Just when I was starting to knock Google’s track record of innovation they roll out GrandCentral. While it isn’t truly a Google “innovation” what they will be doing with it sure is innovative. I’m not a user of it – yet, but it sounds like an awesome idea and I’m very excited about getting into the application.

If you never heard of GrandCentral, it’s a phone aggregator…. in a nutshell it will allow all your phones and voicemails to be managed under 1 account.

Here are just a few of the features I’m excited about:

• One number, rings everything
• Let people call you from a Web pageClick2call from your keyboard
• Call Record. Yep… record your calls… this will be fun to see the lawyers debate
• Voicemail notifications via SMS
• Mobile Access, similar to the iPhone visual voicemail

I can just hear the telecos whining about this latest invention by Google. But why are they doing this, I’m only guessing at this point but let’s follow the money for some clues.

• Phone based ads using AdWords
• Click to Call, perfect for tracking AdWords conversions over the phone
• Planting the seeds for the Google Phone
• Searchable Voicemail

OK, I’ve drank the juice and I haven’t even used this yet. I encourage you to visit the site and sign-up as well.

I’ve heard many search engine marketing specialist / experts give blanket recommendations to check Google AdWords once or more a day to make sure your ads are performing to their highest potential. Personally, I feel it’s misleading to give advice like this to the general AdWords audience. Unless you are managing a high transaction volume Web site or are in a highly competitve market for keywords then there really isn’t a compelling reason to check AdWords more then once a week. I suspect, but I have zero data other then intuition to believe that the bulk of AdWords users are small businesses with low-transaction sites. Sure, if your business is ecommerce related or receives a high level of transactions per day then the advice to check daily makes sense.

Here is my general guideline to maintaining Google AdWords. This is assuming that you’ve been running AdWords for more then a few months:

Check once or more a day if:

• Your margins on product sales are tight
• Your geographic scope extends to the National or Global level
• Your site is receiving over 30 orders a day under $50 an order or 5 orders a day over $50. Side note: We have a client who receives 1-3 orders a day over $2k per order and that site is only checked once a week.

Check once per week if:

• You are doing any ecommerce sales
• If you are using Adwords to generate leads

Check it a few times per month if:

• You are interested in shear traffic
• If you aren’t interested in tracking ROI in AdWords

I’m sure there are those who would debate these numbers but I think they provide a more accurate guideline then telling the AdWords user base to check their accounts daily.

Google’s blog hosted a pretty fiery critique of the proposed Microsoft buyout of Yahoo. Particularly focusing on MS’s history with building and promoting proprietary systems in the PC and OS market.

Could Microsoft now attempt to exert the same sort of inappropriate and illegal influence over the Internet that it did with the PC? While the Internet rewards competitive innovation, Microsoft has frequently sought to establish proprietary monopolies…

In essence, Google is concerned that MS’s monopolistic tendencies and proprietary history will lead them to stifle innovation on the internet. Potentially suffocating the openness of today’s web and in the process hurting users.

However, I feel that a number of Google’s concerns aren’t completely valid. First off, Microsoft has shown a somewhat surprising trend towards standards in recent history. The passing of the Acid test for IE8 is just one example. Another is their documentation and developer support, the MSDN is surprisingly full of information for people looking to work with Microsoft applications. In fact, Imulus’ web development is primarily based around the .NET framework, even though every person in the office owns a Mac.

The truth is Google actually has a pretty big monopoly in certain areas of the web (advertising). And they are constantly making acquisitions (jaiku, you tube, double click, android) that give them a stronger fist. And while Google does seem, for the most part, to be committed to their “don’t be evil” slogan they are by no means a white light in the sky.

Now, I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t a huge fan of Google, I am. In fact, I use almost every service they offer and I respect their dedication to multiple platforms and browsers. Not to mention their documentation and support for google product API’s.

Still, I think their bold criticism of the Microsoft/Yahoo bid is a bit out of line. Especially considering how different Yahoo’s culture is from Microsoft’s. If anything, MS being interested in purchasing a company that runs on open source programming (mainly PHP) and hosting (RedHat linux) is a refreshing thought. I mean, if MS did acquire Yahoo are they really going to reprogram every app to be in .NET? Doubtful. If anything it seems that MS would have to embrace an even more open culture than they already do.

I haven’t quite made up my mind on whether I’m a fan of a MS/Yahoo deal or not, but I definitely think it deserves a fairer shake than Google is giving it.

Yesterday, I was taking a client through the ins and outs of Google AdWords when I realized something was very different with my Google natural search results. Every result was followed by an up arrow and an X. Out of curiosity I began clicking on these new features to find I was able to customize my search results. Google was nice enough to offer me the option of learning more about this new feature so I read up on it.

For one, you need to be signed in to be eligible for this feature and secondly I don’t think it’s tied to your Google account altogether. On our conference room computer I was signed into my Google account over Firefox but when I did the same on Safari I wasn’t offered the experimental feature, likewise I wasn’t offered the results with my main laptop using Firefox. My assumption is they are offering this feature at random and saving it in a session state.

Although I thought the feature was fun to play with, I guess I’m missing the bigger picture. If I’m searching for data then I’m usually looking for something which I know little about so what makes me an authority on which results are better then others. Are most people going to take the time to go back to Google and remove pages which they felt were inaccurate?

On the flip side, if Google’s index returns results which are spammy or irrelevant then I guess I could remove them from the index. Then again, I’m removing them from my personal index and it likely won’t effect Google’s main index.

This new feature feels alot like StumbleUpon in that I can give a thumbs up to good results and a thumbs down for poor results. For me, this feature make the most sense if Google is going to acquire a social networking company. Why? Because if Google factors my personal index into their own index it would provide a filter for my social network.

It’s an interesting feature but I’m still wondering how it will eventually be used.

In the last year I’ve seen an increasing number of websites using what I’ve dubbed as the “Content Footer.” These are exaggerated website text footers which serve the dual purpose of better search engine optimization and increased usability. To help frame the discussion, let’s look at what I think is the best example of a Content Footer, MarthaStewart.com.

Rather then trying to list everything in the main navigation the Content Footer helps organize additional content in similar buckets. This methodology also serves as a micro-sitemap of second tier navigation. From a search engine optimization perspective, Content Footers help re-enforce keyword rich terminology without spamming the search engines.

MarthaStewart.com

Apple uses the Content Footer in the same way as MarthaStewart.com however they’ve opted for a vertical arrangement and they are capping what items are listed in this area. If you look at the applications listed in the Content Footer you’ll see they’ve limited the selection to their top applications. Apple isn’t interested in showing you everything they sell, just what is most popular and relevant.

Apple.com

From a design perspective the argument could be made that Content Footers clutter up the layout, this could be the reason that Apple doesn’t show the Content Footer until the subpage level. Personally, I feel the Content Footer pros outweigh the cons and I think we’ll start seeing more sites designed with this feature in the future.