Bounce Rate

The definition of Bounce Rate is the percentage of visitors that hit your website on a given page and don’t visit any other pages on your site. For example, John views an organic search listing, clicks through to your site, and then leaves your site without visiting any other pages.

Exit Rate

The definition of Exit Rate is the percentage of visitors that leave your site from a given page based on the number of visits to that page (or pageviews in some cases). Sounds similar to Bounce Rate, doesn’t it? There’s a difference, though. The visitor who exits might have visited other pages on your site, but just exited on that specific page. For example, John views an organic search listing, clicks through your site, reads a blog post, then clicks the About Us link. After finding out more about your company, John clicks the contact us link and fills out a contact form. He then exits your site. The contact us page is where he exited. In contrast, if he simply visited the site via organic search and left without visiting any other page, it would have been a bounce.

Why are Bounce Rate and Exit Rate Important?

Both metrics are important and can help web marketing people glean insights from the data, but they are definitely used differently. Bounce Rate is extremely important for determining how your landing pages perform as compared to visitor expectations. For example, if you run paid search campaigns, then you know the importance of testing a landing page (optimizing the landing page). I find that bounce rate at the aggregate level doesn’t tell you very much (site level bounce rate), but I find that bounce rate at the page level is extremely useful. It actually makes a lot of sense if you think about it. For example, if you are driving paid search visitors to your landing page selling Coffee Makers {OK, it’s 5AM and I’m tired }, and you have a 70% Bounce Rate on that page, you’ve got a problem. Why are that many visitors bouncing after clicking through your paid search ad and landing on a page that theoretically should be highly targeted? This is actually the fun part…digging into the data, optimizing the page, and using multivariate testing to lower your bounce rate and to increase conversion. As you can see, bounce rate can help you determine how well your landing pages perform (which directly affects revenue and ROAS).

Ref: http://www.hmtweb.com/blog/2007/08/bounce-rate-and-exit-rate-what-is.html

The Friday after Thanksgiving is known by US Consumers as Black Friday.

Many shoppers begin searching for Black Friday deals seven to ten days before Black Friday actually arrives.

A quick way to create a list of up to the minute information on Black Friday deals is to search Google News and Google Blog search.

Google News Black Friday Deals

Google News provides links to recognized news media stories about Black Friday deals while Google Blog Search provides lists of blogs with information not often available from traditional news sources.

Google Blogs Search Black Friday Deals

Combined Google News and Google Blog search provide a wealth of Black Friday deals information.

مطمئنا خبر ارائه یک سیستم عامل کد باز از طرف گوگل ، طرفدارانش را به شدت خوشحال کرده است. خبری که تا چند روز پیش کسی آن را رسما تایید یا رد نمی کرد با ارائه نسخه ای بسیار ابتدایی از این سیستم عامل توسط گوگل سر انجام رسما به تایید رسد.chrome-loginscreen

با وجود اینکه بسیار زود است که در مورد سیستم عامل جدید گوگل صحبت کنیم ، برخی از رسانه ها خبر از ارائه نسخه “قابل استفاده” سیستم عامل گوگل داده اند ، حتی برخی از وبلاگ نویسان فارسی هم آن را نصب و از مشکلات فراوان این سیستم عامل با متن های فارسی گلایه کرده اند در صورتی که این نسخه تنها یک کد خام و در حد معرفی سیستم عامل است و نه بیشتر.

اگر شما هم علاقه دارید تا نسخه فعلی این سیستم عامل را نصب و طرز استفاده از آن را مشاهده کنید ، به شما پیشنهاد می کنم که دست نگه دارید و این کار را نکنید! چرا که با این کار شما کاملا مایوس می شوید.

تغییر نام از Chrome OS به Chromium OS ، ایجاد یک پایگاه آنلاین برای توسعه دهندگان کد و نمای کاربری (UI) و یک سرس کاملا خام و تازه ، نکته هایی هستند که در حال حاضر در ارتباط با سیستم عامل گوگل وجود دارند.

