Search results, including sponsored links and algorithmic search results, are generated in response to a query, and are marked based on frequency of clicks on the search results by members of social network who are within a predetermined degree of separation from the member who submitted the query. The markers are visual tags and comprise either a text string or an image.

Here’s how Erik Sherman at Bnet describes it:

Facebook would combine search results for a user with how others connected to the user in a social network responded to the same search results. If most people clicked on a handful of results, the user could see those links with some visual indication of their relative popularity. The system would work either fielding requests from third parties or for with the social network creating or obtaining the search results and delivering them to users.

Sherman points out that Facebook’s profile data combined with all the data about user preferences and behavior that has been gathered since the explosion of the “like” button across the web stand to make this a potentially powerful way to curate a user’s web results. “Given the frustrations many have with being overwhelmed by search results, Facebook has a potential huge advantage over search companies. It may also have locked down a monetarily valuable aspect of social network data that none of its direct competitors have capitalized on. This is one strategically brilliant company.” Of course, neither of these components existed when Friendster applied for the patent, so this is less about foresight than serendipity. But that does not make them any less brilliant strategically.

More on the web:

Liz Gannes, “Facebook Buys Friendster Patents for $40M,” GigaOm.com (Aug. 4th, 2010).

Erik Sherman, “New Facebook Patent: the Huge Implications of Curated Search [Update],” BNET.com (March 15th, 2011).

Klout’s website lists and explains the use of three variables in its analysis of influence:

True Reach is the size of your engaged audience and is based on those of your followers and friends who actively listen and react to your messages. Amplification Score is the likelihood that your messages will generate actions (retweets, @messages, likes and comments) and is on a scale of 1 to 100. Network score indicates how influential your engage audience is and is also on a scale from 1 to 100. The Klout score is highly correlated to clicks, comments and retweets.

Klout’s focus is on individuals rather than things since individuals are the actors in the social universe. Things (such as articles, products, images, etc.) are shared and “liked” on the web, but it is the individual who shares and likes them. Influence, then, is a property of social actors, not products.

This does not mean that Klout has nothing to offer businesses, however. In fact, Klout devotes a section of its site to the interests of businesses. The idea is that businesses can search Klout’s database to find those individuals who have promoted their products or brands most effectively: “Your business needs influencers. They’re already talking about your industry and maybe even your products. Find and engage these influencers and they can become evangelists for your brand.” They even offer “Klout Perks” as a way to reward effective influencers.

Klout scores can also be integrated into apps. This integration allows developers and owners to filter data collected by their app according to influence. For instance, if a company uses social search, it can rank results based on the influence, as measured by Klout, of people associated with a given term. They also suggest that Klout can help businesses measure the influence of potential customers and leads.

So what do you think? Have you jumped onboard with Klout? How would you judge your experience so far?

More on the web:
Klout.com
Read reviews as Oneforty.com

Now it seems that Google is on the offensive in what Danny Sullivan, of Search Engine Land, is reported to have called “both a P.R. move and a move to improve relevancy.” In a widely reported development, the search giant is now taking aim at so-called “content farms” and “site scrapers.” The former are sites that create content tailored specifically to popular search queries, while the latter generate content by “scraping”, or copying it, from other sites. In both cases, the aim of the site managers is to increase traffic by technically meeting Google’s criteria for relevancy — a goal that will, in turn, potentially increase revenue from online advertisers whose rates are based on traffic statistics. These sites are essentially subverting Google’s definition of relevancy and thereby threatening the usefulness of its search results for users seeking truly relevant content rather than ad-supported spam. Google’s relevance as a provider of links depends on its ability to weed out the truly relevant from the crap. This is an ongoing battle that advances with regular tweaks to Google’s algorithm, but this latest offensive by Google is of a different magnitude: as Sullivan says, “Google changes its algorithm on a regular basis, but most changes are so subtle that few notice. This is different. Google says the change impacts 12% (11.8% is the unrounded figure) of its search results in the US , a far higher impact on results than most of its algorithm changes.”

