Google’s team announced a couple of updates to the feedreading service on the Google Reader blog. One of the new items, discovery, involves recommending blogs to the viewer.

Discovery draws from what the person reads in Google Reader, and what has become part of that person’s Web History. The Discovery page lists new feeds, including their title, description, feed URL, number of posts per week, and number of subscribers.

The viewer can subscribe to a recommended feed by clicking a button. Alternately, a “No thanks” link removes the suggested item from the list of recommendations.

Once the individual adds some recommended feeds, the process of organizing them comes into play. Unless they prefer to dump all the feeds into one group and scroll through them alphabetically, the Google Reader user can drag and drop feeds into folders.

The drag and drop functionality also allows for reordering feeds within a list. Rival products have had this feature for some time, making Google a little late in delivering theirs.

The Reader blog touts the way Discovery can suggest new feeds for people hints at some behind the scenes work with Google’s Blogsearch, though it isn’t mentioned in the post. Blogsearch doesn’t get much publicity; it’s just there, and has become a highly effective way to look for information in blogs.

follow me on Twitter

Anyway, results have come in from the weekend – so far variable as expected.

There’s a fairly even mixture of junk blogger blogs just after content, plus decent blogs who’ll give a straight and useful post.

However, I can already see a lot of benefits and hazards coming out of this.

The main benefit is the potential to generate buzz and engage a wider range of bloggers and audience than on a Pay per Post basis – plus cheaper than many paid link baiting services.

Another benefit is that you get a fairly natural link pattern, with people using different anchor text on the target URL, plus deep links if you have content provision for that.

In theory, so good so far in terms of marketing & SEO.

Here’s the problem – a lot of these blogs probably won’t be running 1 or 2 years from now, so these are best viewed as short to mid-term link solutions.

Another is that Google are actively seeking to devalue paid links, and “Paid for” or “Sponsor” is a big give away Google can easily crack down on. So I see paid blog posts as only offering shorter term benefits for SEO purposes.

Perhaps the biggest problem, though, is that in the long term I can see people feeding this market and generating tons of junk blogs to derive the income from it.

So advertisers are likely to see diminishing returns, in my opinion, if they continue to run constant and unvarying campaigns – because all they’ll be paying for is posts on blogs created with the sole purpose of being paid to publish. Zero Authority/PageRank/Trust/Traffic, etc.

So my strategy is – invest now, reap later. That means I’m getting a string of my higher quality sites prepared for a big splash out on paid blog reviews.

Will I get a return on my investment? I treat SEO as an art, so as long as I create art, I expect the investment will bear fruit in the longer term.

However, because I’m aiming to target higher quality websites with engaging offers – revenue share, free stuff, etc, then I’m hoping to generate a little buzz at least as well. If I can get people to join my communities and stay there, the long term benefits are potentially excellent.

In the meantime, I’m pushing on my webdevelopment as I portalise a number of websites, either moving foums to news sites, or adding news & blogs sections to forums.

Then it’s a big investment as and when ready to really start pushing on promoting these sites – because I don’t think the window of opportunity will stay open for long.

Comments

The Office of the Comptroller’s proposal argues that the freedom to access information on the Internet is guaranteed by the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

“Technology companies in the United States such as Google, that operate in countries controlled by authoritarian governments have an obligation to comply with the principles of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights,” the proposal said, naming Belarus, Burma, China, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam as countries where governments restrict access to Internet content.

The very arguement is preposterous. The United Nations issues a Declaration of Human Rights, then these countries go completely against it. Rather than asking the United Nations to enforce its declaration and improve human rights, as is its mission, they call on Google to break those countries’ laws in order to make a statement and lose money? Ridiculous.

What’s worse, the shareholders in question are New York City government agency pension funds (who have been beating this drum for over a year), misusing their perceived positions of importance in relation to government agencies in order to lend legitimacy to their attempts to persuade Google, even funneling the request through the office of the Comptroller.

This needs to stop. The job of ending human rights abuses falls with governments, not corporations, since corporations don’t have power over those countries (certainly not China!). By petitioning Google, in a way that is a waste of time and has no hope of succeeding, they draw attention away from government agencies and officials who actually could enact change, and are not doing so. They are only making things worse.

I don’t like Google censoring, and I’ve called them to task for it many times. I want them to choose not to censor, but it is their choice, it is a business and moral decision. To pose as representatives of government, to pretend your words carry authority, and to ask a company to lose money in the pursuit of zero public good, is absurd, and they should shut up, sit down, and think about doing something that really matters.

Otherwise, collect your pensions and leave people who are still in the workforce alone.

