are controlling external links on duplicate content pages.

Meta NoIndex Nofollow Duplicate Content

If you use Meta Noindex Nofollow, whilst this is handled slightly differently by Google to Robots.txt, as the page won’t appear in search results, it is still a page accumulating Google Juice if you link to it, another dangling page or node.
Second tier leaks from the page won’t leak, but the page as a whole will leak depending on how Google are currently handling dangling pages.

I don’t see people recommending this frequently, but as with Robots.txt, ask the author about dangling pages.

Dynamic Linking & rel="nofollow"

Extensive use of Nofollow and other forms of dynamic linking are the only way to effectively prevent duplicate content pages in some way having a effect on your internal linking structure and juice flow. The Wikipedia page on Nofollow really isn’t correct.

The Dangling Sales Page

To finish I want to give you an example of how a sales page that previously might have benefited from lots of links can easily be turned into a dangling page and effectively discounted from cyclic PageRank calculations.

Sales pages started off just as a single page with no links:-

Despite all the links coming to the site from external sources, this website is a dangling page, thus excluded from iterative PageRank calculations. It might still benefit from anchor text and other factors, but it effectively is not part of Google’s global mesh and passes on no influence.

Add Legal Paperwork And Reciprocal Links Directory:-

A much more structured site, and whilst it gains some benefit from reciprocating links there are 2 factors that are almost universally overlooked.

1. No Longer A Dangling Page – because the site now has external links, it is valid as part of the global ranking calculations. Other pages as mentioned above were previously stating that the amount of juice passed to dangling pages was minimal, so this could be potentially a huge boost.
2. More Pages Indexed – it is only a few pages, but with PageRank it is often not just how much juice you have flowing into a site, but what you do with it.

The reciprocal low quality links might not have had a huge amount of value compared to the benefit of being a member of the "iteration club" and having a few more pages indexed.

Add a link to the designer

Some early single page sales letters were not dangling pages, but didn’t benefit from any internal iterations, and acted as a conduit of juice to their web design firm.

The Danger of Using Nofollow or Robots.txt on Unimportant Pages

I have actually seen this on a few sites:-

• Reciprocal Link Directory Removed
• Link to web designer removed
• Nofollow added to legal papers that are looked on as being unimportant

Such a website is now out of the iteration club, it is a dangling page as it is no longer voting on other pages.

My Own Gotcha

I mentioned that this catches me out as well.

A while ago I wrote an article about linking to Technorati being a problem. It might still be true, but the amount of juice lost through such links might also be lower than I thought, due to Technorati using meta nofollow on every page. Technorati tag pages are themselves dangling pages with no external links.

Wikipedia and Digg on the other hand are not dangling pages. They still have external links to other sites, and thus any links to them are part of iterative calculations.

I would still say it is best to have tags pointing to your own domain tag pages, and to use nofollow on links to Wikipedia and Digg, though with Digg I suggest that is only on links to submission pages which contain no content.

Stumbleupon is also tricky – there are no external links from individual pages, but there is extensive internal linking.

With Digg and Stumbleupon, profiles rank extremely well, so you can use them for reputation management even if you get no juice direct from the profile.

I think I was the first to describe Wikipedia as a black hole of link equity, explained why you should nofollow Wikipedia extensively, and was one of the first to promote Ken’s Nofollow Wikipedia plugin.

You would have thought in 10 months they would have come up with an alternative to using nofollow on all those out-bound links.

They do however link out to a few trusted sites without nofollow, from just a few pages. I suppose Google does still allow them to be part of their iterative calculations.

Another Own Gotcha

This isn’t 100% something I can fix. I have suggested people use robots.txt on certain sites knowing it wasn’t the perfect solution.

You might notice on this site I don’t use an extensive robots.txt, and the design of my site structure is deliberate, but then at the same time I use nofollow with lots of custom theme modifications, and should use it a lot more.

Eventually I will come up with solutions to make things a little easier.

Tools In The Wrong Hands Can Be Dangerous

Using Robots.txt and Meta Noindex, Follow as a cure for duplicate content is a SEO bodge job or SEO bandaid. It may offer some benefits depending on how dangling pages are being handled, but is certainly not an ideal solution due to the amount of leaks that typically remain or dangling pages that are created.

