They did it to Netscape, and they are trying it again on Google.

Microsoft is stealing what works and refining it to suit their needs with just enough modifications to make it marginally unique. This time their effort is called Bing.

If you missed the announcement earlier this month, Microsoft Live Search is now Bing.

Search Engine Watch remarked about the first week trend data which showed Bing stealing a 6% market share from Google. My guess is much of this traffic was related to the search engine freaks like myself who tested the system during the first week rather then use our the default favorite, Google. However, I’m fairly confident that this 6% reduction in Google’s market share is a sign of times to come.

Earlier today I spoke to Greg Davoll, VP of Marketing at Worksoft and fellow tech junkie. We’re both in agreement that something is different about Bing that makes us both feel that this new attack on Google might actually have traction.

Let’s break down a few reasons why:

1. Bing is visually refreshing
   The homepage image rotates out daily. By contrast Google’s white background gets old fast. It’s a minor difference but it’s enough to add life to the engine without adding complexity.
2. Is this AdWords?
   The is almost no difference in the placement of the paid-ad results. As a lifetime hater of Microsoft AdCenter this new development has caused me to rethink using AdCenter as a viable alternative to AdWords.
3. It’s about the Width
   Bing has a wider default layout then Google. When measuring the “related searches” on the left, space given to natural results and the ads on the right, Bing is 955 pixels wide. By comparison Google measures a measly 1990’s standard minimum width of 630 pixels. This added real-estate allows Bing to offer user-friendly related searches, along with the user’s recent search history. As the user mouses over the natural results a light gray vertical line appears with a centered circle. Mousing over the gray line previews text from the destination homepage to the right of the results. This gives the user a quick way to evaluate a site, without actually clicking through.
4. Results are just different enough
   I use search engines multiple times during the day, it’s the nature of our industry. During my 1 week switch to Bing I found I only needed to use Google twice. In both occasions it was for local search or mapping related queries. Otherwise, I found Bing’s results to be as good as Google’s. Many times the Top 20 results were similar in content but sorted / prioritized differently by each engine.

I’m about as big of a Google fanboy as they come. Yet, despite my love for all things Google I’ve got to say Bing is certainly a viable challenger. I’ll be making the switch over to Bing for a few more weeks to see if I can live & work without Google. I’m sure I’m not the only one looking for something different.

Google just recently posted an article talking about their opinion on dynamic vs. static URLs. In short, Google is saying that dynamically created URLs from a content management system, i.e. URLs that contain information talking to a database such as:

/media_review.php?user_id=25&article_id=315

should be left as is instead of rewriting them to look cleaner (static):

/media-review/bruce/dnc-ratm-concert/

Here’s a direct quote from their blog post on the topic:

Does that mean I should avoid rewriting dynamic URLs at all?
That’s our recommendation, unless your rewrites are limited to removing unnecessary parameters, or you are very diligent in removing all parameters that could cause problems. If you transform your dynamic URL to make it look static you should be aware that we might not be able to interpret the information correctly in all cases… …if you’re using URL rewriting (rather than making a copy of the content) to produce static-looking URLs from a dynamic site, you could be doing harm rather than good.

The problem is that Google seems to be making a recommendation on what is best for their search engine crawling and not what is best for the user or web usability in general. There is no debate, URL rewriting makes websites easier to use. It makes people understand what they will be looking at when they visit a link, and in general provides clearer information than dynamic URLs. For instance, here on our blog you can see all of my posts by going to http://blog.imulus.com/bruce the url is clear and easy to understand. If you want to see all my posts for a certain category you can do this http://blog.imulus.com/bruce/css. This functionality makes logical sense. Websites with extremely complicated URL calls can utilize rewriting to help their viewers better understand where they are on the site. And in regard to marketing materials — the time I see a company willing to use a url with ?id=237 at the end for a marketing or advertising campaign will be my first.

The fact is this, URL rewriting is an extremely useful tool (ironically Google’s blog post about dynamic rewrites uses rewriting for the URL). And while certain rewrite schemes may hide data that Google would like to parse, that doesn’t mean people shouldn’t use rewriting. The idea that a usable standard should be changed just to make Google’s web crawling better is ludicrous. Google throughout their history of search has continuously accommodated for changing website methods. By stating that URL rewrites are improper Google is taking a strike at one of the best standards to come out of Web 2.0. They’re suggesting a machine’s readability is more important than a human’s. And guess what: they’re dead wrong.

In the last few years we’ve had a handful of clients ask us to adopt a performance based payment model. Usually these are start-up companies who are cash strapped and looking for an alternative to paying our service fees. I’m intrigued by the idea of performance based web work however I’ve yet to find a model which I believe is both fair and incentive driven.

I’m still trying to find the right solution. I’m not sure what works best, but I have a pretty good idea of which models I think will tank. Here are a few situations which we’ve been confronted with.

Ecommerce Web Site
The client was offering us a small percentage of overall sales along with a partial reduction in our regular hourly rate. The client was hoping that we would be incentivized by the offer they made us. There are several problems with this model for both sides.