گوگل همچنین به این نکته اشاره کرده است که سیستم عاملش ۱۲ ماه تا ارائه نسخه اصلیش فاصله دارد. سرس کدی که اکنون ارائه شده است ، نه یک نسخه بتا است و نه حتی آلفا. شما می توانید این نسخه را نصب کنید ، اما برای این کار نیاز به یک لینوکس Ubuntu ، پکیج های مختلف نرم افزاری و از همه مهمتر حوصله و شکیبایی زیاد در نصب دارید! این ویدئو دو دقیقه ای نمایه ای از سیستم عامل کروم را نشان می دهد.

نکاتی که اکنون به آنها می توان اشاره کرد این است که ، پایه سیستم عامل گوگل کروم بر اساس مرورگر کروم است و تقریبا تمامی کار های کاربر را از طریق وب انجام می شود. در واقعا سیستم عامل کروم همان مرورگر کروم است همراه با منو های باز شو مدیریتی و برخی امکانات دیگر. حتی برنامه ای ساده مانند ماشین حساب آن نیز بیشتر به یک برنامه تحت وب شبیه می باشد تا یک برنامه ای که تحت سیستم عامل اجرا می شود.

البته بسیار خوب شد که گوگل سرس سیستم عاملش را منتشر کرد تا نظر توسعه دهندگان را داشته باشد اما از طرف دیگر شور و هیجانی که توسط برخی رسانه ها در بین کاربر ها ایجاد شد بیش از حد بود http://feeds2.feedburner.com/weblogina

Will we really see a Bing-News Corporation deal? A wider boycott of Google? An Opec for news? http://j.mp/7mCuli

Twitter founder Biz Stone challenged media owner mogul Rupert Murdoch’s accusations that websites like Google are stealing content from his News Corp congolomerate and reposting it on the Internet. Murdoch has plans to set up a paywall next spring in order to block stories from being linked by sites like Google.

Stone suggested that Murdoch take a deeper look into linking his content with Google and “find out how to make a ton of money out of being radically open rather than some money by being ridiculously closed.”

In a time of radical change, Murdoch seems to be holding on to traditional volumes of news and communication. It’s obvious that he is not on board with the current media revolution. Charging users to see his content seems to be counterproductive–he’s closing out his audience and making the Internet, which for now is free from any barriers, an exclusive space limited to those who are willing to pay the fee.

Stone says he’d “love to see what happens“ if Murdoch begins to charge users to read the news. He also was interviewed by the BBC and told them that the”future is openness, not closed.”

Wow. That really really sounds familiar. Arianna Huffington anyone? Rich Lowry possibly? Matt Taibbi, Kate Sheppard, Josh Marshall, Glenn Greenwald? You think that men like Murdoch would learn from people who have seen success while doing things differently. This brings us back to the issue of net neutrality. If it doesn’t harm other people and doesn’t have an affect on internet providers or other people’s services, what is the big deal? Is it because there is a big bad scary world out there with a ton of ideas that are different from the norm?

Rupert Murdoch’s Tweet from 11.20: I want to control the world.

kayBEE

p.s.- I used Google News to look up the articles for this post. HAHA!

…after logging in with vmware i connected to my gmail and yahoo account the system is fast but it really needs internet i mean if u dont have internet it nothing more than a web browser !!!

بعد الدخول بحسابي القوقل و الياهو قمت بتصفح بعض المواقع النظام سريع جدا عيبه انه يعتمد علي النت في كل شئ يعني يوم ما ينقطع النت عنك لن تفكر حتي في فتح الجهاز….

try the system and give me ur opnin

جرب النظام و أعطني رأيك

download from here:

http://discuss.gdgt.com/google/chrome-os/

you need vmware player 3.0.0

or workstaion

Many people were shocked when back in July this year, Google announced that they were working on an alternative Operating System (the piece of software which gives our computer hardware a soul), dubbed the Chrome OS!  What! Somebody is making Operating System, and it’s not Microsoft or Apple?! That was what’s on many people’s mind.
In one sense though, this shouldn’t be a big surprise for us, because if there is one entity who can challenge Microsoft or Apple domination in Operating System arena, it would be Google.

The most interesting thing about this Chrome OS is that it is based on an Internet Browser (in this case Google’s own Chrome Browser), and that the code will be an Open Source Project.  This means that, like Linux, and unlike Windows or Mac OS, people like you and me would be able to contribute to the development of this Operating System (provided that you understand programming of course).

So, what is Chrome OS? The following video will give you a basic understanding of what it’s all about.

tell me what do u think???