Comments

*Originally published at AndyBeard.eu

And so far, only readers of Gizmodo and Engadget are treated to a correction.

Every publication, no matter how careful, makes mistakes. It’s part of the business. Traditionally, newspapers like to bury them a few pages in, placing corrections in a bottom corner somewhere.

But at least they’re there. This incident, though, is more of a case of piggybacking gone awry. Not that piggybacking isn’t standard fare in the news industry. It is, and it happens with the best of publications. Compare these two articles, for instance.

See, happens all the time.

Credit for unraveling the Nissan paint mystery goes to Darius at YoungGoGetter.com, who painstakingly traced the "news" back to its origin after receiving comment from Nissan that they’d only heard of the new technology.

Sure enough, it was one misinterpreted and slightly altered sentence at NextEnergyNews that started it all:

This revolutionary new paramagnetic paint is a technical wonder and is viewed by Nissan and other auto companies as an amazing innovation that would draw huge traffic to dealerships and will make it easier for consumers to get the exact option level they want on a car without the sacrifice of their favorite color.

Which, by the time it reached Wired, became:

Nissan Developing Color-Changing Auto Paint

With similar so-far uncorrected variations at Daily Tech and MobileMag.com.

But what’s most humorous about Darius’s investigative blogging is the publications’ use of the same image of a Nissan car with only the colors altered. Your choice: black, white and red; black and red; silver and black; or green and black.

More time was spent fiddling with the image than actually researching the blog posts, it appears.

So what’s the moral to this humorous tale? Darius nails it:

Bloggers and readers should do more to research the facts and original sources before jumping to the publish button. How else will we establish blogging as a credible, journalistic endeavor?

Yes, indeed. The salty, veteran journalists out there are laughing their butts off.

The "voice" delivering a message, along with its perceived authenticity, will become as powerful perhaps as the message or offer.

As media gets more saturated, we get better at filtering out garbage. Jakob Nielson’s article about writing articles instead of blog posts does a great job of explaining why writing fewer and more in depth articles is effective for gaining and keeping attention in a competitive marketplace.

On a related note, Frank just noticed a TV show skipping the TV and starting out on the web. There is no easier way to increased perceived authenticity than having a direct and open relationship with the audience.

IBM also offered research on the attention economy in a paper titled Vying for attention: the future of competing in media and entertainment. Rich Shefren recently created a mindmap of what he calls the Attention Age Doctrine, which shows why people are willing to pay larger premiums for great advice and nothing for decent advice.

Comments

I don’t say point this out to imply there’s some shady ulterior motive in either case; instead, it’s just frustrating to have an incomplete picture.  Anyway, in reference to Wikimedia, Nick Gonzalez writes, “Most of their revenue comes from private individuals, with donations averaging around $25. . . .  The 10,000th one came from a contributor in Finland, who donated 10 Euros at 8:58 UTC (4.58 ET).”

The fundraising counter now sits at 14,540 donors, and Gonzalez adds, “[T]here’s still time for plenty more.  The drive runs all the way through December 22.”

Wikimedia and Wikipedia have both been in the news several times recently.  On a more positive note, a college professor actually had her students write articles for the online encyclopedia.  In a not-so-good development, fans of webcomics are protesting the deletion of many, many entries.

The fans’ cry to ignore Wikimedia’s fundraiser doesn’t seem to have done much good, though.  Assuming, of course, that 14,000 donations corresponds to a reasonable amount of money.

There was still no “taking from” the collaborative encyclopedia; instead, Martha Groom’s students at the University of Washington, Bothell added to it by creating or editing entries.  These contributions may have been more “universally valuable” than term papers, which rarely escape students’ folders and get trashed at the end of the semester.

Some of the Wikipedia entries were even less long-lived, however.  John Timmer writes, “One article didn’t survive for 24 hours following its introduction, and four additional ones were ultimately deleted following extensive discussion, their contents merged into existing entries.”

As for the manner in which those executions occurred, “Groom also noted that some of the comments in the ensuing discussions ‘were delivered rudely,’” according to Timmer.  And there’s no word as to what sort of average grade the students managed to achieve.