In a related move, Google also recently released a browser extension that will allow users to “vote” on the relevancy of sites by blocking them from search results. The New York Times reports the following: “Last week, Google introduced an extension to its Chrome browser that people can use to block certain sites from appearing in search results, and said it would study which sites people block to figure out which ones bother users. On Thursday, Google said that it did not use this data to change the algorithm, but that the new algorithm caught 84 percent of the most-blocked Web sites.”

I, for one, have been frustrated many times by those ubiquitous eHow.com and answers.com pages clogging up my search results and wasting my time. Let’s hope this move reduces the noise in Google’s signal, however temporary the gains may be.

UPDATE: Search Engine Land and Wired.com are reporting a backlash against Google’s recent move as high-quality sites are mistakenly penalized by the changes to the algorithm. The noisiest complaint thus far has been from Cult of Mac, which had reportedly lost “one-third to one-half” of its traffic since the change. Google says it is constantly working to improve the accuracy of its results — and Cult of Mac is now reporting that its “relevance” has been restored.

More on the web:

Danny Sullivan, “Google Forecloses On Content Farms With ‘Farmer’ Algorithm Update,” SearchEngineLand.com (2/24/2011).

Claire Cain Miller, “Google Tweaks Algorithm to Push Down Low-Quality Sites,” The New York Times (2/25/2011).

—, “Seeking to Weed Out Drivel, Google Adjusts Search Engine,” The New York Times (2/25/2011).

More recently, J C Penney made headlines, first for their remarkable success in online sales over the holidays, and then for the way they did it. Doug Pierce, a search expert hired by The New York Times to investigate Penney’s dominance in a number of searches, said the campaign was “the most ambitious attempt I’ve ever heard of.” “This whole thing just blew me away. Especially for such a major brand. You’d think they would have people around them that would know better.” Penny, or a contractor acting on their behalf, gamed google by paying ”to have thousands of links placed on hundreds of sites scattered around the Web, all of which lead directly to JCPenney.com.” Not surprisingly, Google took measures to demote the company in search results when presented with evidence of its wrongdoing.

And, of course, we cannot forget the recent twist in the ongoing battle between Bing and Google. As you may have heard, Google got suspicious about Bing’s search results and ran some tests, the results of which led Google to claim that Microsoft’s search engine is copying its results:

The claim came after the California-based Web behemoth ran a test that, it says, demonstrates that some of Bing’s search results came directly from Google. The company temporarily altered some of its algorithms so that, for example, a search for “mbzrxpgjys,” which would normally produce zero or a few irrelevant results, turned up a link to the website of Research in Motion. After a while, Google said, an identical search on Bing started producing the same result.

Microsoft did not deny the claim, but said that Google’s results are one of the more than 1,000 signals it uses to compile its own search listings.

Bing’s response was that they don’t copy the results but rather gather information from the browsing behavior of people who use the Bing toolbar. This means that they keep track of the most popular pages linked to specific search terms. Sometimes this behavior involves a visit to Google, sometimes not. But the data itself does not come from Google, so it’s not copying. This explanation goes a long way toward satisfying charges that it copies its rivals work, but opens up a whole new can of worms regarding its practice of tracking its customers’ online activity! And if the Bing toolbar is doing it, what about that Google toolbar? Here’s the word from Search Engine Land’s Danny Sullivan, who originally broke the story:

Meanwhile, I’m on my third day of waiting to hear back from Google about just what exactly it does with its own toolbar. Now that the company has fired off accusations against Bing about data collection, Google loses the right to stay as tight-lipped as it has been in the past about how the toolbar may be used in search results.

Google’s initial denial that it has never used toolbar data “to put any results on Google’s results pages” immediately took a blow given that site speed measurements done by the toolbar DO play a role in this. So what else might the toolbar do?

That’s it for now. We’ll be sure to keep you updated as more scandals roll in from Search Land.

More on the web:
David Segal, “A Bully Finds a Pulpit on the Web,” The New York Times (11/26/2010).
—, “U.S. Arrests Online Seller Who Scared Customers,” The New York Times (12/06/2010).
—, “The Dirty Little Secrets of Search,” The New York Times (2/12/2011).
Erica Alini, “Even Microsoft uses Google,” Macleans.ca (2/11/2011).
Danny Sullivan, “Bing: Why Google’s Wrong In Its Accusations,” Search Engine Land (2/4/2011).