In July Google had announced about Google Chrome OS, an open source operating system for people who spend most of their time on the web.

Google is working on open-sourcing the project as Chromium OS. Google is doing this early such that it will be available year before Google Chrome OS will be ready for users, because they are eager to engage with partners, the open source community and developers. As with the Google Chrome browser, development will be done in the open from this point on. This means the code is free, accessible to anyone and open for contributions. The Chromium OS project includes Google’s current code base, user interface experiments and some initial designs for ongoing development. This is the initial sketch and Google will color it in over the course of the next year.

Read More about the Chromium OS Open Source Project of Google.

Would you like your site to be considered as a Google News source?

Submit to Google News at this URL:
http://www.google.com/support/news/bin/request.py

The publication of the Independent Panel’s Review of Australian Sport has stimulated enormous discussion. Yesterday I linked to the publication of the report. This post looks at some of the responses in the last twenty-four hours.

This was the Google News graphic at 7.00 p.m. EST on 19 November.

John Coates argued the case for funding Olympic sports in an article in The Australian. This was a report of his initial response to the Crawford Report and this an ABC report of his response (the ABC report includes video and audio items). The Australian Olympic Committee has appointed a study group to examine the Crawford Report.

Sally Robbins argues strongly for Olympic funding. The Canberra Times cites Cadel Evans, Anna Mears an Ken Wallace as supporters of Government funding for Olympic sports. This is an article in The Age expressing Cycling Australia’s concerns. This ABC post notes Archery Australia’s concerns. Wally Mason observes that “Clearly federal funding does not come out of a bottomless pit and every Olympic medal comes at a cost. It is a cost most of us are prepared to pay.” Andrew Southcott’s response to the Report indicates that a Top 10 Olympics’ finish is not good enough.

Simon Crean was reported as observing that Australia’s sporting success was “a fundamental part of the Australian brand”. Jacquelin Magnay discussed the Report’s recommendation about the format of the Australian Sports Commission’s Board. In an earlier article she argued that the “sport panel has totally misread the nation’s love of the Olympics and the pride of beating bigger countries on the international stage.” Her first article summarises the Report’s main recommendations. This a video segment from athletes supporting funding for elite sport. This ABC post explores the ‘contentious nature’ of the Report. This ABC post reports the publication of the Crawford Report. This is the Canberra Times’ report of the publication under the headline ‘A sporting nation divided’.

Nicole Jeffrey notes that not all of the Crawford Report have been challenged. She notes that the Olympic sports have welcomed the recommendation that “the national sports federations should have primary responsibility for development of their own high-performance programs”. The sports have welcome statements about physical education in the national curriculum and the provision of funds to build sporting facilities. An ABC post noted that ‘Big Codes welcome Crawford Report‘. John Alexander argues that the “key to our health care costs which are crippling is preventative medicine in the form of physical activity. Australia needs a renaissance of our lost culture of the fun and exhilaration we enjoyed through active participation in sports.” Mike Hurst notes the importance of fitness in schools.

An editorial in The Age suggests that:

Australians will celebrate any gold medal won in 2012, even if it is in a sport they never think of between Olympics and even if it is won by someone they have not previously heard of and might never hear of again. Nor can anyone begrudge individual athletes their success. But, as the report notes, the present system funds such success at the rate of $15 million per gold medal. The nation’s self-esteem is surely neither so low nor so brittle as to require this level of investment, and it is money that in some instances could be more wisely spent. A shift to funding high-participation sports at grassroots levels might not result in the same surge of collective euphoria every four years, but it would contribute in a more sustained fashion to national wellbeing.

In the same paper, Greg Baum posits “Here is the nub. The Crawford report implies what we will say outright, that it would be poor reflection of our maturity as a nation if we continued to live and die exclusively by our Olympic medal tally.”

Richard Hinds argues that the AOC gravy train plan doesn’t have wheels. He concludes that when the Federal cabinet meets to discuss the response to the Report “In their hands will be a document that has the potential to prompt much- needed change in the impact sports funding has on the everyday lives of Australians – not just for those 16 chest-beating days every four years.” In an earlier article Richard Hinds observes that “It remains to be seen if the Crawford Report will be successful in its laudable intentions: to ensure government spending leads to increased grassroots participation, greater inclusiveness, the restoration of physical education in schools, a positive impact on public health and to improve and empower poorly administered sports.” Dan Silkstone explores the Report’s focus on participation sports and in another article discusses the gold medal stoush.