1. What about offline sales, phone calls, emails or faxed orders? We can track the online sales but we have no visibility into the offline orders.
2. How competitive is the product / offering? We have no control over the price of the product or which products are in-stock. We could dedicate plenty of effort building a great system but if the client’s products are overpriced or lack selection then sales revenue won’t materialize.
3. How much is the client willing to pay for marketing? Our agency can do the SEO / SEM work but ultimately SEM and online advertising incur real costs, and not just man-hours.
4. What is the level of marketing they are willing to pay for and who has final say in terms of strategy and creative?
5. Our team could sit back and collect commissions for the client’s sale efforts. That wouldn’t be right, but under this sort of arrangement it could happen. Or vice-versa where the client could get away with doing nothing but filling orders.
6. What is the cap on the number of hours we would commit to each month? If we are spending 80 hours each month and sales commissions only equal $2,200 then our effective rate would be $27.50 / hr. If we agreed on a base hourly rate plus commission then perhaps hours wouldn’t be as important.

Lead Generation Website
In this scenario a client approached us to reduce our rate in favor of a lead generation forumula which incentivized us for creating “qualified leads” in Salesforce.com. To complicate the scenario we would be working with the client and other third parties including an SEO firm, Content Writer, and a PR Agency. The arrangement gave us 4 tiers by which our monthly charges were either reduced or increased based on performance.

We had an existing retainer in place which discounted our hourly rate by 20% for the commitment from the client for a fixed minimum of hours dedicated per month. This proposed program would start us at a reduced rate which is 40% less then what we typically charge. From that, if we perform well enough, we could make 20% back, bringing us to our current retainer rate. On the other hand, if the performance dropped, our hourly rate could go down to 50% of our regular rates. In my mind that is not an incentive, it’s a carrot and stick.

The proposed formula work like this:
Qualified Salesforce.com Leads / Total Unique Visitors = % Conversion

Here are the problems with this formula and the overall scenario.

1. What if the budget for SEM goes up and the third party SEM company starts driving 15% more traffic, but the traffic isn’t qualified? It will dilute the conversion percentage.
2. What is a Qualified Lead? In Salesforce.com we can drive leads but the aspect of qualifying them is arbitrary. Ultimately, that aspect comes down to trust but it sure would be nice to remove arbitrary valuation.
3. The SEO & PR companies are going to have the highest influence of the company’s natural rankings. If these two players hurt or hinder traffic then we suffer as a result.

We counter offered the client a true incentive program which kept our retainer rate at a discount of 20% while suggesting the incentive to reach full rates if we exceeded expectations. If we knocked expectations out of the ballpark, then we would be rewarded with a 10% increase to our regular rates, making work in this client particularly attractive. Unfortunately that suggestion was not accepted.

Does anyone else have similar stories to share? In browsing the web I found these.

GraphicPush: Commission Based Payment for Web Design

Manifest: The First Step in Creating Passive Income

In their perpetual quest to index the World’s information Google has now started a health record service. Users can add medical conditions, allergies, procedures, test results and drug interactions. Partnerships with Walgreens, CVS and Quest Diagnostics allow users to import current records into Google Health.

Google Health aims to solve an urgent need that dovetails with our overall mission of organizing patient information and making it accessible and useful. Through our health offering, our users will be empowered to collect, store, and manage their own medical records online.

The service was officially announced in February of 2008 and tested via a pilot program with Cleveland Clinic with great success and acceptance. Personally, I’ve never seen my full health record. I have zero clue as to how many, and what people have seen it so far, so the fact that Google is holding this data is perfectly fine with me.

We would like to introduce a new search engine optimization technique which we’ve nicknamed PASEO for Performance Adjusted Search Engine Optimization. The technique uses the external references, the tag-cloud concept and internal search to reinforce content within a site and encourage improved natural search rankings.

How does it work?
By parsing out referring URLs for search terms, PASEO calculates which terms are the most popular for a particular page. The same method is used by all the major search analytic tools. These terms are then listed in order of importance on the destination page. Clicking on any of the terms listed on the page will drive the visitor into an internal site search which helps the user locate relevant content for the end user.

The dynamically ranked PASEO tags help build relevant text links; thereby providing a positive feedback loop for when the search bots come to re-index page content.

Is this Black Hat?
No, it is not. We fully believe that PASEO tagging helps the visitor locate more relevant content, quicker. The technique is akin to tag clouds with the fundamental difference being that tags aren’t assigned by the end-user, rather they are driven by external influences.

Example.
Have a look at the Imulus homepage page tags on the bottom left corner; compare these tags to the page tags on our Solutions page.

Considerations.

• Given that PASEO is analyzing the referral URL it is wise to setup exclusions for terms which you may find undesirable.
• This technique isn’t foolproof and we feel others could expand on the concept by blending PASEO tag rankings with a combination of other Web 2.0 methods to tweak the results to be more relevant.