PPC bids by Wau

It's decided. The next time I find myself enjoying being pitched to by a bid management platform, by an ad-exchange or Facebook API bot I'm going to ask them about Wau. I want to be able to adjust my bids by Wau.

In fact, let's take it further - I suspect I'm going to have to start to record my time in units of Wau in the timesheet at the end of the day.

You too could benefit from Wau.

Advancements in the world of 3D printing

I wrote about 3D printing on this blog back in 2011 when I speculated about 3D printing and copyright. Hmm. Okay. So the issue hasn't set the world aflame yet - but I still believe it'll be an issue.

This post is lighter in nature. I just wanted to revisit 3D printing and show where the technology has gotten too. It's gone pretty fair. Already. This video shows a model plane created via a 3D printer. It also shows this model plane taking off and flying.



There's more information over at New Scientist.

Here's the catch; The New Scientist posted this story back in July 2011. I can only speculate as to how advanced 3D printing actually is today.

Is Google getting aggressive with the Charles Dickens doodle?

It's good practice to predict the Google Doodles.

They create one of the largest possible search surges, create enough natural traffic to make or break sites (breaking sites as servers crash under the load) and play merry havoc with quality score and click through ratios - not to mention clicks and costs.

Today's Charles Dickens was a sure-in. It's the Victorian writer's 200th birthday today. It's been on my calendar for a Google Doodle for months.

So, what's happened? Is the Doodle the traffic boss we had predicted?

The Doodle for web search results links to Google's book search. Is this the same as linking to Google's own property?

Certainly every result on the first page is a books.google result. There's also a PPC ad in pole position - for Android. Of course, this could be the Android team being caught out and will have to cope with the sudden rush of traffic, no-clicks and the effect that will have on their quality score. Alternatively, this could just be free traffic for Android.

The mobile results are even stranger. There are no click through results (not in the UK, at least) when a mobile search clicks through the logo. The URL produced by the Doodle click is http://www.google.co.uk/webhp?hl=en&gl=uk&fpdoodle=1.

Does this mean it's Google or nothing?

Google is freaking me out - a response

I don't always agree with Google. Just last night I was reading why Nelson Minar was breaking up with Google. I've followed Minar as a thought leader for years. His post makes a lot of sense.

The drama around the privacy policy is a drama I don't get. It's more like the horror people some people felt when they were told Gmail would have adverts in it that were targeted to the contents of their emails. It's less like the usual howls of protest that rise up in alarm whenever Facebook makes a change because Google users won't see a change.

I'm certainly not much of a fan of the robotic voice of Xtranormal Movies. That said; this "presentation" seems to make the case clearly as to why some people are freaking out about the privacy policy and what a normal, logical, and sane response to those concerns would be.

The World's Ugliest Music - music without repetition is hard

I would be a better person if I was better at maths. I'm not sure I regret finding a loophole in the university system in order to duck out of the tough math class and into the easy one - only never to show up again until exam day was a success or a failure.

This TEDx video reminds me why maths is worthy of attention more often than not.

Scott Rickard oozes degrees. He's a smart man. In this talk he sets us up to listen to the World's Ugliest Music. Music, you see, makes use of repetition. The question what would music that did not use any repetition sound like turns out to be an interesting maths challenge.

Focus on the User: The real winners and losers of Don't Be Evil

Engineers from Twitter and Facebook got together to hack out a bookmarklet called “Don’t Be Evil”. You can grab it from a site called Focus on the User. These engineers are being pretty direct with their choice of names.

The goal of the bookmarklet is to show that Google could have done Search+ differently. Twitter and Facebook say that Search+ is not fair. They say Google are using their search market share to bully their way into social.

If you read this blog then I’m sure you’re already familiar with the bookmarket but, just in case, here’s the video.



As it happens, Focus on the User also shares the code to the bookmarklet and this reveals there are a simple whitelist of social networks which “qualify”.

When Google rolled out Search+ they only qualified Google+ for special promotion. Twitter and Facebook complained. I do think the Don’t Be Evil bookmarklet has been a big PR win for Twitter and Facebook but, for me, it opens a can of worms. If you want Google to include other social networks in Search+ then which other social networks should be included and who decides this?

The Don’t Be Evil bookmarklet “favours” the following networks. These are the winners.

• Crunchbase
• Facebook
• Flickr
• Foursquare
• FriendFeed
• GitHub
• LinkedIn
• MySpace
• Google+
• Quora
• Stackoverflow
• Tumblr
• Twitter
• YouTube

That’s a pretty good list and some other Google properties in there as well.

There are some sites that are missing, though, and I accept “missing” is subjective. Here are the losers:

• Bebo
• About.me
• Cyworld
• Delicious
• Foursquare
• Fotoblog
• GetGlue
• LiveJournal
• Orkut
• Plurk
• Renren
• Xing
• Posterous

There will be some technical reasons why some of these sites weren't easily included. There will certainly be some geographical reasons too – Xing, for example, is far bigger than LinkedIn in places like Germany but were these American engineers to know that? The fact there are reasons why some sites weren't included in "Don't Be Evil" only serves Google's point, I think, rather than Twitter and Facebook.

If Twitter and Facebook wanted into Search+’s new promotional areas – an understandable wish – then they also need to tackle suggesting ways by which Google could make these decisions.

I don’t think it’s arrogant of Twitter and Facebook to expect to be in Search plus Your World’s special zones but there are other social networks out there. If Search+ isn’t exclusively for Google properties then it’ll be a huge challenge to work out who else qualifies. Would social networks expect Google to publish requirements for Search+ inclusion?

Google's new privacy changes and tracking are a good thing

Google has announced a new simple and connected privacy policy. We already have large sites like the Washington Post writing on this and wheeling out concerned experts. Had Apple not announced amazing financial details at the exact same time Google just happened to publish this news then it would surely have been a bigger story.

Gosh. Fancy that.

Putting my cynicism aside; I actually support the changes.



I buy the story. That helps. There are too many Google privacy variants and I welcome a single and easier to understand one.

Do I worry about Google’s cross site tracking? No. I welcome it. I do believe it’ll improve the service.

I’m pretty sure it’s the cross site tracking that Google is really after here. The improvements to privacy transparency is a sugar coating for both internal Google consumption as well as external.

I accept there are some risks in putting more eggs in a single basket but this feels more secure than the sort of behind the scenes deals Facebook signs with the like of Yelp for instant personalisation.

I look forward to some of the products that Google could make with the result of this tweak. The video above teases us over the possibility of adding geo-data to Calendar alerts. There are a lot more. For example, what about Google News giving me prompts or alerts for areas I’m due to travel into – if Google knows I’m flying from Heathrow on Friday then I’ve no problem with Google Alerts for potential travel tips for Friday. Alternatively, if Google knows I like to try and catch viral videos on YouTube before they go viral then I have no problem with their creators being recommended as Google+ connections or surfaced in search.

Users can't opt out? Of course not. How could it work if users could pick and choose the T&Cs of sites they use? I don't see a two tier privacy system being a good thing - one, simple, set of privacy rules for most people and yet Google serving up complex and separate rules for each of their sites for a small percentage of users? The opt out is a red herring.