Ruth Brown, Charlie Happell and Trevor Cook provided a Crikey view of the Crawford report.

There have been some interesting comments in response to web based articles. As of 7.30 p.m. (EST) on 19 November, for example, there were 25 comments on John Coates’ article. One of these poses a question about the impact of investment in elite sport: “Has the advent of the funding of elite sport in Australia improved the health of young Australians over what it would have been without this funding? If so, it is money well spent. If not, then monies should be focused on participation rather than excellence. Before 100 million is given, this should be answered unemotionally and convincingly.”

Postscript

Some links from 20 November via Peter Logue: a Sydney Morning Herald post by Malcolm Maiden and an interview with David Crawford on Radio National.

Australia Talks (Radio National) discussed the Crawford report 19 November

Not so long ago I asked in this blog: “Is Google News Piracy?” when the European Publisher Council (EPC) as well as the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers (WAN-IFRA) and many of their member organizations signed the “Hamburg Declaration on Intellectual Property Rights” (see list of signatories), which bemoans too little protection and compensation of online content.

Several months of lobbying from major media corporations such as the Axel Springer AG (publisher of the largest German boulevard paper “Bild“) or Burda and one federal election later, Germany seems to end up answering this question with ”yes”. The new conservative German government plans to quickly introduce a new ancillary copyright bill, which shall protect publishers of being “expropriated” by new online news services, as Hubert Burda put it (German). According to Christoph Keese, chief lobbyist of Axel Springer, and Christoph Fiedler from VDZ, the umbrella organisation of German Magazine Publishers, this new legislation shall eventually lead to the formation of a new copyright collective for publishers and journalists (see the German video of a recent debate in Berlin).

As only little is known so far about the details in the upcoming bill, speculations regarding potential consequences of such an ancillary copyright spread. The Austrian IT-news portal futurezone, for example, paints the picture of upcoming “linking crimes” (“Link-Verbrechen”) and fears “worsenings for researchers, bloggers and journalists.” And while it seems pretty clear that publishing houses will profit most from the new ancillary copyright, the question “who pays the bill?” is still open for debate.

But the best summary of the current situation is again - for another example, see “Google Books and the Kindle Controversy” – provided by Scott Adam’s Dilbert, who needs only three small boxes to tell more than my entire description above did:

[update:]

Very interesting in this regard is a plenary session at the “Monaco Media Forum” featuring Arianna Huffington, founder of the news website Huffington Post, and Mathias Döpfner, CEO of the German Axel Springer AG:

Especially interesting is the part after about 17 minutes when Döpfner starts talking about “web communism”:

“I think this theory that only a free access to information is, I have to admit, one of the most absurd theories that I have heard. It is a very late ideological outcome of web communists.”

At this point Arianna Huffington jumps in with the question:

“Is Chris Anderson in the room?”

His book is called “Free. The Economics of Abundance and Why Zero Pricing Is Changing the Face of Business”. It is available for free online, as a PDF as well as an audio book (285MB).

(leonhard)

The valid question here that lies in everybody’s mind is that why should Google rank higher to the sites that run faster than the other sites comparatively. And there are plenty of valid answers to the same question that can be seen as below:

GOOGLE IN FAVOUR OF RANKING HIGHER

• Google searches get more productive: The fast loading websites are given higher ranks as the user gets better experiences for those coming from the Google search. And so, Google ranks those websites that run faster as compared to the other slow-running websites.
• User Experience Improvements on the Wider Web: The people who want to get the higher rankings on the Google search get more motivated to buck-up with their speed & thus create high-speed loading websites. This also improves the number of visitors on the website & thus can get the higher ranking.
• Generation of Revenue Increases: Google ads are everywhere on the web & so giving the site owners an incentive to address the speed issues increases the page-views, clicks & revenue for both the publishers & Google as well. This way, the two-way revenue increases well.

There are many reasons that are also responsible for the ranking or not ranking higher to any website by Google. Though the website might be loading fast, but the content, keywords optimization, etc. might not be eligible from the Search Engine Optimization, SEO point of view. These are also some of the main factors that Higher ranking by Google are monitored. And so, ranking higher only on the basis that the website loads faster does not prove to be the only criteria.