Still, this experiment seems like a good idea – the articles that survived presumably made Wikipedia a better resource, and those that didn’t should help reassure onlookers that Wikipedia does indeed have a form of quality control.

However, Google isn’t a hardware maker. Though their patent differs from what Sun puts inside of its Blackbox mobile datacenters, there’s every reason to think Schmidt and Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz could agree on a generous cross-licensing deal.

This would let Sun build in the technology specified in Google’s patent, and Google gets a fleet of mobile datacenters uniquely suited to being plugged into all that dark fiber the company owns.

The timing of the patent, and the beginning of YouTube videos with ads on AdSense, may not be coincidental. Google has made significant promises regarding its AdSense video content.

Delivering on that promise requires infrastructure, an issue that Google probably understands as well as or better than they understand search. Here’s something else to consider.

What if Google rolls out 300 of these datacenters, plugs them into strategically located Internet peering points, and erects big towers next to them to provide wireless Net access. Maybe those towers will use WiMAX technology. Maybe they will work on the up-for-auction 700MHz wireless spectrum.

This is where rumors of the Google Phone get a lot more intriguing. We don’t see a GPhone as a compelling product unless Google runs the network, and can make VoIP and Net access available on the hotly anticipated GPhone device.

Antennas would do what the telecoms have failed to accomplish under ten-plus years of favorable conditions per the 1996 Telecommunications Act: go the last mile with true high-speed Internet access. Instead of fiber to the home, the signal will go through the air, probably for a nominal fee (if any) supported by Google’s ubiquitous advertising.

Gary Forsee must be glad he got pushed out the door at Sprint. Google could be in position to take a wrecking ball to the existing wireless access model for telecommunications.

So from here onwards I am going to spend some time commenting on the superb reply that I got here in ITtoolbox from Jim Johnson over at Making the Business Case for Social Computing – Part Deux, which you can read over here as well.

In that lengthy comment, Jim comes to discuss how both social computing and Knowledge Management "are sitting on the edge of a major bottleneck in IT development" and he gets to describe that bottleneck as the gap between:

"—- separate knowledge and interests —- and —- agreed upon activities, processes and plans."

You would probably need to read the paragraphs that come after that particular quote, because they surely are fascinating. Towards the end of it all, Jim comes to propose a new concept called "Collaborative process development", which he gets to talk a whole lot more over at his weblog ActionMap Waves (Including an intriguing scorecard that, if anything, surely is worth while investigating further).

However, what I found really interesting and worth while noting as well is the following paragraph, just towards the end:

"With respect to the ROI of social networking and knowledge management, I recommend positioning social networking as a supporting tool for the new category of collaborative process development.

If social networking can be seen to accelerate collaborative process development, and reduce some of the 100′s of billions of dollars in waste in IT every year, I suspect that it will get the attention of the CFO."

WOW! There you have it, one very thoughtful approach towards proving the ROI of Social Computing that may well be worth while exploring further. It sounds pretty solid, don’t you think?

However, I am not totally convinced about it 100% and more than anything else because it is placing the focus on something that is just one of the main reasons why traditional KM failed over the course of the years (And those who have been reading this blog for a while would know where I am heading right now).

Yes, indeed, that extra focus on tools and processes is what got us in trouble in the first place. We should not forget that social computing is everything but tools and processes. It is all about the people! It is a philosophy, a lifestyle, i.e. that growing urge from knowledge workers to go out there, connect with other knowledge workers, build further up their relationships and share their knowledge.

That is where a new form of ROI for Social Computing should be based on. If social software is all about knowledge workers involved in different various conversations, the least we could do to showcase a new form of such ROI (much more effective and efficient for social computing) is to place the focus where it should have been all along: on the people!

Those knowledge workers should be the ones defining the ROI of social computing, because, after all, they are the ones living it, so there isn’t probably a better way of defining what it should look like, since they know it better than anyone else. So a good start for CFOs to work their way through ROI for social software is to go where it matters: the knowledge workers themselves. But that would be the subject for another blog post at a later time …

Comments