Just like a link, websites will list your company, including an address, as a vote of confidence — to let their visitors know they should visit your shop, hotel, restaurant or office. And just like a link, an address listing shows various signals of relevance for Google to pick up.

Van der Graaf promotes a link building strategy that will associate your business address with your web address as well as your key local search terms. Through this association — which should appear in ads, sponsorships, editorial reviews and other marketing pieces found on the web — Google will (hopefully) increase your business’ ranking in its Places results list, putting you at or near the top of its map. The key, van der Graaf insists, is to get a jump on the competition: “Your competition probably isn’t putting in a lot of effort into Google Places results yet. Create a clear advantage over them while you still can.”

More on the web:
Peter van der Graaf, “Local Search: Your Address is the New Link,” SearchEngineWatch.com (1/27/2011).

The explosion in smartphone use, combined with a proliferation of consumer oriented apps and cloud-based computing, means that shoppers will have access to more and better information while they shop. Retailers, for example, will no longer have control of the shopping experience. With services like RedLaser or the Amazon app, shoppers can comparison shop while standing in front of a product on a retailer’s shelves. They can also check store inventory before getting in the car or on the bus — a development that could mean potentially fewer impulse purchases or compromises by shoppers who don’t find what they are looking for at a store.

One development that might help businesses assert some control over the shopping experience and build brand loyalty is the use of mobile apps for payment processing and store account management. One large-scale example of this trend is being rolled out this week at Starbucks. The “Bits Blog” at the New York Times reports that on Wednesday,

Starbucks plans to announce that customers of the 6,800 stores the company operates in the United States and the 1,000 that are inTarget stores will be able to pay for their lattes with their cellphones instead of pulling out cash or a credit card. … Customers can also use the app to reload their cards, check their balances, find nearby stores and earn stars for purchases to trade in for free drinks.

This program is interesting not only for its novel use of technology for completing a purchase but also because it represents a way for a business to encourage its shoppers to visit its virtual location while inside its brick-and-mortar locale. This is one way businesses might be able to control and enhance the shopping experience of its customers. Now that mobile screens are a part of the in-store shopping experience, it’s increasingly important for businesses to find ways to incorporate these screens into the retail environment.

More on the web:
Claire Cain Miller, “Now at Starbucks: Buy a Latte by Waving Your Phone,” The New York Times (1/18/2011).
Roger Entner, “Smartphones to Overtake Feature Phones in U.S. by 2011,” NielsonWire (3/26/2010).

Yext’s service is not unique — in fact, it resembles Google’s recently released Places features. But Yext is addressing two apparent weaknesses in Google’s product. First, as stated in their promotional video, managing a paid search advertising service can be difficult and time-consuming. Second, it is argued that people tend to pay more attention to the organic listings than the paid or sponsored ones at a search site. Paid listings are attractive because they allow businesses to carefully manage their message. Unlike most organic search results listings, they are highly customizable and can be updated instantly. Yext’s new offering is an attempt to add these benefits of paid listings into the regular, unpaid results listings (but at a cost, of course).

Google is not yet listed among Yext’s partners, and the company resists suggestions that it is involved in an “anti-Google alliance.” But Yext tags, if available through Google, would clearly compete with Google’s own, highly profitable advertising marketplace. On the other hand, the potential benefits of Yext tags can only be realized if a searcher sees the organic listing — something entirely dependent on the search engine in which it is listed. Unlike a paid service, a subscriber to Yext has no control over placement on the page. Whether or not the nature of location-based search results offsets this disadvantage remains to be seen.

More on the web:

“Yext Launches Yext Tags - Offers Local Businesses Ability to Highlight Their Listing in Organic Search Results for First Time Ever,” PRNewswire (1/3/2011).

Yext Tags Free Trial @ Yext.com

Adrianne Jeffries, “NY-Based Yext Launches League of Advertisers That Are Not Google,” The New York Observer (1/3/2011).