Also, if the website does not contain sufficient reasons for the people to get attracted through the other networks like the social networks, article submissions, etc. which is again the part of SEO, still it does not give the sufficient reason to Google to allot high rank to such website.

All these points are taken in consideration by Google, & it is only after that, that it allots the ranking to any website for the Google Search Engine.

I am so interested in the American tour that Sarah Palin will be promoting this week for her book Going Rogue: An American Life. I think there is something we all can learn from this. If anything, it is a media spectacle unlike anything ever seen before: Sarah Palin, the former Governor of Alaska, who makes history as the first female Vice Presidential candidate for the Republican Party, dishes her perspective on the inside story behind the McCain campaign. While I haven’t read the book myself, (I plan on buying a copy soon,) it will be interesting to see how this all plays out in the end and how it will bode for the future of national and global politics, if at all.

Google has announced its new achievement that has mastered over its Voice Services. Google has bought the VoIP firm Gizmo5 (the amount isn’t available), which is designed to strengthen the search giant’s existing Google Voice application for making the VoIP calls through PCs & Mobiles.

According to Google, the engineers of Gizmo5 will be joining the Google Voice Team for the continual improvement in the Google Voice & Gizmo5 experiences. For this purpose, the current users of Gizmo5 will be able to use the service, though will not be able to sign-up for a call-in number; while the new sign-ups are suspended as of now. There are no announcements of any specific features though.

Google Voice, which was borne out of the earlier acquisition of GrandCentral in the year 2007, is facilitating the VoIP services from the likes of Skype. Though, there have been some legal issues about Apple alleging & blocking the Google Voice on iPhone in collaboration with AT&T in U.S. Google has also been accused of blocking some calls on the service to lower costs, giving it an unfair advantage over the traditional regulated operators.

Purchasing of a $750millions worth Mobile Advertising platform AdMob earlier this week seems to be the base of collaboration with Gizmo5.

Oggi Mucchetti con un bell’articolo sul Corrirere alimenta quel mio strano retrogusto.

Voglio riprendere e ribadire, a scanso di equivoci, la parte iniziale di quel mio ragionamento:

… che Google abbia portato incredibile innovazione in Internet e trasferito valore agli utenti è fuori di dubbio, che gli editori tradizionali (rappresentati in questo caso dalla FIEG), così come, mutatis mutandis, le major dell’audiovisivo, le collective societies e le reti televisive scontino invece carenza di innovazione e che stiano combattendo in varie forme una lotta di retroguardia a tutela protezionistica di modelli di business ormai obsoleti e di una catena del valore da rivedere completamente è altrettanto evidente a tutti.

E, d’altra parte anche Mucchetti fa un’ampia premessa:

Google è il simbolo della libertà globale, ma potrebbe anche diventare il simbolo di una libertà che divora se stessa. E’ il più potente e utilizzato tra i motori di ricerca, l’indirizzario di tutti gli indirizzi. Come tale abbatte tante barriere nello spazio e nel tempo. Tutte le informazioni disponibili, vecchie e nuove, sono a disposizione nello stesso momento. E’ sufficiente cliccare. E tanto basta ad aprire i recinti delle ideologie e delle religioni. Google può dunque essere un grande strumento di democrazia, perché senza informazione non si esercitano i diritti di cittadinanza.

Tuttavia, tuttavia … scrivevo:

… quello che stiamo vivendo è un momento di passaggio epocale per quanto concerne l’intero mercato dei mass media in primis perchè il meccanismo di sostenibilità economica del sistema basato sulla pubblicità “tradizionale” da segni evidenti di crisi e i nuovi modelli di pubblicità online non sono ancora in grado di fornire la stessa affidabilità dal punto di vista dei ritorni economici… I nuovi strumenti si stanno tuttavia affinando e allora IMHO è proprio in questo preciso momento che chi ha a cuore la salvaguardia degli interessi generali dovrebbe cercare di guardare anche un pò oltre le diatribe dell’oggi tra dinosauri in via di estinsione e nuove specie che sembrano invece coincidere in toto con la loro azione, la loro innovazione e la loro rispondenza agli interessi e alle esigenze degli utenti per focalizzare invece la propria attenzione sugli scenari in divenire (e già in parte attuali) che vanno a delinearsi.