Comments

Tag:

Here’s what Google recommended for me:

Searches:

• 1. jackie mason
• 2. little green footballs
• 3. jews for jesus
• 4. חוצות היוצר
• 5. spv m3100
• 6. nokia e62
• 7. rosh hashana
• 8. mda vario ii
• 9. treo 750
• 10. htc trinity

Some of those are just plain weird, while the rest are clearly biased towards my months-long search for a new cell phone. I stopped searching when I found a phone in July, give it up already!

Webpages:

• 1. Jerusalem Post | Breaking News from Israel, the Middle East and
• 2. Shamash’s Kosher Restaurant Database
• 3. Better Whois: The WHOIS domain search that works with all registrars.
• 4. Arutz Sheva – Israel National News
• 5. Allwhois.com – whois domain name search & lookup
• 6. DNS Stuff: DNS tools, DNS hosting tests, WHOIS, traceroute, ping
• 7. GoogleRankings.com – Check Google page ranking
• 8. Search Engine Optimization, Google Optimization – SEO Chat
• 9. ODP – Open Directory Project
• 10. WordPress Plugins Database

You know, I was in Israel for two weeks; I don’t live there.

Recommended Gadget: New York Post Online News. Perfect personalization. I live in New York, I want news. Good call.

Verdict: While I don’t agree with all of the personalization, none of it is wrong. The items are all correct, they just aren’t as “Interesting” as the title claims. Perhaps if Google had more data and a better personalization engine, they’d have better luck. I’ll bet Findory could make a real powerful widget if they wanted to. Do you? Come on, Greg, give it a shot!

Greg has some good insights on the module.

It is an interesting experiment. However, I think it suffers from the same problem as Google Personalized Search, focusing too much on a high-level, coarse-grained profile based on long-term behavior. I suspect the gadget would be more useful if it focused on your recent behavior – what you are doing now – and adapted rapidly to shifts in your current interests.

More at Google OS, Search Engine Watch and Niall Kennedy.

One question: I thought Google was calling them “modules”? Why does the widget call them “Gadgets”? Can we just settle on something!?!

Tag:

Add to Del.icio.us | Digg | Yahoo! My Web | Furl

Bookmark WebProNews:

Nathan Weinberg writes the popular InsideGoogle blog, offering the latest news and insights about Google and search engines.

Visit the InsideGoogle blog.

Consortiuminfo.org’s Andy Updegrove reported on the new appointment of a state CIO for Massachusetts, and how that CIO, Louis Gutierrez, would continue Quinn’s work at implementing ODF. The proposal calls for state offices to be able to save electronic documents that will not require a potentially-unsupported proprietary solution to access them in the future.

The world’s top technology company, Microsoft, makes a lot of its revenue from its proprietary solution, the Office productivity suite. When news began to circulate in September about the recommendation from Quinn to make ODF support a state policy, a battle of words quickly followed. Microsoft criticized the recommendation publicly, and said it had no intention of supporting ODF within Office.

Further criticism of the proposal appeared on the FoxNews.com website. Humorously enough, it turned out the author of the critical article, one Jim Prendergast, worked for a Microsoft-funded organization, Americans for Technology Leadership. That association was not noted in the original article but later added by Fox News.

Gutierrez has Romney’s backing to finish the work Quinn started. Updegrove discussed this further in his post:

—

Drag this to your Bookmarks.

Add to | DiggThis | Yahoo My Web

David Utter is a staff writer for WebProNews covering technology and business.

The leading provider of independent investment research, ratings and indices, Standard & Poor’s made this announcement through Standard & Poor’s MarketScope, its real-time market intelligence service.

“Google is a leader in keyword search, the largest category of online advertising. Largely reflecting expected gains in its AdWords and AdSense advertising programs, we project revenue increases of 104% in 2004 and 66% in 2005,” says Scott Kessler, Internet Software & Services Equity Analyst, Standard & Poor’s Equity Research Services. “We are establishing earnings per share (EPS) estimates of $1.24 for 2004 and $2.30 for 2005. Based on intrinsic, relative, and option analyses, and accounting for notable risks we see including competition, execution, and upcoming lock-up expirations, we are setting a 12-month target price of $118. We expect Google shares to be very volatile,” concludes Kessler.

WebProNews | Breaking eBusiness News
Your source for investigative ebusiness reporting and breaking news.

Recommendation letters are often referred to in a number of different ways including: letters of recommendation, reference letters, letters of reference, commendation letters, and sometimes even, performance evaluation letters.

This terminology can be quite confusing, especially when these terms are often used interchangeably, sometimes to mean the same thing, sometimes to mean something different.

Below are some definitions that should clear up any confusion, followed by some tips and strategies on how best to deal with recommendation letters.