• OpenTable and GrubHub are now available within restaurant searches made through the app
• Foursquare, Facebook, and Microsoft Live Messenger’s “check-in” options are now available from within the Bing app

And so, while Google seems intent on creating (or buying) products to compete with these other popular web services, Microsoft appears to be more interested in forming strategic alliances (a strategy that makes sense for an underdog). However, this new strategy presents its own challenges: now that the mobile app marketplace is maturing and becoming a serious arena for the fight over revenue (and eyeballs/finger-tips), Microsoft’s one-stop hub for web services might work to the disadvantage of the companies whose services it integrates, at least insofar as it keeps people from using their own custom apps. Of course, as Slattery notes, the “ability to check-in through Bing will not replace the other apps, which provide more than check-in functionality”. But one wonders to what extent these smaller companies might in the future have to choose between being web/mobile destinations of their own (with access to the potential for ad revenue that accompanies such things) and developing distinct functionality (such as “checking in” or “liking”) that is then made available to other sites. Perhaps we’ll see in the year ahead. Happy Holidays — see you in 2011!

More on the web:

Leslie Horn, “Google Dominates ComScore’s November Search Engine Stats,” PC Magazine (12/16/2010).

Brennan Slattery, “Microsoft Makes Inroads with Bing, Releases New App Version,” PCWorld (12/16/2010).

More interesting (at least to this reader) is the relation of this acquisition to eBay’s recent purchase of RedLaser, the mobile app that allows users to scan barcodes using their mobile phones. Morrison reports that eBay plans to integrate the two technologies, potentially allowing in-store shoppers to find the local store with the best price for a given item. Bringing the power of the internet and search into the stores sounds promising and potentially more revolutionary than simply putting inventory data on eBay. Time will tell!

More on the web:
Scott Morrison, “UPDATE: EBay Buys Local Shopping Search Engine Milo,” The Wall Street Journal (12/02/2010).

Amir Afrati, Gina Chon, and Geoffrey A. Fowler, “Google Talks With Groupon Are Ended Without Deal,” The Wall Street Journal (12/04/2010).

Evelyn M. Rusi and Jenna Wortham, “Groupon Said to Reject Google’s Offer,” The New York Times (12/03/2010).

Flash back a few years and we encounter a huge backlash against companies attempting to collect browsing data for use in targeted advertising. This negative reaction was widely understood to be an expression of fears about loss of privacy and personal security. Many of the technologies used were quickly flagged by security systems as spyware and even as viruses. The underlying issue was that these techniques took what wasn’t intentionally shared.

Now, at the end of 2010, The Wall Street Journal is reporting that some of these previously-shunned companies and technologies are making a comeback:

One of the most potentially intrusive technologies for profiling and targeting Internet users with ads is on the verge of a comeback, two years after an outcry by privacy advocates in the U.S. and Britain appeared to kill it. … Now, two U.S. companies, Kindsight Inc. and Phorm Inc., are pitching deep packet inspection services as a way for Internet service providers to claim a share of the lucrative online ad market.

What’s changed in the interim? The article focuses on one significant alteration in approach: these “services” are now opt-in rather than opt-out or invisible. Why would anyone opt-in to spyware? It seems that these companies have learned a thing or two from the battle between Google and Facebook: people will volunteer their data if sharing is a natural part of the activity in which they are engaged. And so these companies will attempt to convince you that your surfing experience will be enhanced if you let them track you. And, in some cases, they or their customers (generally ISPs) will offer free, customized services in exchange:

The companies now offering ad services based on deep packet inspection believe they have learned how to make the services acceptable to privacy advocates and Internet users. This includes asking for permission up front and offering people incentives to receive targeted ads, such as Kindsight’s free security service, which includes identity-theft protection. Customers can pay a monthly fee to receive no ads.

Whether or not these trade-offs will pay off is yet to be determined. But the return of these techniques and the increasing competition for the terrain at the border of social media and advertising indicate that the battles of the future will likely take place within boundaries established by our willingness to share.

More on the web:
Steve Stecklow & Paul Sonne, “Shunned Profiling Technology on the Verge of Comeback,” The Wall Street Journal (11/23/2010)