Tuttavia, tuttavia, scrive Mucchetti:

Ma Google, di per sé e in quanto alfiere di una nuova economia, è anche altro. L’impresa fondata da Sergei Brin e Larry Page ha conquistato una posizione dominante della quale tende ad abusare. La tentazione monopolistica non sarebbe nuova. L’avevano già coltivata i robber barons nel secolo XIX e gli Usa vararono lo Sherman Act per addomesticarli con l’Antitrust. Ma il motore di ricerca universale è un soggetto mai visto prima, che mette fuori gioco le democrazie sui piani cruciali della regolazione e del fisco. Ad accendere la spia rossa è il contenzioso con la stampa.

Da qui il mio strano retrogusto:

… per il quale non sento di trovarmi completamente a mio agio in uno scenario dove, una volta passata la nottata, ci troveremo ad avere un soggetto già ampiamente dominante sul mercato dei motori di ricerca che, oltre a non dover rendere conto a nessuno sui propri algoritmi, maneggerà, al di fuori di ogni controllo, gli strumenti intrusivi del targeting advertising … Insomma, magari mi sbaglio, ma c’è qualcuno che mi leva questo retrogusto? Stiamo pur sempre parlando di un presupposto fondamentale della libertà di informazione diamine, e cioè di come ci sarà presentato il mondo attraverso occhi che non sono i nostri, in un regime di concorrenza precario e quindi senza grande possibilità di scelta nè di controllo pubblico o diffuso, vogliamo parlarne ?

Mucchetti qui aggiunge un importante elemento di riflessione:

… Questo scontro fa emergere la nuova natura che il motore di ricerca ha acquisito grazie alla sua crescita esponenziale: da brillante applicazione fra le tante possibili su Internet è diventato esso stesso infrastruttura. Come aveva profetizzato nel 1997 David Isenberg, le telecomunicazioni, madri del web, diventano stupide e l’intelligenza migra nell’informazione: ieri era la rete a portare i dati dove voleva, adesso accade il contrario. L’infrastruttura di telecomunicazioni ha una fisicità che la situa dentro i confini degli Stati e perciò la rende regolabile da Autorità e governi. Il grande motore di ricerca opera in uno spazio virtuale ed extraterritoriale dove non esistono Autorità e governi. Le multinazionali sono un insieme di luoghi. Google è un’impresa universale: un non luogo tendenzialmente senza diritto, la sublimazione della multinazionale. E’ un’infrastruttura globale che, al momento, non pare replicabile ma non è regolata.

Stefano in un commento al mio originario post scriveva:

il mercato toglie il retrogusto. Ci vuole piu’ mercato, piu’ attori, piu’ concorrenza, niente sussidi incrociati, niente sfruttamento di posizioni dominanti per rafforzarsi o per danneggiare. questo e’ vero sempre, a prescidere che sia online ed offline. (anche per il tetrapak!) qui ci sono due questioni che si intersecano: vecchio contro nuovo e uno contro tutti. purtroppo rischiamo di confonderli e pensare che sia vecchio offline contro uno online.

Ora, se è vero che Google si può porre tendenzialmente al di fuori e al di là del diritto c’è da dire che non è la sola multinazionale a trovarsi in tali condizioni. Il fatto, a mio avviso più importante, sul quale concordo con Mucchetti, è che si tratta di una infrastruttura globale al momento non replicabile quindi le sole forze del mercato potrebbero non essere in grado di aiutarci a salvaguardare l’interesse generale.Va tutelato il mercato finchè ce ne può essere uno, è per questo che a mio avviso la questione va affrontata ora, la prospettiva del vecchio offline contro uno solo online è una di quelle rispetto alle quali francamente non vorrei essere mai chiamato a scegliere …

PS: certo che se gli strumenti finora messi in campo dai soggetti che potrebbero contrapporsi a Google sono quelli della © RIPRODUZIONE RISERVATA ! che compare anche in calce al bell’articolo di Mucchetti, campa cavallo … non è proteggendo che si compete ma gareggiando nel trasferire valore agli utenti

AdAge: Why News Corporation and Murdoch will not quit Google; http://j.mp/4v9pqg

Miller, CDO of News Corporation, said the media mogul was ready to block Google from his sites soon; http://j.mp/35rmKv