LETTERS OF RECOMMENDATION

Employment-Related Also called a recommendation letter, it is an employment- related letter that is specifically requested by the person the letter is being written about. Such a letter is normally positive in nature, and written by someone who knows the subject well enough to comment on the skills, abilities, and specific work attributes of that person.

Typically, an employment-related recommendation letter conveys one person’s view of the work performance and general workplace demeanor of a person that has worked under their direct supervision. The requestor of the letter normally requires it when applying for a promotion or a new job.

These letters are usually addressed to a specific person to whom the requestor has been asked to submit the letter.

Graduate School Related Another situation where recommendation letters are a common requirement is for entry into post-graduate programs at a college or university. Graduate programs often require two or more letters of recommendation as part of the program admission requirements.

Normally these graduate program recommendation letters are written at the request of the program applicant by poeple who are familiar with their academic career to-date, and their future education and career aspirations. These people could include: school faculty members, administrators, academic supervisors, and/or employers.

These letters are always addressed to a specific person and are normally included as part of the program admission application.

LETTERS OF REFERENCE

These are more general letters that are often requested by employees when they leave the employ of an organization. Normally factual in nature, they are usually addressed, “to whom it may concern” and provide basic information such as: work history, dates of employment, positions held, academic credentials, etc.

Reference letters sometimes contain a general statement (as long as a positive one can be made), about the employee’s work record with the company that they are leaving. Employees often submit these letters with job applications in the hope that the letter will reflect favorably on their chances for the new position.

Character reference letters are sometimes required by employers when hiring individuals to perform personal or residential services such as child care, domestic services, etc. These letters are usually drafted by a former employer and deal with such characteristics as honesty, dependability and work ethic/performance.

COMMENDATION LETTERS

These are unsolicited letters, which typically commend an employee to their supervisor for something outstanding or noteworthy that the employee has done. Normally, these are written by co-workers, or managers from another area of the organization who were suitably impressed while supervising the person on a short-term project.

EVALUATION LETTERS

These are usually detailed assessments of an employee’s work performance as part of an organization’s regular employee review process. Typically, they are written by the employee’s supervisor and are attached to the individual’s performance appraisal and placed on their personnel file.

RECOMMENDATION LETTER TIPS AND STRATEGIES

The following tips apply primarily to the writing of recommendation letters and reference letters as defined above. (This list is summarized from “Instant Home Writing Kit”).

1. Write It Only If You Want To If you are asked by someone to write a letter of recommendation about them, you don’t have to say “yes” automatically. If it is someone you respect for their work, and you have mostly positive things to say about them, by all means write the letter. There is no point saying “yes” and then writing a letter that says nothing good about the person, or worse still, concocting a misleading positive assessment of someone.

2. If You Must Refuse, Do It Right Up Front On the other hand, if someone asks you to write a letter of reference for them, and you know you will be hard-pressed to keep the overall letter positive, say “no” right up front. No point in hesitating and leading them on to believe that the answer might be “yes”. A gentle but firm “no” will usually get the message across to the person. Explain that you don’t think that you are the best (or most qualified) person to do it.

3. Suggest Someone Else If you feel you should refuse, for whatever reason, it may be helpful for you to suggest someone else who you think might have a more positive and/or accurate assessment of the person. They may also be in a better position to do the assessment. Usually there are a number of possible candidates, and you may not in fact be the best person.

4. Write It As You See It Writing a less than honest recommendation letter does no one a favor in the end. It is likely to backfire on you, the person being recommended, and the new employer. Also, many employers and head-hunting agencies check references. How would you like to be called up and have to mislead people due to questionable things you may have written in a reference letter?

5. Be Honest, Fair, and Balanced Honesty is always the best policy when it comes to writing recommendation letters. At the same time, try to be fair and balanced in your approach. If in your estimation, a person has five strengths and one glaring weakness, but that weakness really bothers you, make sure you don’t over- emphasize the weak point in the letter, based on your personal bias. Just mention it as a weakness and move on.

6. Balanced Is Best An overall balanced approach is likely the best one for a letter of recommendation. Even if your letter generally raves about how excellent the person is, some balance on the other side of the ledger will make it more credible. After all, nobody’s perfect. There must be some area where the person being recommended needs to improve. A bit of constructive criticism never hurts.

To see a fully-formatted “real-life template” of a letter of recommendation, click on the following link:

http://www.writinghelp-central.com/recommendation-letter.html

Shaun Fawcett is webmaster of a number of writing help Web sites containing tips, tricks and tools to help people with their everyday home and business writing. You can pick-upyour Fr*e copy of his latest eBook “Writing Success Secrets – Practical Tips and Tricks For Everyday Writing” here:

http://www.writinghelptools.com/sga.html